Blue Embrace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

1. WP:ALBUM/SOURCE
2. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES
3. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
4. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE
5. WP:MUSIC/SOURCE
6. WP:MUSIC/SOURCES

They are listed in several categories of those templates, that article should be undeleted Ushabti16 ( talk) 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- there is no other way this AfD could have been closed. Consensus to delete was abundantly clear. Reyk _YO! 13:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close given the lister has been blocked as a sockpuppet account, similar to keep opiner in original discussion. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The requester has given us six redirects to the exact same Wikipedia page, but hasn't provided any specific sources to establish the notability of this musical group. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse obvious sock is obvious. Jclemens ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Solrachet/Pokemon: Den of Ages ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was more of a SUPERVOTE than a real close. The actual votes were one for keep and one for blank with just the nomination wanting deletion. Should be relisted for further discussion. Malarky snarky ( talk) 23:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

I was the closer of this AfD for a band, but User:Lostasil (who identified themself as the band's manager) asked me to have this deletion reviewed. I arranged with them that I would set up the deletion review but they would have to provide the explanation for why the band is notable and the article should be brought back. So see below for their comments once they are posted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Metropolitan90: Is there some reason why you decided not to WP:SOFTDELETE? Thincat ( talk) 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think I thought about it at the time, nor have I used WP:SOFTDELETE in the past as far as I can remember. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse absent any further reasoning that is should be restored. SOFTDELETE would have been an option (and I guess still is), but I really can't see this surviving long if resurrected. The arguments presented on Metropolitan90's talk page (a) I don't interpret the guideline on local significance in the way it seems to be being applied and (b) the sources presented are the results of poll's which are of course gameable, so I wouldn't give much weight to. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, apart from the web poll, there was not even really an assertion of importance in the article and it was borderline CSD A7. I personally prefer to close discussions like this as soft delete, but normal delete is also defensible. I'd also like to see some reliable sources discussing the band before recreating the article. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 23:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Endorse, no reason to restore. The AFD was low-participation but there's absolutely no reason to imagine that more votes would have changed the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Before I started contributing to the article, it looked a bit unsubstantial to me, so I looked around to see if there were any sources as part of BEFORE. I discovered that there was indeed quite a bit of press coverage of this software, so I decided not to nominate it. It came as a surprise, therefore, when the article was A7'd. I'm requesting a review of this decision. I attempted ( permalink) to start a discussion with the deleting admin, but they didn't respond. (They have, however, been active on Wikipedia since the discussion started.) Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Since we non-admins can't see the deleted page and since generally I'm inclined to give an admin the benefit of the doubt in spot judgement, I'd suggest User:Enterprisey offer these sources they've found to make a case the page shouldn't have been deleted. My cursory search finds only one article I'd consider as meeting WP:IRS but even then the subject gets what I'd call insignificant coverage. If the contributor has sources please present them. BusterD ( talk) 01:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • BusterD, I would consider a few more sources to be reliable, such as two from CoinDesk and CoinFront. Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• For my part, I don't count either of the presented sources as reliable or independent. These are two websites which are in the business of promoting alternative coinage. The author of the CoinDesk article is Stan Higgins who "enjoys camping, cats and poetry. He currently resides in Boston." That hardly describes any expertise or background. CoinFront is little more than a blog. I wouldn't trust either of them. That's my humble opinion. BusterD ( talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• • @ BusterD: I've temp undeleted the article. — Cryptic 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Thanks! I'd encourage Enterprisey to make the case in pagespace. I'd be glad to re-assess once sources are applied presented. Just for the record, is Enterprisey a paid editor in this situation? BusterD ( talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  No. Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 05:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I appreciate your response. BusterD ( talk) 12:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore and take to AfD. The sources BusterD and Enterprisey found are certainly enough to meet the A7 credible significance threshold. Whether they are sufficient to establish notability is a discussion for AfD, not for A7 (and not for DRV either). Thparkth ( talk) 13:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse. In the state the article was in at the time, A7 seems appropriate. And, looking at the two sources presented above (coindesk and thecoinfront), neither strikes me as even meeting the very low bar for A7 to not apply; they are both perfunctory coverage in niche publications. But, I have no real objection to bringing this to AfD for a better review. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You do know that sourcing is entirely unrelated to A7, right? Jclemens ( talk) 03:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, yes. A7 is about assertions of importance, and I was sort of thinking along the lines of, the assertion of importance was that these two sources provided media coverage, and I was reacting to the assertion above that these sources were useful. I think they're not, for the reasons put forth by BusterD In any case, as I've stated numerous times, WP:CSD should be used in only the most obvious cases. My weak endorse above is meant to convey that I don't think this particular A7 was out of line. On the other hand, pretty much any reasonable objection by established editors should be taken as prima-facie evidence that it wasn't as obvious as it originally appeared, hence bringing it to AfD seems like the right thing to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• An AfD wouldn't do irreparable damage to the encyclopaedia, I suppose.— S Marshall T/ C 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Above argument nominated for best of... -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore and take to AfD. If sources can be located, this subject can be discussed without mystery. BusterD ( talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Let's send to AFD for a full discussion. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Probably not going to make it, but send to AfD as a reasonable objection to an A7 deletion. Hobit ( talk) 00:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Send to AFD, borderline A7, and certainly don't have anything against the deleting admin for taking the action that they took. It will in all likelihood get pulverised in AFD which should put it to rest once and for all. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 06:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Send to AfD per the above. Jclemens ( talk) 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list. Contains a credible indication of "the importance or significance of the subject." Just Chilling ( talk) 23:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

User:AnAwesomeArticleEditor ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deleted per CSD G8 as redirect to nonexistent page, which was vandalism AnAwesomeArticleEditor ( talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I contacted both Explicit (who deleted the image), Smarty9108 (who nominated the image for deletion) and Masem. Even with or without responses from either of them, I still believe that the CD format version of Love Takes Time is wrong for readers. The nominator believed that the US cassette version of the single should have high-res. Therefore, he orphaned the image and then replaced it with the CD one, which was not released commercially. I think that the commercial cassette one should be undeleted and then reused (and then improved if someone would take my request for image improvement). Then the promo US CD one should be removed as less true to readers. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Don't see how this is an issue for deletion review, as far as I can see the same user uploaded both images, and then nominated the other for deletion. Yes participation was non-existant, but as we can only keep one of the two images DRV overturning this or turning to softdelete is essentially deciding which image to keep. That actually seems to be an editorial decision, so I'd suggest you thrash it out on the article talk page with the other editor and anyone else who cares to join in, then I'm sure some admin can delete/undelete as necessary. Or am I missing something? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 21:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ 82.14.37.32: Oh... I didn't fully summarize the file's history logs. The file was originally of the CD image, but then I replaced it with the cassette one downloaded from eBay. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

So sounds even more like a content dispute, other editors add a picture, you decide it's the wrong picture and replace it with your preference, they effectively change it back. I really can't see DRV deciding a content dispute for you. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 08:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I think this is the wrong forum. Should be worked out as a content dispute first. If consensus is reached to use this file, a request to undelete can be made at WP:REFUND. Kelly ^hi! 09:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mrs Denis Thatcher ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I do not believe that there was consensus at RfD to retarget and would prefer to get this relisted to get a clearer picture or overturned to no consensus. I outlined my reasons for suggesting a relist/no-consensus close with the closer here, but did not come to an agreement.

3/6 !voters endorsed Margaret Thatcher (specifically the early political career section) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term, including one person who explicitly endorsed my proposed target over retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages when asked. The issues over lack of context raised by the IP !voter (whose invocation of WP:COMMONNAME would imply that they also see Margaret Thatcher as the primary topic) were addressed by changes to PM Thatcher's article. Given all of this, a relist and pinging/notifying the involved editors for their views after the updates would have led to a better close instead of discarding !votes because of how they were unclear as the closer did.

The quote "Mrs Denis Thatcher redirects to someone else for other Mrs Denis Thatchers see Denis Thatcher" by the closer in the linked conversation above shows that the closer may not have understood the PRIMARYTOPIC arguments in the RfD, since PM Thatcher was referred by that name by some reliable sources in her day and even now as shown by the links provided in the RfD, so that is an additional reason to bring this to DRV.-- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Relist The process-based reasons are that A) there is now information in the MT article that discusses this name. That happened late and may be enough to sway people. Also, B), it's possible that the closer missed that someone changed their mind but not their !vote, so the consensus is less clear than it might seem. It is worth noting that the closer may have missed that one of the !voter. My other reason is that I just can't get my head around the justification for the new redirect target. Maybe it is best (as it could be referring to a number of people and they are all covered in that target). I don't feel too strongly here--the final outcome isn't crazy, but I'm not sure it's really what the consensus was or what it should be now that the MT article has been updated. Hobit ( talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist Patently absurd result. I'd retarget to #Person life rather than #early political career, but this is an alternate name that has been used for someone who has an article in her own right. I have not been able to think of any circumstances where we would want to do that for anyone. There were comments that the prev. redirect was sexist; they have it upside down--to redirect to the husband when the wife is notable is what's sexist. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was ludicrous.— S Marshall T/ C 20:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• The only reason I don't think the outcome was utterly ludicrous is that the name could also apply to Margaret Doris Kempson, his first wife. She's doesn't have an article and so is unlikely to be what anyone is looking for, but if I squint, I can kind of see the argument. Hobit ( talk) 16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note: The nominator of the original RfD has removed the relevant sentence from the Margaret Thatcher article and opened a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be included on the page at all, so all commentators here are invited to share your opinions there as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 01:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I agree with the closer that the discussion shows a rough consensus of redirect to Denis Thatcher#Marriages, multiple participants supporting that, and it making the most sense. I did some editing to the target because it is an odd little section that is confusing/astonishing without clear headings. In short, Denis had a little known short wartime marriage. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Since I chimed in on the original discussion, I'm not sure if it's okay for me to say anything here...? (I'm new to this process.) — Gorthian ( talk) 15:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, you are allowed to give your opinion here and I think it is helpful to say that you commented at the RFD. Bear in mind we are no longer discussing what should be done about the redirect but are reviewing whether the RFD discussion was closed by taking proper account of the views presented. Thincat ( talk) 07:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Thincat. — Gorthian ( talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Relist There were a lot of ins and outs here, and I for one didn't catch the article changes when/after I added my opinion. I think it should have been relisted a second time. — Gorthian ( talk) 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eden English School Btl ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I bring my own close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl here for review. The argument for delete was lack of sources; the argument for keep was long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I found a strong consensus for keep, but this has been challenged.

It is true that no better source seems to exist online than this, but I don't think it is seriously suggested that the article is a hoax and no such school exists; if so, this photograph, with the school name on the side of the bus as well as on the building, would be a rather elaborate deception.

The initial version was promotional; the article as it stood during the AfD is here. Since the AfD it has been stubbed as unsourced, then redirected to Education in Nepal, then restored and moved to Eden English Boarding High School, then once again redirected. I have restored the stub, but the choice between these different versions is a matter for normal editing and is not the issue here.

The principle involved is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Secondary schools and verifiability. JohnCD ( talk) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn or relist, due to procedural errors in the discussion. Note that the relevant part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". Sources establishing that this is a secondary school did not feature in the deletion discussion, and nor did the version of the article that was kept cite any sources. The current version also has no sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Just to acknowledge that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry, though I still think the nomination was a worthwhile one. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Just to clarify, this refers to the AfD nom, not the DRV nom (which I'd thought for a moment and had my head spinning). Hobit ( talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, indeed. Sorry! Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I think it's perfectly clear that it exists and is a secondary school and therefore meets the criteria of the consensus. The AfD result was pretty unequivocal. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Can I ask what sources you are judging by, Necrothesp? It would have been helpful if sources had been discussed in the AfD. JohnCD mentions this above, but I am not sure whether it is a RS. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • It's not a good source, certainly, but I think it's enough of a source to prove existence, as John says. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I rather suspect that its content is user-generated, and also note that it lists the school's website as the Wikipedia article, which does not fill me with confidence! In any case, these discussions should have taken place during the AfD. If it is relisted, we can have them properly. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • But all the information was there for the AfD discussion and the decision was still overwhelmingly to keep! No new information has come to light undermining the AfD discussion. The closure was entirely correct. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Yes, but there was a procedural error in the discussion, because the keepers didn't take into account the need to verify the school's existence. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • That's not really a procedural error. And contributors obviously considered its existence had been verified in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note also that when I've searched for other Nepalese schools on Google, I have found them in lists on government websites (see Eden National Boarding School, which I sourced just now). With Eden English Boarding High School, I can't find such sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• endorse I know we don't have agreement on school outcomes, but numerically there was no way to get to delete and the keeps had a reasonable argument (we've been doing this for years and years). NC might also have been a reasonable outcome, and I'd have endorsed that too, but keep is, IMO, more reflective of the discussion and at least the historic general opinion of Wikipedia. Hobit ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What about the fact that that historic general opinion of Wikipedia requires verification that the school exists, Hobit? That part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to have been ignored by the keepers in the AfD discussion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'll admit I'd not realized there was serious doubt about its existence (the sources showing it's existence seem pretty strong, but I agree it's not impossible that they are all a hoax). I've contacted pabson via their website to see if it is a member of their organization (as far as I can tell, they don't maintain a list of members). Hobit ( talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks, Hobit. I checked their website earlier and couldn't find a list. When you say that the sources showing its existence seem strong, can I ask which sources you mean? I only see one mentioned here, and none in the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Just the website and picture. It seems like a rather elaborate hoax if it is one, but I agree it's possible, which is why I've reached out. Hobit ( talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I haven't found a website for it. Could you provide a link if you've found one, Hobit? Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • [1] looks like a website for the school. Given that it's really easy to find, I'm guessing you've seen and and don't believe it is a site for this school. What am I missing? Hobit ( talk) 16:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • That's a directory of schools, which is believe is probably reliant on user-generated content, Hobit. You'll see on the right-hand side of that page that it lists the website of the school as the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                • I believe it's the effective website of the school. I agree it could be part of a hoax, though I very much doubt it. Hobit ( talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                  • If it has been created by the school though, Hobit, then it's not an independent source, which is what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                    • Lack of independent sourcing is a problem per policy. More importantly, I'm concerned this is a hoax (if there were sourcing I 100% believed but wasn't independent I'd probably be okay with the outcome). I'm waiting on a response by the oversight agency that I contacted. But I'm likely going to be off-line for a while, and it doesn't look like they are responding. So relist though if I hear back from them and they verify this isn't a hoax, I'll likely endorse again. Hobit ( talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                      • Thanks for your efforts, Hobit. If they do reply in the affirmative, the question then is how we source the article, given that sources need to be published, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
                        • FYI, I've heard nothing. Hobit ( talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but encourage AfD2 The consensus was absolutely clear that we should follow our usual practice, which is to to have the article. NC would not have been a reasonable close. Repeated efforts in the last few months by a few editors to changethe practice have all met with consensus to keep the current practice. By this time, its getting perhaps near to being disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Although I disagree with the consensus, that is not the argument here, DGG. The consensus is that secondary school articles are kept if independent sources verify the school's existence. The article cites no such sources, and sources verifying that the school is a secondary school were not provided in the AfD discussion. The outcome therefore isn't in line with the consensus documented by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

as that was not discussed at the afd, i think the best course is to bring an afd2. This isn't to place to determine the facts of the case. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• That's why I was hoping to get the AfD reopened, but I would be happy to start a second AfD, DGG. Should I wait for this deletion review to conclude first, though? Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

It's confusing to do the same thing two ways at the same time. I changed my !vote to "Endorse but encourage AfD2" DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. OUTCOMES is only an essay and merely reflects what has typically happened in previous discussions; in § Citing this page in AfD, it stresses that "[a]ll articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as [the verifiability policy]." SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not reflect consensus that articles about schools are always kept, only that—eliding the unsatisfied accreditation and sourcing bits—"[m]ost . . . high schools are usually kept." By its explicit instructions, it is not to be read to vitiate our verifiability policy and notability guideline, yet that is exactly what happened in this discussion. The votes citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES as trump card should have been discounted as contrary to policy, illogical, or uninformed.

  I also object to the notion that AFD consensus can override VERIFY and BURDEN ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.")—established policy—in the (kept) article. Rebb ing 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Ooh, this is another interesting debate. (I've found several excellent ones today, for some reason). Here we have a supermajority for "keep" in the face of no decent sources. In the battle of consensus vs policy, who wins? If it had been a consensus to ignore schooloutcomes, then I think it would have to stand, because IAR is policy. But I don't think it was. It was more a consensus that the article met schooloutcomes, even though it's not at all clear that it did. Let's chicken out of having to decide. Let's just relist. This should NOT be understood as an "overturn", because the closer did close in accordance with the consensus and that's what a closer's job is to do.— S Marshall T/ C 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I think relisting is the best option, so I have struck the first part of my previous "Overturn or relist" comment. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn but more importantly an Objection to the idea that a keep outcome absolutely precludes redirecting an article for which no reliable sources can be found. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does still require existence, as others have pointed out, and this steaming pile of scraped data, operated by a "social media promoters" company, is most definitely not a reliable source to support such existence. If a bunch of people base the entirety of their keep argument on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES despite no reliable sources available at all, I can sort of understand closing it as keep based just on the pressure of numbers, but that it isn't deleted doesn't mean it can't be redirected if there are no usable sources and thus no usable content. I don't think that actually requires overturning or relisting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist I understand that the closer was in a difficult position and would have had to close this either as keep or no-consensus. I also commend the closer for bringing the close to deletion review themselves. I am going for a relist here as WP:V cannot trump WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. At least one reliable source (not user generated/self published) has to be shown which proves that the school exists. That was something which was not shown in the AfD. We have since had more discussions and realised that WP:V is important. If this is relisted, it will give participants in the AfD a chance to have a look at the verifiability angle and also look for sources. Btw, the schoolius.com source mentioned is user generated/self published and is clearly not a reliable source. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist, with no prejudice against the admin who was not given much to work with. Consensus is clear, but it's based largely on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is worthless if it lets articles like this that have nothing in the way of reliable sources to continue existing. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Overturn - I endorse SCHOOLOUTCOMES but self-created photos do not count as verification. It seems to me that the best thing that could be done here (presumably after another AfD) would be to USERIFY the current page until the editor that wrote and took the photos can provide some independent secondary sources which show that the thing isn't a hoax. Note, I don't think it is a hoax, but believe that we do need some kind of standards for school pages, and providing something which shows it exists is a pretty low bar, given that it can even be in the local language. That's the argument I'd be using if it returned to AfD. JMWt ( talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the general previous outcomes are not supposed to create a super precedent or self perpetuate, they are an indication that over many previous discussions there has been a broadly inclusive consensus, so the case for deletion needs to be particularly strong. No real indication even of existence is about the strongest case possible, the keep opinions were essentially empty so can carry no weight. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 12:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• overturn- It's bad enough that groups of enthusiasts can inflict blanket "If X is a Y, X !!!MUST!!! get an article!!!" rules on the rest of us, but if they are then not even careful enough to verify that X even exists then we have a serious problem. Reyk _YO! 09:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist so that it can be determined whether or not it meets WP:V which is the issue here. While I believe it exists, that must be proved by at least one reliable reference. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 02:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Allow recreation of this version based on sources provided. When the article was nominated for deletion it was in this condition only three sources. It has since been expanded to the current version in my space which is written by Prisencolin. Sources such as theScore, Yahoo! eSports, The Daily Dot and ESPN all give him significant coverage over a long period of time. These are all reliable mainstream sources. He has been signed by multiple teams and is currently with Echo Fox. In eSports, this is the definition of professional. One specific editor requested that this go through DRV. So allow recreation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse G4 speedy and salt to prevent any more similar disruption. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD and the original deletion was upheld at DRV just a week ago. Now, Valoem got it userfied and then immediately put it back in the mainspace without doing anything except minor cosmetic changes to the CITET templates. All the "sources" currently in the article were known to the AfD and DRV participants. Valoem has not actually added any content since the article was deleted. I nominated it for G4 speedy as a re-creation of material deleted at AfD without doing anything to address the reasons for deletion, and it was indeed speedily deleted. I regard the latest userfication and DRV to be an attempted end-run around the deletion policy. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• The fact Reyk endorsed a speedy highlights his bad faith in this matter. Speedy nominations of because of personal conflicts is by definition the behavior of an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The sources I provided shows this is clearly notable. Please do not let our unpleasant encounters in the past affect your judgment. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Reyk also knows that the sources he references were added during the AfD. In the DRV, he advanced the curious idea that !voters should be presumed to have seen sources added to the article after their last contribution to the AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I think it's even weirder to presume they haven't. It is very common for people to do a search for sources, find a few scattered mentions here and there but nothing impressive, and vote delete. That someone later is more impressed by those sources and adds them should not create a presumption that all earlier delete votes should be discarded. That's not only dismissive and insulting, it would encourage drip-feeding crappy sources into an article just to invalidate previous votes. In this discussion, the early delete voters turned up at the DRV and endorsed the result. I assume they wouldn't do that if they actually had not encountered the new "sources" and thought the new material would have changed the outcome, so I do not think my opinion is unreasonable. Reyk _YO! 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• No its not, I assume if they read the sources provided we wouldn't be here. We are here because of lack of due diligence. No one has highlighted in any discussion the issues with the sources provided. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment- in addition to my first comment, I'd like to add that this DRV is just a re-argument of the original AfD. And that is not what deletion review is for. I see no attempt to argue that either the AfD deletion or the subsequent G4 speedy were wrong in any way. Reyk _YO! 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

This is an argument to allow recreation for a situation when sources have been provided and the subject is clearly notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• allow recreation yes it was deleted and that deletion was endorsed at DRV. And yes, that was clearly the wrong outcome. We've got in-depth sources including ESPN with a 1000+ word article solely on this person, a Breitbart article (~500 words) on an incident he was at the center of, more than a dozen articles at Daily Dot that at least mention him (including some where he is the focus of the article). There is also an article on Yahoo and a number of pure-esports reliable sources. Clearly way (way) over our notability bar. Hobit ( talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So if I am adamant that I disagree with an AfD and DRV result, I am entitled to remonimate the article a week later without adding anything new to the discussion? Reyk _YO! 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Good question. And that is the big issue here. If something that plainly has no sources gets kept, it would be unusual to see it renominated for deletion a week later, though not unheard of. In this case, we've got something way over the bar and it was deleted. I'd have personally preferred we wait for another source or two--they clearly will come. But the nom jumped the gun and happens to be correct--this easily meets WP:N. I have a hard time telling someone they can't create an article when it clearly meets the letter and spirit of our requirements. Hobit ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • On the substance of the article, do you agree it meets the GNG? If not, why not? I've provided 6+ sources focused on the subject of the article. The ESPN one is in great depth. Hobit ( talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD. Endorse last week's DRV. Endorse G4. There is nothing here that's new since any of those. We should also stop userfying deleted pages unless the requesting user can present a reasonable plan for improving the article, to avoid this kind of time-wasting nonsense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• RoySmith the article already passes our standards here. It is in start state, how can we improve the article if it is delete? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I agree we've been here before. But I don't see how you can claim that the topic doesn't meet the GNG. We've provided (in this DRV) articles from ESPN, Breitbart and Daily Dot among others. The ESPN one is purely about the subject with 1000+ words. The others are also in depth. It's plain that we've got multiple, independent sources that cover the topic in depth. Hobit ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Help me out here, Roy. You changed your !vote in the AfD admitting that the sources were adequate to meet GNG but you didn't like the topic (feel free to correct me if you think that's an inaccurate summation of your statement). So why this sudden hardening of your stance against this particular article? Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• What I object to is dragging something back to DRV a week after it was here, with nothing substantially changed since last week. I get that you don't agree with the outcome from last week. Fine. There's lots of decisions that get made that I don't agree with. There's a ton of other work to do, move on and do something else. Wasting other people's time by arguing the same case over and over again is counterproductive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So you weren't able to bring yourself to cast a delete !vote that you wanted to, because you knew it did not meet criteria for deletion, but you're OK with a result you believe to be incorrect being affirmed, just for the sake of process? I tend to take a different view: If wrong decisions--and not borderline ones, but clearly incorrect ones that don't conform to our own stated policies--are allowed to stand, the damage that can be done to the encyclopedia by misapplication of poor decisions justifies getting more eyes on the matter in an attempt to overturn a wrong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and replace it with a policy-compliant outcome. I think Wikipedia is becoming deaf to the difference between principled opposition to incorrect results and ongoing advocacy, and I fear the attitude you express here leads to that result. Jclemens ( talk) 18:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Then Roy took this "time wasting" accusation and refused to userfy another page for me. Very disappointing that to accuse others of time wasting when you know the decision was wrong. If anything is a waste to not immediately fix detected issues. If any outcome is wrong we should revisit repeatedly until it is corrected. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Though there is consensus to cover individual gamers, there is not to cover those as minor as this one. In judging the sourcing needed to meet GNG, we need to considerthe density of available sourcing in the field. In this case it is so high that the barrier should be interpreted much higher. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Reviewing this at Valoem's request, The discussions at some afds have indicated to me that it is possible that I may have some prejudice from lack of understanding in the field. Decisions at AfD (and consequently, here also) can involve a value judgement about what is important as well as a consideration of the technical requirements of sourcing, so it would be fairer if I did not !vote or even comment. DGG ( talk ) 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• • Looks like I'm going to lose on this one, but I will admit I don't understand your argument. If an area is so popular that there are lots of articles on the topic, doesn't that mean we should be covering the topic? Isn't that the entire point of the GNG? And it's not like these aren't main-stream sources. Also I fixed a few typos in your comment, hope you don't mind Hobit ( talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

DGG Do see any issues with these sources:

• theScore
• Yahoo! eSports
• The Daily Dot
• ESPN

These sources alone should pass GNG. But there are many others [2] and [3]. Can you show me what type of sources you are looking for ... to pass GNG? The sources I provided give him extensive coverage, are secondary and reliable. I understand that eSports is a topic that maybe unfamiliar to many, I hoped I provided sources that it is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Allow Recreation per Hobit. The level of sourcing here is clearly adequate, which suggests there is a subtle prejudice or systemic bias against non-traditional athletes. He has ongoing coverage in RS'es that cover his sport... even if that sport may be derided by some as not very sport-like. Jclemens ( talk) 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I !voted at DRV1. [4] It is a bad mistake to improve an article during an AFD. Many people will not notice (or care) about the change and the improved article is wide open to G4. Far better to just let it be deleted and then recreate it with new, improved, referenced content. Thincat ( talk) 08:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not consider that good advice in most cases. WP policy is not to delete fixable articles. The fixed article is not liable to G4, if it is indeed fixed , and I think most admins including myself would be vey reluctant to delete as G4 during a discussion if there was any indication of improvement. On the other hand, if an article is hopelessly contaminated by promotionalism or copypaste, then WP:TNT is sometimes appropriate in order to discourage that sort of editing. And it is usually not a good idea to rewrite completely--if that is needed, then deletion does make more sense. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment, I'd like to show some sources which I posted on DGG's talk page:a few major mainstream publications which give the subject significant coverage far beyond what is required
  • Jacob Wolf (2016-05-07). "fREAKAZOiD at DreamHack Austin". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2016-07-19.

    The article notes:

    But one of Splyce's stand-ins, former Cloud9 entry-fragger Ryan "fREAKAZOiD" Abadir, is just happy to be here. He's not competed in a tournament since the Major League Gaming Columbus major in March--leaving Cloud9 just after. But competing again, he says he's found a new hunger for the game he's been a pro in for seven years.

  "Since I've been around for so long, everyone's kind of saying I'm washed up," fREAKAZOiD says with a smile. "But I feel like I have a new hunger for the game. Taking that time off, just not playing, I just feel like, this new hunger. I kind of feel like a new me is going to come. I don't really know how to explain it, but that's how I feel right now. I almost didn't want to come here, but coming has made me wanna play again at the highest possible level."

  fREAKAZOiD isn't the only stand-in for the team. The other is popular Twitch streamer Jaryd "summit1g" Lazar. He's never played in a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive offline tournament, and he's currently the fourth biggest streamer on the Twitch platform. But despite having streaming as his income, fREAKAZOiD says he's confident that summit1g could make it as a competitive player.

  "He takes it serious, he wants to win," fREAKAZOiD says when asked about his fellow stand-in. "I think people get kind of confused because he's a streamer, but he loves to compete, I can tell. You can see when he's playing and how he talks and like, he goes for it. I respect that a lot about him. He really does wanna play for a top team.".

Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Allow Recreation per Hobit. Editor Valoem has provided 4 sources allmost entirely about the subject. Wikipedia can't afford to be without coverage of such clearly noteable sportsman. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 18:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. Valoem ( talk · contribs) has presented a convincing case that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. He has also presented two articles from Mundo Deportivo that were not discussed in the AfD. That the subject, an American eSports player who is based in the United States, has received nontrivial coverage in a Spanish nationwide daily sports newspaper published in Barcelona is significant information.

  That the subject received a detailed profile in ESPN here strongly indicates he is notable. The ESPN article was mentioned once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD by an editor supporting retention. Editors supporting deletion failed to explicitly discuss this very strong ESPN source. This makes the AfD discussion defective in that no one explained why the strongest source was insufficient to establish notability..

  The Daily Dot repeatedly covered the subject over a period of a year, demonstrating persistent coverage:

  1. "FREAKAZOID's message to bitter fans who lost bets on him: 'F**k you'" – 8 July 2015
  2. "Freakazoid docked a month's pay after verbally sparring with S1mple" – 9 February 2016
  3. "Cloud9 remove fREAKAZOiD from its Counter-Strike roster" – 13 April 2016
  4. "fREAKAZOiD signs with Echo Fox" – 31 May 2016
  Read together, these The Daily Dot articles provide substantial biographical coverage about the subject. Example from the 31 May 2016 article:

  FREAKAZOiD was also seen playing together with Splyce at DreamHack Austin. Playing his customary role as the team’s entry-fragger, he averaged a rating of 1.00 across the three maps the team played before being eliminated by Counter Logic Gaming in the group’s deciding match.

  ...

  FREAKAZOiD was part of Cloud9’s impressive run of tournaments in the summer of 2015. He was considered a perfect fit with seangares' style of leadership, as he would follow the other players' orders to a tee. This would often come at the cost of his own life, as he'd sacrifice himself to to relay important information, like his opponent's map position.

