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

It was undeleted by an administrator after reworking The article Kayako was reinstated by the administrator User:Sarahj2107 after I had rewritten a draft (only a couple of months ago) (see User_talk:Sarahj2107#Kayako_article_deletion). It was deleted again by User:RHaworth. User:RHaworth asked me to come here to report it ( User_talk:RHaworth#Kayako). If it cannot be undeleted can it be recovered as a draft so I can work with it still thank you 109.159.159.194 ( talk) 17:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but allow Draft use, as a CSD is a CSD, exactly that and because it was repeatedly deleted, the best option is to use WP:AfC instead where it can be reviewed. It's not always a convincing sign a restarted article under a year ago is here again. It would've also helped to show us what you can add to it. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The most recent text was evaluated by admin User:Sarahj2107 and found minimally sufficient for mainspace; that User:RHaworth disagrees is not grounds for speedy deletion, which is not acceptable when reasonable disagreement has been established. I also note that RHaworth's response to the OP on their talk page [1] is wholly unacceptable, both in terms of the absolute refusal to discuss and the rejection of a perfectly reasonable request to restore to draftspace, and clearly merits censure; as well as does their decision to salt the topic without any discussion shortly after another admin had found an article acceptable. Bad, bad, bad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I see no reason not to trust RHaworth's judgment that the article was promotional and lacked a credible claim of significance. Also, the article deletion history strongly suggests that this is content that does not belong on an encyclopedia.- Mr X 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: And I see no reason not to trust User:Sarahj2107's judgment that it was not overly promotional and included a sufficient claim of significance, and in light of that disagreement between two apparently reasonable admins speedy deletion, which is supposed to be uncontroversial, was not appropriate. No single admin, not RHaworth nor anyone else, is privileged to unilaterally resolve such disagreements in favor of their own opinion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I see no reason not to trust User:Sarahj2107's judgment either, but her judgement more than three months ago does not preclude RHaworth from deleting the article now. I see no controversy.- Mr X 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: If reasonable, experienced users can disagree, a speedy was obviously not appropriate. No objection to taking it to AfD if that's what people want, but that's the process that should be followed. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I don't think this qualified for A7 or G11. The article contained a number of assertions of significance, including the number of clients they have and some of the major organisations who use their products, and it cited some respectable looking sources. There were one or two phrases which could be seen as promotional, but I don't think we're in G11 territory and the article included negative information as well (the fact that a site they were hosting was hacked). Hut 8.5 17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, or draftify. Given the prior history of six WP:CSD deletions, and then deleted again by WP:AfD, and the general promotional nature of the article, it's not hard to see how an admin could be tempted to CSD this again. But, the fact that another admin restored it to mainspace should be sufficient defense against WP:CSD. And, there are a number of reasonable references in the article (tempundeleted for review). My personal opinion is that all of the sources are weak (for example, I give no credence to TechCrunch when it comes to establishing WP:N). But, WP:CSD says that process is for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion and I've (sadly) seen many articles with no better sourcing than this pass review at WP:AfD. So, I'd say that CSD does not apply here. I'd rather see this restored to draft than to mainspace, but either is preferable to letting the CSD stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn  The deleting administrator (meaning the admin of record which is from the 2nd AfD), has restored the article stating, diff, "Article is significantly different to deleted version with no promotional content and enough suitable sources to meet WP:ORG."  RAHaworth should respect another administrator's decision instead of dismissing an IP address and binding the time of DRV volunteers.  RAHaworth's only explanation here is that the deletion was for "multiple reasons", which is not a reason to which anyone at DRV can respond.  Caveat: I was a participant at the 2nd AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and I while I'm not thrilled disagree with the speedy deletion, it's not beyond the pale. The response by the deleting admin (as noted by HW above) _is_ however very problematic. We don't blow off users, even IP users. Hobit ( talk) 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• I will be surprised if this company will ever pass WP:CORP. What are the new sources since AfD2? Wikipedia is not for tracking current statuses of corporations. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The issue with the CSD isn't whether it's notable, it's whether there's "a credible claim of significance." To me, their clients as well as the hacking incident demonstrate "credible claims of significance", and the latter being included in the article shows it's not promotional, or at least not enough so to merit a speedy. Are these enough to confer actual notability? That's an issue that should be taken to AfD. But there's enough here that a speedy is not appropriate. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • You appear to talk to the threshold of a first CSD tagging. This threshold doesn't apply to pages previously deleted per consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayako (2nd nomination)). Given that it is re-creation of a deleted topic, proponents should be ready with a good answer to "what is new since the last deletion discussion?" -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Other than G4, in what way are any speedy deletion criteria modified by previous deletions? Jclemens ( talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Given that the article was previously deleted at AfD, anyone seeking to put it back in mainspace should be advised to be ready to answer the question "what is new since the last deletion discussion?"
          The speedy deletion does not appear justified. At a minimum, G4 should have been cited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2017 appears to assert that G4 won't apply (my reading), and so this case should be Send to AfD. At AfD, I advise the proponents to be ready to answer that question. Right now, I would be inclined to !vote "delete" at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn No articulated speedy deletion criteria met, and an IAR needs a more compelling rationale. Jclemens ( talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn It doesn't explicitly say it, but Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions suggests you should not A7 something that has had a deletion discussion, which has then been restored by the original deleting admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the lead does actually specify this: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below." Jclemens ( talk) 01:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, if this was a fresh discussion I would have entertained a call of G11 (but not A7, as there are claims of notability made). Given the history of the article including review and undeletion by another admin though, I would have at the very least discussed with the other admin, or declined speedy and recommended AFD/PROD. A trout to User:RHaworth for the rude response to a perfectly reasonable enquiry about this on their talk page, as well. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC). reply
• Overturn - I agree the article is somewhat spammy however it should've gone through AFD, The G11 tag I can understand but the A7 one makes no sense, Anyway FWIW I think IP editing should be done away with... always have and always will however that doesn't mean one should dismiss an IP and say right fuck off to DRV - There should've been a discussion and IMHO it should've been restored, Anyway the article although somewhat spammy seems to be notable judging by the sources in the article as well as the results on Google. – Davey2010 ^Talk 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse -- there's nothing in the current article that's indicative of notability, while the content is strictly promotional. There's no need to return this article to mainspace. Better off staying deleted; would save the community some time getting it deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Oveturn – The article has moderate claims of significance (e.g. it "... now serves 50,000 customers in over 100 countries ...") and does not have a strong promotional tone that would require a fundamental rewriting of its entire contents. Minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing parts the article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

4 Deletes against 2 Keeps ratio with the Deletes having heavier weight, and the final sources being analyzed along with questions answered suggests No Consensus was not a foreseeable result. Overturn and delete would be appropriate given the considerable analysis and, this explains the first relist which said "To allow further discussion on sources and answer Crystallizedcarbon's question" all of which occurred. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello SwisterTwister my friend. This is the first time I have to differ with you on an AfD as our interpretation of policy, up to this point, we have been always aligned, so I really look forward to have a constructive dialog with you on this one and I am quite sure we will be able to reach a consensus if we are given a bit more time. There will not be much of an impact to Wikipedia on weather this particular article is kept or deleted, but there is an interesting discussion on how to interpret our policies on notability and promotional material that I think would be very worthwhile to complete (at least for me). I think that according to WP:NOTVOTE we should not decide this just on number of votes alone, even if two of them are from 2 admins I very much respect, as I really do not feel that my questions have been answered (please review them) and there is still room to find a consensus. If at the end the consensus is to delete I would be equally satisfied, as that would mean that I was wrong in my interpretation of our policies and that I would have learned a valuable lesson for future contributions. Therefor I am requesting that the deletion discussion be reopened. If it is not, as I posted in the talk page of the article, I will open a second AfD with keep recommendation and ping all users involved to determine if it meets our notability criteria and/or if it violates what Wikipedia is not in regards to promotional material. Best regards. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 18:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: I forgot to mention that I had no time to respond to your last comment on the AfD as you made it on the same day it was closed. I happened to be out deep sea fishing and by the time I got back it was already closed. If the AfD is re-opened I will like to give a more detailed answer to your comment, since according to my current understanding, positive statements in a source do not invalidate it as a reference as long as that source is both reliable and independent. Also to point out that many of the sources cited did not include positive statements and were centered on comparative analysis of its features and those of other photo editing tools or mentioned it as a recommended option along with some of its competition. Regards. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Message received, Crystallizedcarbon and I want to say you're absolutely welcome to ask me any questions or send any comments about future articles at my talk page, and I'll always be happy to help. If agreed upon, I would support a reopening for further attention. n Saludos, SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you, exchanging points of view with such an experienced wiki-friend is always welcomed. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Closing admin here. I really don't think my decision in this case was remotely controversial. The discussion had already been relisted twice, and there was nothing extraordinary going on that would justify a third relist. I felt that Crystallizedcarbon's analysis carried the discussion is only because none of the delete side of the argument bothered to turn up to rebut it. I freely admit that I down-weighted SwisterTwister's characteristically verbose argument because, frankly, it was only partly comprehensible to me. What I could infer from its meaning seemed to indicate that it was based on the article being promotional, which is a reason to clean up an article, not a valid argument for deletion. A Train ^talk 10:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Not a terribly well-argued AFD. The close is clearly within administrative discretion, and the argument that favorable reviews in a genuinely independent publication should be dismissed as promotional flies in the face of consensus, practice, and rational analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I found the keep arguments to be sufficiently strong to prevent a delete consensus from taking hold. - Mr X 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Perfectly reasonable close. Yes, the deletes were in a 2:1 ratio, but there were only six !votes. Four deletes and two keeps is not really a consensus. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I find the closing admin's comments here to be sufficient to justify the close. Ideally would have included at least some of that (about User:Crystallizedcarbon) in the close itself. Hobit ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete the participants at the AfD analyzed the sources provided and found them wanting. Copying and pasting large chunks of text or lists of references into an AfD doesn't matter if the participants in the conversation weren't convinced in the empirical judgement of whether or not they met the notability policy. Both sides made equally valid policy based arguments and assessments of the article in question. Neither were particularly stronger from a policy perspective than any of the others: the question is hinges on whether or not by their judgement the participants felt that the sourcing met the policies and guidelines. Most didn't. Additionally, SOFIXIT is just an essay, and WP:N makes it clear that failing WP:NOT is a sufficient reason for deletion, as does the deletion policy. Editors in an AfD may reject that argument in favour of keeping, but an admin should not discount it as not being policy based. It most clearly is. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree on a number of points.

• You imply that I'm making an argument based on SOFIXIT -- I have not cited that essay anywhere here or in the original AfD, or indeed anywhere at all.
• What I am arguing is that WP:PROMO is by its very nature an argument about tone, not about notability. If the article about IBM was re-written tomorrow by an ad agency, it would run afoul of PROMO, but no one in their right minds would argue that IBM is suddenly not notable. PROMO is not related to WP:N.
• It is uncontroversial that admins are expected to weigh the quality of the arguments on the different sides of an AfD debate -- otherwise we would just have a bot closing AfDs. None of the users arguing to delete came back to engage with Cunard or CrystalizedCarbon's arguments. Only SwisterTwister's was posted after their contributions, and ST's argument is incoherent. A Train ^talk 12:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll try to explain more

• You didn't but some here made the argument on tone that can be improved, which is an inherent reference to the SOFIXIT mindset. I was actually wrong about it being an essay: it's actually just a snarky redirect title to BOLD. People !voting delete are of the opinion that something can't be reasonably fixed through editing, and if they advance this through policy, the closer should assume that they are trying to help fix the encyclopedia, just through making it more credible by getting rid of an article they feel are at odds with our core values.
• WP:N makes it abundantly clear that PROMO is in fact a reason for deletion: WP:NOT is mentioned right under the GNG as an equal requirement for inclusion. This is reaffirmed by both WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. Participants in an AfD have to make practical judgements about the tensions that exist in Wikipedia, discounting one policy based reason because you prefer another yourself is a reason to !vote, not close.
• Yes, but admins should avoid making calls on the actual quality of the sourcing except in rare circumstances. They should judge consensus based on the strength of policy-based arguments. In this case people advanced arguments that disagreed with the empirical value of the wall-of-text. Setting it aside becomes a personal judgment on the quality of the sourcing, not one on policy. We have to assume that participants did do a search themselves and were confident in their vote, otherwise this reasoning simply induces bludgeoning of those who disagree with you.

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I do think it's important to go on the record opposing closes based on admins making judgement calls in sourcing except in rare circumstances such as where language skills are needed. A !vote would have been more appropriate in these circumstances. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

No, I think that WP:PRESERVE, WP:DEL4, and WP:PROMO are all saying the same thing; that our job is to empower the reader with a NPOV, even if NPOV includes promotion.  To do otherwise is censorship.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

That's fine for you to read it that way, but it's a question for participants in an AfD to decide in the case of a particular article what is the best way to deal with it according to policy. WP:DON'T PRESERVE also exists to be thrown into the mix as something to consider in how best to solve the problems in an article. The point is that the closer shouldn't substitute their judgment of how to apply policy to facts for the judgment of the participants. If A train had !voted instead of closing, no consensus would probably have been justifiable. Instead they closed against a clear consensus. Turning this DRV into a second AfD based on Cunard's sources doesn't change that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:DEL4 is a widely accepted standard that should be following by all editors.  Had the closer !voted because of the vote count, he would have been participating in vote counting.  Sources have been provided...and the fact that they source a for-profit company is not a violation of our rules.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

"The point is that the closer shouldn't substitute their judgment of how to apply policy[.]" TonyBallioni, can you clarify here? I'm reading this as you saying that admins should not attempt to determine if AfD arguments are congruent with policy. Please correct me if I'm wrong because that seems to ignore over a decade of precedent. A Train ^talk 12:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you fundamentally misapprehend what I did. I did not and do not have any opinion about the article. I only evaluated the sources for the purpose of making sure they actually lined up with what the editors in the discussion said about them. Even if you disregard the fact that the keep arguments went unrebutted, you are left with 3 (intelligible) delete !votes vs 2 keep !votes. That is not a clear consensus to delete no way, no how -- and the discussion had already been relisted twice.

I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that you're making but you've chosen a very unreliable vehicle for it in this AfD. A Train ^talk 08:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, per AfD is not a vote, sources provided by Cunard undisputedly pass GNG and counter deletion rationale. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just for future reference WP:N is a guideline, but not a policy and this was recently rediscussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60. WP:NOT is a policy. Thincat ( talk) 19:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A very brief nomination. Divergent opinions. No consensus. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse. I probably would have closed this as Delete, but No Consensus is not an unreasonable reading of the discussion, and well within discretion. Regarding the closer's statement above, that he down-weighted SwisterTwister's characteristically verbose argument because, frankly, it was only partly comprehensible to me, I have to agree. I've tried reading that paragraph several times, and I haven't been able to make it through to the end. Making your point, clearly and succinctly, is an important skill. Everything we do here is based on the written word, both in our primary product (encyclopedia articles), and the background work (discussions on talk and project pages). If what you write is difficult for people to read and understand, you are not communicating effectively. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Had editors analysed the sources etc and decided no they wasn't sufficient then deletion could've happened however as ST was the only editor to analyse these the AFD couldn't of been closed any other way, I see nothing wrong with the closure and the sources provided by Cunard pretty much make the nominators rationale moot. – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep The deletion arguers were clearly not arguing in an NPOV manner, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what promotion is and is not. When the WSJ likes your company, that doesn't make it primary, or non-reliable, or promotional. Promotion is based on the tone of the article, not the reliable sources underlying an NPOV article. There is not one single policy-based deletion argument in this AfD, and Keep is the only WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS reasonably consistent with our actual deletion policies. While the individual participants are welcome to their own biases against businesses, our administrators and other XfD closers must avoid considering them as policy-based. Jclemens ( talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep as per Jclemens.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Gary Renard ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This particular discussion was closed as "no consensus" when there seems to be some serious issues with the keep arguments that the two admins who did the relisting and the closing (incidentally, note that these two admins have a history of mutually reinforcing each other's positions as can be seen here: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2. Clarification was asked from both admins about the matters of substance that were discussed, but either the admins do not understand the policy/guideline arguments or there is a willful ignoring of the sourcing concerns in favor of an exasperated "I give up" stance. I summarized the main crux of the deletion debate as follows:

Keep!voter: Here's a lot of sources.

Delete!voter: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc.

Keep!voter: Yes they are!

Delete!voter: Explain.

Keep!voter: (makes accusations of bad behavior).

I argue that there is no evidence that the Keep!voter has and it sets a terrible precedence that such discussion with lopsided arguments in favor of delete can just be made "no consensus" by means of a Chewbacca defense. As such, I request an overturn to delete be decided here on the merits of the arguments presented about the lack of sourcing. Discussion of this matter was had at both User talk:Ritchie333 and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gary Renard with no headway made in getting the administrators to discuss the merits of the discussion as outlined here. Instead the argument is made that we should "wait a month" even though the substance of the argument is clear. Make the determination. One side or another has made the best case here and that's not going to change by twiddling our thumbs until the end of August. jps ( talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Three admins ( Northamerica1000, SoWhy and I) all decided there was not enough consensus and I also thought you were talking too much about each other, and not about the article. While admins aren't always right, when three independently agree on something, they probably have a point. Incidentally, saying "note that these two admins have a history of mutually reinforcing each other's positions" is a bit wide of the mark as I can pull out numerous discussions where I have flat out disagreed with SoWhy and grumbled about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

If you would like to explain how the actual substance of the deletion debate is different from what I outlined above, please do so. There are no usable sources and when the Keep!voters had that pointed out they never came back with a response. This is why the count of !votes is so lopsided in favor of delete. jps ( talk) 10:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Nobody has to agree with your opinion. I'm off to some gnoming on London Victoria station now, have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Always nice to see the professionalism of the admin corps on such proud display. Have fun! jps ( talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. The final three !votes were non-neutrally canvassed, as noted in the AfD, and there was no consensus prior to the non-neutral canvassing. The subject meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. At least three books have been written entirely about his books ( [2], [3], [4]) and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently ( [5]), including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today and at least three books by Wayne Dyer. He has been featured in seven documentary films, and his books have been translated into 22 languages. The article had already had two previous AfDs closed as Keep, and notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender ( talk) 11:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd point out that this user has still not contended with the fact that all the "sources" being listed are published by vanity publishers, are self-published, or are published by fringe outlets. This was emphasized numerous times in the AfD, but this doesn't prevent a tiresome repetition. jps ( talk) 11:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

If you are talking about the individual links I provided above, Hay House is a major international publisher. And many of the 80 to 100 books he is mentioned or quoted substantially in are from major publishers, such as for instance these two books by Wayne Dyer: [6], [7]. If you are talking about the citations in the article, those are irrelevant to discussing notability and the fact that the subject clearly meets meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. The article could use improvement, but the state of the article is not what AfD is concerned with. Softlavender ( talk) 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you kidding me? Hay House is a means for Louise Hay to publish her books and other books she likes. It is the very definition of a self-publishing outfit. jps ( talk) 18:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing admin: Like the AfD itself, this DRV was also canvassed in the non-neutral thread full of false accusations and absurd aspersions: [8]. Live thread: [9]; current permalink: [10]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 13:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

My two peneth Whilst the AFD degenerated (and not the first one to do so) due to discussion about editors and a general attitude towards "non sensible subjects" I disagree that there was no consensus, as pretty much there was for deletion. I note that the same (accusations of canvasing, accusations of using sources that are too fringe. There is (frankly and I have said this before) a certain attitude that rejects anything that is not "real science" out of hand, and this engenders similar responses from those who reject the notion. I do not agree that this article meets out criteria for retention, but I do not agree with the general attitude shown by some editors (and no it is not just one) to what they (elsewhere) have dismissed as "in universe sources". I think both sides in this dispute are out of order, and have no choice bu to accept that (on the grounds of attitude alone) this close was inevitable. I for one wish it would be accepted, we lost so lets at least lose with some dignity and integrity. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to kowtow to civil POV-pushers who would whine that we aren't nice to people who deny basic undeniable facts about the universe. Hurmph. jps ( talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• weak endorse the canvasing problem appears to be real and probably tainted the debate enough that making a NC call is probably within discretion (yes, that's two conditionals). But the sources are at best questionable and the general consensus was mostly toward deletion. I think delete would have been a better reading, but NC isn't so unreasonable that it needs to be overturned. I would suggest a renomination in the fullness of time. Hobit ( talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I fully intend to renominate it immediately if the closure is ultimately endorsed as a "no consensus" closure means that you can renominate whenever you want, right? jps ( talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Generally it's best (by far) to wait at least a month. If you nominate sooner you might attract some "keep, we just discussed this" type responses. Hobit ( talk) 02:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The standard for years has been to wait two months.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think I knew that. Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 21:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Here is a reference from July 2012.  FYI, Unscintillating ( talk) 01:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

And this is reaching the level of tendentious editing (all but for a non controversial POV), it is also a pretty battleground mentality. I am not singling out one side over this, as in the AFD both sides fought their corners, but I do single out one side for refusing to drop the stick. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The close is an accurate assessment of (lack of) consensus. Some of the delete participants hoisted themselves by their own petards. I think the article should be immediately re-nominated for deletion and participants should be more respectful of the process, and each other.- Mr X 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Refer to ANI  The declaration that a new AfD will ensue as soon as this DRV is closed means that the process here is but a stepping stone.  I count 17 edits at the afd and 7 more here, so this editor has not been able to state his viewpoint and step back and let the community decide.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse because there was no consensus. What any consensus ought to have been is not for DRV. The AFD was beset with claims and denials of poor behaviour and claims and counterclaims arguing interpretations of guidelines as if they were categorical aspects of settled policy. This obscured any rational conclusion but it doesn't look to me it was "unfair" on either side. Thincat ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• There was no consensus in that debate. Jps' accusation that the closer was meatpuppeting for SoWhy, and his rather overexcited postings on the fringe theory noticeboard, are unbecoming of a user of his experience and I feel that he owes Ritchie333 an apology. But that article certainly doesn't meet the minimum criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and a swift and merciful euthanasia really would be the kindest thing. So there's only one outcome which is consistent with both our procedures and our minimum standards for articles, which is endorse closure as no consensus with permission to immediately relist. And just to be clear, I will personally nominate it for deletion again as soon as this debate is over.— S Marshall T/ C 22:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse SoWhy knows I think that he is too relist-happy (see RfB/my talk/his talk archives), and I think that here as well, and think a delete close would have been reasonable at that time, with a no consensus close being a stretch, but also within the realm of possibility. That being said, Ritchie's closure was completely appropriate and within discretion following that relist. Agree with S Marshall that it should be allowed to become AfD4 immediately after this though because of that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Is this guy fringe? Absolutely. Is he notable fringe? Yep. Sure, Hay House is a fringe publisher... but not self-published. We don't get to exclude notable fringe as WP:NIME, and a 4th AfD would be pointless. Editors interested in limiting the damage caused by people believing him should focus their efforts on the content of the article, rather than its existence. Jclemens ( talk) 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as there was no viable consensus in that particular debate. I don't think an immediate AFD4 is warranted, simply because (as noted above) we are going to get a few editors who !vote "Keep - we just discussed this." You're not going to get a good read on the actual quality of the article, such as it is. So my recommendation would be to wait until a month after the close of this discussion, then renominate. Perhaps the admin closing this discussion might set a schedule for that new debate in their close? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I do like the idea of the closing admin setting a schedule. I'd suggest a month or two, but anything firm would be acceptable to me. Hobit ( talk) 04:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• I swear to god, if I see the phrase "non-neutrally canvassed" in regards to this issue again, I'm going to start tracking down editors and engaging in some run-by fruiting. Only I'm using rotten fruit. @ Softlavender: I normally find you to be quite a good editor, but in this case, you're really beating the crap out of a horse that no-one wanted to ride in the first place. Just let it go.

Also; Endorse close, but with the option to open it right the hell back up again. It's clear that most editors who care want the article deleted, and we shouldn't reward the tendentiousness of editors willing to sidetrack the discussion with accusations of bad behavior. That being said, allowing ourselves to get sidetracked certainly did a world of hurt to the formation of a solid consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

"It's clear that most editors who care want the article deleted" -- most editors who were non-neutrally canvassed at FTN want the article deleted. And apparently those who want the article kept don't "care"? Softlavender ( talk) 22:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

If there was canvassing going on, it's worth bringing up. If nothing else, in the hope it will discurage canvasing next time around. Hobit ( talk) 04:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:STICK ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply