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

Significant new information has come to light. Minzy has participated in solo activities recently and her page should be undeleted as she has been a significant member of her group. She has collaborated with various artistes outside her group and is also involved in solo music compositions. Shovelqueen ( talk) 07:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please provide examples of Minzy's recent solo activities. You haven't provided any real evidence that she has become independently notable. Random86 ( talk) 07:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In August 2009, after finishing "I Don't Care" promotions, 2NE1 took a temporary hiatus with each member releasing their own solo singles. Minzy then collaborated with fellow member CL for "Please Don't Go," which charted at number six by the end of November. ^[1]
  • In August 2011, during 2NE1’s NOLZA tour, Minzy performed Taeyang’s “Only Look At Me” during her solo stage. . ^[2]
  • In December 2011, during YG Family’s 15th Anniversary Concert, Minzy, along with CL, featured on labelmates G-Dragon and T.O.P’s “Oh Yeah” performance. The featured artist for the song was originally Park Bom. ^{[3] [4]}
  • In October 2012, Minzy featured in labelmate G-Dragon’s “Missing You” performance during the recording of You Hee-yeol's Sketchbook. The featured artist for the song was originally Kim Yoon-ah of Jaurim. ^[5]
  • In June 2014, Minzy appeared in an Adidas commercial along with bandmate CL and labelmates Winner (band) as part of the “#allinfordance” campaign. ^[6]
  • In 2014, during the YG Family World Tour:Power, Minzy collaborated with labelmate Lee Hi on the latter’s “1,2,3,4” performance. ^[7]
  • In November 2014, Minzy featured in labelmates’ Epik High’s “Happen Ending” performances during 1theK's Wonder Live, M Countdown and Inkigayo. ^{[8] [9]}
  • In 2015, Minzy shared a few videos on Instagram of her own song compositions. ^[10] Shovelqueen ( talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Some citations from reliable sources will be necessary to take this request forward. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think any of those things make Minzy notable enough for her own article. Her duet with CL is more like a 2NE1 subgroup (it wasn't a solo release), one of the performances was at a 2NE1 concert and the others are one-off performances with YG Family. Many K-pop group members do those kind of performances. For example, Wendy of Red Velvet (band) performed with Amber on music shows and performed with other SM artists for SM Town, but that doesn't make her notable outside of her group. Sharing self-composed songs on Instagram doesn't make Minzy notable either. Random86 ( talk) 07:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and ... I think it was reasonable to conclude the consensus was redirect, particularly when none of the delete opinions gave any reason against redirection. It looks to me rather odd that the other three members of 2NE1 have articles and Minzy does not but I can just about see how this is justified by a rather rigid (over-rigid?) application of WP:NMUSIC. An agreement to merge would have made more sense from the aspect of benefitting the reader. An AFD close like this does not preclude recreation but I suggest developing an improved article outside main space first. Thincat ( talk) 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment As closing admin (though I did a non-admin closure), I was closing based on the !votes and consensus by other Wikipedians. I have no personal preference toward deletion/redirection or keeping, but by weighing the consensus in the AfD, I decided to close as Redirect. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Notifying other members of AfD: Peachywink, Tibbydibby, Jeraphine Gryphon, Joaquin008. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have to still agree with the redirect decision at this time. I agree with Random86 that the concert events aren't able to be used to show solo work since they are either one time events done with artist from her same company or they are performances from 2NE1 concerts. I know it might look odd her being the only member without her own page but she's 21 while her members are 31, 30, and 24. And CL (24) got her first solo album 2 years ago. For things like instagram post to be considered important solo work it would need to achieve something beyond being uploaded. Examples being the post went viral, or it caused a scandal. Lastly for why I didn't vote merge before...there wasn't anything to merge from that page, one paragraph was about the group, the rest was largely unimportant thing like a list of who her famous friends were. Also it oddly and incorrectly listed her place of birth as Dusseldorf, Germany. The page had multiple issues. Peachywink ( talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I still don't think Minzy has released enough solo material (like Bom or CL) or did anything beyond 2NE1 at this time for her own article (like Dramas (Dara), Shows like WGM or Roommate (Bom), etc.). Tibbydibby ( talk) 19:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel_DC_Caldwell,_I ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page should be undeleted to be moved to Dallas_municipal_election,_2015/Daniel_DC_Caldwell,_I. I do not want to be impolite, but please allow me to express my standpoint. This person page was inappropriately and ARBITRARILY flagged for speedy deletion under the A7 tag specifically contrary to the guidance of that criteria, then the flag was PROMPTLY contested showing the article cited MULTIPLE credible, notable, relevant, and reliable sources (at least one for every part of a claim), and the article was still removed without ANY discussion beyond the contest. Please revert and restore the deleted page, and feel free to call me, <phone number redacted>.

−

"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Meanwhile, by comparison, Keyaira D. Saunders, another candidate, has not been so rudely discriminated against. Who am I supposed to report this abuse to? (besides Bbb23, as the deleter, of course)DCdanielcaldwell 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) This was deleted from his talk page so I am transferring it here. ^[1] the correct way to handle the article would have been moving it to be a subpage of the 2015 Dallas City Council electionsDCdanielcaldwell 06:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) DCdanielcaldwell ( talk) 06:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Article was a promotional campaign autobiography of a candidate who clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. This editor, a candidate for public office, has a severe and undisclosed conflict of interest and should not be editing any articles having to do with this election. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The claim of notability must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. "X is notable for running and chewing gum at the same time" may be credible, but the claim is not notable. Similarly, running for city councilor does not meet the guidelines. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - a perfectly proper A7 speedy. Wikipedia is not here for council election candidates to list themselves - OP should read WP:Conflict of interest. He need not worry about his competitor's article that he refers to - it is at AfD and looks like being a WP:SNOW deletion. JohnCD ( talk) 10:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Since city council candidates are not inherently notable and search results turn up a personl page at mormon.org, facebook, wordpress blogs and the like I find A7 ("No indication of importance...") entirely fitting as there is literally no importance to find regarding this individual. Tarc ( talk) 18:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Being a candidate for city council is not a claim of significance or importance; so this was a proper A7 speedy. — teb728 t c 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Snow endorse, textbook A7 deletion. We don't do subpages in mainspace either. Stifle ( talk) 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, pretty much a valid A7. Even if you look at the sources, most of them are either primary in nature, or only mention the subject very briefly. The only one that goes beyond that is the one from the Austin American-Statesman, but even that just has a brief quote and a confirmation that he ran for a position. It clearly would not survive AFD and restoring it would be pure wonkery. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC). reply

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

This was an improper use of WP:CSD#T2. The template did not misrepresent any policy that I know about. If anything, our editing policies and guidelines support the idea that articles should be self-consistent. So at a minimum, the CSD should not have happened to shortcut the TfD discussion. The discussion was not even a day old, so it was way too early to tell yet how a fuller discussion might have turned out. Imzadi 1979  → 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Vacate T2, but do not restore. This was created by the same person who deleted it. Despite whatever criterion he may have misguidedly applied, it should be treated as a WP:G7 and his wishes should be respected. Alakzi ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • G7 does not apply. I had to edit the template to supply some missing date styles when I put the template into use. Since it was in use T3 (unused template) doesn't apply either. Imzadi 1979  → 02:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: if nothing else, restore long enough to be able to subst any remaining instances and then delete again. – Fredddie ™ 02:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• don't care one way or the other. --  Gadget850  ^talk 10:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • OK, so then just restore it? Alakzi ( talk) 11:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

RogB Pickups ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hi, I cannot understand why you deleted my page like this. There are other pickup pages such as /info/en/?search=Bare_Knuckle_Pickups.

I had only just put it up and was going to add to it, references etc, you didn't give me a chance!

I have no copy of it, as it was deleted without warning or notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Naughty Badger ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The page should be restored so that further improvements can be made. Important topic.-- Ipigott ( talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse if the google cache is accurate, there really isn't much to restore, I can't see a reasonable claim as to why it would be important, nor on a brief search can I find sources, and it does read like an ad in the yellow pages. My search was brief, so if someone else can find reliable third party source, there is of course no problem writing a new article provided it too doesn't simply read like an advert. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore, at least to draft space (btw, The cache is accurate. ) This was deleted as G11, entirely promotional. It is purely descriptive, and not entirely promotional . Apparently deleted in error; the admin was notified,but has jot yet really had a chance to respond--I assume they will simply restore it. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore to draft space. A short description and a website link is typical of many pages that get deleted every day, written by users with a conflict of interest. The A7 and G11 rationales were justified given the fact that 5 edits were made without any expansion before deleting. If a COI applies here, then Draft/AFC is the proper venue. Even if there is no COI, restoring to draft space will give the user an opportunity to develop the article to be acceptable in main space without having to worry about someone coming along and speedily deleting it. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, restore to draft space upon request. Nakon 04:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Half Endorse, G11 is not an accurate description but it certainly qualifies as A7. That said, I have no objection to moving it to draft space for further expansion and work. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC). reply
• Endorse A7 non-notable company. Not an advert, mind. No objection to restoring to draft. Stifle ( talk) 09:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Christian terrorism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was kept as no consensus, but I would argue that policy overwhelmingly leans toward deletion for WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE and WP:BOLLOCKS reasons, and such argumentation was present in the discussion. The title is an attack smear neologism with no scholarly RS supporting its usage, and incredible claims require incredible proof. A few POV editorials in lightweight magazines attempting to establish a smear meme are demonstrably insufficient sourcing to hold up such a charge before scrutiny. Pax 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus. Pax is ignoring the scholarly sources presented in the deletion discussion. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

And yet you elected not to add these allegedly scholarly sources to the article. From your commentary at the AfD, I see three sources listed by you, one which is a dead link and two passing mentions, arguably specious, involving Timothy McVeigh and the IRA. These are basically just smears, not indications of any organized system of religiously-motivated violence on par with, say, jihad. Pax 02:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

None of the links are dead, all are to scholarly sources, and it seems any source provided to show notability (which is the point of an AFD) is a smear to you. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus as per the sources in the AfD that prove the notability of the subject. Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This editor previously attempted to non-admin close the subject as Keep. Discussion then ensued on his talk page from Valetta66, Bastun and myself, and the non-admin closure was reverted for a time before Coffee closed as no-consensus. Pax 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The problem is that none of them are "motivated by Christian ideology" per se (let alone with credible support from, say, the gospels). E.g., the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the post-Confederacy and motivated by racism and opposition to Reconstruction. The IRA were nationalists dangling off the Soviet tit from 1925 onward. Certainly neither they or any of the other disparate examples listed in the article (or those writing the article including them) can forward any credible theological sourcing from the gospels to support the insinuation implied by the article's title that support for terrorism can be found within Christian teachings. (Contrast to Islamic terrorism, in which the duty to wage jihad is Muhammad's command.)

This "disgrace of an article" (to appropriate E.M.Gregory's phrase) is a synthetic farce from the ground up, built to push a narrative which does not exist. In so many words, it's a lie. Pax 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

And this isn't AFD, take 2. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Closing administrator comment: I fully stand behind my close of this AFD. — DRV is not to be used as AFD round 2... We do not close AFDs per personal opinions, we close AFDs based on a clear consensus. And, a clear consensus as to which policies outweighed the others was not going to be made in that debate, and wouldn't have formed even if the AFD had been relisted a dozen times. The close should stand as is, and Pax should drop the WP:STICK and move slowly away from the horse carcass. I'll also note that Pax did not follow standard procedure here, by not conferring with me as the closing admin first before opening this DRV. That speaks volumes, in my opinion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Today is the first day I've done one of these; I overlooked that part of the procedure. Apologies. Pax 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Whilst I would have been in favour of deletion at the debate, the closure was within admin discretion and I endorse it. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete The admin closed with no rationale can he say explain why he says no consensus it is a arbitrary closure and wrong reading of the debate. Keep voters did not say why it should be kept. Even Half of the keep voters say article is in a mess and have not explained why it should be kept and few others based there argument on other stuff only 4 editors said it was sourced.It is a [[WP:SYNTH] and WP:OR can the Coffee explain his closure in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valetta66 ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Move on. AfD is done. There was no consensus for deletion, even if some of those saying 'Keep' were, in my opinion, just !votes, or offered weak rationales, and even if those saying 'Keep' won't bother working to improve the article. Let's move on. The article can essentially be stubified due to poor sourcing and then listified, like other such articles - though I'll be working to ensure only notable and verifiable events are included, per WP:LSC. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the absence of any consensus for deletion is unarguable on its face, no further rationale is required. Guy ( Help!) 11:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, both the close and the outcome. With respect to the close, there was no consensus in the debate so a "no consensus" close was clearly correct; and with respect to the outcome, yes Wikipedia certainly should cover Christian terrorism. I'm British and I'm old enough to have clear memories of the decades of Catholic-on-Protestant and Protestant-on-Catholic terrorism here, in which more than three thousand people were killed. The allegation that this is an "attack smear neologism" is laughable.— S Marshall T/ C 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• PS: I've just re-examined the article and I see it mentions the Troubles, but defines them as not a religious conflict. I beg to differ.— S Marshall T/ C 12:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It would seem, though, that the vast majority of expert reputable sources disagree with you. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'd be surprised if the expert reputable sources did say it wasn't a religious conflict. That's somewhere between a horrible oversimplification and an outright lie.— S Marshall T/ C 13:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Then be surprised. Really. "The Troubles in Northern Ireland are widely seen as an ethno-nationalist conflict that was not religious in nature." - backed up by 14 references, with two dissenting, saying there was also a religious element. The PIRA and INLA were shooting and bombing people to achieve a united, socialist Ireland, not a united, Catholic Ireland. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the close. There was no other way to close the discussion, given what was presented. Unfortunately in a topic like this, it is difficult for many people to separate their feelings about the subject itself from their ability to analyse the article's compliance with our policies. A relist at some future point will probably occur, but I don't see how we'd make that discussion any more productive than this one. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC). reply

• Endorse close. There clearly was not a consensus to delete. Those who continually cite BOLLOCKS would be better employed editing the article to remove the male genitalia. Scolaire ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. For articles requiring judgment of what policies apply, the only way we make the judgment is by consensus, and there was no consensus to delete. If not improved in a reasonable time, perhaps there might be another AfD, but I'm not at all sure it would lead to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'm not fond of the article as it feels like SYNTH to me (though I could imagine a reasonable article under this title), but I think that NC is the best reading of the discussion. So Endorse Hobit ( talk) 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, this was a valid close. Nakon 04:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep - that an article needs editing is an editing problem, not a deletion problem. Taking away that, the delete position is a naked violation of WP:SOAPBOX, and must be discounted to pursue the project goal of creating a neutral point of view encyclopaedia. I sympathise with the desire to overweight headcount here, but I can't endorse it. Wily D 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Um, the outcome is that the article is being kept. What exactly do you mean by "overturn"? Scolaire ( talk) 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• "Endorse' close. Article needs work but not deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Rape jihad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page had been previously submitted to Afd twice before, once in 2013 and again last month. In each of those cases, it was poorly grammared and sourced by an ESL editor, and arguably not worthy of retention.

I came in late during the latter AfD discussion (after most !votes had already been cast) and set to improve the article by rewriting it from scratch (with essentially only the name of the article remaining of the original). In my opinion the closer of the second AfD did not consider the changes made (and lend more weight to policy) before closing on a delete. As I had suspected the article might be deleted, I retained a copy in my sandbox to work upon, and recreated the article last night. This morning it was G4 speedied, the speedy was quickly contested by myself and another person ( copy of discussion here), but deleted anyway by the same closer who deleted the most recent other version. In further discussion with the speedy nominator on my TP, he recommended I bring the matter here.

Per G4, the article I created was not "substantially identical to the deleted version" at the time it was submitted to AfD back in February. Pax 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's come to light that the article proposed and accepted for deletion was quite different from the final form it took on before its deletion. A variant of that final, well-sourced form that completely rectifies all the original issues was created by Pax but speedy deleted without any discussion despite contest. -- DawnDusk ( talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily undeleted the edit history of article to facilitate the discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Onlookers should should compare the original at February proposal with the most recent at speedy proposal. (As a side issue, I would observe that there appeared to exist a level of bad faith !voting in the most recent AfD over an easily-improvable article written by a struggling editor, and I commented on that at the time.) Pax 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Thank you. With this, it is confirmed: what was nominated and accepted for deletion [1] is a far cry from Pax's well-documented, well-written article that was actually deleted [2]. With that, the only reason for deletion that still stands is the small issue of it being (possibly) a neologism - certainly not enough to warrant deletion on its own, and I've proposed a solution before (if even necessary). -- DawnDusk ( talk) 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• My G4 speedy deletion was entirely valid. Here is a comparison between the AfDed version shortly before it was deleted and the recreation. They are identical apart from the Darfur section, which has been replaced with the lead of Rape during the Darfur genocide (including the references which don't exist in this article). The basic issue is that the article was rewritten during the course of the AfD, the rewrite wasn't sufficient to persuade people that the article should be kept, and the rewriter decided to ignore the AfD result and recreate the article anyway in the belief that it should be exempt from G4. I'm sorry but it isn't.
  The timeline above is somewhat confused: I am referred to as the "speedy nominator", which is wrong (that was User:Reddogsix) and it's said that the speedy deletion was performed by the same person who closed the AfD, which is also not true (I performed the speedy deletion, the AfD was closed by User:Coffee). Hut 8.5 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I've notified Coffee of this discussion, which wasn't done by the OP. Hut 8.5 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's customary (and mentioned at least three times in the instructions) to consult with the deleting administrator before opening a listing here. Will the nominator please explain why this step doesn't appear to have been followed? Stifle ( talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

As mentioned in the same-day Christian Terrorism DRV, these are first time I've done these, and I missed the top step (scrolling up off the top of the screen while I concentrated on the formatting boxes). Pax 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse G4 based on minimal substantive difference between revisions. Any future proposed versions should be created in the Draft space first and brought to dleeiton review before promotion to main space. Guy ( Help!) 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The link in your reply clearly demonstrates substantial changes. Pax 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse G4: Another clear cut case of an administrator correctly following policy and Pax once again not being able to drop the stick. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It's easy to conflate the user's two DRVs. Please try not to. There's far more reason for challenge here. DawnDusk ( talk) 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article: I'm new here, but I'm in support of keeping the article. 108.252.210.211 ( talk) 20:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep article Everyone endorsing the G4 because of the minimal difference between the article at its time of deletion and the new article is completely missing the point. Pax is, in effect, challenging the original deletion because the article was nominated and accepted for deletion when it was crap, and Pax's vast improvement to the article were not even looked at, as the original AfD discussion shows (which, I believe has been discussed here to be against policy). DawnDusk ( talk) 21:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore apparently an incorrect deletion at AfD. , as it did not take account of the current state of the article. Admins are supposed to do that. The G4 itself was not technically an error. I don't see how it matters the admin who did the G4 wasn't consulted,because he would;t have restored it. It often helps,but in this case it would have been needless bureaucracy. If thesis not restored here, the obvious solution is to improve the draft further, in which case it will unambiguously not be a G4, and would require an new AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist- The close was technically correct, in that it read the consensus correctly. The problem is it was reading the consensus that was generated by the original form, and not the form that the article was in at the end of the debate. A new debate, based on the merits of the article as it was at the end of the previous argument, would hopefully accurately gauge the merits of the new article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion, there was a substantial consensus to delete the article as per the AFD arguments. Nakon 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Which wasn't for the content that actually wound up getting deleted. -- DawnDusk ( talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to (a new) AfD as the current Pax's version deserves an independent analysis. In the original AfD his major rewriting of the article was basically ignored. After the rewriting there were only two comments, one from a very biased editor who argued the article was an attack against Bangladesh, one another commenter was to retain the article; all the other comments clearly judged a different, worst version of the article. Cavarrone 07:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - As one of the primary AfD agitators filing an "I disagree" review is not a valid use of DRV. Tarc ( talk) 21:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist article changed significantly after some consensus-generating comments were made and therefore renders a re-analysis of the continued validity of those comments after the changes. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist as per above. The current version of the article is substantially different. It may still suffer from the same issues at the prior AfDs, but I think that it would merit a third AfD. On a side note, if this does survive AfD this go round, it may be worthwhile to restore and merge the history at Rape Jihad just so people could see what was in that article. It may actually be worthwhile to restore it now, since part of the argument at the second AfD was that it was still too similar to the content at Rape Jihad and it may help to compare/contrast that version as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist per above - seems to be substantial differences in the two versions. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Restore: Article is much improved and there is a need for an article on this content; may want to consider retitling something like "sexual terrorism" and add a worldwide focus on tother examples, but neither femicide nor Wartime sexual violence cover the topic, and it is a worthy keep. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

List of African supercentenarians ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Restored for a DRV as requested on my talkpage. For ease, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (2nd nomination); the revision at the time of deletion is here, and the last diff before the most recent G4 is here. My role is purely administrative, I will officially abstain from comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation or Relist at AfD - to be clear, there was nothing technically wrong with the G4 deletion as the content was very similar. However, 4 years is a long time and consensus can change. We have quite a lot of similar articles (see Category:Lists of supercentenarians), so there is no particular reason to believe Africa should be treated differently. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own deletion as a valid implementation of the previous consensus. The nomination does not seem to state that the consensus is wrong or out of date, merely that it is disagreed with. Stifle ( talk) 12:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The "nomination" states it is purely administrative... I have stated that I think the 2011 consensus is out of date as evidenced by the many similar articles that now exist. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The actual nomination, as stated above, was at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#List of African supercentenarians. What Blade is referring to as being "purely administrative" is his listing it here for User:Ollie231213. — Cryptic 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you, that is what I meant. Stifle ( talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Understood, but regardless I had raised the consensus has changed argument before the comment was made so it is still invalid to dismiss this line of argument out of hand because the nomination didn't mention it. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. This recreated version was speedily deleted under G4.

1. The recreated article was NOT, as G4 specifies, "substantially identical to the deleted version". How can something be "substantially identical" anyway? Surely something is either identical or it's not?

2. The new version included more sources (such as news reports) than previously when only the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was sourced.

3. One basis for deletion in the two previous deletion discussions, was that the GRG is not a reliable source, which is no longer considered to be the case. Again, G4 specifies that speedy deletions should not be used for "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies".

4. I think that this article will improve over time as more cases with references are added.

Thankyou. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore and anyone who wants to can relist. Consensus can change, and one of the purposes of Deletion Review is to permit this to happen. NO WP decision is final for all time. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - User:JJB nailed this four years ago. Sourcing is an issue given that the only references lead straight to the GRG which as stated at the WP:WOP#Databases page: "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources" and "no article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases". This article is also synthesized from GRG data, no "list of [continent] supercentenarians" appears anywhere except Wikipedia. CommanderLinx ( talk) 09:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• 1. If you look at the revision as of 16 February 2015, you will see that the references are NOT just the GRG. But in any case, the GRG is a reliable source and as far as list articles are concerned, I don't see why there is any vital need to use other sources, such as news reports, which are actually more likely to be unreliable.
• 2. All entries on the GRG tables list cases by place of birth and death, even if there are no tables where they separated by content. I don't see why using this information to create such a list on Wikipedia is an issue, even if this is technically synthesised. The "synthesised" argument just sounds pedantic. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The issue that caused deletion is not fixed by the new version. In fact, the new version has precisely the same problem, as noted above, so mandating AfD is simply a case of needless bureaucracy and an invitation for another outing of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Guy ( Help!) 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  How is this article materially different than List of European supercentenarians, List of North American supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians from Australia and Oceania, and List of South American supercentenarians? The only difference I see is Africa was created in 2011 and these were created later. It doesn't have the same problem as the original AfD because consensus has changed on the issue - intersection of continent & age is now (apparently) considered valid list criteria. It is the refusing to allow Africa because it was previously deleted that would be pointless bureaucracy. -- ThaddeusB ( talk)

  Restore I agree. The article should be restored on this basis alone (the existence of parallel pages for other continents). -- Piotr (Venezuela) ( talk) 05:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation or Restore

The article "List of African supercentenarians" is the reflection of the recent years' research on the features of human extreme longevity on the African continent. What is more:

1. The article does not break any of the Wikipedia guidelines.

2. The article is not eligible for speedy deletion because it had changed substantially since 2010.

3. Both deletions in 2015 failed to notify the article creator or give sufficient time for the article creator to address any issues or appeal the "prod" before the deletion occurred.

4. The article itself serves as an useful piece of information and educates the society, how long can the people truly live on the entire African continent.

5. The list contains 8 names of verified supercentenarians to have lived in Africa, which is not too few for a list.

6. The longevity data, as long as it features Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia and Oceania must not ignore one another important continent, which is Africa.

7. The credibility of the data, which the article contains is beyond doubt as it reflects the discoveries of the Gerontology Research Group, the scientific organization, which is the world's leading authority in the supercentenarian research.

8. The research into extreme longevity phenomenon continues and along with the new discoveries, the article will be updated, thus the development of its content and its clarity are bound to improve.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus ( talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation AfD is old enough to allow a new article (and eventually a new AfD) about the subject. Cavarrone 07:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Jerome Mackey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Updated article with section for court cases and Temple of the Lost Sheep CrazyAces489 ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=User:CrazyAces489/Jerome_Mackey CrazyAces489 ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. Hardly any change from the last DRV. diff. The article certainly isn't less promotional. — Cryptic 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Would recommend User:CrazyAces489 take User:Sandstein's counsel from the last DRV closure of stepping back and leaving this for someone else to write. Stifle ( talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. (As closer of the AfD). Agree with Cryptic that this new version is as hopeless as the previously deleted one. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ashida Kim ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Seemed to be the victim of 7 AFD's in a short period. The individual is a notable author and possible practitioner of Ninjitsu. Currently redirected towards modern schools of ninjitsu. I believe that it deserves its own article based on being a prolific and respected author of ninjitsu. I am interested in putting up another article and do not want it to be speedily deleted. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• That does appear to be a big old mess. But that said, the outcome was deletion due to a lack of reasonable sources about the topic. Do you have sources that would help with meeting WP:N? If not, this isn't going anywhere. Hobit ( talk) 03:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the moment endorse. Having done some looking, the material found in the redirect target is plenty. Baring some really solid new sources, I think we are fine as-is. Hobit ( talk) 03:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - DRV isn't going to overturn or endorse a near-6-year-old AfD. Ask for a userfied copy, work on it, and proceed from there. Tarc ( talk) 03:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

commenthow long do AFD's last for? What is the time period after which DRV isn't valid any longer for? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, this is a very old AFD. There was nothing wrong with the close. Nakon 04:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment, Based on your most recent edit, CrazyAces, I don't think any administrator would speedy delete the page as long as it is substantially different from the article that was deleted during the AFD. Nakon 05:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment given the discussion here to be clear that having an Ashida Kim article won't make his writings automatically usable as a reliable source. Beyond that not sure I'd want to churn up this old mess, guess you are braver than me. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close. We are never going to interfere with a deletion discussion from 5½ years ago. If the request is for permission/endorsement for a new version, I would want to see a draft of that new version to proceed. But in practice, I very much doubt that a properly-sourced new version would get speedily deleted. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the close was accurate and fair, but after all this time I would suggest that nobody is going to get too huffy if a properly sourced article is created there. If you're not sure, I suggest creating a draft and running it through WP:AFC. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC). reply
• Comment from closer This was a fairly routine AFD close that I had no particular memory of. I don't think an old AFD, which was based on the situation back then, really needs revisiting in any case. In general, speedy deletions for G4 will not occur if a new version is substantially different from the deleted version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I remember this from 2009. It's ancient history now, but there's a lot of history there and I recall that Mr Kim has some "fans". I suggest that any fresh article in this space should be semi-protected from the get-go.— S Marshall T/ C 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Yoshui Sudarso ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Was created by an editor that was blocked after he made the page 209.2.61.10 ( talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm assuming you actually mean Yoshi Sudarso, but even knowing that I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying the deletion was incorrect because the person who created it (whoever that was) actually created it before they were banned? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 16:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• The account that created the article was a sockpuppet of BuickCenturyDriver. And the subject is not notable anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• overturn subject passes notabilty guideline. Actors was on a notable show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.19.114 ( talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You're going to have to cite much better sources than IMDB to show that. The article as it stood was close enough to an A7 that most admins would probably have deleted it on that basis, or at least have been unwilling to remove a speedy deletion tag. And notability is irrelevant to a G5 deletion anyway. For the non-admins who can't see it, the article was created by 11EnergemDealer. Endorse. — Cryptic 22:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• (There's some peripherally-related discussion here, previously incorrectly linked in the header.) — Cryptic 22:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Can someone restore the article so we can review it? 12.129.118.171 ( talk) 00:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  How will reviewing it help determine if G5 was correct, it seems that the criteria is extrinsic to the content of the article. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 11:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the article was created by User:11EnergemDealer, a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:BuickCenturyDriver, a prolific sockmaster who has been blocked for years. The only edits to the page by other people were adding/modifying categories, maintenance templates or persondata, there's certainly nothing I would call significant. That the sockpuppet wasn't blocked at the time of the page's creation (which is obvious, as you can't create pages while blocked) that has nothing to do with it. Perfectly valid G5. Hut 8.5 11:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• The header, the DRV link template, and the first comment each link to different articles. Will someone please clarify exactly what we are reviewing? Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  The DRV started out saying Yoshia Sudarso and article which has never existed, hence my comment re Yoshi Sudarso, someone changed the header] a while later to Yoshua Sudarso. As far as I can tell the article was creataed as Yoshua and then moved to Yoshi, it was whilst it was Yoshi that the article was deleted as a G5, that G5 seems to be the only thing we can review. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Keep deleted. Irrespective of whether or not the deletion process was followed to the letter, having reviewed the deleted history I cannot see any version which has any meaningful sourcing which would enable the page to be kept. Shuffling it around the deletion process for a few weeks would be pointless bureaucracy. This does not prevent anyone from recreating the article if they can source it properly and establish notability; however, the fact that it's been created and recreated at several different names does not bode well. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• A google search turns up different variations of his name. As far as I know we're talking if the article's subject is notable enough for an article. IEdior ( talk) 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  No DRV isn't for deciding if something it notable enough, it's reviewing the deletion process to check that the G5 deletion was correct and G5 is nothing to do with notability. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per 75.99.19.114 12.11.108.163 ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted created by blocked editor,and there's really nothing in the article to indicate likely notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Stooky.JPG ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This image was deleted as F4, owing to a sourcing conflict. This could be resolved via an OTRS slip from the uploader. Even if the image isn't PD (as was claimed), the filename suggests that it's an image that would almost certainly qualify as fair use, given it's representation of an important image or artifact in television history. }} Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure what you are asking for here. The burden for images lies with those uploading or wanting to keep the images, so in terms of is the deletion OK, then I don't see you putting forward an argument which changes that. After that if a release is possible from the image owner, then that should be secured before we undelete. For wanting to try and add a fair use rationale, I would have thought asking a friendly admin to undelete and then add that rationale would be the easiest way forward. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 08:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• From reviewing the deleted image, the uploader made an implausible claim of having created the image by himself, and never provided a source. We would not be able to use the image without a copyright release via OTRS, or as fair use — but without the source, we cannot comply with NFCC#10a. Therefore, keep deleted. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Colour Televisor Picture.JPG ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This image was deleted as F11, although comment on the uploaders talk page ( User_talk:G1MFG#File_permission_problem_with_File:Colour_Televisor_Picture.JPG) suggests that it may have been an image of their own work, or which they would have been authorised to release. Given the claim that they are (or were) an editor of a magazine, and thusly assumed in good fiath to be knowledgeable about copyright matters, I have every reason to assume good faith. Sfan00 IMG ( talk)

• Endorse People act in good faith all the time creating promotional article or articles about non-notable topics etc., we don't ban them for it, but we also don't patronise them with a pat on the head and keep the stuff not up to standard as a reward. Also WP:AGF is not a call to shut your eyes and hope, and I don't think we can equate the claim of being a magazine editor to be knowledgeable about copyright. Also they didn't seem confident as to what the image was, when they say "...was probably ...". As they specify which magazine they worked for and a certain amount of frustration with other images also going, perhaps the most constructive way to deal with this, would be to contact the magazine and see if we can track down who it was and resolve a few of the issues once and for all -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted unless a proper copyright release is submitted to OTRS. Copyright issues are an area which we take seriously. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Laurence David Gaz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I am not the same editor who created David Gaz. This is not the same article or copyright infringement. It was a fresh piece of work properly referenced and neutral. Article should be put back and discussed if there is any issue. Some administrator can check old deleted article to confirm for me please. Katiebade ( talk) 07:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy overturn and trout. The content is not the same and there is little to no evidence that the submitter is a sock. Stifle ( talk) 08:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It might be good to put the new and old content on Wikipedia with refs side by side as there are lots of similarities. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. No evidence that user is a sock, and article content is quite different so it doesn't qualify as CSD G4 either. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC). reply
• Comment There is overwhelming evidence that this was an undisclosed paid article. On an external website beginning with an F, there is a paid job to create this article. Is it by a sock? On the external website beginning with an F, the businessperson who edits WP articles for pay claims to have over 19,000 edits. On WP, it is a "new" account who created a whole new article as one of its first edits. Finally, the deletion history of David Gaz shows there is a history of promotional editing on this non-notable topic. Bottom line: a LOT of evidence for paid undisclosed editing, likely by a sock. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Why the coyness about the "external website". If you feel it's worth mentioning, at least give us a URL we can look at. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Not a good idea per WP:OUTING as well as WP:BEANS. Will share link with any admin (who does not have it already). Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have not created 19000 articles! Only one. On talk page you said [3] "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue". So I want to continue with this page! -- Katiebade ( talk) 12:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply Again, there is overwhelming evidence that this is an undisclosed paid article. Also, it seems very unlikely that you are a completely new editor who, on your first edits, created a polished new (promotional) article, on a topic that has already had three promotional articles deleted. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 12:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

It is not promotional. When it is put back read it! Now you should stop speculating. So what if some one from external website created this article before got paid for his editing and it got deleted? It was long ago (2007, 2010, 2014). I did it properly now and did not make copyright infringement. -- Katiebade ( talk) 12:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You do realize that you used the same refs as last time. Just this time it is paraphrased slightly more. Yes agree you have done a better job than before. Still the paraphrasing is fairly close to the original. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply No, the job on the external website to create this article for pay was several days ago, around the time you created it. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 12:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

How am I responsible for the jobs only you know about elsewhere on the internet? Read the article. Does it have copyright infringement or any other issue? -- Katiebade ( talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - "It was a paid article" is not a criteria for deletion in this project, nor is paid editing strictly forbidden by any policy. Restore the article, then any editor may file an AfD if they so desire. Tarc ( talk) 13:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Actually, undisclosed paid editing is against the TOU. The paid editing is undisclosed. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• So what? We're talking about the article here, not the creator. Take whatever actions you feel are necessary against the editor in question, I don't give thought to that angle at all. If the article itself meets the project's criteria for notability and inclusion, that is the only thing that is important to DRV/AfD. Tarc ( talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - it was never deleted by discussion, so G4 is inapplicable. There's no evidence it was created by a banned user in violation on said ban, so G5 is inapplicable. Too much for A7 (though I'm not sure about AfD). So here we are. Wily D 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for the deleted is G5 as it was created by a banned user in violation of said ban. Also it closely paraphrasing the previous version of the article that was deleted for copyright reasons by User:Anthony Bradbury. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just noticed that on the external website where this article was commissioned for pay, the businessperson specializes in re-creating deleted articles, and charges $400 for this service. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment And I just noticed there is an active SPI about this here [4]. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is clear evidence that this user is a sock puppet/meatpuppet at ANI. If you look at the previously deleted article on this person this new article was almost exactly the same. (you need to be an admin to see the previously deleted article). That is plenty of reason to delete. We often delete edits by socks. User:Katiebade would be an amazing editor for having made so few edits with this account. However they are not a new editor. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Our job here is to see the deletion process is correctly followed. G4 has a clear and narrowly-defined use. It's applicable to a substantially identical page that's been deleted following a deletion discussion. "Substantially identical" is something that's been discussed in many past decisions at DRV, and we've often said that if the references are the same then the article is probably the same, so if the representations above are correct then I could endorse that part of it. But where's the deletion discussion? Without one of those there's no G4 here and we really have no option but to intervene here. The G5 should await the conclusion of the SPI.

  However, paid editing raises all kinds of red flags. What we should do here is restore to draft space and hold an AfD ---- I'd suggest a semi-protected AfD, in order to sockproof it ---- so that we can have a proper discussion where all the evidence can be considered by the community.— S Marshall T/ C 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• This certainly appears to have been created in violation of our terms. Perhaps we should create a speedy criteria for that? In any case, I think S Marshall's suggestion is a fine way forward. Hobit ( talk) 20:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure we presently have any sort of deletion policy or even guideline concerning articles created through undisclosed paid editing. Do we? I'd hold back on a speedy criterion until we have a clearer understanding of consensus on this whole problematic area. I haven't looked at the underlying circumstances of this article. Thincat ( talk) 09:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That would be a discussion for WT:CSD and would be likely to result in the proposal being denied for lack of frequency and objectivity. Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn on the technicalities mentioned above but things should not be left like that. What happens to this article shouldn't merely depend on whether an earlier version was a copyright violation. It seems to me that (1) we should see if it is probable if this is the work of an undisclosed paid editor. I suppose that could be done in a similar way to deciding whether to ban an editor ( WP:AN, except confidentialities may be involved). Later, informed by that, (2) what should be done about this article, if it hasn't been resolved by analogy with WP:BANREVERT. Meantime, moving the article to draft space, as S Marshall suggests, seems a good idea. Or, is there an established process for all this that I don't know about? Thincat ( talk) 11:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as valid G5 deletion as an article created by a banned user in defiance of the ban. Nick Aang is a prolific paid editing sock puppeteer (or, possibly, I have speculated, the employer of a lot of paid editing meat puppets). Comparing "Deleted revision of David Gaz (as of 23 April 2013, at 00:04) by Rerip (talk | contribs | block)" of Special:Undelete/David Gaz (a checkuser-confirmed Nickaang version) and "(del/undel) Deleted revision of Laurence David Gaz (as of 16 March 2015, at 02:08) by Katiebade (talk | contribs | block):" of Special:Undelete/Laurence David Gaz, it's obvious that these two versions are at least kissing cousins, as they would say in my Southland. Compare the "Early life" section of the original article ...

... with the "Early life" section of the new article ...

I'm sufficiently convinced that this is a returned banned user and I endorse the deletion on those grounds. -- B ( talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per new information from Doc James and analysis from B. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 01:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Even if the decision is to endorse we still ought to AfD a version of the article in draft space, so as to put any subsequent G4 or G5 beyond doubt.— S Marshall T/ C 10:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you mean MfD, and I agree it would be a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer an AfD. The point is that this doesn't clearly meet our speedy criteria (I think G4 is just not possible and G5 isn't clear) so there should probably be an AfD. Given the nature of the draft (COI issues) I think it would be best to hold that AfD while it is in draft space. We've done it before for (IMO) poorer reasons. Hobit ( talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Indeed. The community should have the opportunity to decide the fate of the article based on the project's notability criteria; who created the article and other what alleged pretenses is irrelevant. Tarc ( talk) 23:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as per Doc James and B. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Chris Ikonomidis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing administrator has, in my opinion, fairly clearly misinterpreted the result of this discussion. Even when you disregard arguments not based general notability, editors involved are divided as evenly as it is possible for five editors to be. There is no clearly consensus to keep the article here. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist - there is a long-standing consensus that WP:ROUTINE-type coverage in football publications about the signing of teenagers to various teams isn't really considered "significant coverage" which is exactly the sort of coverage "quoted" except for duffbeerforme's article in The Australian (which is of the same tone and in the paper's "sport" section, but isn't a footballing publication). This decision overturns that consensus and should, instead, itself be overturned. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 21:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my decision as closing administrator. User:Sir Sputnik is correct that consensus was close. Administrators are expected to examine both the consensus among those participating as well as the arguments offered. Some argued that the article met WP:GNG while others argued that it did not meet more specialized guidelines like NSPORT. While it may not meet the specialized guidelines, it does meet, in my judgement, the general notability guidelines. WP:NSPORT says, in part, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." I believe my judgement, based upon comments of the participants, allowed for the KEEP decision. As to the charge that the article lacks reliable sources, I would note that The Australian and Foxsports are both reliable sources and their coverage is beyond a routine call up notice. I submit that the close was appropriate and fully within process. JodyB _talk 21:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• And the suggestion the subject meets GNG was refuted and that refutation went unanswered. Simply asserting that a subject passes GNG doesn't make it so. Rather ironically, the Fox Sports article simply confirms he is training with Lazio and hasn't actually played. You seemed to have formed a particular view with regard to the notability of the subject based on factors not put forward in the discussion. That's fine, of course, but then you really should contribute to the discussion, rather than closing it in what looks more and more like a supervote. Even then, you had no consensus as an option, which would have defaulted to keep.

This happens every year; SPAs create articles about their favourite youth signing way too soon and use announcement re-prints as "sources" to substantiate "coverage". That someone who has never played at club level (ever) could appear in this encyclopaedia described (in Wikipedia's voice) as a "prodigious talent" speaks volumes. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll just butt in on your strawman attack and advise you that it was me using the word "prodigious", not to mean "really good", but to qualify the notable nature of being called up for a major national team while at youth club level. -- Paladisious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. In my opinion, closer substituted his/her own opinion rather than weighing up the consensus arrived at. Stifle ( talk) 08:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • On the one hand, it does look supervote-y. On the other hand, the discussion is somewhere between no-consensus and keep, given the strength of the un-addressed argument that the subject meets WP:N. deletion here would require a little more than a weird assertion. Wily D 14:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. To call multiple full articles by reputable journalists in national broadsheets (eg [5], [6], which are just a selection) "routine" coverage is plainly incorrect. The sources tell us quite a lot about the subject of the article and are in no way routine transfer or match announcements. There was no engagement by the delete !voters with these sources, which were presented during the AfD as a legitimate case for significant coverage in reliable sources. Accordingly, the administrator made the correct decision. If you want to get an article deleted, engage specifically and directly with legitimate sources presented during an AfD. If not, you can't complain when the closing admin gives those sources considerable weight. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, my view is that articles in The Oz are good enough to qualify as better than routine coverage. That said, the tone of the article is atrocious and it needs rewriting for neutrality. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC). reply
• Query I'm going to hold off on offering an opinion on the close itself, but I am concerned about the statement, it does meet, in my judgement, the general notability guidelines. Perhaps I'm reading more into that than I should, but it sounds like the closer was deciding this based on his/her own opinion of the article, not on a condensation of what other people wrote. It would be useful to get a clarification on this point from the AfD closer. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ JodyB: any response to my query above? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Given the lack of response, I have no choice but to assume this was indeed a supervote and thus the close should be vacated and relisted -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC): reply

Sorry for the delay. I had a real life issue which required my attention. I've really said everything in the comment above but since you asked I will only add this from the guideline at WP:Deletion process: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." I attempted to do this. I belive my statement above reflects that. Thank you. JodyB _talk 13:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist - presentation of significant sources followed by silence is a bit hard to assess, but given someone wants to dispute the outcome, they should be given the chance to. Besides that, admins who endorse their own closes at DRV wholly ruin any claim to be impartial facilitators, and in any controversial case, the discussion should be closed by someone who can at least appear to be impartial. Wily D

  comment I would be rather puzzled at an admin who did notendorse their own close when taken to deletion review, unless they are coming here to say that the argument presented changed their mind and they would like to revert their close. Saying that one thinks one was right about a matter is not lack of objectivity about the matter. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Indeed. Stifle ( talk) 14:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete - comments above about GNG sources are misguided, yes there has been routine "look at this young player who might just be good some day"-type talk, but the fact of the matter is that the article was created with the view that this was an individual who was notable as a footballer when in fact he has yet to play any form of senior professional football whatsoever, not even a minute off the bench in one game. There is a fundamentally speculative element running through all sources noted regarding his senior football career concerning what might happen at some point in the future. Let's wait and see if he actually plays first. Fenix down ( talk) 16:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - there is not the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG and I feel the closing administrator was not neutral. Giant Snowman 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC. Coverage appears to be over the GNG bar, but there is a (weak) case to be made that it isn't and the numeric consensus doesn't support a keep result. Hobit ( talk) 20:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No objection to a relist as that's more-or-less the same outcome as NC in this case I'm guessing. Hobit ( talk) 03:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Apple iCar ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Currently closed as no consensus While at the beginning of the discussion there was clearly a lack of consensus, towards the end, general opinion swayed towards merging the non-speculative information into Apple and leaving a redirect because while the subject seems to be possibly notable, there is not yet enough confirmed information for an entire article. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 04:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• No action. Deletion discussions can end in two ways: delete, or not-delete. A DRV is not required to change between the various forms of not-delete outcome. These can be implemented via WP:BB or discussions on the talk page. Stifle ( talk) 10:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The !votes saying the article violates WP:Crystal seem to me utterly contrary to that policy which says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about [...] whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Many people made the claim (and others stated that WP does not report rumour, even if reliably reported) so I'd like to check whether I am mistaken. The title was certainly questionable because article didn't seem to cite any reliable source using the term "iCar" but Google News isn't now sharing that reticence. Thincat ( talk) 10:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. DRV is not for Things didn't go my way so I'm going to take another shot at it. FWIW, I !voted to redirect, but looking at the discussion, closing it as NC seems perfectly reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Though I frown on non-admin closes in general, there was, literally, no consensus from such a split discussion. Tarc ( talk) 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: I am a Wikipedia sysop. NORTH AMERICA ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Geez, I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur. Tarc ( talk) 23:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion discussions can end up in several ways, not just limited to delete/not delete--a close of merge is also a possible outcome, and a close of redirect is also appropriate, with the material either deleted or not deleted before redirection. Of there can be no clear consensus about what to do, which was the case here. That doesn't necessarily prevent a merge, but my personal opinion is that enough material will rapidly accumulate that it will just have to be unmerged rather soon. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse personally I tend not to care much for these sort of articles, even when there is enough to say they tend to be a magnet for all manner of speculation, but this isn't about my opinion, it's what's in the discussion where there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deleting the article. Apple electric car project should be deleted because while rumored are fun, there has been no official word from Apple. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Frmorrison: a note on the sometimes cryptic shorthand we use here. When you write Endorse, that means, I agree with the way this was originally closed. From the rest of your comment, I don't beieve that's the case. I suspect the phrase you're looking for to summarize your argument is Overturn to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - merge/redirect vs. keep is mostly an editoral issue, so headcount counts for a lot, and applying policy is nuanced. Wily D 14:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus. Nakon 05:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Jose Landi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Clearly notable article with strong sources available in new version. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Individual is a top 10 black fighter in the history of MMA. [7] , the subject of a number of articles disccussing his feud with a major MMA star Anderson Silva, whom he previously trained [8] [9], whole articles on the subject [10], wins over Alexander Shlemenko, former UFC Welterweight Champion / UFC Hall of Famer Matt Hughes, and UFC Hall of Fame Pat Miletich.

A userfied article is available to be moved [11]
Editors who deleted this article did so based on "Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses).Mdtemp (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)" While clearly ignoring the fact that WP:NMMA is a guide and the subject passes notability via GNG.
Large number of links to this article on wikipedia [12] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

In the book, MMA encyclopedia has been described as "best of the best" [13] along with numerous listings on various magazines. [14] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, the AfD discussion was quite poor but the close looks correct, yet the AfD is quite old, and the new version of the article shows some credible claims of notatability. Jose Landi was not salted, so it could be recreated at any time, even without a deletion review. Cavarrone 20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Comment I believe the proposed new version is User:CrazyAces489/Jose Landi. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Carl Rice ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Bad Close. There was no consensus to delete. Nom was fundamentally flawed, Rice is not only known for that advert. Keep !vote made that clear. Multiple significant roles satisfies WP:NACTOR. Multiple sources were provided satisfying WP:GNG. Sole claim that "Both cites are not sufficient enough" failed to explain why. Ends with "No sources = No article." Given the acknowledgement of existing sources by !voter one wonders why they made that disingenuous claim. (note. skipped discussion with deleting admin as xe has the following note. "NB: Unhappy with my deletion decision? Please list at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I consider all my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests. If you want a page undeleted as a draft please list at WP:REFUND." Since xe stands by carefully bad decisions I've come straight here.) duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment there were two opinions for delete and one for keep, so I guess this is quite close. I can't see the deleted article to see what sources if used, but in my own (albeit brief) search I cannot find much of interest there is this which you mention which although it's "local" seems pretty good, but I don't think the article could stand on that source alone. What other sources do you think meet the GNG standard of being reliable, third party and non-trivial? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Now we can see the article as it is, Endorse but allow userfication for cleanup and adding the few good references which are out there. Pointing at these (giving the links) during the AfD would likely have avoided the deletion, but given the state of the article and the references available at the time I can't see how it would have closed any other way. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own deletion as a reasonable interpretation of the consensus with the article on AFD for nearly a month. Stifle ( talk) 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• He does appear to meet a literal reading of NACTOR and also has a GNG claim. I don't think there can be said to be consensus to delete here. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Overturn to keep or non consensus Clearly meets GNG and the problems did exist on the nomination. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no censensus - not enough participation to draw a firm delete conclusion (given the valid keep argument). Should have been a relist or (most likely due to length of time listed) a no consensus close. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as even the lone call to keep noted it needed an overhaul. Any editor may request a copy to be placed in their userspace, where they can address the issues for deletion and then see what happens. Tarc ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep or no consensus.

  duffbeerforme ( talk · contribs)'s comment was:

  Keep. His roles in Trollied and Massive (TV series) are both significant and both series are bluelinked. He also has coverage in Shennan, Paddy (3 September 2013), "Boy from The White Stuff; Paddy Shennan talks to the actor who made his TV debut as a pint-sized Reds' fan", Liverpool Echo and Kendall, Paul (18 January 2009), "addendum whatever happened to... the boy from the milk advert", Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Seven'. There still talking about that Milk Marketing Board commercial in 2013 (around 25 years later) so it's not exactly low profile. Article does need a major overhaul. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  He made a convincing argument that WP:BLP1E did not apply because the subject passed WP:NACTOR for his roles in Trollied and Massive. He provided clear evidence that the subject passed Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline by citing two sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Neither the nominator nor the subsequent "delete" comment were able to rebut duffbeerforme's sources. The "delete" comment:

  Delete as no evidence of notability, Both cites are not sufficient enough, He may have appeared in several programmes but that doesn't grant you an article, No sources = No article.

  made bald assertions unsupported by evidence or analysis. How is there no evidence of notability when evidence has been provided? Why are the two sources that provide significant coverage of the subject insufficient? "No sources = No article" is correct, but sources were provided here. This comment should have been given little to no weight.

  The only two possible closes are "no consensus" or "keep". A "keep" close would be the most accurate assessment of the consensus because no one was able to rebut the "keep" comment. A "no consensus" close is also within discretion because of the limited participation.
  
  Sources I found about the subject:
  
  

  1. Shennan, Paddy (2013-09-13). "Liverpool actor Carl Rice is the boy from the White Stuff". Liverpool Echo. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     Scouser Carl Rice can point to an impressive acting CV, which includes current Sky One comedy Trollied and a 10-month run at The National Theatre.

     But people also still want to talk to him about the TV advert he did for the Milk Marketing Board in 1989 – when he was just eight.

     Dressed in Liverpool kit, young Carl tells his pal, who is off camera: “My mum says Ian Rush says, if you don’t drink your milk, you’ll end up playing for Accrington Stanley.”

     His co-star, Kevin Staine, asks: “Accrington Stanley? Who are they?”

     “Exactly!” came the famous reply.

     ...

     Carl starred alongside Tony Robinson in Channel 4’s Storyworld, in ITV’s Children’s Ward and on Brookside for a year, playing Gavin Matthews – “That was mega, because it was the soap – I was about 12 or 13.”

     In 1999, Carl made his stage debut in Jonathan Harvey’s Guiding Star, which premiered at Liverpool’s Everyman Theatre before transferring to the National Theatre...

  2. Geldard, Suzanne (2006-03-16). "Milk boy: Stanley are my 2nd team". Lancashire Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     WHEN Carl Rice utters the word "exactly", the irony isn't lost on him.

     "That wasn't intended to be a pun," he grinned, following his automatic response to a question.

     But it's a word that is inextricably linked to the actor turned writer, turned stand-up comedian, and Accrington Stanley.

     Anyone in their mid-twenties onwards remembers THAT milk advert.

     You know the one? Two young, would-be footballers are standing near a fridge in a kitchen after playing football.

  3. Kendall, Paul (2009-01-18). "addendum whatever happened to... the boy from the milk advert". The Daily Telegraph.

     The article notes:

     Today, the milk drinker is 28 years old. And, despite being a Liverpool fanatic when he filmed the celebrated advert, Carl Rice has not taken up the sport professionally, for Accrington Stanley or any other team.

     He has, however, had a successful acting career. As a child he starred in a number of television shows, including Brookside. Then, at 18 he took the lead in Guiding Star at the National Theatre, a play about a boy from a working-class family who comes out as gay.

     After that he took time off to write a number of television and radio scripts. But, last year, he was back on our screens, starring in two BBC3 programmes - a sketch show called Scallywagga and a six-part comedy series starring Ralf Little and Johnny Vegas called Massive, in which he plays a hopeless record-label executive.

     'The advert gave me my career and I'm grateful for it,' he says. 'But I honestly don't understand why people like it so much.'

     The ad, which was first aired in 1989, has been viewed more than 100,000 times on YouTube and a campaign on Facebook demands: 'Bring back the Accrington Stanley milk advert.'

     'I can have a full beard, and be wearing a hat and glasses and people still recognise me and recite the whole advert,' says Carl. 'It's nuts.'

  4. Stones, Jonathan (2000-10-06). "We Ad a Great Time as Kids; Tracked Down: The Child Stars Who Won the Hearts of Millions". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     CARL Rice grabbed the nation's attention when he wrapped his scouse accent round the words "Accrington Stanley" in a milk ad.

     It won him a "Golden Break" award at the London Palladium for best performance from a child.

     The eight-year-old was inundated with offers of work and made the most of his early success.

     Today, Carl is 20 and an accomplished actor who has been in Bread, Children's Ward, Brookside and Casualty and in Monsignor Renard with John Thaw. He remembers: "A friend of the family mentioned they had seen an ad in the window of a small theatrical agency in Liverpool.

     "They were looking for children and a fresh face for a new milk campaign.

  5. Chapple, Mike (2006-04-01). "Accrington Who? Now They're No Laughing Stock". Liverpool Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     IT WAS the TV advert featuring two little Liverpudlians that made the nation laugh and turned a football club into something of a laughing stock.

     Now soccer manager John Coleman is having the last laugh as he stands on the threshold of a dream fulfilled by taking Accrington Stanley back into the Football League, 44 years after being relegated into non-league wilderness.

     The 1989 advert for the Milk Marketing Board has the then eight-year-old child actor Carl Rice, dressed in the Candy-sponsored Liverpool kit of the time, proclaiming "My mum says Ian Rush says if you don't drink your milk you'll end up playing for Accrington Stanley."

     His co-star Kevin Staine said incredulously: "Accrington Stanley? Who are they?"

     "Exactly!" came the matter-of-fact reply.

     This article is not significant coverage but I am including it here because it could be useful for sourcing.
  6. "Milk ad club has last laugh on Carl". Manchester Evening News. 2006-03-10. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     HE was the cheeky child actor who made Accrington Stanley the laughing stock of football.

     In one of the most popular TV ads of the 1980s, Carl Rice told a pal if he didn't drink his milk he would end up with the shame of playing for the Lancashire club.

     But 18 years later Carl - now a stand-up comedian - is being invited by the club to eat his words.

     ...

     "Exactly," says Carl, in broad Scouse. Carl, who now lives in Whalley Range, said: "That ad took me from a schoolboy in Liverpool to a star around the world.

     "I never got any royalties, because I was a child when it was made and I was paid in rainbow drops, but if I had I would be able to retire now."

  7. "Accrington thank milk advert star". BBC. 2006-03-09. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     The child actor who made Accrington Stanley a household name in a milk commercial is being thanked by the club as they head to the Football League.

     Carl Rice, one of the advert's two stars 18 years ago, will be guest of honour at the club's next home match.

     The 26-year-old who appeared in TV shows such as Brookside, and plays by Willy Russell and Jimmy McGovern is now a writer and stand up comedian.

  8. "Milk ad star is guest of honour". BBC. 2006-03-17. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     The child star who mentioned Accrington Stanley in a milk advert was guest of honour at the team's Conference match against Stevenage on Saturday.

  9. "Milk ad kid backs Reds". Accrington Observer. 2006-03-09. Archived from the original on 2015-03-13. Retrieved 2015-03-13.

     The article notes:

     Carl now lives with his girlfriend in Manchester and after starring in Brookside, Casualty and other hit television shows, he played lead roles in the theatre before taking up script-writing and stand-up comedy.

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

  Cunard ( talk) 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A reading of rough consensus to delete is well within admin discretion to my reading of the discussion. "Keep. ... Article does need a major overhaul" doesn't meet the nomination a week earlier and unambiguous "delete" a week later, with no other comments. It does, however, leave a door open for recreation through userfication. Allow userfication and move back to mainspace when given a major overhaul. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus or relist I just don't see any consensus emerging from the discussion, nor for numbers, nor for arguments. Poor participation did not helped. I suggest close this as no consensus and eventually open a new AfD in a couple weeks. Or just relist this one for one more week and hope there will be more comments. Cavarrone 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• If there is no consensus to overturn, a relist would be a good path forward to discuss the new information I have provided here. Cunard ( talk) 22:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The keep !vote was policy-based and cited specific, pertinent evidence. The delete !votes were cursory and did not refute the arguments against deletion. The closer's perfunctory cloising statement and their cursory response here are disappointing at best, and provide no basis for sustaining the close when the applicable SNG is clearly satisfied and reasonable claims of meeting the GNG have not been substantively contested. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC) With the text of the article when nominated now available, it is painfully obvious that neither the nomination nor its sole supporting !vote was substantively valid. Arguinjg that a shortlist nomination for "the highest honour in British theatre" should not be taken into account in assessing notability is preposterous. The close was simply atrocious. Speedy overturn to Keep. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Have you found a reference which substantiates this shortlisting? I haven't been able to, though of course I may not have searched for the right thing. Cunard's list above also doesn't seem to mention it. If this was an A7 then ignoring it would perhaps be problematic, but for an AfD bald claims without a real reference and none findable should of course count for little. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to NC and probably Relist as well. With the extra attention this discussion has garnered we should be able to get a better consensus second time around. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC). reply
• temporarily undelete of history to permit reconsideration here DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

George Cofield ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Discussion was still going on. The individual was clearly notable as one of the first Karate Instructors in America. [15] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I had just posted 2 comments and was waiting for replies when the discussion was closed. One user stated that he would consider changing his vote. He was an instuctor during a time of extreme racism. Which is why there was the formation of the Black Karate Federation. [16]. He is considered to be one of the forgotten 12 black masters. [17] He was entered in the Martial Arts Encyclopedia. [18], a Karate Coach [19] and the subject of a 3 page article in black belt [20] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- DRV is not a venue to re-argue the AfD, and there is no indication that the closing admin misread the discussion. This was a proper close. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per User:Reyk, the sources were simply lacking, the person who indicated they might change their opinion if there were more good sources, to which you replied pretty much no the sources you had were all poor. I'd have to suspect the sources then were all ones in the article which they had already examined, so I can't see any reason to believe the opinion would be changed. In fact the user had further commented elsewhere in the AFD well after that particular exchange to say "hese sources are passing mentions or blogs or otherwise not what GNG would consider reliable sources." This as the below for Duncan tends to indicate why it's important you spend more time seeking to have fewer good quality sources properly cited. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

CommentMany reviewers simply did not SEE the strong quality source provided by black belt magazine. The other sources were strong including ^[1], Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 2, ^[2], in the book "Black Heroes of the Martial Arts" he ^[3]has another strong piece written about him and is featured in advertisements. ^[4] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is just merely rearguing the AFD how many attempts do you want. If this results in endorsing are you still going to stick your head in the sand and say that people here simply didn't see... Disagreeing with your assessment is not the same as not seeing it. The idea that being featured in adverts is somehow magical and elevates notability is pretty far wide of the mark -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 16:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I was wondering who this person 86 was, but its my "favorite" critic of anything I do and the stalker of my userfied articles. [21] Can you find it in your heart to stay away from me. Thank you 86! CrazyAces489 ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  You do know that shouting is rude? I have been a participant in DRV for years. Yes your claim of hounding for having massively improved the format of references in a userfied article of yours, a claim made after months of having doing so with no comment or query from you for doing so. Yes I'm pure evil, how dare I improve things. I do not intend to ignore things bought up here based on your delusional claims of stalking. In fact since I am regular here, perhaps you could find it in your heart to stay away from me, by not listing stuff here? (That isn't a serious request BTW) -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

interesting that you claim i am being delusional, but I had to post an AN/I about you. [22] CrazyAces489 ( talk) 17:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have claimed that your statement is delusional, as to if you are delusional, merely trying to discredit those who disagree with you or otherwise I guess everyone will need to judge for themselves. You do realise that anyone can list something on AN/I and doing so proves nothing and you weren't force to. Regardless Nice selective diff, let's see the end state of that discussion here with the final statement from a third party being "At this point it is not likely this is going to get an admin response. I see nothing wrong with the IPs actions, CA needs to take criticism better.". I don't intend to carry on this sideshow you are creating to try and distract from the underlying issue DRV has to determine, I'll trust whoever closes this to evaluate and weigh all input to the discussion as appropriate. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

What the AN/I did do was cause you to lower your annoying behavior. So mission was accomplished, until now. All the best and back to this DRV . CrazyAces489 ( talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - given the WP:IDHT way the discussion was going, closure was appropriate. I have concerns about the validity of WP:MANOTE because of discussions like this one (I have come across others) and I think that it should be reviewed. User- and project-submitted notability guidelines are meant to be general indicators of whether or not a subject is likely to pass WP:GNG, GNG being the only criterion that matters. Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is always required. Also, per WP:STALK, please consider using a different word to describe critics of your work. Ivanvector ( talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  It's better than just claiming hounding, apparently now everyone who disagrees with him must be sockpuppets -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Not everyone, you don't see Ivanvector on it. He has disagreed with me but has remained cordial. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ron Duncan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was previously deleted due to lack of reliable sources. I have since found reliable sources including one from Black Belt Magazine. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I previously tried a deletion review and was told to recreate and AFD the article. I had no assistance after the recreation. It was AFD'd by someone else and speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted article (from my recollection). I believe that had the previous sources been available, this article would not have been deleted the first time around. The previous vote was 1 keep and 2 weak deletes. Here is the black belt magazine article. [23] I would like the current draft to be sent to mainspace after the deletion review is done. /info/en/?search=Draft:Ron_Duncan CrazyAces489 ( talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• No need to rely on recollection the full history of the events is still around:
  • AfD Jan 2012 3 deletes (nominator and 2 "weak" delete opinons, 1 keep)
  • DRV Oct 2014 outcome "Deletion Endorsed"
  • Ronald Duncan (martial arts) recreation of the article under a new title via a cut and paste of the previous article, shortly after the DRV closed
  • Afd 2 Dec 21 this afd of the retitled article, closed as the article was G4 deleted whilst the AFD ran.
  • declined Feb 15 noting a possible copyvio issue. I think it's actually a mirror rather than a copyvio problem.
  • decline removed Feb 18
  • decline restored Feb 18 with edit summary not to remove again
  • decline removed again, prior to this DRV Mar 11

So last DRV was deletion endorsed though some people opined for a relist. You restored that shortly after the DRV closed, then AFDd that a couple of months later when pointed out to you that you'd ignored the DRV consensus. Though much of that doesn't matter much as to if we should have an article or not. Last DRV people pointed out various problems with the quality of the article and the references. Those don't seem to have been addressed having merely accumulated many more trivial mentions. It's still cited to totally unreliable sources like Tumblr, assorted blogs and "Poetry Nation". At time of writing this it also has a big red Citation error visible in the text. Again this is stuff which is all fixible, but really it's far easier to assess an article which has been fixed - quality not quantity. The item you list in your nom is on page 24 of that edition and is half a page so is certainly a lot better than the other refs I've looked at from the article, as GNG requires multiple sources are there any more sources like this hidden amoungst the crowd? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist I have previously looked at this source on my talkpage. I think the new source is good enough for us to revisit this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hidden Gems

Passing Mention in this book, "The father of American Ninjitsu" [24]

Passing mention in 1977 article in black belt magazine "first known black to teach martial arts in america" ^[5]

1965 biography in black belt magazine. ^[6]

On the Cover of Official Karate Magazine ^[7]

4 page article in ATTU Magazine pages 98-101 ^[8]

About a paragraph entry on the book "Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 2"

6 featured Covers or 14 Cover and Articles on various major Martial Arts Magazines ^[9]

Popular Science Magazine utilized him as an expert of paper daggers. ^[10]

1999 black belt magazine listed him in a short paragraph along with 2 other individuals who popularized martial arts in the west. ^[11]

• Allow recreation - sources at minimum warrant a new AfD. Most likely one is not needed and article can just be kept. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Move Draft:Ron Duncan to main space, then list at AfD - I don't think this belongs at DRV, but per others' comments elsewhere it seems we have a bit of a loophole in our processes for recreating articles deleted per a deletion discussion. The last version to be deleted by consensus is here, and you can see that quite a bit of work has gone into it in the meantime, so WP:G4 does not apply. If there was a cut-and-paste copy created it's been dealt with; although there have been many page moves, the history is intact at Draft:Ron Duncan (as of this edit). I am concerned that the sheer volume of trivial references may indicate citation overkill used to show notability where there is none, and since it's been deleted before I'd like to see it pass Afd, but moving it to mainspace first will help keep all of the various deletion discussions in order (otherwise the draft goes to Mfd and then it just gets confusing). Ivanvector ( talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ivanvectorwhat do you feel is the correct place for a deleted article after it has been approved? When I recreated an article, it was speedily deleted, when I made an article and brought it to AFD, they quickly closed it saying this was not the place, when I brought it to AFC they said this was not the place. Now you are saying DRV isn't the place? In all honesty, where do i go? CrazyAces489 ( talk) 22:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

No when DRV endorsed the deletion and you then immediately recreated without making any improvements or trying to address the concerns of the AFD or DRV it got speedy deleted - well it got speedy deleted a few months later when it was noticed that you'd simply moved it to a different title. Had the article been sufficiently improved (and by that I don't mean adding in a trillion more unreliable sources, trivial mentions, "impressive" factoids etc.) then it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. In this case more work has been done on the article and a couple of the sources seem fairly reasonable. The article is still a long way off what a wikipedia article should look like, and you need to seriously cull many of the sources - "Poetry Nation" is not a reliable source, "tumblr" is not a reliable source, most blogs are not going to be reliable sources etc. This should all come as no shock to you, since you've been told it a thousand times. Doing this and removing the junk will make the case that he is notable and that it is significantly improved over the deleted version far easier to make (and as IvanVector says above removes the tarnish of citation overkill -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Gladstone (humorist) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hi,

I've recently found that author/comedian Gladstone's page has been deleted, and on reviewing the article for deletion, the reason seems to be a lack of significant independent coverage. I believe that this may not be valid, and as such have contacted the administrator who removed the post ( missvain), who kindly directed me to the deletion review process as I was the second person to enquire about the deletion. User anotherskirt has yesterday posted a comprehensive account of independent sources on the article for deletion page, including the following:

1. An interview with author Wayne Gladstone on Tor.com http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/03/the-pop-quiz-at-the-end-of-the-universe-wayne-gladstone

2. An interview with author Wayne Gladstone in Esquire http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a27719/what-is-the-internet-doing-to-us-really/

3. A review of his novel Notes from The Internet Apocalypse in The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/notes-from-the-internet-apocalypse-the-tropic-of-serpents-and-the-stone-boatmen/2014/03/18/bcfb869c-a9e0-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html

4. A review of his novel in the Onion A/V Club http://www.avclub.com/review/debut-novel-cracked-writer-just-trolling-its-reade-201674

5. A review of his novel in the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2014/03/12/notes_from_the_internet_apocalypse_review.html

6. A review of his novel in Kirkus https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/wayne-gladstone/notes-from-the-internet-apocalypse/

As well as a list of Wikipedia articles in which Gladstone is mentioned by name:

1. As a Cracked columnist: /info/en/?search=Cracked.com

2. As a notable graduate of Syosset High School /info/en/?search=Syosset_High_School

3. As a reference for this Blade Runner entry /info/en/?search=Themes_in_Blade_Runner

4. As a winner of Literary Death Match /info/en/?search=Literary_Death_Match

In addition to the above, I have found:

- An interview with Wayne Gladstone on Fusion Live http://fusion.net/video/2075/the-internet-apocalypse-is-it-the-end-of-the-web-as-we-know-it/

- An interview with Wayne Gladstone on WBEZ.org with Claire Zulkey - http://www.wbez.org/blogs/claire-zulkey/2012-09/gladstone-interview-102226

- Publishers Weekly announcement of three-book deal for the Internet Apocalypse series http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/book-deals/article/57830-book-deals-week-of-june-17-2013.html

Given the number of significant independent sources listed by anotherskirt in the article for deletion, as well as the context of Gladstone being a published author with another 2 books being released in the Internet Apocalypse series, I wonder if it's possible to undelete this page so it can continue to be used as a centralised source of information for this author.

Thank you very much StrictlyGenteel ( talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore to draftspace Why the admin wouldnt cooperate is anyone's guess. If not draftspace then relist. 185.58.82.6 ( talk) 14:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore to draft space as basis for an article. Quite possibly notable enough that a proper article would pass afd . DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore to draft. I won't go so far as to say the closing admin did anything wrong, but she didn't go out of her way to provide the very best service either. For the close itself, I possibly would have relisted it for another week. Two participants is pretty thin to base a consensus on. Also, while you don't have to arm-wrestle with somebody, a polite enquiry on your talk page deserves more of a response than a brush-off to DRV. In any case, absolutely no reason not to put this on draft and give somebody the opportunity to integrate the sources found. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Robey Reed ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I hope I'm doing correctly, it's my first DRV. I think the closing admin was premature in closing this as "no consensus". He discounted the two IP votes, which cancelled each other out, but the only other keep vote was from the article's creator. As closing admin, Deryk said he felt there was enough coverage to meet GNG although the delete votes specifically disagreed. In the discussion about his decision User talk:Papaursa#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robey Reed I noted he had closed the discussion two days after it was relisted with only an IP's addition for input. I also asked him to just reopen the discussion until it would have closed under the relisting (he said no) and asked him what sources he thought showed GNG was met. My disagreement with the sources he mentioned can be found at that same discussion on my talk page. I simply feel his decision was hasty and I would like additional editors to have a chance to have their say. I don't think the article's creator wanting to keep the article is sufficient to declare there's no consensus. Papaursa ( talk) 02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. First, discounting IP contributions out of hand is plainly wrong, totally unjustifiable, and offensive to the many editors who make excellent contributions to Wikipedia but choose not to have an account. There is nothing wrong with IP editing; nor is it wrong to "contribute to anything other than AfDs in recent weeks". Indeed, right here, one of DRV's most valued long-term contributors uses an IP address (86.2.216.5). Second, in this case, the closing admin seemed to wade into the debate himself and assess the sources against the GNG for himself. Not a good idea, especially when it is not done correctly. The closing admin considered that three sources constituted "detailed coverage". But this is just a demonstration sequence featuring Robey Reed and means absolutely nothing for his notability; this appears promising until you realise that the USJA is not the principal judo organising body in the US, and given that Robey founded the USJA, it can hardly be considered independent coverage; and this, regardless of what it says about Mr Reed (we have no idea), looks to be a self-published book of minor local interest. This guy comes nowhere near passing the GNG. The "no consensus" close was manifestly incorrect. Deletion was the only outcome open to the closing administrator and I'd have confidently closed it as such without even re-listing it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I don't have any strong opinion on the outcome itself, but I do agree with User:Mkativerata that ignoring IPs simply because they aren't logged in is wrong. My personal opinion is that anonymous editing should not be allowed, but it is long-standing policy that it is [IP editing is allowed], so we admins should not discount them out of hand in discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Struck part of my comment above, after reading the op-ed piece in today's NY Times. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist - given the discussion I would agree with the "no consensus" result, but respectfully the close was poorly done. It was only two days after having been relisted, and discounting IP comments just because they're IP comments is improper (as would be discounting the page creator's comments). At the very least it should be relisted and allowed to run for the proper period. Ivanvector ( talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn a bit scary this one, an admin who discount's IPs and can't evaluate sources. Of the three the closing admin says he think are good (1) "For a martial artist I'd accept that as coverage of the person as well as the move." - erm GNG, "addresses the topic directly and in detai", this isn't any sort of biographical coverage of the person let alone addressing it directly and in detail (2) Apparently a half page bio, well doesn't appear that way to me it's a pretty trivial coverage with much space (30-50%) dedicated to the lineage of USJA. (3) A self published source as best I can tell, searching worldcat etc. and no one seems to have it. Google books does at least list it though the details are more than a tad confused there (published in 1914?) -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin: I wish to clarify two things.
  • The "early closure" occurred because the AfD was improperly relisted. See the discussion at User talk:Coffee#Incomplete_AfD_relisting. I apologise for compounding the mistake rather than rectifying it.
  • I discounted the IP votes because they were rotating IPs with no recent contributions to anything other than AfDs, so the editors' standing could not be established as I could not assume they were the same people who made the previous edits using the same IPs. I would've very happily counted 86.2.216.5's vote (or that of any other fixed-IP user with extensive edit history) if they participated in the discussion.

This sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. Quoting from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith. If you have reason to believe there's bad faith (i.e. puppetry, campaigning, fraud, etc), that's a reason to discount. But, using an unstable IP address is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to assume bad faith. People who edit from mobile devices or public access terminals will have a different IP every time. Judge the argument on its own merits. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The sentence immediately after your quotation above says "Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." ;) Der yck C. 11:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Otherwise I welcome Papaursa's decision to take this to DRV, and indeed I hope to use this as a test case on the interpretation of notability guidelines. Der yck C. 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete I'll admit to some bias since I started the AfD but I didn't see any evidence of him meeting the notability criteria for martial artists and lacking clear evidence of that I default to GNG. I found no significant independent coverage of the subject. Mdtemp ( talk) 19:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Discounting the IPs is broadly irrelevant as there was one on each side of the debate. However, WP:RELIST says "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"; as such, a no-consensus closure does not fall within correct process, therefore overturn and relist. Stifle ( talk) 10:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• deny and keep article or possible redirect to United States Judo Association This individual is clearly notable in the history of Judo. He is one of America's first 6 degree black belts in Judo. ^[1] He is a co-founder of the United States Judo Association, he meets WP:MANOTE, he experienced success ^[2] despite the racism that African Americans experienced during that era. ^[3] He is the subject of an independent article. ^[4] Medalist in multiple divisions ^[5] I have previously heard that DRV isn't AFD part 2, but this is clearly what is being attempted. MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (Judo), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cofield, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest R. Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odell Terry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Evans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robey Reed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Geis (judo). The only one to survive the AFD so far are Karl Geis (judo) (who happens to be white) and James Thompson (Judo) who was a national champion and member of the US National Team. CrazyAces489 ( talk) 13:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Procedural Relist to generate more inpuit per Stifle. 7 days is 7 days.And thanks to Mkativerata and RoySmith for defending IP users. We are truly treated as second-class citizens these days, most of the time either ignored or when not ignored yelled at ('troll!' 'sockpupet' and the like happened to me more times then i'd care to remember). 185.58.82.6 ( talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist there was a bona fide debate on the criteria for notability. Some of the arguments for notability were contrary to established practice (e.g., that the armed forcers championship showed notability), others were relevant, founder of a notable organization which is at least partial grounds for notability in any field. The ip contributions just reiterated other arguments, so it's irrelevant who made it--even if we were counting votes they cancel each other. It is incorrect to reject established ipa because of no recent contributions; the 204. editor seems to appear here only to vote for deletion of articles, but the articles are generally deleted by consensus (the account has also sen used for vandalism, but presumable by a different person) . The 24. account seems to have been used for a variety of purposes, good and bad. Although a relisted AfD can be closed at any time, it seems a little inconsistent to close it after only one more contributon when the closer does't consider that contribution relevant. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I don't see the need to relist. The debate had gone on for the necessary 168 hours and had attracted sufficient participation to evaluate its outcome, so I don't see how the close was premature. I don't think there was any consensus in that debate. So to that extent I endorse the close ---- to that extent but not much farther. I don't see anything in the debate that would make me go hunting through the IP addresses' contribution history, and I wouldn't really endorse the attitude to IP addresses the closer expresses above, and the assessment of sources in the close isn't something I would endorse either. So I'm not willing to say that I endorse the close as a whole, but I don't see the need to overturn or relist it, so I think the best way to phrase my recommendation to whoever closes this DRV is take no action.— S Marshall T/ C 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse NC close. We don't (or shouldn't) continually relist nominations, and there was ample evidence there that a consensus would not be reached. However, I cannot endorse the comment about IP addresses; arguments presented by anonymous editors should be assigned the same weight that the same comment would get if it were contributed by a regular. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC). reply

Plowback retained earnings ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly and I would like to request that his/her closure be reviewed.

As the discussion was quite extensive, and determining the consensus required the analysis of material from more than one page, I have prepared a table which will hopefully make reviewing the closure easier for uninvolved editors. The table contains all the relevant arguments and observations that were either made during the course of the discussion or that were made prior to the discussion but were directly or indirectly linked to during the discussion. Each entry is followed by a diff or a number of diffs that point to the statement(s) where the arguments/observations were made. The diffs are provided for convenience only.

The subject of the discussion was whether the Plowback retained earnings redirect should be deleted. The outcome of the debate was, in my opinion erroneously, determined to be "no consensus."

Note: The matter was discussed with the closing administrator prior to the opening of this review, see User_talk:BDD#Plowback retained earnings 2.

@ Iaritmioawp:@ BDD:@ Ivanvector:@ SimonTrew:@ Steel1943:I am pinging the participants of the discussion so that they can check whether the above table accurately represents the arguments for/against deleting the redirect that were either made or linked to during the discussion. If anyone believes an argument to have been either omitted or misrepresented, please leave a comment to that effect so that I can update the table; please remember to include pertinent diffs where necessary. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn No argument in favor of keeping the redirect was left standing by the time the discussion concluded. As merely counting keeps and deletes isn't an acceptable way of assessing consensus, the closure should be overturned and the redirect deleted. Another problematic thing about the closure is that it was performed by an WP:INVOLVED administrator. Common sense would dictate that if you close a discussion in a controversial manner, [42] explicitly endorse said closure in its deletion review, [43] and then participate in round two of essentially the same discussion, [44] it would probably be a good idea to leave the closing of that second discussion to another administrator, even if technically you aren't required to. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist and let someone else close. Personally I can see no possible reason for the redirect, but in any case the same person should not have closed the second discussion. If that is not formally stated anywhere, it's because it would seem to be utterly obvious. For the same person to close a second time inherently defeats the purpose of a second listing, for this or any XfD or related process. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. A previous closer is WP:INVOLVED. As per DGG. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Wrong forum. Nobody's arguing about the target, we're arguing about the redirect. And it appears more tricky than it might seem at first. None of us arguing at WP:RFD, the right forum, has any problem with where it goes. "Useful" involves a bit of clairvoyancy because we can't see what people type and what they want to find, but if they did type this then where would they want to get: and we don't get stats for the because the R takes them straight to where they want to get. It is hard, then, at RfD to do thigs on stats: have to be a bit clairvoyant, unfortunately. Thanks for pinging me in, and I know I'm in a minority with my opinion. Si Trew ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Having commented in the discussion, it was not appropriate for BDD to close it. In any case, as per the analysis of the discussion by Iaritmioawp, the closure was not one to which any reasonable administrator would have come. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Just to be clear, Stifle, it's your opinion that an administrator who has made a general comment on a discussion is unfit to close that discussion? -- BDD ( talk) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  I'm sure you've already found a listing which I've done so, but I will refer you to WP:INVOLVED, which says "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community". Stifle ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

No, I haven't done so, and I wouldn't seek to make this personal. INVOLVED also says "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." -- BDD ( talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and reassess - I have no more comments to make on the redirect itself, you can read my opposing comments in the two discussions if you think it should influence this deletion review. On the close, generally I am comfortable with BDD's closes and I was comfortable with this one, based on the discussion, but since it's clearly controversial, it makes sense that the close should be overturned and an uninvolved closer allowed to reassess the discussion and immediately re-close or relist as they see fit, simply to eliminate the controversy. That's all. Ivanvector ( talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'm not going to offer an opinion on how this review should be closed (in part, because I closed the last one). I don't know if it's strictly against the rules for somebody to participate in a discussion and then close it, or to close two discussions on the same item, but as the saying goes, If you're explaining, you're losing. Worse than that, we're all losing. We're supposedly trying to figure out if a redirect should be deleted or not, but that discussion is now hopelessly intertwined with a meta-discussion about process, and whichever way this goes, someobody will have their nose out of joint about it. It also astounds me that such a non-consequential thing as a redirect has wasted so much time. Two RfD's? Two DRV's? We're here to write an encyclopedia, people, not indulge in some wiki-lawyer role playing fantasy. -- RoySmith (talk)
• Overturn just to make everyone happy. I'm not at all convinced by the alleged "you can't close a second XfD on the same X" limb of WP:INVOLVED. But it seems to have created a massive out-of-proportion blow-up here and that's good enough reason just to re-list and re-close it. Like RoySmith, I have always felt that there are few things on Wikipedia more asinine than redirect wars (article-title wars would have to come a close second). Seriously, there is a PhD thesis on human behaviour to be written here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow a relist. The comment BDD made at RFD2 [45] was, I think, not expressing an opinion on the validity of the redirect and should not disqualify him from closing later. Some other types of administrative comment (e.g. "personal attacks will be disregarded") are also of this nature. Closing both RFDs [46] [47] is probably not the best thing to do but I think is OK provided the closer has not previously expressed a substantive view. However, the discussion before DRV1 (but not the endorsing of his close of RFD1) does come close to expressing a substantive view. [48] In both RFDs it seems to me the discussions led to a lack of consensus and the job of the closer is not to discount opinions which have been criticised as lacking sound editorial judgement but to discount errors of fact, completely irrelevant criteria, socking, abuse, etc. The criticisms this nomination raises of other opinions are all of judgement, not fact. Finally, I think the greatest lack of judgement demonstrated here is in the raising of all these RFDs and DRVs. Thincat ( talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn & Delete per Stifle & DGG. involved admin - failing to recognise obvious consensus... twice - wikilawyering minor points blind to the elephant in the room - personalizing the dispute and poking the bear god only knows why (the closing remarks where he says he's tagged the redirect unprintworhty to ' make you' (who's 'you', and whys it there to begin with) 'feel better' and his smug talk papge reply, the guy comes to him says he wants to complain about the close, whats the reply? 'yes, I know you do', inacceptable imo - textbook example of bad close. I Strong Oppose Relisting, enough time was wasted on this (what to me appears as) nonsense (both the pointless redirect and the walls of text written about it), and I want the 10 minutes of my life back that it took me to look at all this baloney... but Im not getting it back am I now?? None of us are and enough is enough 185.58.82.6 ( talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Intercollegiate Studies Institute ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

A well-sourced and neutral article of good quality which was unfairly claimed to be "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I have tried to discuss with the editor who deleted it, but his reply indicated that communication is fruitless. Jonund ( talk) 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the "discussion" you had with the deleting admin is here, where he points out various items which are problematic, your response to which seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what promotional content is. Anyone familiar with the admin in question I think would find it fair to say (at least) they err on the side of inclusion. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 14:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AfD, and trout nom. I'm really conflicted here. First, Jonund needs some extensive piscatorial attitude adjustment. One can object to an action without being snotty about it. You usually get a better response that way, too. And, while I agree that the recent versions are pretty bad, if you go back far enough, you can find versions which look reasonable. I'd toss this on the AfD pile and see what the community thinks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I did a little googling on this. I've found sufficient sources ( NY Times, NY Times, New York Sun, Chronicle of Higher Education, Bloomberg) in mainstream national media (OK, maybe The Sun doesn't count as mainstream) to convince me that even if the current article is a mess (and the current set of sources a hopeless mix of first-person references and non-credible blogs), the subject stands a decent chance of surviving AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The IP's input is a vote for censorship. To claim, for instance, that a phrase like "[I]SI fights alleged political correctness and liberal bias..." is promotional doesn't make sense. The word 'alleged' indicates a neutral description of ISI's program. It is not much better to complain at "[I]SI also grants its most talented student journalists ...". That is not a claim that ISI's students are more talented than others, just information that not all but only their most talented students are granted summer internships and fellowships. You need much fantasy to find all those statements promotional. There are clearly other motives behind the deletion.

It's an insult to all the editors who have worked on the article over the years to call it "blatant promotion" and claim that there is "Not much worth salvaging". A honest measure - if you really believe there are problems with the article - is to suggest better wordings. User:DGG didn't even bother to take it to WP:AfD. I have no problem with discussing constructively with people who disagree deeply with me, but this is not a mere disagreement. It is a nasty incident, indeed. -- Jonund ( talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The IP's input is not a vote for censorship (or a vote at all), it's a comment based on understanding (a) the deleting admin's normal outlook (b) an understanding of what promotional wording is and (c) a reaction when recognizing the ranting and rhetoric of those who have no wish to reason, merely demand. "I have no problem with discussing constructively", yet your words here and on the deleting admins page tell quite a different story. If you do indeed stop frothing and discuss reasonably in an attempt to understand what the problem is, and what might be done to resolve it, rather than merely insist on your own personal infallibility, I'm happy to reconsider my opinion. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I guess I should not have written while I was angry; my formulation became unnecessarily harsh. But the fact remains, DGG abused his administrators privileges by speedydeleting and insulted editors with the blatantly false claim that there is not much to salvage. That is what made me angry, not the idea that the article is promotional, which can always be discussed. Response to abuse and insults are not a good measure of my ability to talk constructively. Endorsement of the speedydelete is a call for censorship. Give the normal edit procedure a chance instead. -- Jonund ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

One persons censorship is another persons editing and good housekeeping. Wikipedia has inclusion standards, things not meeting those standards get deleted, that crappy garage band etc. if those writing those articles merely shout censorship, then we don't bend and say you know what we'll include that crap. Jumping up and down shouting censorship for cases like this without demonstrating any basis for such claims is not in any way persuasive. If you think it's going to appeal to some sense of "oh no censorship" reaction I don't want to be labelled with that, then you are mistaken, for me it has quite the opposite effect because for me it undermines any other more credible argument you may present. (Not that at this point I think it matters much given the rest of the discussion here) -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 22:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• If a NPOV editor is willing to work with it, I would be perfectly willing to undelete. it was deleted because neither I nor the speedy nominator saw any way to make this non-promotional without starting over entirely, but if someone else wants a try, I have no objections. I think, actually, that we ought to have an article on the subject. RoySmith? DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Roy Smith's version reads as unbiased, although it needs much work. Restore it, and persuade Intercollegiate and Jonund to leave it alone? The deleted version does not actually contain many more claims of fact, and reads like a cut-and-paste of its web-page (which, if true, would be a copyright violation, contrary to policy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I was the CSD nominator and I agree with DGG's analysis. In response to Roy's comments, I think going back to 2006 for a neutral version is more than a bit extreme. I'm sure a lot has happened to ISI since then, and that 2006 version wasn't exactly a GA candidate or anything. I have no doubt that the subject is notable and deserves an article; but that's not what G11 is about. G11 is about efficiently scrubbing blatant promotion, which is anathema to the project. Btw I would be open to stubbing the article down to its intro. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 08:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If there were no reasonable historical version to go back to, then I agree the need to be fundamentally rewritten clause of G11 would come into play here. But, we have an extant plausible place to back up to (and I'm certainly willing to entertain that there might be better places in the history; I didn't do an exhaustive search) so that seems like the right thing to do. As for Pmanderson's concern that specific editors might steer the article into the weeds again, well, that's life on a wiki. We have lots of tools, ranging from just watching the page, to semi-protection and on up to topic bans, to deal with that. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the subject is something which should be covered in an encyclopedia. Let's not shy away from having articles on good subjects just because they are controversial or attract spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn with option to list at AFD. The article has a very substantial history and may even predate the introduction of CSD:G11. I am unconvinced that neither an earlier version nor some heavy trimming would suffice as an alternative to deletion. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to Afd. This page was not "blatant advertising". It is certainly overtly puffy and promotional, but not only did it not need to be fundamentally rewritten, it seems it could have been de-puffed rather easily, and thus its fate should have been put to the community through a proper deletion discussion. Trout nominator for their unnecessary abrasive communication style - that is no way to work in a collaborative environment. Ivanvector ( talk) 14:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Come on. This is unadulterated spam too. It - the version RoySmith highlights - starts by saying "As members, these individuals take advantage of a host of programs designed to supplement a collegiate education and to provide access to resources that will help one achieve a genuine liberal arts education". Great! Sign me up! Most of the rest of the article is a non-independent description of the programmes that the Institute offers. Now, this part of the article is not written in a flowery way. But it doesn't need to be to warrant G11 deletion. The most insidious spam is the non-flowery spam, purporting to be written neutrally but offering nothing other than a promotion of an organisation and its services. In this case, the "Programming" section is nothing other than a list of services designed to attract young students. I disagree with DGG about many things. But he knows spam when he sees it and this article was spam right from the outset. Through every single revision of its history. The spam crisis on Wikipedia is currently of gargantuan proportions. The last thing we need to be doing is failing to recognise it when it is there, or getting in the way of administrators and CSD-taggers doing the hard yards to get rid of it. Good deletion. More please. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Describing the programs neutrally is not a promotion of the organisation, nor a way of attracting students. It tells about the activity and profile of the organisation, and should be included in all articles about organisations. In case the wordings are not sufficiently neutral, that should be easy to fix. -- Jonund ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn CSD apply only where they apply. The article didnt meet g11 specs so there shouldve been no g11 deletion. Same time, i object to Stifle's idea that new content rules dont apply to old content... yes they do. Or did I misunderstand the comment (that mustve been it) 185.58.82.6 ( talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Undelete A quick search turned up a surprising number of RS articles. The subject would appear to be notable. Not having seen the recent spammy/promotional article version, I can't comment on the G11 aspect, but it could be restored, stubbed, and improved. Capitalismojo ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The recent version can be read here -- Jonund ( talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete. Even if the article has been written in an overly promotional style before, it should certainly be possible to allow it to be rewritten in a neutral style. This is a long-standing organization which has been active for over 60 years and is of national scope in the United States. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Peggy Willis-Aarnio and Paul Aarnio.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Permission has been shown by the photographer of this image at OTRS [49], so an administrator needs to restore the file and add the {{ OTRS permission}} template, at Commons. And close the OTRS thread. Rcsprinter¹²³ (comms) @ 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Screenshot illustrating formatting of block quotes on Wikipedia formatted for mobile phones.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

This was speedy deleted under F5, unused non-free for 7 days. However, this image was a Wikipedia screenshot, and so is obviously free. The nominator and deleter are both apparently arguing that the fact that it's free is irrelevant because the editor mistakenly placed a fair use tag instead of a free content tag. After receiving the speedy deletion notice, the uploader responded on their talk page, and also on the image description page, explaining this, and both comments were apparently ignored. It seems blatantly obvious to me that fair use speedy deletion only applies to images that are actually fair use. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Oiyarbepsy: Could you update your request above to include links to the various edits you cite? That would make it a lot easier to follow this. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry, forgot, already discussed in detail at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of Wikipedia screenshots used in talk pages Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse WP:NFCCE §2 only requires that the file is marked as unfree. As this was the case, the deletion was correct. However, if the uploader agrees to clean up the file information page, he should be given assistance, should he choose to go to WP:REFUND. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • To summarize Stefan: At Wikipedia, we don't bite newcomers, and we'll delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. We are not a bureaucracy, but we'll delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. We assume good faith, but we'll ignore your good faith explanations and delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. I'm I seriously the only person who sees something wrong with this? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Deletion tags on pages created by new editors always means a bit biting, unfortunately, and the number of people who deal with file issues is too small. You might have noticed c:User:Krdbot and User:ImageTaggingBot which automatically tag files for deletion, mainly if uploaded by a new user who doesn't know how to properly upload files. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
      • If bots are placing the tags, that makes it more important to be cautious about deleting, not less important. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Whether or not the initial speedy deletion was understandable, there's no reason to stand on ceremony and bureaucracy now that the unnecessary deletion has been pointed out. Wikipedia's image policies are very, very difficult for the average user to understand, much less follow to the letter. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment If the original uploader wishes to remove the FUR and non fee license tags, and reset it up with the correct license, then I don't see a problem (in reality there's nothing to actually stop him uploading it again). If he had just asked me to that I would have done it for him, rather than going for discussions all over the place. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 20:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Deleting files because of obviously technical violations like this strikes me as a contradiction to the policy NOT BUREAUCRACY. It's not as if that policy applied to everything except images. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I noticed this image while deleting orphans that day, and—when my first try at remembering {{ wikipedia-screenshot}}'s title was a redlink—skipped it, with the intent to look harder for the right template when the rest of the images were dealt with. I hadn't thought there was any possibility of another admin deleting it before then. Turns out I was wrong. @ Ronhjones: will you please just undelete the image so we can retag it and put this kerfuffle behind us? — Cryptic 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) edited for clarity; original version — Cryptic 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  •  Done and it's now been set it up as a free image Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• As the uploader, I would just like to say that I don't overly care about reinstating this particular image (the conversation it was used in has since been archived). I was more concerned about the principle. I mistakenly clicked the wrong options on the Upload Wizard and thought that the image was deleted because Wikipedia policy does not allow for using Wikipedia screenshots on talk pages, which I thought was bizarre, because no one had explained that the real problem was that the image was incorrectly tagged. I didn't bother appealing the deletion because I assumed it was the policy that was lacking as I didn't see where Wikipedia screenshots would fit in the classes of allowable images. Although I'm not exactly a newcomer to Wikipedia, I don't upload images often. I am disappointed in Stefan2's attitude in ignoring my responses to the proposed deletion (and defending this position in doing so) and Ronhjones in summarily deleting the image without regard for my explanation. I would hope that admins would take greater care when hapless users try to do the right thing even when they aren't sure of the "right" way. — sroc  💬 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the deleting admin has clearly not checked what was being deleted. I was considering just restoring this and fixing the incorrect licensing, but it is better to have a clear outcome of the deletion review. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'll !vote Overturn just on the principal of the thing, but I'm surprised at the obvious violations of WP:BURO. It doesn't really matter at this point if the image is restored as the uploader has commented that it served it's purpose. I'm more appalled at the behavior of Stefan and the deleting admin, and their continued denial that this was problematic. I can understand that maybe it was deleted quickly without looking into it much, but after it was pointed out how ridiculous this delete was and it still wasn't reinstated is kind of sad. I think some apologies to the uploader may be in order here. I don't upload images often either, and when I have it's been confusing, this is without a doubt a violation of WP:BITE. Can we please use common sense here? - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn with a side of trout. We expect sysops to look at what they're deleting before they press the button.— S Marshall T/ C 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • We have to believe what is placed on the page - for all we know the uploader may have wanted a non-free image for some unexplained reason - the non free template was there as was a nicely filled out Fair Use Rationale - so thay had obviously taken their time over it. I've deleted >20,000 images in the last 6 months, this is the first to have a deletion review. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • You mean what the uploader said on the page right below the speedy delete template in this revision? Where the uploader stated that it's nonsensical for Wikipedia to violate its own copyright? So, you have to believe the template that's placed on the page, but it's okay to flagrantly ignore an entire paragraph of text on the page? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Ronhjones: As I said above, I used the Upload Wizard which has a series of prompts and requires the uploader to fill in certain information. The fact that the template automatically inserted on the image page was populated with information is derived from these mandatory fields. The file name, the description beginning "Screenshot of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style...", the source given as "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style" and the author as "Wikimedia" should all have been clear indications of the image's provenance. — sroc  💬 05:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Sean Fagan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted after a very small discussion that didn't attract many opinions. However, the deletion discussion seemed to focus solely on his role as an author of Rugby history and completely ignored the fact that he was a former player and journalist in the field. Even though he isn't oft cited at Google Scholar (as pointed out in the AfD), he has been cited, and a quick google search seems to turn up plenty of independent sources such as: The official NRL page uses Sean Fagan's history of the league., his listing at bruce kennedy management an Australian Publisher, His listing at Australian Broadcasting Corp along with some of his columns, A listing of his books available from the National Australian Library, Fox Sports referring to him as Rugby historian, which gives credence to him being a "recognize authority" in the field (an argument in the AfD), Referenced in the Sydney Morning Herald. Not to mention the 70 mainspace articles that link to the page Sean Fagan, many of which use Fagan's books as references. If those references are good enough for those articles, couldn't they be somewhat useable even as primary sources in an article about the author? Or should we be deleting all those references from those articles as well? One of the biggest reason's it's difficult to find scholarly cites is because so few other people have or write about the history of Australian Rugby as in-depth as Fagan does. Really think the community should reconsider the deletion of this article. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment by closing admin. Reviewing the close it still appears valid to me as those favouring delete made pertinent policy based comments which I summarised in my close. The best approach to this DR is to take it as point 3, and to examine the new evidence War wizard90 has brought forward to show notability. On looking at the links given above, I'm seeing clear evidence that Sean Fagan exists and is a sports historian, but the links do not provide evidence of notability. One is a link to an article he wrote. Another is to his publisher's website. Some are mere listings and catalogues. And the remaining are where he is mentioned talking about sports history. None of the links provided show that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:GNG requires that an independent reliable source (not Fagan himself or his publisher or a blog) talks directly about Fagan; not that Fagan wrote an article for that source, or provided information for that source. That there are reliable sources which publish Fagan's work, and which quote him, are strong indicators that he may be notable, or about to become notable (in Wikipedia terms), but are not in themselves evidence that he is notable - for that we would need (other than a publisher's blurb) a reliable source writing about Fagan and what he has done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. SilkTork's analysis above is pretty much impregnable, supplementing an accurate closing statement. In very crude terms: writing books doesn't make you notable; nor does merely being cited in other works, unless the citations are very extensive. What makes you notable is when reliable sources start writing about you or your body of work. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but I'll remark on a sad deficiency in the notability guidelines. If someone is mentioned a large number of times in passing it would help readers to at least have a stub to say who is being referred to. There may not be adequate material to create anything like a biography. In this case it might help sort out that it isn't the boxer or the film star (or the association footballer Shaun Fagan) that is being mentioned. Thincat ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I've now seen we do indeed have something at Fagan [50] and I don't doubt someone will come along and remove that scrap of information.

Thincat ( talk) 10:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Fagan is a redirection/disambiguation page. Entries there have no independent existence. If Sean Fagan comes out of this DRV alive, then the link to it from Fagan should too. And vice-versa. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Would the nominator please comment on (1) why he chose not to observe the pre-listing protocol of consulting with the closing admin (or link me to that discussion, if I have missed it) and (2) which part of WP:BIO, the relevant criterion here, he says Mr. Fagan meets? Stifle ( talk) 10:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry I missed the bit that it should've been discussed with the closing administrator first, my apologies, I don't initiate many deletion reviews and thought that all I needed to do was notify them of the deletion review. I believe he is referenced in enough credible sources to pass WP:GNG, like I said his books are used as sources in a multitude of our Rugby articles, and he easily passes WP:V. So I guess the main question is: "Is Sean Fagan notable enough?" While there tends to be some disagreement as to whether or not he meets notability guidelines, this may be a case where we ignore all rules and ask ourselves is Wikipedia better of with or without an article about him? In my opinion the fact that he is referenced in so many articles on Wikipedia, and due to the fact that the deletion of this page caused a massive 70 redlinks that the encyclopedia is better off WITH an article about him. I completely agree with Thincat that there is a deficiency in the notability guidelines if someone who has been referenced so many times by multiple editors and is one of our main sources regarding Australian Rugby can't even have a stub article to help readers of those articles understand who he is. This is no time to have a deletionist mentality, because in my opinion it makes the project worse, and we are here to improve it. Hope that helps clear up the questions as to why I started this review. And again I apologize for missing some protocol it wasn't done with any negative intentions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 23:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I tend to agree with your conclusion. The closure was accurate and I endorse it, but would undelete per WP:IAR, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". This is such an occasion. Stifle ( talk) 09:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Temporarily restored history for discussion DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (or draft). Numerically, it's pretty close, but the keep arguments don't strike me as particularly strong, and LaMona's detailed analysis of the sources is really the killer argument on the deletion side; once I read that, I couldn't imagine any close other than what we've got. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I have no opposition to moving this to draft. The delete arguments were all about lack of sources; that's the kind of problem which could potentially be fixed as a draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, more sources to better establish notability: A review of his book from The Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph references him as a "leading sports historian", Sydney morning herald calls him "the most-informed authority on the football code wars", Another Sydney Morning Herald Reference, and another, An extensive review of one of his books, Courier Mail uses his book as reference for this article, Another review of another one of his books, The Queensland Times review. I tried to throw a few book reviews in there to alleviate the concern that people don't write about his body of work. Do these references help at all @ SilkTork:, @ Mkativerata:, @ Thincat:, @ Stifle:, @ RoySmith:? I will continue looking for sources to establish notability as I firmly believe we should have this article. Frankly, I've seen people with a lot less referencing than this pass deletion reviews, but I know other stuff is not a recommended argument. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The book reviews are (at least some) pretty substantial, and would convince me to allow restoration/userfication on the basis of new evidence (though things like being interviewed as an expert to explain something, such as the Daily Telegraph article, ain't helpful). The book reviews aren't the throw in - they're the meat; the content where he's the focus, rather than just explaining something a journalist is too lazy to take out of quotes. Wily D 07:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My "endorse" above was purely to say I thought the AFD had been closed within reasonable discretion. I had not been able to see the article that had been deleted. I have no objection to a suitable article being created and I hope this will be possible. Thincat ( talk) 08:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Are there any objections to the deleted content being userfied to my sandbox so I can work in the additional references (esp. the book reviews), before moving back to the main article space? - War wizard90 ( talk) 23:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Seems like a good plan to me. For cases like this where the core issue is lack of sources to establish notability, moving it to user space where somebody can work on it off-line is always a win. At worst, it hangs out in userland forever. At best, sufficient sources are eventually found and the encyclopedia gains another good article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I see no down side to userfying the article. I agree with War wizard90 that in general @en wikipedia favors North American sources and North American subjects. At the same time, the general notability policies often place fame over value. These are the tensions we work with. LaMona ( talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC) reply

There is some truth in what you say, though the question always comes down to how do we judge the "value", and the answer always tends to be that we need rely on respected sources to decide the value. When, as here, the claim to notability mainly rests on how much the subject's research has been cited, we have WP:SCHOLAR, which contains suggestions on how to assess the impact and relevance of someone's research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore and userfy or perhaps restore to Draft: space. The close was clearly correct; it's difficult to read any other interpretation out of the discussion. However, War wizard90's new sources suggest that WP:GNG may be met if the sources are added to the article. Ivanvector ( talk) 14:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Userfy and allow recreation based on the new sources found by War wizard90. Cunard ( talk) 05:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I agree with moving to user or draft space. Draft space is perhaps more appropriate as the article has had multiple editors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Mkativerata BUT restoring in draft space is ok, just put gng concerns note on the restored page and disallow publishing without review (so that's 2 notes). 185.58.82.6 ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just for the record, I have no issues with moving it to the draft space rather than my sandbox, and I would also welcome any help from other editors wishing to improve the article. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#South_Park_infobox_images ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Sorry if I am butchering this listing: These files all fail Fails WP:NFCC#8: non-free media must have educational value and not merely be decoration in an infobox and have been listed at both WP:FFD and Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Both forums claim that it is the other forums responsibility, then final word was to post here. It seems obvious that these should be deleted for failing inclusion policy, but not clear who does the deletion. Sorry if I am butchering this listing: Gaff ( talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - mass nominations are a bad idea unless they're genuinely identical; a spot check of two reveals that the nomination statement appears to be misleading/false; both were pretty minimal uses of nonfree media where that media is discussed critically (including one featured article that'd have to be demoted if the image were deleted). Extremely problematic. Wily D 03:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Couple of things: 1) This is a problem that I inherited, or rather took on to try to sort out. ( I probably should have just left it alone, but came across this particular file and was troubled: File:CartmanFuture.jpg). 2) I have not checked every one of these files. Some clearly fail, maybe some are okay. What is troubling is that they were nominated individually at WP:FFD with the discussion being closed because that was somehow the wrong forum. Then they were listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review with the reccomendation that the be listed at WP:FFD! 3) So what is it that you are endorsing? and what is the proper forum? -- Gaff ( talk) 04:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• The relevant discussions are FfD and NFCR. My reading of the discussions is that the original FfD close was incorrect. These should be dealt with separately rather than en masse and FfD is at least as good a place as NFCR to do so. That said, dumping them all on FfD at once with identical rationales is not the best way to go about this. Talking with article writers on the talk pages or at a wikiproject to either get help with clean up or understandf the rationale behind the usage of these images would be a good first step. Then, after carefully evaluating each image list the most obvious one or two at FfD. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• As I said upon closing, I'm only interested in getting each of these discussed fairly: we absolutely must give people the chance to participate in them, and spamming FFD with eighty identical nominations is abuse of the process. If all but the first nomination warrant identical nomination rationales, make a mass nomination and let people vote on them as a group. If a mass nomination isn't the best route, take them one-or-a-few at a time and give people the chance to participate in a small number of nominations, rather than spamming the page with eighty-one nominations. Finally, please note that the close wasn't meant to have anyone go to NFCR if they didn't want to: anyone would have been welcome to renominate them immediately after I closed it. The point was that they needed to be nominated in a participant-friendly fashion, either just a few individual nominations or one-or-a-few big batches. It was solely a procedural fix for a procedural problem. Nyttend ( talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Whether all of the rationales were the same or not is not the point here. The point here is that the outcome for each picture depends on individual aspects of each individual article. A mass discussion becomes very confusing if the follow-up comments specifically refer to individual images, as they would have to do in this case. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note - I've collapsed the list just to make reading the discussion easier. Didn't remove any or alter any. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for collapsing these. I was just getting ready to do the same. Here is the thing: I'm experienced in many aspects of editing and contributing, but NFCR is something that I was curious about. I found this file File:CartmanFuture.jpg and cannot see why it should be kept. So I want to nominate it for deletion. But I can't, (or I can but don't know how), because it already has tags {{non-free review}} and {{ffd|log=2015 January 23}} on it. I would like to help make this right, since I am the newbie (at least in this regard) that brought this here, based on my read of the other discussions. -- Gaff ( talk) 05:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Just remove the tags and renominate it at FFD; the close wasn't meant to be prejudicial to an ordinary renomination like you're talking of doing. When closing the FFD, I left the tags because I figured that NFCR would say "keep all" or "delete all", and we'd be able to mass-remove them then or we'd end up deleting everything. Nyttend ( talk) 06:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment These sorts of mass nominations (whether as a bulk nomination or as lots of cloned ones) seem disruptive to me and probably should simply be closed down. The image I picked at random to look at File:All About Mormons scene.jpg is being used in two articles, one not being related to South Park (or infoboxes) at all. [51] I expect the image should be deleted but both of its nominations are seriously incorrect as stated. [52] [53] Mindless nominations on the grand scale won't lead to sensible decisions. Thincat ( talk) 09:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Out of scope as there is no deletion discussion decision to review. The appropriate venue is WP:FFD with individual listings and scrutiny. Stifle ( talk) 10:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • But this appears to be a review of the individual discussions at FFD which were closed as "wrong venue". This would have to overturn those FFD discussions into "correct venue", i.e. resulting in the files being relisted there in individual sections. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply
    • If you read the closing statement, you may be confused: I can see that I wasn't clear enough. It looked to me as if Koafv were attempting to get rid of this whole class of image, which isn't the place of FFD; it might be appropriate for NFCR, or for WP:NFCC, or some other place like that. I was, however, also open to an immediate renomination of some individual images, as long as there were few enough nominations that someone could reasonably participate in all of them. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. Nyttend ( talk) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

'Proposal from nominator please close this review. I should not have posted here but was following others instructions in good faith. The issue has been adressed. -- Gaff ( talk) 15:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Science and technology ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page has been deleted because it was just duplicate material that was already present in the Science and Technology articles. However, at Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles you can see that this is one of the most common redlinks on all of the English Wikipedia. I recommend re-creating the page, but rather than content regarding science and technology. Maybe create some type of disambiguation page that links to the separate articles of Science and Technology and perhaps a note stating that they are closely related, but two separate topics. This would prevent us from having to go through every article that currently links here and separating the wikilinks. We can safely assume in the future this will continue to be linked to by other editors and will be an ongoing problem. This request would solve this problem, and eliminate the need for having to emphasize that they should not be wikilinked as one. - War wizard90 ( talk) 07:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I don't think we need a DRV to just go and create a disambiguation page. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

J. Devn Cornish ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Should not have been kept. Three people “voted” keep, but none based his argument in GNG, only some claim that his office automatically makes him notable, which is not based in policy. Eight months later, and there are still no reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Time to delete this p b p 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• I do close on 3/4 keeps and everyone's fine with it (I only close on 3/4 Providing there's strong arguments, If they're not all that strong I don't touch)- This had been up for 2 weeks with only 3 keeps so personally believed this was a Keep - Admittingly on this occasion I should've left it open longer but meh we're all human and all make mistakes, Anyway I have no objects to this being relisted or deleted. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Looking back at the article and the AFD I realize I had closed too early even for my liking but at the end of the day this shouldn't of ever been brought here anyway, It simply should've been renominated, Anyway I admit the closure was a mistake but we all make mistakes from time to time, Can we now close this so it can be deleted accordingly.... – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I find it very refreshing when people, after considering the notability guidelines and accepting that the criteria have not been met, put forward arguments that say they nevertheless consider that a topic is notable. It is an "occasional exception" and they have reached that conclusion by applying "common sense", according to WP:N. I think their opinions should be respected. Of course other people may decide they will treat the criteria as rules to be obeyed, and they are entitled to do that, but the notability guidelines and our other policies do not require it. I am concerned that there may not be verifiability of some content but the AFD did not address that sufficiently to conclude that existence of the article was a breach of policy. Thincat ( talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: So you're basically saying that the article doesn't meet GNG and it may contain unsourced statements, but keep it anyway? p b p 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I think my statement was clear regarding GNG. If there are unsourced statements they can be removed after a reasonable challenge. If, after that, the article lacks adequate content or becomes unbalanced, or fails BLP, those would be good reasons to raise in an AFD nomination. Thincat ( talk) 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - In the AFD discussion, only the nominator was in favor of deletion. Deletion at AFD requires a consensus. In my opinion, an article should never be deleted at AFD when only the nominator supports deletion (barring meeting speedy deletion criteria, in which case it isn't really being deleted because of the AFD), because one person's opinion simply isn't a consensus. Even if we were to discount the three keep votes, the article should still be retained as a no consensus close. However, WP:N makes it clear that people can advance other arguments for keeping an article besides meeting the listed notability guidelines, and that occasional exceptions are allowed. In this case, a participant advanced an argument that the article should be kept despite not meeting the normal notability guidelines, and the other participants (besides the nominator) were convinced by that argument, so this seems like a clear keep. I don't think there would be anything wrong with nominating the article at AFD again in the future if you think the consensus might be different, but I don't see any way the AFD that took place could have been closed as delete. Calathan ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but why bother? Given the arguments put forth in the AfD, keep was the only plausible close. But, why does it matter? That was 7 months ago. Rather than come here, if you think it's delete-worthy, just renominate it for AfD. Simpler, faster, less wiki-lawyering-er. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment, close is probably reasonable given the local consensus (even if I would had preferred a relisting), but the AfD is old enough to consider to have another AfD in the next months, given that the subject is IMO clearly non-notable and all the three keep votes came from well-known biased mormon editors. Cavarrone 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - WP:N is almost always the place to start discussions, but it doesn't have to always be where it ends - as with everything, common sense exception applies, as would seem to be the case here. Wily D 07:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. The article does not cite any third-party reliable sources, only LDS publications. This was still the case at the time of the AfD and no sources were mentioned during the course of the discussion. That part of the GNG is written into Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability, which as core policy overrides any consideration based on notability guidelines or local consensus. Hut 8.5 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse by default due to elapsed time. The appropriate venue would be a new AFD. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse simply due to the passage of time and because a new AfD would be better than an overturn here. If this had been closed yesterday, I'd be of a similar mind to Hut 8.5. It is all very well to argue for exceptions for notability guidelines, as Thincat says above. But it is another thing entirely to depart from core verifiability policies and argue to keep an article with zero independent sources. A reasonable closing administrator would have recognised that we were in the territory of the latter case here. Let's re-nominate this straight away and reach the correct outcome this time. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - just nominate it again. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 05:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse add me to the "nominate it again" chorus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Starblind:@ Stalwart111:: should I re-nom it right now, on the 10th-12th when this is closed, or wait even longer after that? p b p 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close based on content of discussion, but allow for a renomination after this review is closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Douglas Quijano ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is mostly a technical nomination. Basically, I feel that the consensus in the original AfD was not strong enough to result in a delete outcome; rather, the AfD should have at the least been relisted for one more week. The outcome wasn't even a soft delete either. Also, as I mentioned in the AfD, there had been some magazine coverage (albeit mostly offline and thus difficult to find) from YES! about the person even before his death, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn- I'm not seeing consensus to delete in the discussion. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Meh. It's a pretty marginal consensus. I agree that either relisting for another week or a soft delete would have been a better close, but not so much that I'm willing to say this was beyond discretion. I suspect the better path this could have taken was if Narutolovehinata5 asked, on the closing admin's talk page, Would you mind reclosing this as WP:SOFTDELETE instead of Would you mind if I took this to DRV?, Nakon would have probably agreed, and then we'd get to the right result without a week of bureaucracy. Hint, hint. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Two things though. For one, I did mention in the original AfD that I was leaning towards a weak keep, so asking for the article to be deleted would be counter-intuitive. Second, DELREV also mentions that one can take an article to deletion review if "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I guess the links provided below count. I wouldn't mind though if the article is briefly recreated and a new AfD is made to determine a stronger consensus. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The dead link on the talk page referred to in the AFD nomination has been archived here. I can't help but think he is very famous in his own country [54] but I also suppose process was followed at the AFD. Thincat ( talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

He wasn't very famous over here, but he was quite well-known among the showbiz industry. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I think the close is fine, though if Narulovehinta wants it re-opened to comment further, that should be done. I would not support re-opening to merely attract more disinterested editors - relistings - especially multiple relistings, show that they're pretty disinterested. Similar to the SOFTDELETE would've been wise comment by RoySmith above. Wily D 07:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The discussion had already been listed for 23 days with no comments in the 12 before it was closed. How much more do you want? Stifle ( talk) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: @ WilyD: At the very least, for the article to be temporarily undeleted and renominated for deletion, to get some clearer consensus. Then follow whatever consensus that AfD decides. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 10:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm trying to ask is that given nobody contributed in 12 days, "get some clearer consensus" doesn't seem like something that listing again will accomplish. There has to come a time when we accept that nobody else cares and close the discussion on what we have. Stifle ( talk) 12:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. In a low-participation AfD that has been listed for three weeks, you have to give the closing admin a little bit of latitude. This close was well within that latitude. All of the comments in the AfD were well-researched and well-argued. It was just a judgement call about whether the sources met the significant coverage bar. Nakon was entitled to take the view that the angle at possible offline sources was a bit speculative (would YES! have been significant coverage?) and that the two delete !votes amounted to a consensus. I doubt that those delete !voters ignored Naturolovehinata's comments; it should be assumed that their delete views continued to be held after they were made. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I'm with Reyk in that I can't see a consensus to delete. Like Stifle and Mkativerata, I do think "delete" could potentially have been within discretion based on that discussion. However, I differ from them because I think that when a sysop closes against the apparent consensus, their closing statement needs to contain their reasoning. So "delete" would have been okay but to my mind, "unexplained delete" is not.— S Marshall T/ C 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• I agree there wasn't consensus to delete. But did you approach the closer and simply ask them to label it as a soft delete? I don't see anything on the closer's talk page and it seems likely they'd be willing to make that change if requested. Hobit ( talk) 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Striking the above, I went to the wrong admin's page (clicked a link for the above discussion?). Overturn to NC or softdelete I don't see consensus for deletion, but softdelete would probably be within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist to allow for more discussion about sources not discussed at the AfD.

  Here are the sources I have found (ordered chronologically):

  1. "Star manages celebrate birthdays in style". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2000-08-05. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

     The article notes:

     Ethel Ramos and Douglas Quijano, two of the most respected star builders and handlers we have today, have just celebrated their birthdays.

     ...

     Quijano manages Richard Gomez, Anjo and Jomari Yllana, Joey Marquez, Aiko Melendez, Eric Fructuoso, John Estrada, Janice and Gelli de Belen, and has also into line-producing for Regal.

     Quijano had his billiard, booze and ball party at Padi's Point West ave., where we spotted all his alagas except for De Belen.

  2. "Public Eye - The Power 25". Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. July 2002. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

     The article notes:

     11. DOUGLAS QUIJANO, Talent manager

     « STAR MAKER

     Douglas Quijano

     Douglas Quijano has a sharp eye for spotting raw and young talent and molding them into screen idols. That's what he did with the likes of Richard Gomez and Jomari Yllana. Quijano is foremost an image-maker, and he uses that experience to carefully shape his talents into sophisticated sex symbols programmed to sell anything from movie tickets to underwear. With the transfer of most of his talents to GMA, he is also actively involved in the conceptualization and casting of programs there.

  3. Ganzon, Tina (2009-06-13). "Douglas Quijano found dead in Quezon home". ABS-CBN. Archived from the original on 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  4. Lo, Ricky; Ozaeta, Arnell (2009-06-14). "Talent exec Douglas Quijano found dead". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  5. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano 'He was a dolphin in world of sharks'". Inquirer Libre. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  6. Dedace, Sophie (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano, 64, was first manager of Goma, Aga, and Pip". GMA Network. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  7. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-18). "Trivia: Dougs' very first talent was Pip". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  8. Ching, Mark Angelo (2009-06-20). "Douglas Quijano gets accolades from his talents on the last night of his wake". Philippine Entertainment Portal. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  9. Villasanta, Boy (2009-06-22). "Lahat sila'y lumuha sa kamatayan ni Douglas Quijano" [All of them shed tears for the death of Douglas Quijano]. Pinoy Weekly (in Filipino). Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  10. Panaligan, Jojo P. (2009-07-24). "Douglas Quijano's wards move on to new managers". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2012-05-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

  Analysis of the sources:

  The first two sources were published before Douglas Quijano's death. They are from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (which is considered one of the Philippines' newspapers of record) and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

  The sixth source, an obituary from GMA Network, is roughly 730 words. The ninth source, an obituary from Pinoy Weekly, is roughly 1,414 words.

  The widespread coverage of Quijano's death strongly indicates that he is notable because he did not die an unusual death (which would attract media attention). Instead, he died a natural death (by heart attack).

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

  Cunard ( talk) 05:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Cunard's possible verdict shifting new sources (also imo there was no consensus to begin with so I second what Reyk & S Marshall say).14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.58.82.6 ( talk)