  The subject has also received coverage in this article from Breitbart and this article from Yahoo! Sports. He easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation given new sources, especially the Spanish language ones. The G4 was technically correct, but the new sources add enough new information and support for notability to allow recreation. If someone disagrees that GNG still isn't, met, they can AfD it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Octaviano Tenorio ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closure is a supervote, imposing the closer's own views against the consensus of the discussion, and without a policy basis for doing so. (I tried a discussion with the closer before DRV ( permalink))
Two main probs:
1/ The closer asserts that if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability.
1/A That is in effect a special notability guideline (SNG), but no such SNG has ever achieved consensus. Those which exist have all arisen out of lengthy debate, and it is wrong for a closer to announce an unwritten SNG without evidence of consensus to create one.
1/B The phrase "major religion" is at best highly problematic here. Several comparisons were made with the Roman Catholic Church, which has existed since the 1st Century CE, and currently claims 1.27 billion members. There are ~1.7 billion Muslims, and ~500milion Buddhists. By contrast the LDS Church has existed since 1830, and claims less than 16 million current members. That's two orders of manitude smaller. So even if there was an existing consensus to treat major religion topics as notable, there would be a further debate as to whether the tiny LDS fits that label. Whatever the outcome of such a discussion, it is a matter for consensus rather than ex-cathedra pronouncement.
2/ The closer's dismissal of the argument that the sources are not independent is eloquent, but it is a personal view rather than a weighing of the discussion against policy. The closer even introduces his own analogies rather than drawing on the AFD. In post-close discussion, the closer claimed [5] that the key delete argument was that "a source is unreliable if it's associated with the organisation from which the article subject derives their notability". This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the delete argument, which is about a difft pillar of the WP:GNG: it's about the independence of the sources rather than their reliability.
The core argument for deletion was that i) Deseret News is not just a supporter of the LDS Church, or run by adherents of the LDS; it a wholly-owned subsiduary of the LDS Church structure itself. ii) No matter how accurate/honest/reliable its journalism, its choice of topics cannot be be regarded as "intellectually independent" of the organisation which owns it; iii) that lack of independence means that the only sources on Tenorio are articles written by employees of the organisation in which he is a senior member. In other words, the only people who write about Tenorio are the wholly-owned employees of his team. (As a general authority, Tenorio is at the highest levels of leadership in the church which wholly owns the paper.)
The closer uses the analogy of The Spectator magazine, which usually supports the British Conservative Party; but the Spec is a friend of the Conservatives, not a wholly-owned subsidiary, and it can be vociferously critical of the party. That confusion between subsidiary and partisan ally blurs the crucial difference between friend and servant.
I restate that argument for deletion not to re-fight the merits of the case, but to emphasise that the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. The AFD should be relisted, and the closer should participate in the discussion rather than making a supervote. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry about this, BHG, I really am. I can feel the passion in your statement and I can tell that you feel a sense of injustice here. But honestly, I don't think this listing has any prospect of success. When there's been a very long, full discussion and editors can't agree, and the closer calls it "no consensus" and backs that up with a thoughtful and nuanced closing statement, DRV always endorses. Always. It was indubitably the right close. I'm sorry to be so negative but I can't envisage any other outcome.— S Marshall T/ C 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ S Marshall: But you would concede that this outcome is a one-off and shouldn't be used as a precedent for outcomes of future AfDs? You'd agree that there wasn't consensus to establish any SNGs (which the closure comes dangerously close to suggesting in his close) or any precedent that Deseret News is independent of Mormon leaders despite being owned by the LDS Church? Because there is already talk of using this outcome to restore other Mormon leader articles here. In his close, the closer comes too close to establishing precedent with his wording, and that's why we're at DRV. p b p 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I absolutely and emphatically agree that this close should not establish a precedent of any kind. A "no consensus" close of an outlier debate is certainly no basis for a SNG (and deletion review has a long history of taking a dim view of SNGs). Hard cases make bad law and this case was as hard as they come. I am confident that "no consensus" was the correct close. This is not to say that I agree with every word Iridescent typed, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't.— S Marshall T/ C 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ S Marshall: thanks for your friendly and thoughtful comments. I appreciate what you're saying.
        My own definition of "success" here would be for someone to find two or more independent reliable sources, so that GNG was clearly established. However, unless and until that happens, we are in this mess, where there is no satisfactory outcome.
        I can appreciate the argument for saying that "no consensus" was a likely outcome, but while I disagree that it was a reasonable close, my concern is not really about this particular article. Like Pbp, I am most alarmed at the prospect of this setting some sort of precedent: that because we don't want to appear mean, we overlook the fundamental reasons for requiring independent coverage to establish notability, and thereby chip away at a very fundamental principle of how Wikipedia works as a tertiary publication. I am particularly alarmed at the notion that a closer can pronounce an unwritten SNG, and whatever the fate of this article, I hope that can be nipped in the bud. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • It would take a full RfC to enact a new SNG on Wikipedia. I'm sure Iridescent knows this. His explanation of his close is commendably full and thorough, and of course when someone writes a lot of text there's always a weakest point. The implication of some kind of new guideline is there, if you read what he wrote in the wrong light. It's unfortunate and, I'm sure, unintentional. In view of the concerns raised by respected editors, perhaps the closer of this DRV could say that while we endorse the no-consensus finding, we specifically reject the establishment of any guideline or precedent on the basis of that finding.— S Marshall T/ C 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • @ S Marshall: thanks again. It has been an unexpected pleasure to find such a civil and constructive start to DRV after an unusually raucous AFD.
            Your suggestion of a qualified endorsement sounds like a good way of containing the fallout from this saga. It would push the meta-issues off to where they really belong, which is in RFC territory. That would provide some firmer ground for everyone to stand on if this comes article returns to AFD.
            BTW, I should say that while I disagree strongly with this close, I have not lost my long-standing high regard for the closer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse S Marshall pretty much nails it. There was no consensus. Even as someone who leans pretty hard toward being an inclusionist, I've got to say that the keep !votes were on the weak side. But even then, a delete outcome was probably outside of admin discretion. The arguments were reasonable, if weak, and there are sources that maybe count as independent and reliable. The numeric outcome was close and while the delete folks, IMO, had the stronger argument, it can't be said there was a consensus here. I think NC was the only possible outcome. Hobit ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Hobit: You do also agree with SMarshall that no precedents should be gleaned from it, right? p b p 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia isn't really precedent-based and certainly one close doesn't create a precedent (though bringing it to DRV for such an overwhelming endorse does create a stronger case that the close has consensus...). We work via policy and guidelines with a bit in the way of "common outcomes". Personally, I disagree with the closer and think the delete side had the slightly stronger case as I at least partially buy the lack-of-independence argument here (but wouldn't agree that Saint Mirin suffers from the same problem). However, NC is the right outcome and the language of the close with within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• This discussion may have been headed for a "no consensus" close, but I have to agree with those above that the closing statement (and subsequent defense of it) were fucking atrocious poorly thought out. BHG is right about the closer dismissing certain arguments based on his own preferences rather than their strength and relation to policy. I'm also not thrilled that Iridescent gives so much grief to Purplebackpack89 who, though badgery and ranty stayed pretty much on topic, and gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance. Finally, from reading Iridescent's talk page it's clear that he fell into the trap of conflating independence with accuracy, or at least is a little hazy on the distinction, despite everything those o the delete side said to explain the difference. So on the whole I'd say overturn to delete just to explicitly repeal the bad close. A borderline and crappy article isn't worth setting bad precedent over. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close – well-reasoned close. It does indeed depend on whether the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of Octaviano Tenorio, which IMO it is. Others disagree. Oculi ( talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, or at the very least consider a one-off with no bearing on policy, guidelines or precedent: I'd go so far to say the nominator’s close was uninformed at best, and a biased supervote at worst. Three reasons why:

1. He essentially unilaterally attempted to create a specific notability guideline that doesn't exist. There is no SNG in writing that says that all Mormon leaders are automatically notable. A majority of participants in the discussion said that there either wasn't and/or shouldn't be said SNG. There was also an attempt by the creator of the Tenorio article to try and institute said SNG here; there is a solid consensus against instituting said SNG. Neither discussion produced anything approaching consensus ‘’for’’ an SNG.
2. The close, and in particular comments made by the nominator on his talk page here, indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between reliability and independence. It’s never been argued that Deseret News is unreliable, and never needed to be. We were arguing that Deseret News was not independent from the organization from which Tenorio draws his notability. A solid majority of the participants in the deletion discussion who weighed in on the question of sourcing said that Deseret News wasn’t independent, regardless of its reliability. A side discussion on the independence was started by somebody else here; a majority of participants there also agree that Deseret News is not independent of Mormon leaders. It certainly cannot be interpreted in future AfDs that this AfD resulted in a consensus that Deseret News is independent of the LDS church and its leaders, despite what the closer and keepists might say.
3. Comments within the close, as well as comments and here, indicate that part of the motivation for the close was motivated by an attempt to be punitive toward me and other deletionists rather than ignoring all noise that occurred from either side and focusing on policy arguments. The fact that he even brought it up in the close, and brought it up one-sidedly instead of considering misdeeds of both sides (chiefly baiting by one of the keepists) suggests that the closer did not come to the discussion wholly neutrally. Or, to put it another way, what Reyk said above about giving me a lot of grief while giving a free gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance.

Conclusion: that closing the article as anything but delete was likely improper, and that using this article as precedent to create SNGs or sourcing guidelines (which in turn could be used as justification for keeping or restoring other articles) is even more improper. p b p 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I believe that on Iridescent's talk page was the first time I've ever seen anyone describe a "no consensus" as a supervote. I suppose it would be possible for the closer's own personal opinion to be "no consensus", if they had some kind of multiple personality disorder or something, but that's an unusual allegation and I think it'll be a difficult one to sustain.— S Marshall T/ C 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• The reason I'm calling it a supervote is because he used his close to try and write policy/guidelines without a consensus to do so, and if this DRV affirms anything, I want it to affirm that there is no specific notability guideline and there is no consensus that Deseret News sources are considered "independent" in the context of LDS officials. p b p 23:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ S Marshall: A supervote may take many different forms. Some of the variants are described at Wikipedia:Supervote#Types_of_supervoting. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Gosh, I see that SMcCandlish has expanded that essay enormously since I last read it. Wow. I think those expansions were mistaken, because when any type of bad close is a "supervote", the formerly-useful term "supervote" is reduced to a synonym for "bad close" that doesn't even save any keystrokes. After this DRV is over, I intend to revert that.— S Marshall T/ C 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Given the arguments and the thoughtful closing statement, I can't see any other way this could have reasonably been closed. In particular I find the arguments about the Deseret News being unreliable due to its ownership to be quite unconvincing, unless it can be shown that the church is actively interfering in its editorial policies then such views should be discounted, as they correctly were here. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
  • @ Lankiveil: like so many others, you are confusing the GNG test of independence with the separate questions of bias and reliability. None of us here is any position to say either way what degree of editorial restraint or direction the LDSC places on its newspaper, but that is not the issue in dispute. As sole owner of Deseret News Publishing Company, the LDCS has the power to set whatever direction it likes for its product. Regardless of whether it exercises that power, the existence of that control is not independence. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ BrownHairedGirl: I understand the argument that you are making, but I'm afraid that I just do not find it at all convincing. Unless there is some evidence that this "control" is actually exercised then we're talking about a hypothetical possibility and I don't see that as good enough to rule the whole newspaper out. Coming back to the AFD discussion in question, it appears that enough of the participants were also unconvinced of the argument that a no consensus close was proper. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC). reply
      • @ Lankiveil: the closer's job is to assess whether the argument was founded in policy, and then weigh the strength of support or opposition. What happened in this case is that closer fundamentally misunderstood the argument being made by those seeking deletion, and on that basis described it as unfounded ... and therefore didn't weigh the support. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • @ BrownHairedGirl: Didn't you at one point dig up the editorial and advertising policies of Deseret News and find that they were bound to not go against the policies and teachings of the LDS church? @ Lankiveil:, that's why I don't trust the independence of Deseret News. Also, we're not "ruling the whole newspaper out". All we're saying is that it can't be the thing used to establish the notability of Mormon officials. I'm still saying it can be used to source statements...if articles on Mormon officials also have non-affiliated sources in them to address notability. And it can be used to establish notability AND source statements of anything that isn't Mormon-related. p b p 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Indeed, I posted here [6] about the editorial policies, complete with link.
            However, I was surprised by the requests for such info, and wonder if I was right to post it. When A is wholly owned by B, the proposition that A is independent of B is an extraordinary claim which requires some solid evidence. I didn't see any evidence from the keepists to support their extraordinary claim. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • PS As well as the paper's own policies, there plenty of reliable secondary sources to underline the lack of independence. One of the more striking examples is a report [7] of how Utah state legislators interpreted a Deseret News editorial as an official stand of the LDS church. Or here's a journalist's account of how LDSC control is exercised: '"Word came down from church authorities" to editorial staff of the Deseret News "that the First Presidency statement was to stand on its own and that no additional story was necessary"'.
              But really, the onus for evidence rests with those making the extraordinary claim that this amounts to independence. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse simply because I cannot see any more discussion on the matter reaching a consensus. Leave it a while, if need be get broad discussion going on what counts/doesn't count as independent etc. The stuff about SNG is not totally incorrect, the old statement "policy is descriptive not prescriptive", it's what we do (not withstanding certain constraints from the foundation level). If we always blocked someone after 1 revert (say) it wouldn't matter what WP:3RR says, our policy would be 1 revert. Now I don't wholly agree with the closing statement, and I don't believe that the general way we deal with religious figures etc. can be expressed quite so simply, there is a lot of potential nuance criteria which may or may not be applied to determine what's in/out, but without developing that on a fairly broad and neutral basis, I would suspect we are going to have cases like this which are just going to boil down to disagreement or no consensus if you prefer. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 06:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse That debate did not reach a consensus and therefore the result was proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - "No consensus" was the actual result of the debate, if the more than 2 score badgering comments by the nominator and 30 by another deletion-desiring editor are sifted out of the mix. The only other possible option would be an Overturn to Keep, since the argument against Deseret News — the largest daily newspaper in the largest city in Utah* — is independent of the subject of this article, a high functionary in the Mexican section of the Mormon church, and GNG is met if this source is rightfully allowed. The bitterness of this debate over this barely debatable point indicates that there was probably some ulterior agenda coming into play here; those interested in putting two and two together can do their due diligence. Carrite ( talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) * Addenda: I checked on this. The Tribune has a larger daily circulation by about 20K, but the News has more than 50K pdf subscribers. The point is: it's an authentic, large, major metropolitan newspaper of presumed reliability. Carrite ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • [Reply to addendum] It's quite extraordinary that after all this debate, some keepists are still trying to pretend that the issue at stake is reliability. Between AFD+DRV, there must be several dozen posts stressing that the case for deletion is based on the other pillar of GNG: independence.
    What's going on here? The distinction is not complicated, and if there is a good faith explanation for this, I'd like to hear it.
    As to the notion that circulation is some sort of indicator of quality ... are you serious? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • If you have an allegation to make against people who disagree with you, you should have the decency to state it explicitly. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Allegations that those advocating deletion had an ulterior motive were a repeated feature of the AFD. They peaked with a series of explicit allegations of religious bigotry by the article's creator, which were eventually redacted. It is sad to see these smears being repeated at DRV. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Tenorio as a General Authority was a wolrd leader of the LDS Church. He may have mainly had specific assignments to oversee the Mexico Area of the Church as one of 3 men serving in the presidency, but his calling and assignments were on a global basis. He spoke at the internationally boradcast, published in the all official magazines of the Church in all languages they publish in, general confrerence. General Conference talks are looked on as more authoratative than any statements in other meetings, unless these other statements are also published in Church magazines. Tenorio while a general authority was a world leader of the LDS Church. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • For once, I agree with JPL. In this case he has usefully demolished Carrite's attempt to cast Tenorio as some of distant regional officer who had no connection to the LDSC's wholly-owned subsidiary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Though if he really was important, there would be ample sourcing aside of Church publications. p b p 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • The fifth sentence of WP:N starts, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as...importance...  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • That was kind of my point @ Unscintillating:. Determining notability DOES depend on things such as independent sources, which the article doesn't have. p b p 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Carrite: Just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the LDS Church. There are news stories on Deseret News' website that are verbatim copies of LDS press releases. It may be reliable, but reliability ≠ independence. p b p 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

quasi-arbitrary edit break

• Endorse. Sigh. I tried to read through the whole AfD. I read most of it, and skimmed the rest, but I just couldn't force myself to read every word. In any case, it's clear that there's deep disagreement between the two camps here. The nose-count is pretty even, and I see reasonable arguments being made on both sides. That is the essence of a lack of consensus. Beyond that, we're being asked to pass judgment on the exact wording of the closing statement, and declare whether one sentence establishes a precedent or not. That is clearly outside of the scope of WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yes, questions of whether a close sets a precedent clearly are outside the scope of DRVPURPOSE... but that's a rule that DRV has occasionally temporarily set aside in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, e.g. here and here. I think it's right that we discuss that occasionally, because there does need to be a venue where editors are allowed to raise questions of precedent, and if not here, then where? I don't think there's a place better suited than DRV. Yes, okay, I'm saying that there are precedents for saying there's no precedent. Irony? Oxymoron? Idiocy? I'll let you decide.  :-)— S Marshall T/ C 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• OK, fair enough. There seem to be two issues here:

1. Are sources with a narrow scope suitable. My first thought is No; if only the LDS (or, LDS-owned media) is writing about an LDS official, then that's not enough; we need to see them being talked about in the wider world. Same for any religion. The Pope is notable because everybody writes about him. The Archbishop of New York is notable because I see articles about him in the NY Times and other lay newspapers (but, to be honest, I'm having trouble finding coverage in papers which are neither related to the Catholic church, nor based in the NYC area; I don't see The Times of India, for example, writing about Cardinal Dolan). But, then, let's take a topic such as Delaunay triangulation. or 74181. All the sources for those articles (and, all the likely potential sources I can imagine) are in technical literature. Does that make those sources inappropriate? As Tevye would say, I'll tell you... I don't know.
2. Then, we're being asked to rule on the statement, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability. I'm inclined to say that's a stretch, but, sadly, I'm finding it hard to say that. I'm convinced it shouldn't be enough. But, as an observation on current practice, it, unfortunately, appears to be true. Does that mean that stating that in an AfD closing makes it law? I think not. But, then again, have I just argued Delaunay triangulation off the Pedia? I hope not. But, I see Tevye hiding in the wings again.
3. @ S Marshall:, I hope this has clarified my position to you, as much as your comment above has clarified yours to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Yup, that's crystal clear, thanks. I'm not even remotely qualified to evaluate questions of religion. I'm copiously, radiantly, sumptuously ignorant of everything God; I'm a secular humanist born to secular humanist parents; nobody in my family, in living memory, has believed in a deity, got married in a church, or been buried in holy ground. I've never uttered a prayer. I've never read the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book. I am sooooooo clueless about this it's unreal.

  But I could ask myself:- "Can a no-consensus close of an outlier AfD set a precedent on Wikipedia?", and the answer was immediately obvious to me. And I think it's helpful to articulate that in this case, because the filing party was specifically and, I think, quite seriously, concerned about setting precedents.— S Marshall T/ C 17:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The Closing reflected good reasoning. Beyond this "major religion" is not just a measure of religious size. It is a measure of religious body influence. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will on some world maps be one of 10 designated religions. Utah is the only state in the USA where a majority of the Population is a member of a specific religious body, and that religious body is the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beyond this, LDS form majorities in north-east Nevada, eastern Idaho, south-west Wyoming, and also I believe parts of eastern Washington. In all of Nevada and Arizona and Idaho as well as eastern Washington State there are significant numbers of Latter-day Saints. Not appearing on world maps but equally important, almost half the inhabitants of Tonga are Latter-day Saints, and well over 10 percent in Samoa and French Polynesia. If New Zealand is not over 10% it is close. The attempt to argue that they are not a major religion by numbers alone ignores that religions are more than just their members. The LDS Church has cultural, political and other impacts beyond the members. The arguments that the Deseret News can not be counted involve much too loose a definition of what is and what is not an indepedent source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Just because there are 15 million Mormons doesn't mean this one passes GNG. And @ Carrite: just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the Church that owns and controls it. Please take a look at the links BHG provides above about the strong connection between Deseret News and the LDS hierarchy. p b p 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn while I haven't attempted to read the whole discussion, the closing statement is fundamentally flawed and should not be held up as the result of that discussion. Its two points both seem to me unfounded:
  The argument that LDS sources are too closely connected to the subject was dismissed for being too tenuous a link, which I don't see at all. The subject holds a senior management role in the organisation which owns the publications in question. It's entirely plausible that this situation might lead to the publication being overly deferential to that organisation or to the publication giving undue prominence to the organisation, which is why we ask that articles be based on independent sources in the first place. The situation is analogous to The Times being used to support the notability of a senior executive working for News Corp. Whether you agree with this argument or not it is at least reasonable, and the degree to which this compromises the independence of the publication should be decided by the participants, not imposed by the closer.
  The other point was that if a major Christian denomination considers something to be important then it should be presumed to be notable, which I think is unfounded. The closer didn't cite any supporting evidence for this view, there are no relevant subject specific notability guidelines, and the only suggestion I am aware of ( WP:CLERGY) specifically doesn't mention LDS clergy. If a major denomination considers something to be important then it is likely that the numerous scholars specialising in that denomination will have written about it, which is why such things tend to be notable. If the subject here falls into this category then it should be possible to demonstrate that they meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• The closing does not contain the word "important".  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• No it doesn't, I was paraphrasing. The exact words used make no difference. Hut 8.5 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The close has fundamental errors.
  • The admin has substituted their own personal definition of what is an independent source for what is in Wikipedia guidelines ( WP:BASIC) and what is dictated by common sense. As I stated in the AFD (and was unrefuted) this "...concept of independent would have us use the press releases of companies touting their latest hire as proof of notability." Expanding, many major newspapers have "Appointment" sections where companies tout their latest hires. Even though these newspapers are more independent from these companies than Deseret News is from the LDS Church, we still wouldn't accept these announcements as primary indicators of notability. As such, "discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here" is a fundamental mistake.
  • The statement "if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is quite noticeably bereft of diffs, links, or any other kind of evidence that this is anything other than the admin's opinion. The admin then goes on to provide an example - Saint Mirin. However it took me about five seconds to find a source not owned by the Catholic Church. [8] The admin confuses neutrality with independence and has created a WP:SNG by fiat, without gaining consensus from the community.
• These are two arguments used by the admin to reach a finding of no consensus. Both are incorrect. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As per almost everyone else here. Clearly no consensus and reasoning given both reflects the discussion and current keep/deletion practices. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close: Per the above and per this. Clearly there is no consensus and the longer the debate goes on, the more heated it is getting. I think about a six-month moratorium on bringing this article up again would also be good. The wiki will not break if it stays live for a while. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, or change to keep ' My personal view about the article is an unqualified keep: We've always kept LDS people at this level, on about the same basis we've kept RC bishops. And for religious figures I try to be inclusive in the case of doubt, to avoid the possibility of bias. But a NC close is reasonable, because of the strong opposition and disagreement on the appropriate interpretation of guidelines. Guidelines are meant to be interpreted, and the decision on how to interpret them is left to the community, not the closer. The consensus here was to interpret them to keep the article. The proposition that we do not have the right to interpret guidelines or even use IAR is opposed to the fundamental principles of WP. We make the rules ourselves, and we make the interpretation. We have the freedom to make any rational interpretation for a given article, except where it runs counter to Foundation policy as for copyvio. The person appealing is trying to say that their interpretation of guidelines is the only correct one. Nobody has the right to say this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ DGG: that's an outrageous misrepresentation of my case for this DRV. You have inverted by position with that of the closer.
    I agree that guidelines are for the community to interpret, and the whole basis of my appeal is that the closer substituted his own interpretation of them for that of the community discussion. Here's what I wrote: the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

BrownHairedGirl, first, I waas replying to NeilN, a little above. But @BHG, I think the community discussion was possibly inconclusive, which is a reason to support the NC close. I also, with respect to you comment below to JClemens, do view the COI claim for COI about the same way he does. I'm not LDS, and I've always supported LDS hierarchy at this level, but normally not lower levels. And similarly for other religions; I normally interpret notability arguments over religious (& political) figures & groups in a relatively favorable way in cases of doubt, to avoid even the possibility of bias. To avoid the need to discuss bias, I don't always say so, but it's how I think about them. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: It seems your interpretation is at odds with how Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Leaders_in_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_and_other_religious_organizations is going. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)\ reply

thanks for notifying me of it. I repeated the argument there in more general terms. But even if that should be the decision, there is still noconsensus at the afd. Any afd can make an exception to a general rule. And I certainly see no consensus behind the assertion that LDS related sources are not sufficiently independent. I think it a little absurd to say they are not, but it is true there was no consensus on that. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep the argument that mutual LDS affiliation between an admittedly RS and an article subject impairs independence of the RS'es smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. AGF'ing that that's not the case, it remains simply a bridge too far. Once that argument is dismissed as specious, we're left with nothing but a keep option. Jclemens ( talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jclemens: Woo. Smear-time big-time here.
    You dismiss the conflict of interest as "specious" (synonym for deceptive), despite the fact of its existence being undisputed — only its significance is contested — and despite the fact that evidence of the lack of independence from RSs was posted both at AFD and above. [9]
    And as to the first part, that's a very sleazy trick, raising the flag of religuious prejjudice, and then withdrawing it. If you are AGFing, why raise it?
    If that's the sort of approach you want to take, then I'll break from my usual standards and try it back at you: the airing of an unevidenced suggestion of religious prejudice accompanied by a denial of the existence of evidence smacks of a sleaxy, lazy, dishonest bit of muckraking from some ulterior purpose. But I'll AGF that's not the case. </haveityourway> -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The attacks on the Deseret News advertising policy that you engaged in to try to prove that it is not notable enough, added to the attacks on the reputation of BYU, definately have a combative, denigrating tone that makes it easy to see why bias is seen. In the case of the Deseret News, the fact that it will not run advertisements for liquor and other items that violate the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not at all relevant to its news reporting decisions and seems to indicate a desire to negatively portray the paper by any means neccesary. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • JPL, you choose to cast every piece of evidence as an attack. Sadly that use of the cry-bigot card has been a consistent feature of your participation in these discussion, and it is a disgraceful way to behave in consensus-forming processes.
        For example, I posted [10] evidence of LDCS restraints on academic freedom at BYU ... and your response [11] was not to engage with the evidence, but to accuse me of irrational bigotry [12], and a a bigotted attack on the reliability of the sources [13]. You followed that up by asserting that Reasoned critiques do not include attacks on the academic integrity of an institution [14].
        In other words, actual evidence is inadmissible if it points to answers you do not approve of.
        As to Deseret News, there is plenty of direct evidence of LDCS influence over its editorial policy, e.g. what I postedhere. [15].
        But no matter how such evidence is presented, your consistent response has been not to discuss the evidence, but to repeatedly engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone presenting it. That's the JPL approach: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Attacking the integrity of BYU is figting words. BHG does not even know how to properly appreviate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDCS makes no sense at all. She ignores the fact that coverage of LDS subjects by the Salt Lake Tribune isalways suspect. The Salt Lake Tribune acted as the support to the denial of Mormons the right to vote in the past. JC Clements truly bigotted attack on the LDS Church should have no place here. To call it either "racist" at its formation, when Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Able to the priesthood, or "mysoginistic" when Joseph Smith admitted to the highest rites of the Church women, when Utah granted women the right to vote in 1870, only to see the federal government (with Salt Lake Tribune support cheering it on) deny this right, and so on, just shows how willing people are ton incorporate and allow irrational hatred of Mormonism to stand. Much of the discussion above ignores the fact that A-editorial politcies are not the same as news gathering policies. B- the articles in question are not regurgitations of press releases. The Church News articles and Ensign articles written on the same people at the same time are very different. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • • • • BHG, I approached you at the AfD with total good faith and respect.  Your immediate response included the words, "You fail...", diff.  In that same diff, you said, "In fact, the paper's own statement on its Editorial voice is explicitly biased towards religion."  Yet the word "bias" does not appear on that page.  This "bias" is presented as a fact, but it appears to be an opinion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Unscintillating, please try to read my post as a whole, rather than taking words out of context in the hope of being offended by them.
            And, no, that page does not use the word "bias"; but what it does is to explicitly express its support for a particular sets of values, which are those of the religion which owns it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • That is not a statement of "explicit" "bias", and the claim that such is a "fact" is not verified.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• • • BHG, you have been around sufficiently long enough to remember the times I've stood up for the rights of religious minorities, including during my time on Arbcom. I don't have to believe that the religion in question has any merit whatsoever to extend due consideration and respect to it, and, for the record, I do not find anything compelling about Mormonism other than as a study in how a misogynistic and racist cult started by a semi-literate con man can transform itself to gain mainstream acceptance. I bring that up only to note my perspective as a disinterested party, who neither participated in the AfD nor who routinely watches LDS topics. Thus, while anti-Mormon prejudice, which is entirely a real phenomenon, is a sufficient explanation for several users' conduct, there is no compelling evidence of such. This leads me to the conclusion that while anti-Mormon bigotry may be present, the arguments against the topic should be addressed on the basis of their merits, rather than motivation: independence does not require a non-LDS source to cover an LDS individual to establish notability, even assuming for the sake of arguments that every disputed source can be considered LDS in character and mission. Jclemens ( talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I'm not sure if this is even an option, but endorse outcome but overturn the rationale. If that isn't an option, overturn to allow a new close. The result was defensible, but the rationale was not. Say a company owns a newspaper and they publish an article about the editor-in-chief. That's clearly not independent, and I don't think anyone would argue about that. This close provides some extra distinction to religious organizations and the media they control that simply isn't written into any policy or guideline. Discounting opinions based on that argument was seriously flawed. The keep arguments based on the degree of independence are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted (which is why I support the outcome), but they certainly are not strong enough to discount the entire deletion argument based on existing policies and guidelines. "If a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is simply not supported by anything in our notability guidelines and it makes this look like a supervote. Note that I supported deletion. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and possibly consider creating, at this point, Octaviano Tenorio Wikipedia article controversy... it's a reasonable close because 1) Octaviano Tenorio is clearly somewhere in the borderline area, depending on how broadly you define "independent of the subject" and other things, and 2) the headcount is fairly even I think, and 3) peripheral matters favor keeping the article, besides which the closer took the time to explain what he was doing, which kudos. By all means let the delete camp marshall its arguments and come back again in six months, hopefull this time a bit more succinctly.

As to the "set a precedent" thing, beyond the notability rules we have our common sense as human persons, and WP:IAR if it comes to that. Giving no special to any particular church or other organization: if you have someone who is just on the borderline of Wiki-notability by our (imperfect human) rules, but is clearly important and influential in the world -- a mover and shaker, does important stuff, not just a borderline D-list actor or failed novelist etc. -- and on whom there is plenty of clearly reliable material to write a reasonable article, should any of that matter for pushing the person over the borderline. I don't think it's madness or idiocy to at least ask that question.

Call it the Mycroft Holmes Rule. If Mycroft Holmes existed and did what he did (ran the British government behind the scenes, remember) but we could only dig up borderline-level coverage (he's very private), should we have an article on Mr Holmes or not? People may at least reasonably differ on that questions. Herostratus ( talk) 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think the fact that Tenorio never had any direct over-sight functions over the Deseret News needs to be born in mind. The very broad definitions of connection claimed by some here ignore the fact that he was not directly over the Deseret News. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• That's not really germane to this case. The argument being made is that the Deseret News is so heavily influenced by the church that it wouldn't print anything negative about a senior church figure and thus can't be considered a neutral source, not that Tenorio sat there writing the articles himself. ‑  Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and kudos to the closer for taking on what was sure to be a thankless and controversial task. There was no consensus in this discussion, and so a NC close was the only sensible outcome. As a side note, I would have been afraid to !vote "keep" in the AfD because of the intimidating behavior of some of the participants on the other side. Thparkth ( talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment from original closer. I stand by the comment in my close which appears to be causing the most controversy. The General Notability Guideline is not Holy Writ, and Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written", which is why we have so many articles on villages sourced only to the local authority, politicians sourced only to the government of which they're a part and so on. This isn't "unilaterally creating a new notability guideline", it's a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions; if you do want to elevate WP:GNG to policy status, that would be a massive cultural change and would require a widely-publicised project-wide RFC. However, that's irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion, since even if one discounts every argument, the straight headcount in the AFD (when one discounts the multiple delete votes from PBP) is 9 "keep", 10 "delete" and one "merge", which is pretty much a canonical example of "no consensus", so the only issue up for discussion is whether so many of the "delete" arguments are based on an invalid premise that the AFD should actually be closed as "keep". Regarding "setting a precedent", the mind boggles at the notion of how a single discussion could set a "no consensus" precedent; if there were a large number of similar nominations, all of which resulted as "no consensus", I suppose it could be argued that it would set a precedent that it's not worth discussing such things since it's impossible to reach a consensus, but we certainly aren't at that point yet. ‑  Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Iridescent: You have a habit of exaggerating my actions and mentioning my behavior in places where it's irrelevant. At the same time, you down-play the low-level attacks by JPL and other keepists, who tried to tar BHG and I as bigoted. There were no "multiple delete votes". There was one nomination and two comments urging the closer to reject the bad votes that you accepted. Both comments are identified as nom comments (one said "says nom" in bold and the other says "nom comment" in bold) and only a fool would confuse them with actual votes. It's blatantly clear from your comments both in the close and on your talk page that you were influenced in your close by trying to punish me and BHG in some way. I, for one, find that lack of neutrality unfortunate. Also, nine? There were eight keep votes. Finally, if you're prepared to ignore GNG in any kind of volume as an AfD closer (particularly in favor of a statement that is neither a policy nor a guideline), I consider you unfit to be an administrator. p b p 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Shrug—I'll leave it to others to read the AFD and judge your conduct for themselves. As for "trying to punish me and BHG", I've never encountered you before in my life, and you can ask BHG—with whom I have a history of working going back a decade, and was my de facto mentor when I first joined Wikipedia—how likely I am to have a secret agenda to punish her. ‑  Iridescent 19:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert, Herostratus, Montanabw, Namiba, Steve Quinn, Cullen, Carrite, Oculi, Unscintillating =nine. As for "unfit to be an administrator", I'm sure you know how to find Arbcom. I'll point out in passing that I count three current or former arbs in this discussion, all of whom are disagreeing with you. ‑  Iridescent 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) If you don't want me replying to your comments, don't mention me in them. You're again trying to make this about editor behavior when editor behavior is wholly irrelevant. p b p 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Considering that people have said they would have avoided !voting "keep" based on how PBP and BHG treated those who did so, I think editor behavior is worth noting. When attempts to defend the scholarly intergrity of BYU Studies Quarterly are met with shooting "Bob Jones University", the tone is totally out of line. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I hate editing huge blocks of text so I'm inserting another edit break

• If you'd just closed the AfD as no consensus with a rationale along the lines of "opinion is evenly divided and both sides make reasonable points" then I think you would have got a much more favourable reception. Instead you chose to leave a closing statement which ruled that the arguments of one side were significantly flawed without much to back that up. I can certainly see this setting a precedent, at least with this article. If someone renominates the article for deletion in the future and uses any of the arguments raised in favour of deleting the article this time, then the response is going to be "but the last AfD found that those arguments are wrong, so we can ignore them". That will substantially change the course of that discussion. Hut 8.5 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• This is something that often weighs on my mind when I'm closing a complicated discussion. I will often start out writing a long essay, but then I think of back a few such closes where all I managed to do by writing a lot was to give people something to hang me with. If you keep it short and sweet, that's less likely to happen. I'm not saying that I'm encouraging people to keep it short, just pointing out the reality of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to wrong forum, with directed advice for implementors to implement the centralized discussion forum for redirect/merge discussions  Note that I was a participant in the Afd and that my viewpoint here overlaps my position in the AfD.  The AfD closer continues today to make unusually in depth and helpful analysis, including the longstanding concept that, "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written".  But as per current policy, this AfD did not need to be decided on whether the topic needed a standalone article.  The only question that needed to be resolved in this forum was, "is there sufficient due weight for this topic to be a significant topic in any article on Wikipedia; to which BHG said (01:52, 18 July 2016), "he would still be mentioned in the list article."  If editors really want to have such nuanced discussions about whether Tenorio should be standalone vs. merged to the list article, root cause analysis of the problem at this AfD says that it would help to have the centralized redirect/merge discussion forum.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would say the current list examples are hardly worth mentioning. One example is Koichi Aoyagi who we used to have an article on. The list merely mentions when he was called as a General Authority, when he was given emeritus status and his age. It does not mention even his nationality. There might be room for creating what amounts to short biographical articles, but I see no reason to reduce us from the information we currently have in the article, to loosing any mention of even the most basic information on Tenorio. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Aoyagi was closed as WP:DEL7, not WP:DEL8, so in spite of many similarities, does not compare easily.  And whether or not you or I like the idea of a notability debate starting on the heels of this AfD, this AfD is not binding on the issue of wp:notability, because the remedy for an absence of wp:notability is redirection or merger, and the forum here is "Articles for deletion".  AfD's closed without using admin tools are not binding on subsequent content disputes, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not bind an administrator into ongoing supervision of a subsequent content dispute.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close That's as clear a "no-consensus" discussion as I ever saw. (Unless that's an oxymoron or something). Any overturn could only be to keep, per DGG. I also reiterate the point made above that admins who put on the waders and actually close these discussions for us, once they have devolved into bickering as far as this one had, deserve our thanks. Begoon  ^talk 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close Once the keep side rejected the contention that Deseret News is not independent of the subject, the delete case collapsed under the weight of policy. It's understandable delete voters might feel hard done by, as their case was relatively well founded in logic and evidence, much stronger than typical deletionists arguments. Clearly Deseret News is less independent of LDS leadership than say The Spectator is of conservative MPs. Yet Deseret News was not shown to have been directly controlled by the subject as an individual, so keep voters were free not to make their own interpretation as to whether it counted as independent. I've seen many an AfD with a far weaker delete cases still result in the loss of articles. Thank God we had resolute keep voters in this case, and one of our best admins to close the AfD. If it had been accepted that a topic has to get "substantial coverage in a reliable source which is not part of their own team." , that would have been a terrible precedent, opening the door to article destruction on a biblical scale. Also echoing everything just said by editor Begoon. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Railpage Australia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A "speedy keep" NAC closure by Music1201 ( talk · contribs) after seven days where only one other user had commented and that user did not comment on the merits of the discussion. We don't apply WP:WEB the same way we did nine years ago and I think it was entirely valid to have a new run-through on AfD. I've raised the matter with Music1201 on his talk page and he has declined to reverse himself. I'd like to see the debate re-opened and re-listed so that consensus may be reached. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close (as closer) No AfD fails 10 times and then suddenly gets deleted. It is backed up, cited, and there is no indication of "unnotability". — Music1201 ^talk 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sure they do. In any event, that's for the commenters in the discussion to determine. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This article had only been nominated 8 times previously, not 10, and that was in 2007, nine years ago, with most of those nominations being either bad faith, or withdrawn. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn from "Speedy keep" to "Keep". No WP:SK criterion was cited or seems to apply, however the AfD looks to have had run its 168 hours. With " the subject clearly shows that it meets applicable notability guidelines" the closer looks close to hitting the WP:Supervote line.

For anyone still wanting to see the topic deleted, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, and to briefly summarise all of the previous AfDs and explain why they were all wrong. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

On further review, I also !vote to overturn the entire closing rationale. An unexplained "Keep" would have been much better. As an explanation, I suggest "no one agreed with the nominator". I have given a lengthier reply to the nomination on my talk page, at User_talk:SmokeyJoe#Railpage_Australia. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

NB. Closer subsequently altered "speedy keep" to "keep" [16]. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Agree with SmokeyJoe on all aspects. Hobit ( talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Folks, I don't wish to badger, but how can we keep the article when no one commented substantively on the nomination? Surely this is a relist or a softdelete? I went to a good deal of trouble to actually review the article, its sources, and the procedural history of the past deletion discussions. The NAC is painfully inadequate, wrong on policy, and didn't engage with any of it. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • A fair point. But there have been discussions in the past (rather a lot). And while those discussions weren't great (and are old and some where closed for procedural reasons), it's fair for the closer to take them into account. Especially on number 10. If anyone felt strongly that this needed to go, I think they'd have commented. No one came out in support of deletion in 7 days--if this was somehow a great injustice, I think others would have opined. It's probably worth just dropping at this point. I'd probably have relisted, but keep is also reasonable given the previous discussions. Hobit ( talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Frankly, this is the sort of situation that drives men mad. I thought it mattered, else I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place and explained all the problems with its claims to notability. The close is a travesty, but it will be taken as an endorsement of the article's notability even though no one in the discussion thought so. We're in a circular situation where we're keeping an article because we've kept it before, but no one can actually state "and it's notable for these reasons." Note the closer's statement on this very page: "No AfD fails 10 times and then suddenly gets deleted. It is backed up, cited, and there is no indication of "unnotability". That is nonsense and no one who writes that should be in the business of closing a deletion discussion. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I disagree. I said that because it's 99.9% true. Wikipedia is pretty harsh on it's notability guidelines, and there was almost 11 chances for that article to be deleted. If it wasn't notable at the time of creation, it would have been speedily deleted. If it wasn't notable in the existing 10 AfDs, it would have been deleted. Do you see the pattern? Two of the the AfDs were speedy closed as "bad faith" nominations. I don't think your point is valid saying that my statement makes me have no business of closing a deletion discussion, because I have closed dozens in the past few days without a single complaint, and I don't think your point is valid saying that it's nonsense. I assume there has never been 9 deletion discussions for one article, and then the 10th one suddenly closes successfully. I do however, agree that this AfD probably should have been kept as "keep" instead of "speedy keep", so I've changed that. Even though I knew what the outcome of the discussion would be before even reading it, I still thoroughly read the discussion and determined that the argument you provided when creating the nomination was still not as convincing as the comments in the discussion. An editor even wrote: "I would likely consider a relisting of this AfD without a rationale for so doing, to be an edit against consensus." (I don't agree with this editor, but I can see why he wrote this.) — Music1201 ^talk 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Vacate close and let an admin reclose as they see fit. Not a reasonable closing statement at all A "ruling" as apparently given in the closing statement is not within the remit of anyone on this project. Specific points (1) our policies and standards change and develop over time (2) consensus can change (3) the previous AFDs were all in a very small space of time (1 month, 9 years ago) and largely were closed early with no substantial discussion - apparently much as a reaction to an SPA campaign to get the article deleted, giving these discussions much weight at all is questionable at best, (4) As far as I can see there haven't been 10 previous AFDs (as stated and repeated above), there have been 8, the box on the AFD lists the current nomination and a redirect to one of the other nominations, if the closer didn't even bother to check the previous noms... -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 07:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The most recent AFD was literally 9 years ago. A lot has changed since then. I'm glad that the "speedy keep" has been changed to a "keep" but I'm still not satisfied. The fact that the nomination is the 10th one isn't a valid reason to close it as keep. Neither is the fact that the closer believes the subject meets WP:GNG. The AFD itself received little participation overall, and a nomination which WP:NOQUORUM applies to shouldn't be closed as keep, at the very least it should be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I think that relisting would be the best option here, so that some more comments can be made and a clearer consensus can be achieved. Omni Flames ( talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I think, as per my post on my talk page, that a fresh nomination is required. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Omni Flames: I find it interesting that this is your second edit you've ever made to a deletion review, your other one being months ago. — Music1201 ^talk 22:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Omni Flames, same as Music1201, is a recently enthusiastic WP:NAC-er, not surprisingly subjected to criticism himself. Paying attention to the review boards, especially where NACs are involved, is absolutely and entirely proper. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Music1201: That section you linked to makes it clear that there's nothing wrong watching someone's contributions if you legitimately see something wrong with their edits. This is far from the first time someone has brought up concerns about one of your closes. I also find it interesting that you think commenting on one deletion review you're involved in is wikihounding. Omni Flames ( talk) 23:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Omni Flames: If you actually looked through my talk page archives you'd notice exactly 7 complaints about my closures. I have done at least 150 RM closures, and at least 100 AfD closures. Which basically means I have a 97.2% success rate in that, so I wouldn't be concerned about my closures. If you've been having problems with my NACs, I'd appreciate if you'd ask me about them on my talk page, rather than discouragingly labeling me as an editor by which you have "legitimate concerns" about. While I'm always aiming for 100% accuracy in my closures, I cannot guarantee that they will be all be agreed among editors. Also, if you'd like me to give more examples, leave me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to do so, but I'd rather spend my productively contributing to Wikipedia. — Music1201 ^talk 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• That "success rate", 97.2% without explicit complaints, is nothing to be proud of. You have to do pretty bad for someone to bother complaining. You are too enthusiastic with your NACs. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Relist without opinion on the closure; it got derailed by a discussion about process wonkery. Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Mackenson made a solid nomination that was not rebutted, one user just wanted to complain about not making an edit to the talk page first (not mandatory...). The fact this was nominated several times nine years ago should not be relevant to the AFD today and it deserves a fair hearing, something it has not yet got. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist yes the article has been nominated for deletion many times before, but the last time was nine years ago. That's a very long time round here. The nomination was perfectly reasonable and the only other person to comment didn't address its points at all. If there isn't any more participation after a relist or two then it might be reasonable to close as no consensus for lack of participation, but not keep without relisting at all. Hut 8.5 21:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist A single vote does not a quorum make. Let's have a proper discussion on the merits of the article. clpo13_{( talk)} 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I think it's rather unlikely that a relist will help here. DRV can enforce the procedure, but what it can't do is magic up a squad of interested editors to have the discussion and do the research. This was listed for 168 hours and got zero substantive discussion. (Unscintillating's characteristically pugnacious intervention can, I think, quite safely be disregarded.) The accurate close would have been "no consensus to delete", i.e., hardly anyone cares whether it should be deleted or not, so the material is kept by default in the absence of any pressing reason to do anything else. I don't object to a relist if that's the consensus, I just think it's probably a senseless waste of time.— S Marshall T/ C 22:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • A procedurally-sane outcome has to be worth something, especially if it deters future closes like this one. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Procedurally-sane? We can wag our fingers at the naughty closer and say things like "Strongly not endorsed!" if you like. We can probably even administer a piscine corrective, although DRV rarely goes that far... but another 168 hours on this? I'm not seeing the need. Editor time is a resource that's getting scarcer and scarcer as the number of active Wikipedians dwindles, and I feel that we should be mindful of conserving it.— S Marshall T/ C 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Relists are cheap and we do it all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. Normally I think relisting is a waste of time and it should be used a lot less than it actually is. In this case though, the only discussion to take place was process wonkery unrelated to the page itself. If there's still no informed commentary on the page after another week, it should be closed as "no consensus". Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Relist There is an advantage in stable decisions. But after 9 years, if is some new reason that wasn't previously available, or if consensus has generally changed for that type of problem or that type of article, or for something as critical as copyvio that was previously ignored or not discovered, there's reason to revisit. This change in consensus for articles on web sites is the argument here, so there's grounds to revisit. The rejection of the AfD because of not following BEFORE is irrelevant and erroneous. This isn't a matter of not looking for sources, or of arguing over content. It's a matter of the application of policy, and AfD is the place to discuss it. I have in the past proposed WP:BEFORE to be required, & consensus once accepted the change, but subsequently thought better of it, partly because of the difficulty in specifying just what has to be done when. This is a good illustration of the problems of being too rigid about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist and let the full AfD go its course until a clear consensus is reached. Mattlore ( talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Patrik Macej ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I deleted this page as part of a multi-page AfD. Today I got a request to undelete it. I have no opinion one way or another, but as I'm not really up on sports notability, I'm opening this discussion on IQual's behalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Restore if I understand the source correctly the subject played in a match for MFK Zemplín Michalovce in the Slovak Super Liga. As that's a fully professional league it means the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, which overturns the argument for deletion given in the AfD. Hut 8.5 19:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Restore per Hut 8.5. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Restore but DRV isn't needed if the fundamental argument in a 2-year-old AfD has been mooted by subsequent coverage, as appears to have happened in this case. Jclemens ( talk) 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

I'm procedurally nominating my own close. Montanabw expressed misgivings about my close on my talk page. After lengthy discussion, they still think the closure is not an accurate representation of consensus, whereas my assessment of the consensus has not changed. Given the lengthy discussion there which continued even after I directed them to DRV multiple times and after I stopped responding, it seems appropriate to put this to rest through a DRV. See Montanabw's comments at the above talk page for a description of their misgivings regarding the close (or they're certainly welcome to comment here to summarize). ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 16:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The original discussion was started by Good Olfactory to rename the category as Category:Horse whips. I was grumpy about it, just because I wish he would have raised the discussion at category talk first, but basically I did not really oppose it. Then, someone else proposed upmerging, which I vehemently opposed because Category:Horse tack and equipment, which I created not long ago, is intended as a mostly-diffusing category that encompasses dozens (at least, possibly over a hundred) different articles about said items in several categories. Also, Category:Whips is not a subcat of the horse tack category, as it encompasses human whips and many other things. Originally the argument for upmerge was a SMALLCAT one (there were three articles there at the time), so I located a couple other suitable articles to add that brought it up to five. So then the next round was made up of very ridiculous arguments, such as that an upmerge should occur because "whips are used on other animas besides horses" (yes... and no rule against multiple categories being added) or one that "some whips are used on dogs" (no, that was a misreading of an unsourced colloquial name for a quirt). There are, as I explained to Rob at his talk, multiple policies and guidelines that allow small categories (there is a discussion about that right now, five is well within the range of the discussion), and many guidelines that allow multiple overlapping categories. The relevant part of that discussion with Rob I shall repeat here: Help:Categories is clear: "sub-categories may be a member of more than one category." Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don'ts is also clear: "DO: Use the most specific categories possible...Categorize based on defining characteristics...Add pages to multiple overlapping categories." There is no official number of articles per WP:SMALLCAT, and the [Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#WP:SMALLCAT discussion] of the topic is ongoing, but categories as low as 4 articles are routinely kept in some circumstances. So at the very least, my position is that it will not break the wiki if we create Category:Horse whips. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Rob determined the consensus correctly, and as a seasoned (with a bit of salt and fresh ground pepper) admin, I would have closed the same way. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. If Montanabw put their efforts into working on horse whip articles, there would be a point in restoring the category. But with few, and almost no specific content, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed the category wasn't particularly useful. Procedurally, Rob's close was impeccable, so I don't see any reason to overturn it here. But as a participant in the original discussion, I'm going to leave it to others to weigh in. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's an insult, I have worked on all five of the articles in that category and created a couple of them. Your comment that there is "no specific content" is utter nonsense. Where did you come up with that one? This is the "policy-based reasoning" that everyone used to assess consensus? Are you kidding me? Montanabw ^(talk) 19:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Oh, I won't be the only person here who will benefit from a link to " diffusing". Thincat ( talk) 20:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I think at the CFD close would have been a better conclusion but I won't fault the closer because the discussion was delightful, in much the same spirit as Duck Soup (or Horse Feathers), and the closing rationale lived up to the occasion. Thincat ( talk) 20:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (original nominator). A deletion of the category was not my most preferred outcome when I began the nomination, though I saw it as a possibility. Based on the discussion though, I can't see how this nomination could have been fairly closed in any other way. I think the underlying issue is one for which reasonably opinions can differ; in this case, it went against my first preference and User:Montanabw's overall preference, but had User:BU Rob13 closed it in any other way, he would have been justifiably criticized by other editors whose preferences would not have been achieved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The close was a defensible reading of the discussion, but Montanabw's arguments as the editor with probably the most experience on the underlying articles, persuade me that there are other options that should be explored. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Whose expertise to we favour more—the one with the most experience with the underlying articles, the one with the most experience with the category tree in question, or the one with the most experience with categorization in general? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse reasonable close. I must say I was shocked at the attitude shown by Montanabw on User talk:BU Rob13, even at one point suggesting that Montanabw's neutral vote on BU Rob13's RfA might have had an effect on the decision. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Don't be shocked, MSGJ, it's obvious that this was a really poor close and yes, I was appropriately critical of the closer, he should not have been the one to close this because I was a voter at his RfD and though neutral, I did not support, and my comments did lead to some other people deciding to oppose. An admin needs to avoid even the appearance of bias. This silly little drama has now cluttered up what was supposed to be a fully-diffusing category. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, but with no prejudice against further discussion leading to a different outcome. I'm quite sympathetic to the substance of the argument being put forward by User:Montanabw in the original discussion, but on the other hand there are no gross procedural errors with the close or catastrophic misreadings of the consensus arrived at in the discussion that would justify overturning the close. As a side comment, User:BU Rob13 should be commended for a calm and rational response to the challenge and a willingness to submit his own decisions here for review. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC). reply
• Fair enough, but so now how to I get all the whip articles out of a category intended to be fully diffusing? It's now messy. If I create a new category such as Category:whips people sometimes carry when they ride horses, will that one also be deleted as a violation of the decision to upmerge? Montanabw ^(talk) 23:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't that just asking, "how do I get around this CFD decision?"? Isn't a central meaning of the decision that the category for horse whips particularly should not exist and that its contents should be upmerged? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

This AfD was closed as "delete", but I think it would be better to relist the discussion instead. Another possible outcome is to redirect to SEAT Pagine Gialle. Also, Talk:SEAT Pagine Gialle should not have been deleted because it is the talk page of another article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 13:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Huh??? You brought the thing to AfD asking for it to be deleted, it got deleted, and now you're saying is shouldn't be deleted? I'm confused. In any case, the article makes no assertions of notability even by my standards, and the only reference is to a URL that ends in /press-releases/. Why are we here? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just in case anybody is confused, my opinion is endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• As closer, I don't see the point of this request either, and note that I haven't been contacted about this matter prior to this request. I've undeleted Talk:SEAT Pagine Gialle which the AfD closing script deleted, probably because of something to do with redirects.  Sandstein  17:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• But then I looked at its associated article and speedy-deleted SEAT Pagine Gialle per WP:A7, so that issue is dealt with also.  Sandstein  17:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Admittedly under the current situation it's basically a WP:SOFTDELETE and could be undeleted at any time. Unusual request all the same. "Relist, we didn't delete it hard enough" isn't something DRV usually does, and it's not clear that we're even being asked to do that. Mackensen (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment The nomination in the AFD "Non-notable company" is in itself not an argument for deletion, it is an argument not to have an article. However, AFD is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion, so anyone who goes there to discuss things is at grave risk. You could have a nomination "Excellent article in every respect which should be made a featured article" and it may end up being deleted. Thincat ( talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse by default per lack of reasoning to overturn. Nominator states "I think it would be better to relist the discussion" but doesn't elaborate why relisting would change the situation at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Peculiar situation this. New info, I'll be brief and give you a few, rough bullet points.
  • SEAT Pagine Gialle ( lit. 'SEAT Yellow Pages') (SPG)
  1. Founded 1925
  2. Traded on Borsa Italiana since 1997
  3. Core businesses: Telephone directory publishing, ISP, advertising, online marketing, e-commerce
  4. Provider of Italian data for Google Maps since 2006
  5. By 2010: 4,810 employees, €1.11 billion in revenue
  6. Article on itwiki since 2006, it:Seat Pagine Gialle, 17k
  7. Can it be verified and reliably sourced? Without a doubt, but double-check yourself.
  8. NCORP met?: Yes
  • Italiaonline (IOL.it)
  1. Founded in 1994 by Olivetti modelled on America Online
  2. Biz: ISP obviously, Italy's leading
  3. May 2015: signs an investment agreement for the integration of ItaliaOnLine and SPG and holds 80% of SPG by November
  4. January-May 2016: Full merger completed, effected as of 11 June
  5. Article on itwiki, it:Italiaonline, surprisingly short
  6. Can it be verified and reliably sourced? Without a doubt, and so it could by 7 July, but double-check yourself.
  7. NCORP met?: Yes

  Consequently, the above idea that Italiaonline could ever redirect to SEAT Pagine Gialle is a misunderstanding. SEAT Pagine Gialle ceased to exist as a company on 11 June, weeks before the AfD nomination on 7 July. If recreation is allowed and if any merging of substance should be preferred by the community here, its logical target would be Italiaonline with a redirect from SEAT Pagine Gialle. For your consideration: ( GeoffreyT2000— RoySmith— Sandstein— Mackensen— Thincat— Starblind). -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

None of the above bullet points are legitimate arguments to undelete. What we need are sources. Not an assertion that sources exist. Give use two or three solid, reliable sources, which meet WP:RS and something might happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I have no problem with a sourced recreation of any of these articles. It's just that so far nobody, including in the AfD, seemed interested in keeping them, or at least "Italiaonline".  Sandstein  07:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as a proper reading of the consensus. We relist too many AfDs, if no one has argued to keep, that generally indicates that the article ought to get deleted. The article isn't salted, and recreation is already allowed so long as the new article addresses the concerns of the AfD, in this case lack of solid referencing. If someone can find enough reference material to show notability and support the article, more power to them. If that reference material doesn't exist, we shouldn't have an article on the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for saying that, Seraphimblade, very clarifying for me. The deleted one-liner as such is of little interest. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Dajenne/Larry Stylinson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The MFD instructions require that a page be problematic before deletion and the only argument here was it was old. That is not a reason to delete w draft. We should not drive away contributors like that. Wikijuniorwarrior ( talk) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This shouldn't even be restored for the sake of non-admins to review it. There are BLP violations in the history and it probably should have been deleted WP:G10. --  GB  fan 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Joseph Watson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is a decent amount of RS coverage of him, e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] This coverage was not in the article when it was deleted at AFD earlier this year (which I know because of this link). Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm not seeing it none of them are about him, they are mentions about comments he's made. The third isn't even that. GNG requires the sources to be talking about him in a substantive way -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 16:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Paul was deleted at AFD emphatically in 2006 (after an initial no consensus first time around), deleted several times in the interim, recreated in February 2016 and deleted via AFD again in March. The last AFD debate wasn't heavily participated in, but the only argument to keep was from an IP address and related to his YouTube view count. I'm not really convinced that the new sources would add enough on a topic with no less than seven previous deletions in the log. KaisaL ( talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This one's probably staying deleted absent a compelling reason to undelete. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The sources are crap and if that's the best there is then it's better off not being here. – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the sources provided aren't significant enough to merit a reexamination. Hobit ( talk) 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Page was WP:A7 speedily deleted after a month of being in userspace. Deleting admin has declined to restore page. (I was told submit a DRV, even though WP:REFUND might be more appropirate) Prisencolin ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Being part of an esports organisation with a Wikipedia article is definitely a credible claim of notability, so WP:A7 would not apply here. Debates over notability should be taken to PROD or AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I cannot really see any claim of importance. Being part of a team I would not say was a claim of importance. However I would recommending permitting userfication or making it a draft so that independent references can prove notability. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no credible claim of importance present. In line with the usual process anyone can recreate an A7-deleted article without further formality, and undeleting the article to draft or user space is fine too. Stifle ( talk) 08:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Is the league he's part of fully professional? Its article implies no. I'm inclined to endorse the A7 if that's correct. — Cryptic 11:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

ELeague is fully professional, so was MLG Major Championship: Columbus, which the article listed as an event where he finished T3. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 12:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn WP:A7 and list at AfD. A7 is for an article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This article (which I've tempundeleted) makes two such claims: that he plays for a professional sports team (one which we have an article about), and the immigration flap. Personally, I don't think either of those is worth anything, and plan to !vote to delete this at AfD, but that's not a free ride for admins to swing the CSD-stick wildly. BTW, this title was deleted twice before, but those incarnations were about an unrelated band with the same name. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• So it seems as if the page has already been restored. Is there any point of continuing this discussion instead of just opening up an AfD? In fact I'm just going to start one right now.-- Prisencolin ( talk)

No, it hasn't been restored. Please read the big bold template that's on the page now, i.e. However, an appeal has been made at Deletion Review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, the page has been temporarily restored with this message in place. This is a common procedure; it's been restored just so that people commenting here can see what the article was. There's no commitment to keep it any longer than this review takes. Oh. my, I see you've already replaced that template. Please do not do that. I'm reverting your edits and putting the template back. Please do not edit it any more until the DRV is over. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry I didn't mean to remove the DRV template. Correct me I'm wrong but no where on the page does it say you can't still edit the page, in any case article in DRV should be reviewed for WP:POTENTIAL not current state.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sigh. You're not getting it, are you? It was only restored as a temporary courtesy to people who want to comment at this DRV. I see you also made a cut-and-paste copy at User:Prisencolin/karrigan, which really isn't appropriate because it forks the article history and makes it difficult to track the edit chain for attribution purposes. I also see you've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrigan, which is totally inappropriate while this DRV is still underway. I'm going to close that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

In my mind, there's no reason to think that this article doesn't at least have a claim of significance; whether this is notable though, is definitely questionable. Heck, even the editors who doesn't believe there's a claim to significance support the userfication of this article. Honestly, this whole process is just an unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY and it would be nice if this was just WP:SNOW overturned and we can move onto the real deletion discussion.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but a well-sourced new draft which asserts notability might be appropriate. Restoring without establishing whether there's substantial coverage in reliable sources is pointless, as if there aren't then it's guaranteed to not pass an AFD if restored anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Seeing as I'm not allowed to edit the page, I'll just list the sources here. Note that not all of these are in the article: [22] ( DR) [23] ( Sport1) [24] ( l337mag)-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: With what was presented, the deletion review was sound. However, as Starblind pointed out, there would be potential with a fresh draft. Though, it will need to pass GNG. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't think that is necessary yet. This was deleted vis A7 (a deliberately lower bar than the GNC) so passing it is not a prerequisite to overturn a speey deletion. Obviously, it's a different story if this goes to AFD and is deleted there.-- 174.91.187.80 ( talk) 21:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn A7 and allow AfD, userification, or draftification. I would encourage the closing admin to query those editors opining above who don't clarify that they think this was an appropriate A7. The bar for overturning (or not going with) A7 in the first place is intentionally low, per RoySmith above, and a couple of the opinions offered above don't seem either compatible with that, nor even fully acknowledging this was a speedy, not an XfD process. Had this been deleted at AfD, there would like be zero overturn opinions offered. Jclemens ( talk) 19:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AFD Perhaps surprisingly, I agree that this doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I would absolutely vote delete in any AFD, but it should go through that process. KaisaL ( talk) 13:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list. A player for a professional gaming team with a source (reliable or not) that he is "one of the best players in the world" is a credible claim of importance. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose I should point out that the version that was A7 deleted didn't include that particular line, as I added it after RoySmith restored the page.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• In case anybody thinks this counts against this person's supposed notability, all of the tournaments listed are supposed to be boldened and indicated as Majors, but I forgot to do this.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• So I'm not sensing that there's going to be a clear consensus by the 14th. Would it be a good idea to just withdraw the nomination and save everyone the time?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• No, I don't think so. In a no-consensus DRV the closer has discretion to relist the AfD for further discussion and that could well be the outcome here if I'm any judge. This discussion doesn't seem to be over, to me.— S Marshall T/ C 07:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There was never an AfD for this, so in the event of a NC would most admins just fully restore the page and open an AfD?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • No. If you read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews above, it says, If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. So, if this DRV were to be closed as No Consensus, the WP:A7 deletion would stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I think that in the circumstances it would be within the closer's discretion to say "No consensus" and then list at AfD. To me, the deletion discussion doesn't feel like it's over.— S Marshall T/ C 16:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at the time of deletion the article indicated that the subject is a professional sportsman, is part of a professional sports team we do have an article on, has competed at notable tournaments and also cited a couple of news articles about them. I think that's plenty for A7. I think that's plenty to get past A7. Hut 8.5 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Hut 8.5:, if I understand you correctly, what you meant to say was, I think that's plenty to show that A7 doesn't apply. Yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've clarified the comment. Hut 8.5 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Being a professional sportsperson, even in a niche, non-traditional, or not-really-a-sport sport, is a clear claim of importance or significance. The article should not have been speedy deleted under criterion A7 and none of the others seem to apply. Assuming notability is still contested (as it clearly seems to be) the article should be listed for consideration at AfD. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

CUBA Platform ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

So I have talked with the closing admin User talk:Phantomsteve. As he pointed out I take this here. Also I remind, that Haulmont is the winner of European IT and Software Excellence Awards with the CUBA Platform based solution. E.lavrenkov ( talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• In the DRV purpose section it lays out what DRV is for. Disagreeing with the result is not one of those reasons. Can you specify what procedural fault you see existed in the deletion discussion? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, I don't see any issues with the closure of the AFD. Nakon 02:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse/Incorrect forum. DRV is not the place to reargue the same arguments from the XFD, which was correctly deleted per the consensus. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 03:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy endorse. Deletion review is not a place to get a general rehearing of a case. It is to deal with instances of the deletion process not being followed properly, which it was. Stifle ( talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. So where is the place on Wikipedia to get a general rehearing of a case, if it's not here? E.lavrenkov ( talk) 11:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Not sure why it was deleted to begin with. Enactus is a non-profit organization, that had a solid wiki entry with lots of information in regarding to its programming. 64.22.251.18 ( talk) 19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It is currently at User:James_Allison/Enactus, who requested the page be userfied (it was originally (correctly) deleted under WP:G11 as blatantly promotionally) so he could work on it. Best to bring it up with him. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note the inclusion criteria for wikipedia don't include automatic free pass for non-profit organisations. Just looking through the references they all seem to be to itself and to a book apparently self-published by someone very close to this. This wouldn't meet the basic inclusion standards of WP:GNG which requires independent coverage, and we aren't a free web host. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 20:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Definitely not looking for a free pass. Full disclosure, I'm a staff member for Enactus and we don't touch it. Just looking to get it back up, as our students use it as a resource for information. The opening paragraph seems to be frequently under-attack by someone who is promoting their book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettsinn ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• James Allison since it's userified to your page, do you have any opinions here? I'd say endorse the deletion and let the editors work on improvement with the userified version. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Appreciate the clarification on process. I will state the second paragraph keeps getting high-jacked by the person who has the intention of selling a book. The first paragraph and everything after are facts, the second paragraph to me is the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettsinn ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I take that back, it looks like someone hi-jacked the opening paragraph of the "History" section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettsinn ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  No it has the much bigger problem of not being referenced to reliable third party sources, it's pretty much all cited to Enactus itself. It has the secondary problem of level of detail, it give a large amount of space to what on the face of it are pretty inconsequential as far as an encyclopedia article goes. Those things may be fixable, in the case of the former if it's not fixible the it's unlikely that an article can be sustained. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 22:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Eh, the subject is clearly notable. [25] is an academic paper discussing it in detail. [26], [27], [28] all have enough coverage for us to write an article. That said, the current version (in draft space) is so overly promotional it would be speedied on the spot. Write a non-promotional article and bring it back here (or just directly into article space, but I'd suggest you have someone look it over before you do so) and you'll be fine. Hobit ( talk) 23:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per Hobit, including his descriptions of positive, productive next steps. Jclemens ( talk) 00:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Yes, Hobit has found good references and is right (I need a template for that). But the draft is no good at all. No good at all. Do you not see that? Is that the way an Encyclopedia Britannica article would be written? Thincat ( talk) 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Org is notable per Hobit above but article as it currently exists is terrible. I'm also concerned by the COI nature of some of the comments above. Content critical of the organization that employs you is not "hijacking". Regards, James ( ^talk/ _contribs) 03:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Article is fundamentally unusable as an encyclopedia article. Nominator and User:Brettsinn (if they are not the same person) seem to misunderstand a number of aspects of Wikipedia policy. 1) if you want a resource for your students, put it on your own website. 2) Adding sourced and factual information about an article subject to the article, or editing of the article by someone you don't want editing it, are not "hijacking", they are completely normal. What ideally needs to happen next is a completely uninvolved, disconnected editor should restart the article, probably as a stub, from scratch, and anyone connected with Enactus needs to leave it the hell alone. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

There is no such thing as bad publicity ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This is a redirect which was speedily deleted as WP:R3 – an implausible typo. This speedy criterion was not appropriate because the title is not a typo and it was a plausible redirect to the target page which uses the phrase in its lead. So far as I know, there was no consensus for this action such as a discussion at RfD. The admin who did this was quite involved because he was a party to the discussion which prompted this and has also been hounding me lately. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Orphan redirect and no indication that it is plausible for a search term. More time-wasting. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Please also give evidence of involved in that discussion. As far as I can see, I made sure all relevant editors were informed of the discussion. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• The edit summary in the deletion log indicates that there was something personal in this: "it's pure self adoration". When I queried the action, TRM made a further personal attack – "It's ... something you vanity-created". I fail to see the vanity element in this as there are no prizes for such work. But such accusations are improper in any case because the term "can be considered insulting to the people it is applied to" – see WP:Vanity, which is deprecated for this reason. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Considering No such thing as bad publicity redirects to Succès de scandale, I see no reason why the full phrase shouldn't as well. clpo13_{( talk)} 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  So we add all variants? Even though there is no evidence supporting its inclusion? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  The phrase "There is no such thing as bad publicity" appears in the article, and the article is the first result when searching for that phrase. As to whether it's a useful redirect, that's a matter for WP:RFD. clpo13_{( talk)} 18:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Clearly not applicable for WP:R3 and no incoming links is not a reason to delete a redirect. If TRM wants, he can take it to RfD to get community consensus. Given that the term is mentioned in the article and is quite a famous saying, deletion at RfD would be unlikely anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Clearly not a typo, so speedy criterion R3 doesn't apply. This is a common phrase and seems entirely appropriate as a redirect to the target page. Calathan ( talk) 17:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn No comment on the dispute between editors but the use of CSD here does seem to be pushing the boundaries of the definition a little bit. It's not the most likely search term, for sure, but that should be the grounding for an RFD and not for a speedy deletion. KaisaL ( talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Very well, restored and I will create a few dozen other redirects that are orphans that are not used in the main space just to be sure we cover the bases. The redirect wasn't even created in article space, so how it helps readers I know not but you guys seem keen to keep it and to enable Andyt, who am I to argue. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If you have problems with Wikipedia's redirect policy, take it to Wikipedia talk:Redirect. I doubt you will gain much support for deleting all redirects without incoming mainspace links. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 18:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

There were four delete votes (including nom) to two keep votes and a redirect vote, as well as a reverted delete vote; I feel as if there was no consensus. Second, there are definitely many sources for this article, and not just covering a single event, enough so that when presented with these sources, one voter was eventually convinced to drop their delete vote. Prisencolin ( talk) 00:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete count edited to include nom, thanks-- Prisencolin ( talk) 01:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, albeit narrowly. Firstly, I must note that I commented (in favour of deletion) in the AFD debate. Secondly, I must correct Prisencolin's opening stats here: The delete count was actually four (the nominator should be included), with two keeps votes, one redirect, and one delete that switched to neutral. This is certainly a narrow number going for the delete, and from the numbers alone it would be a borderline case for a relist. However, when one of those two keep comment begins with "I guess this is just a matter of principle, but" and that comment comes from the creator and only significant contributor to a new article, it does inherently weaken that contribution to the overall consensus. The neutral switching from a delete, and also stating "I'm having a hard time with this" and directly criticising a source (The Daily Dot) is also a factor. My view is that a relist would have been less controversial, but that there was a slender consensus - in numbers and the weight and strength of arguments - to delete. As a closing point, in valuing neutrality, I do note that eSports articles are contentious and Prisencolin and myself do lie on different sides of that debate. KaisaL ( talk) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I could agree for a relist, if possible.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I realistically don't think this has any chance of being overturned for a keep (nobody can argue this had consensus for a keep first time around, surely), so a relist is the most likely option I would have thought. I would still marginally endorse Kelapstick's close. KaisaL ( talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep This isn't even a NC case IMO.
  • The first delete !vote claims it doesn't meet the GNG and coverage is all about one event. The GNG claim is later shown to be false. The 1E claim is more debatable.
  • The second delete !vote doesn't even parse. It's not clear that the !voter was even discussing this topic.
  • The third delete !vote is asking for something beyond our requirements: being "significant beyond the eSports community".

The neutral !vote acknowledges that the subject has the coverage required by our guidelines and policies but shows a discomfort with covering the topic area. The keep !voters provided sources enough to meet the GNG and many don't cover the "one event". So even with the numbers here, I think we come to keep, though NC would also have been a reasonable close. Hobit ( talk) 02:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

For my further comments on this, refer to my reply to Jclemens below. However, for the purpose of the deletion review process, @ SwisterTwister: Can you confirm your delete comment (the second one criticised above by Hobit) was added to the correct AFD? KaisaL ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) - SwisterTwister has now endorsed the deletion and in turn their own vote as being added to the correct debate. KaisaL ( talk) 16:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with Jclemens here. The delete !votes were unaware of sources or ignored them or used an IDONTLIKEIT rational. We've easily met the GNG--there is no meaningful argument there. According to a delete !voter we have 20+ articles (I've only read about 5 of them). We've got coverage in the mainstream media. The articles are mostly not about the "one event". Yes, a closer really shouldn't be closing as "delete" on a discussion where our inclusion guidelines are met--at least not without a much stronger consensus than was had. There are times to ignore our guidelines, I don't believe this was one of them. Hobit ( talk) 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

FYI, if you're referring to my comment below, that "20+" was just a number pulled out of thin air - it wasn't mean to be quoted. My point was more that there's a ton of short, garbage articles that don't cover the subject in detail. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep because WP:1E arguments are invalid, as are assertions that the GNG is not met. Without those two arguments, as Hobit points out, there are zero policy-based !votes arguing for deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 02:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment (RE: both Hobit and Jclemens) I find it very hard to accept any argument that this debate should have been closed as a keep, and any administrator doing so would have been demonstrating clear bias and an inability to correctly gauge consensus. Furthermore, to close it as a no consensus would go against the established procedure of relisting for a further seven days in these cases, we don't simply close after a week when the discussion is tight anymore (unless there's mitigating factors, such as multiple previous AFDs going that way and no indication the situation has changed, but this was a first listing).

Deletion review is not round two of the AFD process. It is for evaluating whether the process of deletion was carried out correctly by the administrator, but the fact you are arguing that this debate should be overturned to a keep makes me wonder whether you know that. Even if you personally feel WP:GNG was met via the sources provided, concerns were raised about the sources, and (by myself) about the contents being substantial. It is impossible to identify, on the weight of the arguments presented in the debate and the number of contributors arguing to delete versus keep, any clear consensus to close it in the way you are suggesting. KaisaL ( talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If adminning is just counting noses, we could have a bot do it and be done with it. Are you familiar with WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and its prevision for disregarding inputs that are made in bad faith and/or not conforming to applicable policy? If someone says " WP:1E" and there are two or more events noted in the article as it stands, or " WP:GNG is not met" and there are two or more reliable, independent, secondary sources in the article, what weight do you think SHOULD be accorded to those expressed opinions? I note that you've been around since 2005. Do you understand why the parlance "!vote" is used on Wikipedia in consensus-building discussions like this? I'd love to hear how you understand it, because it's clear we differ. Jclemens ( talk) 16:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

At no point have I said anything about AFD being about "counting noses". However any administrator that goes in to a situation where four established users have argued to delete (initially five until one switched to neutral) and two established users have argued to keep, and then closes that debate as a keep, should not be closing discussions based around consensus. I absolutely, unequivocally fail to accept that this could have been closed as a keep. That has nothing to do with counting votes, it's to do with the fact that there was no clear consensus to close the discussion in that way. Your points about WP:GNG being met and the sources in the article being "reliable, independent [and] secondary" don't come into this, an administrator closing a debate should not be making their own partial judgements on that. The discussion within the AFD process is where such analysis is made. The only other ways an administrator could reasonably consider closing this debate would have been as a relist or as a no consensus. (And please look at my own narrow endorsement - I have acknowledged a relist may have been less controversial.) KaisaL ( talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You just did a !vote count, here, in support of saying an overturn to keep is unreasonable. My take on that is it's either entirely the wrong way to do things, or we should just close by bot. I maintain not only that it could have been closed as keep, but should have been closed as keep. Why? Because it IS the job of the closing administrator to evaluate whether !votes conform to policy, and there was no factually correct, policy-based argument for delete made at all. If I say "delete, has no sources" on an article that has sources, is it the closing admin's prerogative to disregard that !vote? I would say not only "yes", but also that it is their obligation to do so. Jclemens ( talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Making a comment pertaining to how many people were on either side of the debate is not a "!vote count" at all. The closing administrator doesn't just take into account the comments, cherry pick those conforming to their own views and close based on that, they've got to work on consensus and there is no way this debate had close to a keep consensus. Anyway, I think I've made my points and you've made yours so I'm going to leave it there. KaisaL ( talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

No, the closing admin doesn't cherry pick anything: he or she gives weight to those conforming to 1) reality and 2) policies. Since no delete !vote would have been weighed with any weight at all by any administrator discharging their duties to evaluate !votes in such a manner, then yes, the only reasonable reading of the AfD is to keep the article. Consensus cannot include erroneous information--that's not how consensus works, and your reading of the consensus in this case would accord weight to views which clearly violated policy. Jclemens ( talk) 00:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, I forgot to mention: I really don't feel you could, in this debate, argue that any of those arguing to delete were doing so in bad faith. It is your opinion and that of those favouring to keep that WP:GNG was not applicable, it is not the clear-cut case you are making it out to be. Any administrator disregarding those delete arguments en masse would be completely misusing their administrative powers. KaisaL ( talk) 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

My apologies if you interpreted what I said as asserting that there were any bad faith voters in this AfD. I was merely pointing out the other reason listed in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS for disregarding votes, and I was not intending to assert, nor do I now assert, any evidence of bad faith in that discussion. There were carelessness and factually incorrect assertions, but I have no reason to believe that, just from that one discussion, that these constituted an intentional pattern of misbehavior. Jclemens ( talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong Endorse- By strength of numbers and strength of argument, I think it's clear that a consensus to delete was reached. Reyk _YO! 11:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What strength of argument are you seeing? The only guideline-based arguments I'm seeing are GNG and 1E arguments. Neither seems to hold up in the face of sources. Hobit ( talk) 11:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I see that the delete voters and nominator considered the same sources as the keep !voters and found them unsatisfactory. Disagreement about their strengths does not invalidate one side of the argument. Changing to "strong endorse" due to badgering. Reyk _YO! 11:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Wrong side of the bed this morning? It was, and remains, an honest question. The first and second delete !voters voted before the sources were supplied (and the second didn't say anything about well, anything, honestly let alone sources). The 3rd didn't object to the sources and neither did the neutral. Hobit ( talk) 12:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not a fan of drip-feeding sources into AfDs to invalidate previous votes- because what usually happens is that people found those sources in the course of their own digging and were unimpressed. Someone else presenting them later in the AfD is not evidence they were not previously considered. I see no reason to invalidate the nomination or first two comments on those grounds. The second is worded weirdly but I understand it just fine. Remaining delete votes definitely had the benefit of all the information and were not swayed by it. I definitely see a solid consensus for deletion in this AfD. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Hmm. Finish this sentence for me, would you? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of..." One more question: If any prior !voters had found sources, considered them, and not found them to be convincing, the ideal thing to do would be a) nothing, or b) document them in the AfD !vote so that others could consider them as well and the closing admin could see that they had delved into the topic and thus accord their !votes more weight? Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 16:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
            • As you wish. "Absence of evidence is the very two people I was talking about turning up to affirm what I just said." I don't routinely list every half-sentence passing mention I've seen, do you? A modicum of WP:AGF if you please. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
              • There is certainly an appropriate amount of good faith, but I don't believe that positing that editors posting before a particular source is listed in an AfD (when it wasn't listed in the article at the time) had a reasonable chance of having found, considered, and based their input on such newly-listed info is at all reasonable. My prompt was an attempt to get you to use your own logic in a contrapositive manner; my apologies if it was perceived as an accusation of bad faith. Jclemens ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as I still confirm my Delete, this is best restarted when there's convincingly better as what I saw was still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the problem here, and at a few other articles, is the lack of significant coverage. These eSports websites have the tendency to tag tangentially related team members into articles, or write these really brief, paragraph long articles. Does The Daily Dot have 20+ articles on this guy? Probably. Are they saying anything more than "Subject is playing this event", "Subject is sidelined", and "Subject was fired"? No, it never moves beyound a simple statement, and then they're off to writing about other things in an already short article. (Except for the subject's bullying incident, but that's where the 1E argument comes in - that's the only event sources have ever delved into with detail.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Same thing that happens to actors and athletes. Coverage is largely about what they do for a living. Would you expect something else? Hobit ( talk) 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • ...er...more detail...? Longer articles that keep their focus around the subject...? Perhaps you've missed my point. My issue is that, so many of the articles used to assert notability are structured like this:

Freakazoid is playing Event X as part of Team Y. Event X is a big event for Team Y. Team Y is having a rough year, due to reasons, and they need a win. And who could forget the big upset at last year's Event X? Participant Z really messed it up for his team. Yeah, you never know what will happen at Event X! Well, here's hoping Freakazoid doesn't mess up.

Its stuff like that, where nothing of substance is said, and the article writer meanders into writing about other people, the team, the event, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn As I pointed out elsewhere when it came up, this was a clear no-consensus to delete. The only two real policy-backed reasons for deletion were both subsequently proven incorrect. If someone makes a vote based on a reason that has little justification, it has little weight when balanced against an opposing vote with much firmer policy-backed arguments. So yes, the early delete votes are of little weight given the subsequent information provided. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no-consensus. The first delete vote's use of 1E is clearly wrong, the second delete vote has no policy-based argument and seems to smack of IDONTLIKEIT. There was a debate over the reliability of the sources, but not a clear consensus on that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 17:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but relist no consensus would also have been acceptable. I say this with considerable regret because I agree with the people above who think that the delete arguments were mostly factually incorrect – but I don't think we can be certain they were wrong. I'll agree the 1E arguments were mistaken. But "notability" is so subjective (even if you regard the WP:N guidelines as rules, which they tell us they are not) that I think it is unusual that we can be sure a notability delete or keep !vote is unacceptable. "Multiple", "reliable", "significant" and "independent" all have such a wide range of legitimate interpretation that a !voter really has to put their foot in it to be shown to be wrong. Anyway, WP:N as a whole has occasional exceptions and may be applied with common sense. I have recently emerged from an AFD where someone was arguing that a book about two people (both names in the title) wasn't significant coverage of one person because it was only written because of the fame of the other person. That argument didn't succeed but WP:N doesn't categorically rule that out – and even if it did we would not be required to follow that advice. Notability discussions at AFD are largely about whether or not we like the article sufficiently for it to stay in place – with the intriguing etiquette that we never say so. Thincat ( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I have changed no consensus to relist after reading KaisaL's helpful remark below. Thincat ( talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just a comment on the "no consensus" option here. This AFD was never relisted for a second cycle. It's quite uncommon nowadays for an AFD that's contentious to simply be closed as a no consensus after seven days. The logical closure, if consensus had not been established in this debate, would have been to relist it for another week. No consensus would have, on the surface, been a strange close as inviting further participation may have yielded a clear consensus after the fortnight. KaisaL ( talk) 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Geez People ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I think that a consensus was not reached and that the reason given by the nominator and 1 delete is that there is Geez language but not Geez people, I think the reason for that is when the article is written initially most of the sources used were about the language but later on I did add several sources talking about the people. The other delete is because the user has issues on the content of the article.

The article in question is about an ancient people who made up the ethnic and cultural stock of Kingdom of Aksum and Dʿmt. Historically they are very important people in the history of Ethiopia like the ancient Latins whom are similarly ancient people who made up the ethnic and cultural stock of the Roman Empire and are important people in the history of Europe and the World. One example of ancient Latins importance is they developed a script which much of the world uses for writing, and Geez script developed by Ge'ez people is used to write languages in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Considering less importance of Ge'ez people in world history and since there is no more people called Ge'ez there are very few sources indicating the people. I don't know how many reliable sources should be supplied to prove notability but I did manage to find 4 sources from Google books as can be seen here The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences, Volume 1, A History of African Archaeology, A Century of British Orientalists, 1902-2001 and here Ethiopia: A Cultural History. All 4 sources says Geez people/Ge'ez people and if the 4 book writers believe it is a linguistic group (but not an ethnic-group) they could have indicated uncertainty by saying "Geez speaking people" instead of saying "Geez people".

Based on MBisanz recomendation to look for more sources talking about the people I've provided 3 more additional sources: he conquered the Ge'ez people, Geez people were descended. and Geez people, these sources also talks about the people. I very much appreciate it if you review the decision. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha ( talk) 20:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC) --> reply

• Not an area I know a lot about. Looking at the discussion, I think NC or delete are both reasonable outcomes. The sources supplied aren't really detailed enough to make it over the GNG. I'll not formally !vote here because my lack of knowledge in the area makes it hard for to have any idea what the right thing is to do. But from my limited perspective, the discussion leaned toward delete for what look to be reasonable reasons. Better (and ideally more detailed) sources would help. Hobit ( talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• I concur with Hobit that the AfD discussion seemed to turn on technical arguments beyond my areas of knowledge. Might I suggest you ask for it to be userified where you can work on it to address objections there before returning it to mainspace? I believe that would be the best way forward. Jclemens ( talk) 00:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. but that doesn't mean we couldn't have an article if there are good sources. I think the AFD discussion wasn't so much about whether the topic is notable but rather was there really a group of "Geez people" or were there simply some people who spoke Geez. I'm rather sympathetic to your argument when you quote "Drewes (1962) suggested that an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people were already living in northern Ethiopia in the early 1st millennium BC. These people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for both the pre- Axumite and Axumite states". [29] This suggests to me an ethnolinguistic group but other people at AFD didn't seem to agree. And is Drewes (in 1962) a good person to be quoting? The snippets aren't anywhere near enough to demonstrate the other opinions at AFD are categorically incorrect (and I know nothing at all about anything). Maybe even scholars dispute the matter. Another suggestion is to enhance the Ge'ez language or Ge'ez script articles to tell us more about the people who used this language. Thincat ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Draft:BAFE (British Approvals for Fire Equipment) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have discussed this with Ricky81682 who originally deleted this and I am prepared to substantially edit the BAFE page to gain restoration/approval. BAFE ( talk) 14:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Can you point me to the discussion with Ricky81682? I don't seem to be able to find any such discussion on his current talk page, nor any edits which suggest such a discussion in your edit history. I can also see you don't even appear to have followed the instructions here on notifying the deleting admin. Not only is there the concern that the article was relisted without any significant improvement, I also get concerned with your comments here which seem to suggest you don't understand what an encyclopedia is about, let alone how wikipedia works. Can you tell me which reliable third party sources discuss the topic of BAFE directly and in detail? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Procedurally valid close. I also share the above concerns that the nominator is not here to improve Wikipedia and agree with the IP's broader analysis. No means no. MER-C 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• In order to take this request forward, please provide reliable independent third-party sources which discuss BAFE in detail. As you are signing as BAFE I can only assume that you are somehow connected with BAFE and must therefore ask you to confirm you have read and will comply with the conflicts of interest policy. Stifle ( talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• The conversation between myself and Ricky 81682 as follows:

Sorry wrong link. It went through a deletion discussion so the proper place is to make a request at: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Deletion_review

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ricky wrote: As explained in the below discussion:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:BAFE_(British_Approvals_for_Fire_Equipment) Deleting a single sentence and resubmitting it is not actively listening to the concerns of the reviewers. Further, it's been reviewed seven times by five different reviewers each of whom provided separate comments to you and which clearly were entirely ignored in place of minute changes and resubmitting it. You can request that it be restored here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion However, I doubt it will be restored unless you should an actual interest in actually taking the reviewers' concerns seriously as opposed to making very minor changes and requesting review again. And while you may ask for others to work on it, no one has found the necessary secondary sources and have no interest in doing so. Good luck, Ricky

• I wish to add this page as BAFE is an important organisation whilst there is no Government regulation in the fire safety sector. I would like a reference to it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwisniewski ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  "an important organisation", as requested by a couple of people, wikipedia understands an organization to be notable based not on the mere assertion of editors, but by reliable third party sources, intellectually independent of the subject, writing about it directly and in detail. Do you have those sources? -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 22:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• [30] has a couple paragraphs of coverage. There are lots of passing references, but all seem to basically just say "BAFE certification is good". [31], [32]. We probably should have an article on this topic or, perhaps better yet, cover it in some other article (do we have an article on fire safety underwriters or the like?). Hobit ( talk) 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Yes of course WP should cover this topic and it's a shame if it is the wrong size and shape to fit into one of our article pigeon-holes and there is no convenient shelf to put it on. The references Hobit has found aren't really enough to pass muster according to our notability criteria but we really should have a situation where we can accept topics when a number (even a small number) of highly reputable sources say (even in passing) that a topic is very important. But, even given all that, is there sufficient objective material to write an article in this case? I can't see your attempts. Thincat ( talk) 18:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Valid closure, Best bet would be to give up with it and move on. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Fire in entertainment ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This deletion process has been based on alleged WP:OR but there was absolutely no analysis or synthesis of published material to construct any new conclusion. The article used a main symbolic element of art works with full notability already confirmed by Wikipedia (all mentioned art works had article links). Lists like List of chemists, List of rivers of Thuringia, and even Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire (are they indiscriminate???) also likewise list articles based on certain main characterizing elements without giving any proof that also others already sorted and listed that way. So WP:OR obviously does not forbid any listing and sorting of fully notable articles by thematically characterizing elements. MathLine ( talk) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete. Per the hatnote at the AfD and the discussion at the user's talk page, the closing administrator has weighed the merits of the arguments and applied the deletion policy correctly. The user has not provided any information that was unavailable at the time of deletion to indicate that the deletion was based on incorrect information or inappropriate application of policy. Also, deletion review is not "AFD part 2"; simply rehashing the same nonsensical arguments just because the outcome wasn't the one you wanted simply won't work. (Note: I !voted to delete in the original discussion.) -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. MathLine raised the deletion on my talk page at User talk:KaisaL#Your illegal deletion of article Fire in entertainment, claiming that it was "illegal". I have replied there with an expansion of my reasoning for the decision, refuting the point that it was based sorely on original research issues, and pointed him to deletion review as is his right. I am happy that my close was within process and uncontroversial. I will not make any additional comment here as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL ( talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I really don't think the AfD could have been correctly closed any other way. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above - All of the !votes were policy based whereas the !Keep was more or less a rant and then by the end of that rant they appeared to have been completely confused as to what site they were on, (Who uses Twitter hashtags on the 'Pedia I mean seriously?), Anywho there was no policy based reason to Keep, Endorse. – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close by KaisaL; as HighInBC said there was no other possible outcome. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Of course artists are always a bit tempted to fall into the 5 steps of visibility suppression for success keeping (1. recognizing collective subconscious dreams, 2. producing art that reflects in metaphors these dreams so that it is hence systematically connected to these dreams thematically, 3. being successful because people recognize their subconscious dreams in this art, 4. gaining popularity and influence due to this continued success, 5. using this influence to organize suppression of developments that increase visibility clarity of the dreams to preserve the success) so please see Graham's hierarchy of disagreement before obedient and conformistic repetitions become excessive here. -- MathLine ( talk) 18:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've struck your !vote as you're the DRV filer and therefore shouldn't be !voting. – Davey2010 ^Talk 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Please let us know when you have an actual policy-based argument instead of pseudophilosophical logorrhea. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Procedure was followed correctly. Article is very clearly synthesis. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as, although I had apparently not voted, I would've likely voted Delete anyway, I'm simply not seeing how this could be convinced as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse couldn't have been closed any other way. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 09:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The nominator has requested I and another user be blocked for "vandalism" [sic]; see KaisaL's talk page. I think a case of WP:NOTHERE may be in the process of being established. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Question: Wikipedia:Viability of lists#Being discriminate gives as examples: List of wings would handle a topic so broad and diverse it encompasses a subject too large to easily categorize, while in a List of U.S. Presidents with brown eyes listing of U.S. Presidents is quite small and grouping people by their eye color is almost unheard of. But does Category:Fire in fiction (and associated Category:Films about arson) show so great notability and discrimination that listing art works that contain fire in fiction is shown to be not comparable with the List of wings example (due to the much greater amount of subcategories of Category:Wings (aviation)) which indicates merging into articles of those fire related categories instead of deletion? -- MathLine ( talk) 21:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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

Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Spiritual chain discussed in this page is notable subject as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution was done as WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Spiritual chain satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu due to its unique ideology in spirituality. Many authors have published considerable material in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. If this deletion is merely due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor am accountable. My edits and created few pages have contents independent to my logged in or logged out status. All edits are legitimate to WP policies and guidelines. If any of my edited page need refinement then it should be done in collaborative way rather than deletion. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL ( talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I have fixed the XFD link which was to the wrong debate. KaisaL ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Endorse The delete !voters at the AfD actually had policy based reasons for their decisions. The only people to !vote keep were the author and a random IP. Both of which have included no policy based reasoning behind their !vote. Good close. Good delete. -- Majora ( talk) 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC): reply

Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 ( talk) 20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Endorse I think this was closed properly. The AfD was listed for an adequate amount of time and the keep votes did not present any sources or evidence. I also strongly suspect the 2 keep votes were actually meatpuppets. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Deletion review is a place where failures to follow the deletion process correctly are identified and resolved. It is not a place to get a second opinion if the debate didn't go your way. Particularly, we are unable to entertain an argument that the AFD was made at an unsuitable time; with over 5m articles it is inevitable that not every deletion discussion will be made at a time deemed suitable by whatever criteria. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Overturn I think pages of Abdul Hakim Ansari and his ideology Tauheediyah should be on Wikipedia. I become familiar to them during my MPhil thesis. Famous scholars have focused on Abdul Hakim Ansari and his given ideology named Tauheediyah. That are good inline to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For instance; ‘’’ شریعت و طریقت(Shariat o Tareeqat) by عبدالرحمان کیلانی (Abdul Rehman Relaani)’’’, published 2006, pages 530. ‘’’ishan-e-manzil: sign-post of salvation by Abdullatif Khan Naqshbandi’’’, published 2002, pages 264. ‘’’Striving for divine union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis by Qamar-ul Huda’’’ published 2005. ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari by Russell Jesse’’’. Book by Abdul Hakim Ansari of title ‘’’ حقیقت وحدت الوجود (Haqeeqat Wahdat ul Wajood)’’’ is included on recommended books list of masters programme ‘’Religious studies’’. 203.124.30.64 ( talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. May i ask for improving them instead of deleting? Many articles are there in wikipedia entries that need too much work. These articles were much developed. - 182.186.40.116 ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_July_3&action=edit&section=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈43.245.11.16 ( talk) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 ( talk) 11:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Page ‘’’Tauheediyah ‘’’ is according to WP guidelines and policies and i say it should be restored. 43.245.9.63 ( talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn but rewrite No proper arguments were presented on either side. We normally do cover all religious movements for which there is some evidence of real existence, and this seems to be one. There appears to be at least one colony of followers, based on their photo on their facebook page. We have accepted even very small movements. I cannot tell the size of this one, as I can find no information on current membership or if thee is more than the one location--but it might be in the sources, which I cannot read. That there are no third party sources does not matter--we have very frequently accepted articles on religion without them, basically on the grounds that they are good authorities for their own leadership and beliefs. The lack of English sources is irrelevant. The article is promotional, but a brief description would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No real convincing policy based arguments were made by those seeking to support to mitigate the policy based concerns brought up by those seeking deletion. If someone can write an article that is up to the inclusions standards of the project I suggest they start in draft space. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I still stand by my delete !vote. Also, DGG's "That there are no third party sources does not matter" goes straight against WP:GNG's "sources independent of the subject". Third party sources are needed to at least establish notability. Once that is done, primary sources can be considered to expand the actual content, although secondary/tertiary sources are preferable. We have this criterion to prevent things like self-promo of groups that may just as well have been made up one day. PS: the overturns are rather meaty. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment and question. It is well accepted in literature on ‘theory of science’ that person presenting idea should be credited accordingly. Ideological bases of Tauheediyah are quite strong and interestingly controversial but less protested. For instance, It is important aspect of muslims belief that nobody can see their God, Hell, Paradize, etc. in this life. These topics are sensitive enough to discuss in muslim community. Muhammad Hanif Khan, an unknown person (very little published about his life), initiated this idea and few other similar but hard to believe ideas. His followers such as Abdul Hakim Ansari introduced Sufism and named it Tauheediyah. Ansari became the first in the history of muslim spirituality who presented his complete spiritual syllabus in writings. Ansari wrote books on Khan’s ideas and cited his name. Admittedly, these ideas were never introduced in general public before Ansari. Onward literature also published that supported as well as criticized Khan’s ideas while citing books written by Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spirituality. Who and what is notable? Ideas? Initiator of ideas? Presenter of idea in his books? or the ideology of ideas that is tauheediyah? Followers of tauheediyah are known accepted community in general public due to their different ideas and philosophies. Followers are not unknown if not very famous.
Regarding publishing independent sources, all subjects have their specific publishing trends. Spiritual biographical literature in past was mostly published after hundreds years of persons death. We hardly see any example of independent biography of saints in Pakistan. Can anybody cite single example? This literature is mostly narrative and not acceptable on research parameters. I have also looked into other citations on many articles of muslim saints' biographies. I could not see any independent source satisfying WP:GNG ‘sources independent of the subject’. I don’t think that this WP:GNG can be applied, as it is, on biographies of muslim saints. Deletion of these type of pages is not durable solution to me. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) [Special:Contributions/182.189.179.182|182.189.179.182]] ( talk) 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Just to name one example of a South-Asian saint with coverage in a reliable independent source: Moinuddin Chishti, who is discussed in a biographical encyclopedia of Sufi saints. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Good example. Let’s have a look on it. Moinuddin Chishti needs no introduction in muslims’ spirituality. He is a saint because he has his ‘spiritual linage’ or ‘golden chain’. It is first and the most authentic parameter of muslim saints. Uwaisi saints have exemption of it. Uwaisi saints never have spiritual linage. Second parameter is the criteria of inclusion of someone in golden chain of any spiritual order. This criteria is set only by founder of any spiritual order. Successor saints only follow these criteria. They cannot change it. If successors change it then they rename the new system. Please don’t ask me of sources of above statements. These are well established conventions and can be seen in each muslims spiritual chain.

Short reflection on literature sources on Moinuddin Chishti. Available literature on muslims’ spirituality hardly go back to eighteenth century. Most of the oldest sources are of 1850s and onward. These literatures are books that are narrations about saints. These are mostly exaggerated, superficial, and fiction-like stories. Being very optimistic, if we consider those books authentic then we should have answer to cover information gap of centuries (12th century to 18th century). There was no source of information except words of people’s mouth. Development of onward information sources (independent books and encyclopedias etc.) about the Moinuddin Chishti on the basis of these information sources is authentic and acceptable. Published and widely circulated material about saint Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spiritual chain Tauheediyah is being objected as not independent to subject. Same will be acceptable after publishing by a local vender on payment of few pennies. This situation demands redefining of notability of muslim saints. I liked this very constructive discussion very much. I respect opinion of expert editors and am convinced that in view of present policy guidelines defined in wikipedia. pages on Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari deserve deletion. Consensus for ‘’’endorse’’’ is convincing and understandable. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- decision was based primarily on a lack of reliable sources and all the WP:ILIKEIT in the world from anons won't change that. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Abdul Hakim Ansari ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Further, Person discussed in this page is notable personality as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being founder as well as president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. Books have been written on him and his ideology. Deletion may be due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor is accountable. Created page contents have no influence of it in past. I will take care of it. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah ( talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL ( talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 ( talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 ( talk) 20:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Endorse Closed based on Wikipedia policy. Good delete. -- Majora ( talk) 21:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply