Rodrigo Silva ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Restore - I have requested the restoration of the article Rodrigo Silva, because it was a very important article about a famous Brazilian archaeologist and was excluded without reasons. The article contained reliable sources, was very well described, there were no spelling errors and followed the standards and norms of Wikipedia. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Hi, can you provide the three best reliable sources you have on this person? Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 22:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• endorse This is not AfD part 2, but the article clearly lacked significant coverage in reliable sources unconnected with the subject. The "deletes" reflected this, and as there were no "keeps", the aadmin closure as "delete" is appropriate.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk)

• Restore - The article contained reliable references yes, and was deleted in the wrong way. I ask you to kindly reconsider the article and give me a second chance to improve it and increase even more sources. I guarantee it will look better than before, but I need you to help me by restoring it. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 03:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

https://www.escavador.com/sobre/8206720/rodrigo-pereira-da-silva - great reliable source

https://noticias.adventistas.org/pt/coluna/rodrigo-silva/ - great reliable source

http://www.liontur.com.br/arqueologo-brasileiro-rodrigo-silva/ - great reliable source

http://novotempo.com/identidadegeral/videos/rodrigo-silva-fala-sobre-fe-arqueologia-e-sobre-o-novo-evidencias/ - great reliable source

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/mundo-cristao/especialista-adventista-em-arqueologia-e-entrevistado-por-jo-soares.html - great reliable source

https://www.universal.org/noticias/arqueologo-rodrigo-silva-visita-o-templo-de-salomao-na-capital-paulista - great reliable source

https://nogueirense.com.br/arqueologo-fala-sobre-evidencias-da-morte-e-ressurreicao-de-jesus-cristo - great reliable source

I really hope you give me this chance to improve the article by restoring it. Thank you! -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 03:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have struck through your bolded sentiment here - you do not get two or more !votes here, your status as nominator makes it clear what your sentiment is so no need to restate it, though I've noted you've added a bolded sentiment there also, if you take the time to look down at every other DRV on this page, you'll find that's not the way it's normally done. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 06:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the sources. I only looked at the first few, but they aren't really what we are looking for as independent reliable sources. endorse. Hobit ( talk) 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Nothing wrong with the AfD procedurally. The references provided above are not all reliable (some are interviews with the subject or not independent of the subject.) It appears this was deleted on NPROF grounds as well. I don't really have an issue if someone wants to send this back to draft, but I also don't see it passing verification with the new sources provided. SportingFlyer talk 03:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Restore - I will be very grateful if you restore the article, even if it is for draft. I just want to have the opportunity to improve it, also adding new reliable sources. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 04:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  As above, additional !vote struk through. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 06:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Restore - In my opinion, the article must be restored, as it was a renowned and important internationally recognized archaeologist. The historian very recognized in the academic environment, is one of the main of Brazil. He attended several masters and doctorates at major universities such as the University of Jerusalem and the University of São Paulo. -- MilenaSword1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It does not even conceivably meet WP:PROF. Having received graduate degrees at major universities is far below out standard. There is zero evidence is in important within the field of archeology. There is zero evidence his books are important. The question is whether he meets GNG as a television personality. None of the suggested references are usable for this. The best is guiame.com.br, and that is an interview with him , where he can say whatever he pleases, and is therefore not a RS. The others are mere notices of his programs. A possible basis for relisting is that the GNG aspect was not considered in the AfD, but I think a second AfD will inevitably lead to the same conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Restore - Who is it that measures whether or not your books are relevant? What is known is that the article is about one of the most important archaeologists in Brazil. I await the restoration of the article, for better improvements. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  Striking duplicate !vote. For the last time, we all know you want the page restored, don't bold it again if you make any further comments as this makes it look like multiple users are !voting when that isn't the case. Iffy★ Chat -- 13:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Restore Restoring the article is the best way, even if it is draft. If it has been said that the article will be improved, why not give a second chance??

The mission of Wikipedia is this, to inform facts about important things and the article is about someone important. Let's support! -- 187.56.57.174 ( talk) 02:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment could an admin please perform a sockpuppet check? SportingFlyer talk 04:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It's not obvious enough to you? — Cryptic 04:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I’m not an admin and therefore I don’t think I can check for it myself. No need to put me down for asking. SportingFlyer talk 16:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD closure was correct, with sufficient participation supported by reasonable policy-based logic. As noted above, this isn't the second round of AfD. Nothing written above adds compelling new evidence as to reliable sources with in-depth coverage; nothing written above provides compelling new policy-based reasons for restoration. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Please, restore it - I believe that the exclusion of this article in the past was no more than a mistake, they could have invested in it, but instead, they preferred to exclude. Since it is easier to click on the delete button than to have the work to improve.

So I ask you to restore or to send me the draft of the article, so that I can edit it and improve it, including new reliable references. My desire is to recreate the article from that last one. I need your help. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/levantar-hegemonia-evolucionista-escolas-rodrigo-silva/ - new reliable source

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/mundo-cristao/especialista-adventista-em-arqueologia-e-entrevistado-por-jo-soares.html - new reliable source

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/arqueologo-provas-existencia-jesus-tv/ - new reliable source

https://www.acheiusa.com/Noticia/um-dos-maiores-arqueologos-do-brasil-vai-estar-no-sul-da-florida-para-palestras-46153/ - new reliable source

https://guiame.com.br/gospel/mundo-cristao/especialista-adventista-em-arqueologia-e-entrevistado-por-jo-soares.html - new reliable source

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/o-mais-acirrado-ateu-ou-cetico-materialista-e-crente-afirma-arqueologo/ - new reliable source

https://noticias.gospelprime.com.br/congresso-internacional-de-arqueologia-biblica-acontece-na-unasp/ - new reliable source

https://oregional.net/congresso-apresenta-raridades-arqueologicas-81587 - new reliable source

http://gazetanews.com/arqueologo-e-teologo-brasileiro-ministra-palestra-em-fort-lauderdale/ - new reliable source

https://oregional.net/brasil-recebe-congresso-internacional-de-arqueologia-77363 - new reliable source

https://oregional.net/congresso-apresenta-raridades-arqueologicas-81587 - new reliable source

https://infosol.me/2014/12/29/rodrigo-silva-arqueologo-entrevistado-por-jo-soares-a-ressurreicao-de-jesus-e-fato/ - new reliable source

https://plurais.net/2015/01/26/dr-rodrigo-silva-e-jo-soares/ - new reliable source

The article is about an important Brazilian archaeologist, known internationally! Please, give me a second chance, restoring it. Thank you! -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, it does not appear that any of those are either independent of the subject (interviews) or only contain passing mentions (speaking at a conference, etc). SportingFlyer talk 02:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do interviews turn an article by an important archaeologist into something irrelevant? -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 02:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
    • No, but an interview about oneself is not an independent source of the sort we require to meet our general inclusion criteria. See Wikipedia:Interviews, particularly §Notability, for (lots) more. — Cryptic 02:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
      • So you mean to be an archaeologist have to have a reliable official website? Unfortunately he does not have an official website, but this does not make it non-existent or unknown. He remains an important archaeologist, one of the leading Latin American archaeologists. The sources cited above, on the Novo Tempo ( Hope Channel) website, which is an Adventist church website, in which it belongs, contains the archaeologist's official biography. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 02:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

        Which part of independent would lead you to believe an "official website" is required. What's being asked for is the world to be interested enough that third parties who have a reputation for fact checking have enough interest in the subject to research and write about directly and in detail as a totally independent endeavor. An official website would likely fail the "independent" part as the subject would likely be able to influence the content, as is the risk with interviews. e.g. come and interview me and I'll tell you just how great I am, do you think me saying that I'm really important would be a good basis for building and encyclopedia article on? The precise form of the independent coverage is relatively unimportant, that it addresses the subject directly in detail and is a source with a reputation for fact checking is important. I have stuck through your bolded sentiment once again, I do not know how you are failing to understand that you shouldn't keep doing that, it's been raised a few times now, are you actually paying attention to the responses you are receiving? -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 19:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

        • The only thing I ask is the draft of the article, so that I can at least recreate, improve and add new references. Why do you deny me that? Am I asking for too much? -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep All the sources are reliable. -- 200.229.233.106 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. Consensus at the AFD was clear and the sources put forward are not independent, not major, not significant mentions, or two or more of these. User:DavidStarIsrael7 is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle ( talk) 08:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Ok, keep it deleted, but at least send me the draft - When I created Rodrigo Silva's article, it took me many days to create it. Do I not even have the right to have a draft of what I have created? It's fair, for the work I've done to create it, that I have at least a rough draft of what I've created. I ask this with humble gentleness. -- DavidStarIsrael7 ( talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

List of common misconceptions ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Misogyny and many other reasons. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 17:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop. See WP:IDHT, WP:SNOW, and WP:POINT. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I am confused. WTF is going on here? Is this a complaint about misogyny and "other reasons" in the article itself or in the previous AfDs? What is being requested? That the article be deleted? That one or more of the AfDs be reopened? Something else? What is the alleged misogyny? Just linking to the article about misogyny doesn't explain its alleged relevance to this matter, whatever that matter might turn out to be. What are the "many other reasons" and what are they reasons for? Why is my hovercraft full of eels? Why is a duck when it spins? Can this only be explained with recourse to an article called List of uncommon misconceptions? Have I drunk too much or too little to be able to comprehend this matter? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Endorse The AfD 3 close in 2011 was non-consensus. The AfD 2 close in 2009 was no-consensus, defaults to keep. The AfD 1 close in 2006 was non-consensus. It is generally not productive to take a non-consensus close to deletion review, except in the rare case of blatantly ignoring consensus. It is much more practical to renominate after a suitable interval if one wants it deleted, and if one wants it kept, it's already being kept by default. This instance is demonstrated as all the more unproductive by the history of successive non-cosensus closes here, and I can see no reason to suspect nothing other than another non-consensus close will result. I also endorse Stifle's comment in his 2011 close "Perhaps voting has its merits on occasion?" DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Funds of knowledge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I request undeletion of the article on Funds of Knowledge. I did not have opportunity to address the individuals who moved to delete this page. It is a topic in its own right and deserves its own page. — Haerdt  ^TALK 16:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Draftify no really valid deletion reason & minimal participation. ; but it needs reference. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Haerdt It's a real field that deserves attention. Please reverse deletion and do whatever editing you need to finalize the article. The sources are there already. It's bigger than a lot of other miniscule articles. Haerdt ( talk ) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sounds ok for userfication, but unsure about an editor who signs contrary to policy. The nomination signature mislinks to mainspace. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• I have no qualms about draftifying. Killiondude ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• User/draft-ify. I've tempundeleted this. The AfD was so poorly attended, it might as well have been closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. The article starts out Funds of Knowledge is a very niche field. That's pretty much the definition of not notable, so I'm not optimistic this will go anywhere. But, if somebody wants to continue to work on it, I can't see any reason to deny them the opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs)
• Draftify There are a lot of problems with the article (the references are incomplete (Greenberg?) and it reads like an essay), but no objections to restoring as draft; as noted above this could have been a soft delete. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per my original reasoning. It's an essay based on a niche theory. Natureium ( talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• I think this is likely a fine topic for an article. The original work where this term comes from is highly cited. And many (40+ I think) of those articles use this term. That's a good sign. [1]. Hobit ( talk) 00:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Userfy/Draft, no reason not to userfy until ready for mainspace. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Scihub raven.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Incorrect and uncivil closure (as keep) by Explicit. Incorrect, as there was only one objecting !vote (whose argument I refuted anyway), so it is ludicous to assert "consensus" (should be closed as "no consensus" at the very least). Uncivil, as calling a deletion request on COPYVIO grounts a "ridiculous, baseless allegation" is condescending to the nominator and should never come from an admin, , especially that no evidence was actually presented that the file is not a COPYVIO.

I attempted to resolve the matter directly with Explicit [2] but failed to get any meaningful response other than repeated insults. Explicit even went on to accuse me (!) of insulting and defaming Sci-Hub [sic!], simply because I nominated the image as copyvio" (to the uninitiated people, Sci-Hub is a web portal dedicated solely to file sharing in violation of copyright).

Additionally, file description carries and unsubstantiated claim that this is a logo and that the image copyright is owned by the founder of Sci-Hub.

I am aware some time has passed since the nomination, but thank you to (1) look into the case and possibly reopen the discussion, (2) convince Explicit to learn what FAIRUSE is, (3) remind him that WP:CIVILITY is not optional. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 14:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. WP:Supervote. The close is the closers opinion (or asserted fact, it doesn’t matter) not a summary of the discussion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• This is a fairly clear overturn. Not entirely sure if it should be overturned to delete or overturned to a new deletion discussion. -- Izno ( talk) 23:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose overturning to delete. The discussion was not ready to be closed. As per WP:Supervote, User:Explicit should convert his closing rationale to a !vote, which could then enable another admin to close it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, no. This is a logo licensed under fair use. WP:CSD#F9 is very clear: This applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. That was the nominator's entire basis for deletion. There was absolutely zero grounds for deletion based on any Wikipedia policy. My closure was based not based on "I disagree with the nominator's opinion, so I'll closed this as keep", it was based on "the nominator did not cite any relevant policy for its deletion, so I'll close this as keep". Results of discussions are based on the weight and merit they stand on, and there simply wasn't even a valid foundation to this one. I do enjoy how the overturn opinions don't assess Distrait cognizance's comment at all, who was rudely not notified of this discussion as an interested party. ℯ xplicit 00:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I think you are right with the facts, but your close looks really bad, as a supervote. It is a fact that not a single person agreed with Distrait cognizance. It was your place to agree with Distrait cognizance. The closer doesn't get to choose who is right and who is wrong, that is a job for the participants, short of citing a WP:Speedy keep criterion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • @ SmokeyJoe: So, my closure based on the facts is wrong. That is the strangest observation I think I've ever read. ℯ xplicit 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
          • User:Explicit, you assertion of the facts overstepped the supervote line. Revert you close, !vote instead, let's see of there is a reply, and how the next admin closes. The appearance of procedure is important, unless it really is the case as per User:Marchjuly that FFD runs per other rules, as a technocracy? Is it necessary at FFD for a later reader of the discussion to be able to read the discussion and see that the closer merely formalized the conclusion of the discussion, consensus style, or is it that at FFD the FFD experts make the decisions? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
            • It's not a technocracy. Explicit closed the file based upon his assessment of the arguments made and how they reflected relevant policy. Adminsitrators are allowed to do this, aren't they? Moreover, the file was not deleted so there's nothing which needs to be restored here. Explicit's close seems to have to do with whether the file should be deleted because it was a copyright violation, not whether the file needs to be used in infobox of Sci-Hub. If there's a disagrement over whether the file should be used in that article which is not related to it's licensing or WP:NFCC, then that can be resolved on the article's talk page. If the consensus is to not keep the file, it can be removed and it will eventually be deleted per WP:F5 as an orphan. FWIW, the logo does appear to currently be being used on Sci-hub's official website and Twitter account and was also used as far back as January 2016 on both as well [3] [4]. If the logo originally came from somewhere or someone else and the uploader mistakenly assumed that Sci-Hub was the originator/owner (maybe Sci-hub has made arrangements to use it?), then the file's information can be updated accordingly. If the artist (Kate McLelland?) who created the logo wants to claim that Sci-Hub is violating her copyright/trademark rights, then that seems to be something the artist should take up with them. Finally, the close probably could've been better worded, but WP:CIVIL is an argument for WP:ANI, not really for WP:DRV. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
              • Could any editor have made Explicit’s assertion and speedy closed? If not, then it was an example of technocracy. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
                • There are two administrators who have posted below endorsing the close. Perhaps you should ask them about technocracy? Although you don’t need to be an administrator to a close an XfD discussion, it is assumed that anyone who does try to close such a discussion has a sufficient grasp of the relevant issue(s) and the necessary experience to do so. FFD discussions are required to remain open for at least seven days, and Explicit closed the discussion ten days after it was opened; so, I’m not sure that is actually is “speedy”, at least not as you seem to be using the word. — Marchjuly ( talk) 23:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
                  • I think they are both re-arguing the XfD, their comments belong as !votes in the FfD, that the image should not be deleted. I agree the image should not be deleted. I presume they have read my comments, and I don't criticize them for not choosing to engage my points. More than enough has been said, I think. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
      • ... I don't see how that follows from the discussion at all. Kashmiri wasn't calling for speedy deletion, and wasn't claiming that the uploader here didn't make a fair use claim; he said that the proximate source, SciHub, didn't. That Kashmiri didn't explicitly link to WP:NFCC#10a or WP:ELNEVER#1 or c:COM:DW doesn't mean he wasn't citing them. The uploader's assertion that none of it matters because we're claiming fair use of the derivative work (only) is appalling, and wasn't in particular need of rebuttal. — Cryptic 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Claiming that the logo is a copyright violation not grounds for deletion as a copyright violation? How strange. The file description adequately addresses WP:NFCC#10a. WP:ELNEVER#1 deals with external links and doesn't deal with media files at all, and COM:DW deals with copyrighted elements in a media file which was released under a free license. With the latter two points, you've essentially emulated Kashmiri is citing pages which hold zero relevance to the file at hand. ℯ xplicit 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to relist. I don't have anything else to add - SmokeyJoe has done a good job with the rationale. SportingFlyer talk 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: While it's true that the closer does not get to choose who's right and whose wrong, the closer does not simply count votes and pick the side which has the most. If one person !votes "keep" and one person !votes "delete", it's still possible for the discussion to be closed based upon the quality of the arguments. I personally don't see Explicit's close as a super vote; it could have been possibly been worded a little differently, but I think it was based upon an interpretation of policy. The argument made for deletion was "No evidence of permission, so likely a copyright violation", and that would've been a fine argument to make if someone uploaded the file under a free license and claimed it as their "own work". That doesn't seem to be the case, however, since the file was uploaded as non-free, which means permission of the copyright holder is not needed. FWIW, XFD discussions, particularly FFD discussion, don't need to drag on endlessly if someone feels one side's arguments are strong enough or insufficient enough for the discussion to be closed, which I think is the case here. Whether the logo is actually the logo of the organization sounds to me, on the other hand, like a context matter rather than a licensing matter and probably should be sorted out on the article's talk page. If the consensus is to remove the file, it will be an orphan and eventually deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The image is marked fair use, so whether or not it is a copyright violation doesn't really touch the sides. I'd have called a no-consensus, but that's functionally the same as keep. Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the fact that an image is copyrighted does not mean that we can't use it under fair use, so the nomination doesn't advance an argument for deletion. The nominator then went on to claim that the image should be deleted because it isn't used to identify Sci-Hub on their website or on social media, this doesn't square very well with the fact that the image (or some cropped version of it) is prominently displayed on their website, their Twitter account and their Facebook page. If the OP has a better argument then they can nominate the image for deletion again. If you want something to be deleted then it's up to you to spell out why, not on other people to guess. Hut 8.5 18:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The rationale may be valid but I don't think the description is correct; this also appears to be a requirement. Peter James ( talk) 19:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Vascon Engineers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would request you to undelete the article Vascon Engineers, which was deleted under G:5 and G11 even though when My account User:Fyomancho is not a fake or sockpupet account.

I contacted to the administrator, who deleted the article and block me; and explained everything, Please see the conversation, but he is not ready to help or argue on merit.

Vascon Engineers is a publicly traded real estate company, listed in the National Stock Exchange of India and Bombay Stock Exchange, clearly meets the criteria of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies); I would request Wikipedia community to look into the matter and resolve the issue. If you have any query, Please feel free to ask. I would happy to answer you. Thank you.

Copied from 2018 April 13 on behalf of User:183.87.184.139 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the most recent version of the article was a lot less spammy than the previous one, however the OP admits being part of the company's marketing team [5] so they absolutely should not be writing articles about it per WP:COI. It looks like we're dealing with meatpuppetry or organised paid editing rather than sockpuppetry, but that doesn't really help. Hut 8.5 18:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G5 as it appeared it was part of a ring of UPE accounts. If they were the marketing directors and not related to a UPE ring, then endorse/don't restore on grounds of it being native advertising. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I deleted the earlier version. If it was a ten on a one-to-ten scale of spamminess, the second version was at least an eight. – Athaenara ✉ 21:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn The article was factual in form, but more than a bit promotional in tone. I would not have deleted it, but would have removed much of the content. However, from the sources included in the last deleted version, i suspect that this company is in fact notable, although a proper article would need to be much more neutral and less spammy. If this deletion is endorsed, there should be no objection to starting a new version as a draft, provided that any COI or paid editors disclose properly. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The deletion was on G5 grounds, which if you look at the relevant SPI, means that it was indeed valid. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I don't really consider any G5 deletion to be truly valid, we should measure content, not contributor. I know G5 has consensus, and i don't go overturning them or declining them, but I won't normally delete on those grounds, and i don't make it a factor in my view of a DRV. G11 was also listed, and it is that which i am debating. In any case, a new draft by a legitimate editor should have no objection. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, I'm aware of your views on G5. Just wanted to clarify that for the closer and others: there was indeed a clearly valid policy reason for deletion here which you are not contesting, but choosing to ignore because you don't like a policy that we have had for over a decade. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • The G5 is based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammed Zafwan? It took some tracking to get to that page, and having go there, its lack of conclusiveness doesn't match the the taggery at User:Muhammed Zafwan. I would call it "highly probably WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK". If the G11 is contested, upholding the G5 flies in the face of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69#ToU_violation. Can I ask for a tempundelete to review the content? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
          • Temp undeleted. I would still call that a G5: a coordinated group of editors editing in the same realm as a previously blocked master normally fits within my definition of G5. I don't really think that it flies in the face of that consensus, and I think the general mood at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5_state_of_the_nation is more liberal for G5 than a strict constructionist view of it (namely, we just have to be reasonably confident that a previous editor or related editor has been blocked, which based on that SPI, I think is met. These groups tend to use throwaway accounts, etc.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
            • Thanks. I wouldn't tag G11, so many references even if each fails, but would not be surprised to see it tagged and speedy deleted by User:RHaworth‎; at AfD I would expect it to be SNOW deleted. In the absence of an appeal by an experienced registered Wikipedian in good standing, I endorse. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The account that created this has self-confirmed that they are a replacement for Imansoorshaikh which created Draft:Vascon Engineers Ltd on Feb 21 -- it is also too much of a coincidence that the person no longer works for the company within a week of the Wikipedia block and then "another" person (who is the replacement) comes by to do the same promotion. The spamming also doesn't stop with the company itself as the COI accounts have been promoting the personnel too. Given the history around this set, it is simply not believable that any of this was done in good faith, it's just standard UPE behavior that claims that Wikipedia is out to get them when they don't want to follow the rules. With this, I endorse my own and the other deletions, but I have no problem with good faith editors creating this, but the spamming sock/meat farm ought to be blocked. — Spaceman Spiff 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The discussion on TOU as a speedy criterion closed as no consensus because the discussion died down, not because it was rejected as a use of speedy. The main argument against it was that the article would almost invariable fall under other speedy criteria also--as does this (G11). I do nonetheless consider UPE as a valid expression of the meaning of U5, and support it as an additional criterion to close loopholes, and continue to use it as such. I would support adding it specifically, to remove doubt about that. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • DGG considers it a valid expression of the meaning of U5 G5, I assume he meant. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC) right, thanks DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Thank you for your interest in advertising on Wikipedia, but we do not accept advertisements. Guy ( Help!) 08:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• endorse please see WP:promo-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 01:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This category was nominated for deletion by Jweiss11 on April 3, but that discussion was closed by BrownHairedGirl as no consensus. Jweiss11 initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes to gauge the opinion of editors who were familiar with the topic as to whether they would support deletion in a new discussion. Given that the previous discussion had been closed with almost no participation, I personally don't have a problem with Jweiss11's efforts to establish a consensus and try again. However, the second CfD was speedy closed by BHG even though another editor had already expressed support for deletion. BHG's decision may have technically been within the bounds of policy, but it serves no beneficial purpose to prevent editors familiar with the topic from reaching a consensus just because there already was a recent discussion with little participation. This closure was particularly ill-advised given the recent history between BHG and Jweiss11, which is detailed in this ANI thread. (Mind you, I believe that Jweiss11's behavior has been far worse than BHG's, but that doesn't justify needlessly shutting down the CfD.) BHG already advised Jweiss to come here if he wanted to challenge the closure, so she's obviously not going to reverse her closure voluntarily. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lepricavark, thanks for your comment. Perhaps you'd like to retain the lead on this? I'm not sure if I'll be further accused of forum shopping if I make substantive commentary here. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone needs to lead anything, but I do think it would be for the best if you excused yourself from this one in order to help keep it focused on the CfD and not the ANI dispute. I think the closing admin will be aware of your position on the matter. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Closure of the second debate may have been influenced by dispute, no substantive discussion in the first discussion. You can't exactly have the results of a fairly empty discussion be binding. Elassint ^Hi 03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • fairly empty discussions are depressingly common at CfD. If editors are free to simply renominate without even discussing with the closer, then why should any editor not just promptly renominate after any no-consensus close of an under-attended discussion? The established process has always been to wait at least one month, ideally 3 ... not to WP:CANVASS and then rush back to XfD without even declaring the other discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • You call it canvassing. I call it consulting the other editors who work in the subject area in question and are most affected by the decision. I really don't see the harm in allowing the discussion to reopen. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • If you take that view, why not just delete WP:DRV and all its subpages, and delete the instruction to discuss with closing admin? If an XfD close can be simply overridden by an undisclosed WikiProj discussion between 3 editors, what is the point of the rest? The whole point of XfD is that it is a community-wide process, where everyone is invited to participate at a central venue. The effect of what you propose is to prioritise a WP:LOCALCON. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • I've already stated that I believe that this can be easily resolved by deleting a useless category and moving on. If that can't happen because of one theoretical policy reason or another, then we've become too bureaucratic around here. I respectfully disagree with your handling of the situation. Lepricavark ( talk) 01:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
          • @ Lepricavark: Please take a step back, and remember that the role of an XfD closer is to weigh the WP:CONSENSUS in light of policy. It is emphatically not to take a view on the merits or otherwise of the proposal, which would be a WP:SUPERVOTE.
            Part of that weighing of consensus involves weighing the internal consensus of the discussion, but the other part is checking whether that internal consenus was built on a neutral framework: nominated pages properly tagged, other notifications neutral and preferably disclosed (per WP:CANVASS), and absence of WP:FORUMSHOPping. On both occasions, I closed the discussion on those long-standing policy bases.
            You have clearly formed a view on the substantive merits of the proposal, viz that in your words it is a useless category. You are quite entitled to take a view, but policy is v clear that any such view should form no part of an XfD close ... so in effect your argument amounts to "closer should have formed a view like I did, and invoked WP:IAR". I have never seen a DRV succeed on that basis, and I think it would set a very bad precedent.
            Yes, it can be frustrating to make a proposal which one thinks is a simple (and maybe trivial) matter only to find that a consensus is not formed (and I have personally felt that frustration hundreds of times over the last 12 years) ... but that is just one of the inevitable aspects of working in a collaborative, consensus-based environment. But no big deal; leave it aside and come back later. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
            • No, I'm not saying you should have closed the discussion based on the view that the category is useless. I am saying that the second discussion should be reopened so a consensus can be established that the category is useless. I maintain that there is no reason beside bureaucracy why this second discussion needs to be postponed two months. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
              • @ Lepricavark: all your comments so far have been based on your view that this is a useless category. Your revised position is that the goal is to allow a consensus can be established that the category is useless. On the face of it that's just another way of saying "reopen so that I can achieve my goal promptly", but I am happy to accept that aside from that you may have some other reason to advocate reopening. You reckon this discussion should be reopened whereas I am trying to engage you on the principles by which such cases should be addressed (and I don't feel I am having any success).
                Admins have a responsibility to work off accepted community principles. So please step aside from what you want to happen to this particular category and ask the questions which an admin is obliged to ask: in what circumstances is prompt renomination appropriate? In what circumstances is a prompt renomination so clearly WP:FORUMSHOPping that it should be closed?
                Those questions are not just bureaucracy. They determine a) whether or not admins can or should act to stop disruptive forumshopping and b) whether DRV becomes a place where admin decisions are overturned on the basis of factors which admins are not supposed to take into account. It seems to me that your preference would create a highly undesirable situation where DRV would be repeatedly asked to endorse forum-shopping on the basis of expected outcomes. All those extra DRVs would amount to much more bureaucracy than the old principle of simply waiting a while after a no consensus outcome. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
                • I have not revised my position, and I'm really not interested in a philosophical consideration of principles and precedents. At any rate, it appears unlikely that this CfD will be reopened. I find that disappointing but unsurprising and I feel no desire to further debate this issue. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment. (For background, see a lengthy post on my talk, [6] and sorry I didn't cleanup the typos).

I closed the April 3 CfD only because I did not connect it with the Mammoths saga. Had I connected the two, I would have stayed well clear, I absolutely would not wanted any further dealings with such an unpleasant editor as Jweis11. I had made tens of thousands of edits in the intervening month, including dozens of CfDs. When I closed the second CfD, I also did so solely on the basis of it being forum-shopping by the same editor. I checked no other history or interaction, and I did not make any connection with the Mammoths saga until Jweiss's intemperate rants at ANI yesterday afternoon. Both closures were made solely on the grounds of the CfDs themselves, and I deplore the assumption of bad faith in the notion that I was motivated by a ugly interaction before.

I closed a total of discussions of the April 3 CfD page. I closed this one as no consensus because:

• only one other editor had commented
• no one had identified any WP:OC criteria for deletion, so there was no basis for counting the nom's view alone as sufficient
• Discussion had been stalled for 6 days
• it is a template category, not a reader-facing category, so was much less likely to attract further comments if relisted

After that closure I received no communication from anyone about it; no DRV, no ping, no message on my talk. Like 99% of my hundreds of CfD closures in the last 6 months, it seemed uncontroversial.

Today I was reviewing open CfD nominations and spotted WP:Categories_for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. The title rang a bell so I checked the history, spotted my recent closure of the previous discussion, checked that I had received no communication about the previous close, and promptly closed the new discussion as blatant forum-shopping, cluttering a discussion forum with an issue which was going nowhere.

Nothing in the April 24 CfD indicates that any discussions had happened anywhere prior to the renomination; it does not even mention the WikiProject College football discussion, let alone link to it. The first I heard of it was at ANI, and when I looked I see that only 2 editors replied there. The failure to even disclose it at CfD looks like WP:CANVASSing.

XfD closures are not set in stone, but nor are they something to be ignored because one editor chooses to. There are long-established steps for challenging contested closures:

1. discuss with the closing admin
2. if it remains unresolved, open a DRV

Jweiss11 chose to do neither. Instead he took it to a WikiProject, and on a v weak local consensus decided by himself to simply bypass established procedures. This is v shoddy behaviour on its own; combined with Jweiss11's appalling personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, it is an editor who has v serious conduct issues.

I have absolutely zero interest either way in the fate of this category, which should never be encountered by a single reader. It is pure administrivia. However, I do care passionately about WP:CONSENSUS, which is the absolute bedrock of en.wp collaboration. That is why I put so much time into closing CfDs, which few other admins do. (I resumed closing them in January when there was a massive backlog which I all but cleared. When I took a break in feb * March the backlog spiralled again.) The number of participants in CfDs is depressingly low; a small number of editors assess a lot of proposals. Burdening them with forum-shopped trivia does not help scrutiny of actual reader-facing categories.

Those assessing this DRV have a choice to make.

• Option 1: uphold established process when a closure is contested, and deny the attempt at forum-shopping
• Option 2: back the forum-shopping, and in doing so back the conduct of an editor who has repeatedly both shown disdain for en.wp processes and exhibited some serious anger-management issues

In doing so, please consider how this impacts both on other editors who do respect process rather than on throwing tantrums, and on admins who may be considering closing discussions (many CfD closures require admin tools). And consider the impact on consensus-building if it is deemed to be legitimate to respond to a contested closure by caucusing for an out-of process re-run.

Finally, @ Lepricavark, I don't recall us ever interacting before so I have no prev experience with you, but I am sure you have acted in good faith by opening this review. However, I do question the wisdom of asking the community to devote yet more time to a page whose purpose is in no way to assist readers. I find it odd that out of hundreds of CfD closures I have made in 2018, the only one to come to DrV is on the least significant category, pursued by by one of the most aggressive and unrepentant anti-process editors I have ever encountered in my admin role on on en.wp. No outcome of this review will impact on readers. Is it really a good use of community time and energy? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have to object BrownHairedGirls's relatiation here with personal attacks and assertions of complete falsehood against me, e.g. "intemperate rants", "anger-management issues". Anyone who reads the ANI can see that I was quite calm and objective in that discussion. I too care about WP:CONSENSUS, which I why I discussed the issue at WikiProject College football to gather consensus before I renominated the category. It's absurd for someone to distort that into "forum shopping". Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you serious?

You do not build WP:CONSENSUS by canvassing in another forum.

At CfDS you responded to a procedural objection by saying Congrats on preferencing pedantry and bureaucracy over simply and efficiently fixing a basic problem with the encyclopedia [7] and then came back again to call me a smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat [8] because I refused to read the criteria as meaning something completely different to what they say.

You headed the ANI discussion "Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl". [9]

You claim to be calm and objective. No, pal -- those are intemperate rants. They are no part of WP:CIVIL.

As I suggested before, do read WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:DRV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CANVASS etc. You are in breach of every one of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Did you assume good faith regarding my accidental deletion of your comment on your talk page, for which I apologized? Was your edit summary in response to my apology civil? Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cause and effect. After all your abuse and timewasting drama, and your multiple refusals from the very outset of our interactions to act with civility, plus your dismissal of repeated warnings at ANI, plus your abuse of an ANI heading to make a personal attack, plus your borderline legal threat ... no I most certainly did not assume any good faith in your implausible claim. You showed precisely zero AGF in me from the outset; so ten weeks after you began your abusiveness, I stopped AGFing you. I was over-generous in holding out for so long; but eventually you reaped what you had repeatedly sowed.

Life lesson for you: if you want anyone to assume your good faith, then do not repeatedly piss in their face on your first encounter, and do not do it in the next encounter.

As @ Tarage asked [10] at ANI: What is wrong with you?. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You are very confused about who initiated all this time-wasting. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jweiss, you are still stuck in exactly the same mindwarp that you were stuck in on our first encounter: that anyone upholding an en.wp process which does not promptly give you what you want is wasting your time and deserves direct personal attack. There are simple, established steps in building consensus; but somehow you have taken hold of the belief that your proposals are so inherently good that you are entitled to launch straight into personal attack when long-established processes are not set aside for your benefit. Jumping up and own yelling slum "slam dunk" may be appropriate at a ballgame, but it is not part of consensus-building.

When you didn't like CFDS rules, you launched abuse, repeatedly. Time-wasting

When asked twice to retract your abuse, you chose to ignore rather than resolve. Time-wasting

When you a CfD was not closed due to a backlog, you demanded attention. Time-wasting

When a CfD was closed in a way you didn't like, you chose not to take the simple step of asking "why? and what next?". Time-wasting

When your forum-shopping CfD was closed in a way you didn't like, you chose not to take the simple step of asking "why? and what next?" ... but instead ranted and insulted at ANI. Time-wasting

At every turn, there was a simple, low-drama option. And at every turn you took the high-drama timewasting one.

What is wrong with you? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think it's clear that you're unable to have discussion with me that is bereft of irrationality (e.g. moving on and putting the initial episode in February behind us was somehow time-wasting?) and hypocrisy (i.e. practicing the very transgression that you accuse me of). Can I take you up on the offer that you hinted at above, that you will steer clear of any XfD I may make in the future and allow another admin or whoever else to make closure? Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

What is wrong with you? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• If relisted, there should be a clearly visible link in the relisted discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes so that the closing admin is well aware of possible canvassing. It is then up to the closing admin how much weight that should have in the final decision. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcocapelle, I'm a little confused about the focus on alleged "canvasing". For more than 10 years I've been working with other editors at WikiProject College football and other related projects. When the prospect of deleting or renaming an entity that falls under the purview of a given project arises, we often discuss the matter to get a sense of consensus before nominating that entity at XfD. This is how scores of other editors and I have been operating for over a decade. Is this a problem? Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Quoted from WP:CAN. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcocapelle, I'm familiar with the general concept of canvassing. Specifically is it acceptable to 1) discuss the idea of a XfD at a related WikiProject before opening a given XfD to get input from other editors beforehand and 2) to post a neutral notification at a related WikiProject once the XfD has been opened, e.g "I have nominated Category:X for deletion. Please see the discussion at...". Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion provides fitting advice. Wait two months, and then put more effort into the nomination than last time. I can see that the nominator might be upset. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes was pretty brief, and it could well have been relisted, so why not allow a continuation in a new nomination? For me, the failure to make a comprehensive summary of the previous discussion, to make a merely perfunctory nomination, was a clear failing. I suspect BHG might have allowed a better nomination to continue, you could try asking, except that I see your posts on her talk page (eg "The hypocrisy here is utterly stunning") have already crossed the reasonable civility line. Wait at least two months, and then compose the nomination statement carefully. If any uninvolved editor thinks the matter is really urgent (I think it is not), find any CfD-regular admin to agree, otherwise wait two months. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, so the second nomination on April 24 was perfunctory and a "clear failing"? I included a link to the initial discussion from April 3. The substance of the initial discussion was largely me clearing up a misunderstanding about the nature of the nominated category. How would you have worded the second nomination? Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, yes I am open to reopening nominations. I reopened one a few days ago on request. However, while a request may legitimately express frustration, it does needs to be made with some civility and AGF, as well as a plausible reason or plea for clarification. In all the subsequent discussion, I see no sign that Jweiss would have asked the simple, civil question which could have begun a dialogue: "Why did you close it as forum-shopping?" -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Reasonable close, within process. I would have relisted, but that is a matter for admin discretion. This is not xFD Mk. II, so as above, wait a while and put together a more obviously compelling rationale. 14:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse it's reasonable to renominate a page which had a nomination closed as no consensus without a massively different rationale but renominating two weeks later is a bit much, two months would be more acceptable. The Wikiproject notification is blatant canvassing and should not have been done. Hut 8.5 21:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hut 8.5, your point about two months vs. two weeks is well taken. Regarding the canvassing, WP:CAN states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Can you explain what about the my Wikiproject notification was unacceptable? Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Notifying a relevant Wikiproject isn't a problem, but the notification is supposed to be "neutrally worded". Your notification wasn't neutral at all, your message was clearly trying to get support for the page to be deleted. Hut 8.5 06:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

What are examples of the canvassing? I was confused by your, as it sounded like you did not approve of notifying WikiProjects. In a few places, I can see evidence of strained conversations. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hut 8.5. Here is the text of my notifications of the two relevant CfDs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football:

• April 3: I have nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks,
• April 24: Okay, I have nominated this category again. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. Thanks,

Can you identify the non-neutral wording there? Jweiss11 ( talk) 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Interesting that you omitted April 22: [11] I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete?

Not so neutral. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The quote you've excerpted there is not from a notification about the CFD. It's from a discussion prior the second CFD asking other relevant editors if they thought the CFD was warranted. Is it not acceptable to discuss the prospect of potential XFDs at relevant WikiProjects? Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not considered acceptable to "campaign" for your position in a deletion discussion by leaving biased notices, whatever the forum. You did this with the comment BrownHairedGirl quoted above and the second one where you explicitly asked several named editors to support you. The fact that the discussion hasn't started yet didn't make this OK. Hut 8.5 19:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hut 8.5, this was not a notice. This was a discussion. I did not ask editors to support me. I asked if they would support such a nomination to see if others thought it was worthwhile. Is it not acceptable to discuss the prospect of potential XFDs at relevant WikiProjects? No one is ever going to open a discussion about an item they don't think should probably be deleted/merged/renamed. e.g. "Hey everyone, " Category:College football in the United States looks like a good category. What would you think about bringing it to CfD?" That would be an exercise in absurdist obviousness and a clear waste of time. Jweiss11 ( talk) 20:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think you're splitting hairs between "notice" and "discussion" there. You left a number of partisan comments about a prospective deletion discussion at a Wikiproject. I don't really care whether you consider them to be "notices" or not, they were comments designed to draw peoples' attention to the discussion and that's what matters. The comments were not neutrally worded and the effect would have been to draw the attention of people who are inclined to agree with you to the deletion discussion. That's the problem: once this happens there is a strong possibility that the discussion will reflect the opinion of that partisan audience, instead of being a genuine consensus. Even if this doesn't happen the mere fact that it could happen can leave discussions irreversibly tainted. I don't see how the fact that the CfD hadn't been filed yet changes this. If you'd started the discussion first and then left these comments then the situation would have been the same. Hut 8.5 20:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

What are you suggesting then is that simply discussing the prospect of an XfD at a WikiProject inherently taints that XfD should it be opened. Jweiss11 ( talk) 20:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't say that. Hut 8.5 09:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hut 8.5, I understand that you did write those very words. What I'm pointing out is the logical implications of what you have indeed said. You are trying to occupy a space in this argument that is in inherent conflict with itself and/or is logically inconsistent. Every time anyone opens a discussion in a forum, including at a WikiProject, that discussion is inherently intended to draw people's attention to it. That's the point of any public discussion. And any time anyone any opens a discussion about the prospect of an XfD, the very opening of that discussion intrinsically suggests the XfD is likely a good idea in the opinion of the poster, no matter how neutral the wording. No one is ever going to open a discussion about a prospective XfD that they don't think should likely happen. Jweiss11 ( talk) 13:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You're erecting a straw man here. I'm not saying you can't notify Wikiprojects of ongoing or upcoming deletion discussions. Neither does WP:CANVAS. There is nothing wrong with drawing people's attention to deletion discussions, if done properly. However, as you can see from WP:CANVAS, there are restrictions, and in particular you shouldn't be trying to "sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent". That is what you did. Merely mentioning the existence or possible existence of a deletion discussion doesn't do that. It doesn't even necessarily imply anything about the views of the person posting the notification. It is perfectly possible to ask for comments about deletion discussions without trying to influence the views of the person reading the message. Hut 8.5 19:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not erecting a straw man here. You're just not following the logic. Merely mentioning the possible existence of a deletion discussion inherently implies that the one doing some sort of mentioning somewhere along the line thinks that item for discussion should probably be deleted/merged/etc. No one could know about the possible future existence of deletion discussion unless 1) they are person thinking about opening the XFD 2) can read the minds of other editors or 3) was told by another editor—the very editor considering the XFD–about it. In the third case, the inherent implication collapses down that editor in whatever forum that editor spoke about the possible future XFD. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I clearly understand that User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Jweiss11 don't have the same opinion about their mutual interaction in this process. I even have an opinion about this topic. But this place is not the right one to discuss about behavio.u.r. Concerning the decision to take, the BrownHairedGirl's argument seems to be something like "one, may be two, is a very small number for a crowd"... while we are discussing about a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. On the other hand, the Jweiss11's argument seems to remain undisclosed. I urge this user to expose her arguments, because "deleted for some undisclosed reason" would be a very strange decision... and surely will not occur. Pldx1 ( talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Pldx1: You stated above "Jweiss11's argument seems to remain undisclosed". I'm not clear which augment on which topic you are referring to, but I'm happy to disclose if you can clarify. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment (Disclosure: I was the lone participant in the 1st CfD and !voted "neutral") There was no CANVASSing in the initial WikiProject post, although I can see why an outsider could be wary. Jweiss11 wrote "I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete?" These are common types of posts in all the WPs I participate in, basically asking if it's a good idea to nominate, otherwise I won't waste everyone's time. Lot's of these don't get any response or get negative responses of "keep". They don't inherently incite a delete mob. A real CANVASS would be XfDing without asking (fine, be bold) and then posting to the project something to the effect that you've already nominated this horrible page and if we don't delete it the world will come to an end. A more covert job would just votetack to user talk pages instead of the more "public" project page. He later posts "@UCO2009bluejay: @Corkythehornetfan: @Billcasey905: you guys all do a lot work with college sports templates and categories. Can you look at this and let me know if you'd support a second nomination to delete this category?" Again, before a renomination. Those editors are among the project's active editors, and I have no reason to believe they are not active with "sports templates and categories", whose expertise would be relevant for this category. Comments welcome.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus with the specific direction that a fresh CfD is permitted without delay. I do not see the Wiki-project discussion as canvassing, although it would have been better form to have linked to it from the 2nd CfD. In the light of Process is Important I am sympathetic to BHG's argument against the prompt renomination, but a No Consensus result, unlike a Keep result, more or less invites early renomination. I don't think reopening the closed 2nd CfD makes much sense, but if anyone chooses n good faith to open a 3rd one, so be it. If the re-nom was a bit out of process, so was the speedy close. I find Bagumba's comments just above on the nature of the project discussion persuasive. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 12:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ DESiegel: can you show any basis in policy or guideline for your view that a No Consensus result, unlike a Keep result, more or less invites early renomination?
    WP:FORUMSHOP specifically advises against "Raising essentially the same issue [snip] repetitively". The essay WP:RENOM recommends that after a no consensus close "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months". Obviously it is only an essay but my understanding is that well describes accepted practice. Is there anything which says "come back a week or 2 later? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The original CfD decision was correct, in that there was no traction. However, the second CfD was incorrectly closed. The closer's contention of canvassing and forumshopping holds no water. Moreover, the closer failed to specify which criterion of CSK applies (spoiler alert: none of them do). There is nothing wrong with relisting an XfD with low (read: no) participation: However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. Sorry, BrownHairedGirl, but it looks like you were unquestionably in the wrong on this one. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 23:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ AlexEng: note those words may be appropriate for the closer to relist it. 1) the word "may" clearly gives the closer discretion; 2) that discretion is given to the closer not to the nominator.
    If WP:forumshop does not preclude promptly renominating an unchanged proposal, then what's the point of a no consensus close? Less work for everyone if it is just left perma-open. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Fair enough, BrownHairedGirl, but then my concern is with your initial close. Please direct your attention to the subsequent paragraph in WP:Relist: That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.. You closed a discussion with only 1 participating member (!voting neutral) as no consensus? Why? It should have been relisted with an attempt to gather more participants. I'm also concerned that you cited WP:CSK as a justification for the close, but "relisting by the original nominator" does not appear to be one of the criteria for a speedy keep. AlexEng^{( TALK)} 01:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ AlexEng: on the CSK, having checked the text now, it does seem in hindsight that I was mistaken to cite CSK. In a rare oversight I didn't check it before closing, which was sloppy ... but it's clearly stated that my 2nd close was substantively based on the blatant forum-shopping. I erred in thinking that CSK covered that (for which I'm annoyed with myself) but that error does not alter the clearly-stated reason for the close.
        As to the first close, it's clear from both your excerpts of WP:Relist that substantial discretion is granted on whether to relist except one situation where relisting is deprecated. There is no recommendation to relist, much less a requirement to do so; it is a judgement call.
        In that case my deicision was based on several factors: a) only one participant apart from the nom and discussion had been stalled for 6 days; b) unlike AfDs, participation at CfD is regrettably low, so relistings often attract no further input; c) a significant chunk of that low participation is made up of regular participants who comment on a wide range of discussions, so I am more wary of relisting when the "current" 7 day window is busy as it was then 'cos on the previous day I had relisted a lot of backlog; d) this was a template category, which in my long experience attracts even less scrutiny than the deplorably low CfD norm; e) because it is a template category the CfD tag is unlikely to be seen, so the initial WikiProj notifications are the main advert, but relisting would involve no update of them; e) since it is a template category, its fate will have no impact on readers so reaching a decision is less pressing than with a content category. So on balance, taking all those factors together, I reckoned that it was better to just close it. Some proposals which gain no interest in one season get more attention a few months later; so no rush, just try another time.
        On a general point I note an perverse aspect of this situation. Per WP:ADMINACCT I accept a duty to explain my actions as I have done here, but it is v time-comsuming. The whole situation could probably have been avoided if after either close the nom had simply done as recommended both in WP:ADMINACCT and at WP:DRV and simply asked me civilly to explain my close. Dialogue often illuminates factors on both sides which may have been overlooked, and that often avoids protracted processes. Jweiss did so on neither occasion, and instead unleashed a stream of vicious personal attacks based on repeated assumptions of bad faith. This appalling barrage of bullying abuse and character assassination received no scrutiny or sanction other than the dismissal without action of his ANI complaint before I even had even finished my response. I am sure that those voting in this DRV do so in good faith but there is still something badly wrong with the overall process when a highly aggressive multiple policy-breaching editor is able to unleash an almighty shitstorm and still find that despite his repeated failure to act with anything approaching civility even after multiple warnings at ANI, the person who he attacked is subject to micro-scrutiny of a routine decision about one or the least significant CfD discussions in a long time.
        I am human; I am deeply upset by what I have been subjected to, which feels like a sustained hazing. Any admin deserves better than this. So this will probably be my last response at DRV. And I am v deeply disillusioned at the abject failure of the community to enact any sanction against the appalling abuse to which I have been subjected. I am finding it v hard to persuade myself that a community so out of balance is one in which I want to continue to contribute. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • I can sympathize. I'll note that while the original thread was closed, a related ANI thread remains open.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bagumba, I agree with BHG that this episode has exposed some fundamental problems with the community, although I would summarize them differently than BHG, who appears to me most concerned that I was not sanctioned for my attack of intellectual dishonesty made back in February, at the very same time that she continues to repeat a personal attack made against me by a third editor like some sort of mantra, "What is wrong with you?". I'm also concerned that the ANI I opened was closed so quickly, even before BHG herself had a chance to respond to it, but now her sub-thread attached to the ANI remains open for far longer, creating an ambiguous "is this open or closed?" kind of situation. My initial ANI was also closed rather quickly at the same time I was being admonished to slow down because Wikipedia has no deadline, but was also being threatened with a prospect of a block merely for trying to discuss and hash out what happened with third parties (i.e. hurry up and get lost or else!) I think the community's decision to consider the use of a word "libel" as some sort of bomb equivalent with a threat of legal action is unethical. It creates a situation where calling a spade a spade is considered more of a transgression than issuing a false statement about another person. Finally, we seem to have a serious disconnect here about the relationship between WikiProjects and XFD and the ethics of discussion inside and between them. Jweiss11 ( talk) 14:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This has been a perfect storm of sorts. Inasmuch as possible, I invite everyone to refocus on the most recent CfD in this DRV, and take any remaining behavior and process concerns out to more appropriate venues.— Bagumba ( talk) 15:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bagumba, what would be the most appropriate venue to discuss the WikiProject–XFD disconnect? Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Relist or allow speedy CfD renom. No evidence of conflict of interest on the closer's part. The CfD nominator's behavior can be dealt with at the ANI thread, if needed. I was the only participant in the first CfD and voted neutral. If I had not voted at all, which seems the same as being neutral, it would have been relisted. Per WP:NOQUORUM, options in that case are to relist or allow speedy renomination. Speedy renoms are problematic when contentious "no consensus" discussions took place. Take a break, and come back. It's not applicable when there was a lack of participation.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, note that the second closure was an appropriate early close per WP:PCLOSE even while it did not meet WP:SPK criteria. So in theory the first closure should have been taken for review here instead of the second closure. But the closer of the second discussion should have moved the second discussion to WP:DRV on behalf of the nominator. Not that it really matters in this particular case, but it is good to know for next time. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. More precisely (1): the "no action to be taken" conclusion of round 1 is to be confirmed (aka stare decisis). (2) The "lack of arguments provided to back up the delete request" is more than ever relevant. The fact that User:Jweiss11 could perhaps, during this third round, disclose these arguments (at an undisclosed future) is by itself a reason to snow-close as futile. (3) Moreover, all the arguments given in this third round are about the procedure and not about the keep/delete dilemma, so that the "not enough people to make a crowd" is more than ever relevant: nobody cares about this dilemma, that should not be relisted for a 4th round before a large amount of time. Pldx1 ( talk) 15:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Pldx1: as I asked above, can you please specify what you want me to disclose? Are we talking about the argument for why Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes should be deleted? Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Pldx1, also there is no keep/delete dilemma whatsoever. There is not a single editor who has expressed the opinion that the category in question should be kept, while at least three editors want to see it deleted. The problem is that this CfD has never got a chance to run its course. I'm also concerned that you are arguing that the very existence of this deletion review, which has a mix of opinions, somehow warrants for more time to pass for the CFD in question to get a fresh run, than if this deletion review had never happened. Does a "large amount of time" mean more than two months? That line of reasoning bodes to further enhance the self-reinforcing bureaucratic stack that is thwarting improvement in this corner of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

nobody cares about this dilemma. Maybe you don't care, but your sweeping statement that nobody at all cares is obviously false. It's bad enough that the rest of your comment is needlessly complex, but at least have the courtesy to not pretend that everyone shares your perspective. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply

nobody cares about this dilemma... at least not to the point of listing the arguments that could backup a deletion. I suppose that the maintenance category under discussion was created in good faith (on 19 November 2015‎), while I am under the impression that further enhance the self-reinforcing bureaucratic stack that is thwarting improvement in this corner of the encyclopedia is just another way to acknowledge some lack of serious arguments. Who was talking about "intellectual dis-something" ?. Pldx1 ( talk) 12:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Pldx1, the argument is clearly listed that CFDs: "Nominator's rationale: These navboxes are already grouped at Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes. There's no need to further subdivide them by conference." To expand on that, the overarching principle here is to bring consistency across the category tree. The siblings of Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes, like Category:NCAA Division I FBS team navigational boxes, and its cousins, like Category:NCAA Division I FBS coach navigational boxes, are not broken down by conference. In the April 3 CFD, in discussion with Bagumba, I expanded on these issues: "Again, it's an outlier, one-of-kind category created by editor who didn't appear to be working for consistency across the category tree. Do Category:NCAA Division I FCS team navigational boxes and like need to be subdivided by conference? I think that's unnecessary and would introduce more administrative overhead as teams change conferences—which happen more often than teams change divisional classification. It also would create confusion, as we had above, between categories for templates about a conference and categories for templates about members of a conference". Is this a sufficient listing of the arguments? Is it sufficiently honest, intellectually? Jweiss11 ( talk) 12:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the proposal was open for 8 days and attracted no actual support. 'No consensus' is exactly what it was. Oculi ( talk) 23:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse from a purely procedural point of view, I believe the closer was well within her bounds to close under speedy keep #2C. Anyone arguing this CfD didn't get a chance to run its course could have participated in the CfD two weeks prior. This whole thing has snowballed ridiculously. SportingFlyer talk 02:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• This should go without saying, but most of us weren't aware of the original CfD. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• That has absolutely no impact on my vote whatsoever. You could have participated in the earlier CfD had you known about it. Give it a couple months to cool off and try again if you want it deleted so badly. SportingFlyer talk 03:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• It's very unfortunate that procedural concerns are held in such high esteem as to force us to wait two months to redo the CfD. Obstructionism has carried the day here. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Including User:Billcasey905 who has indicated he is favor of deleting the category in question and stated "Sorry I missed it the first time around." I agree though that this has snowballed ridiculously. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I submit that Jweiss11 is Badgering the discussion. Please stop. Outside editors should conduct the review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, outside editors are indeed conducting the review. I'm commenting to clear up things others have overlooked and to understand the implications of other's views about things like the relationship between WikiProjects and XFD, so that hopefully we can figure out how to deal with the massive disconnect there. Please refrain from issuing another false charge of harassment against me. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Did you mean WP:bludgeoning the discussion? WP:Badgering refers to harassment. If that is what you meant, could you be more specific about the harassment, please? AlexEng^{( TALK)} 03:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:BADGER redirects to Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process#No_one_is_obligated_to_satisfy_you, which is probably what WP:BADGERING should be changed to as well.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I meant Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, and I meant "badger" as a softer word than "bludgeon". Apologies for insufficient care with the shortcut. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I have retargeted the shortcut consistent with my and the bulk of the previous uses of it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• From what I can tell here, it seems that User:Jweiss11 is being badgered, not doing the badgering. The original request was a simple, procedural request. It was nominated for deletion and had no response other than a "neutral" -- This is very similar to WP:UNOPPOSED which should be closed the same as a WP:PROD after discussion has run its course. But it wasn't. Do things right the first time and misunderstandings like this can be avoided. Therefore, I say Overturn and let's move on.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 05:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • More badgered than badgering, possibly. The above and other conversations are not easy reading and the disputes are unclear to me. Jweiss11 is identifiable as the author with the most edits to this page. Whether overturned or endorsed, I think everyone needs a few days recovery at least. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't matter for this discussion, because the question is "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" The question is not "who is our favorite editor and was someone mean to another?" -- that's a good question to ask, but not here in this discussion -- all that matters here is "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • It absolutely matters for this discussion - deletion requests in which the user desperately wanting to keep or delete the article become involved are the most difficult deletion reviews, since it's harder to take a neutral view due to constant interjection, especially when it's an editor who has been shown to disregard both canvassing policy and the cool-off time for a deletion request. It's a borderline issue and I've definitely seen worse, but it definitely seems to be happening here and has turned a problem with a relatively simple solution (just wait two months and renominate it) into a conflict across multiple topic areas. SportingFlyer talk 05:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Endorse or overturn should be based on the merits of the target category, not on popularity of editors who propose the review.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 11:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Neither of these are correct - in this case, the endorse or overturn has everything to do with whether the closer acted reasonably, and from the record it is clear she made a correct procedural decision. SportingFlyer talk 13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

SportingFlyer, most of participation my here has been driven by a need to defend myself from false charges of canvassing and like, as you have levied against me, and an interest in clarifying and resolving the larger issues as play here, like the WikiProject–XFD disconnect, which have implications far wider than the fate of this one category. To the extent that the background "matters for this discussion", I'm also rather concerned that a lot of people here are casual dismissing the obvious evidence that an admin likely tanked one or two CFD closures because of a personal beef from two months prior. Jweiss11 ( talk) 12:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Right, but you also need to realize from a third-party point of view, the facts show: user creates a CfD request; CfD request comes back as a no consensus; a mere two weeks later, same user tries to create another CfD request on the same topic. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence of any "personal beef". I understand how you see it that way and how you've taken it personally, but from my point of view, this discussion would be better if you could simply step away from it for now. You can always re-nominate in two or three months. SportingFlyer talk 13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Was any policy or guideline violated in the creation of the second CFD request? As near as I can tell, there's no problem with that. Sure it's a little close, but there's a reasonable window of good faith to consider that the editor believed that the second request was called for. And telling an editor that a discussion would be better if they left is badgering that editor. This is why we need to get the discussion back to the question, "Shall the CFD decision be overturned?" Everything else... at least in this forum... distracts from that question. There are other forums better suited to tell/ask an editor to take a break.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Indeed, starting a discussion by telling an editor that a discussion would be better if they left would be badgering that editor. But telling the same thing when the discussion has largely inflated could also be drawing a well founded conclusion. Concerning the discussion itself, after asking 3 times, we have got some alleged rationales for deletion. They sound as "I don't like it". The Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes contains 13 elements and is a member of Category:Big Sky Conference football navigational boxes. From the histories, it appears that someone has experimented that it was useful to have the 13 teams at hand when editing the navboxes dealing with the interactions of the said teams. This "someone" has a name, seems to be here from 2006 (at least 'date of page creation' says so) and seems to be active (at least, 'user contributions' says so). It seems also that the said "someone" was never contacted about this category for deletion, even after being aspersed as an "editor who didn't appear to be working for consistency across the category tree". The consistency and the convenience could be in creating such maintenance categories when they are useful (as soon as they are sufficiently sized). Disclaimer: I have already !voted "endorse". Pldx1 ( talk) 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Relist. As far as I can see nobody would have a problem with a renomination after a few months, since the first discussion close as no consensus, so why not make an exception and have the substantive discussion concluded on a much shorter term? If only, because that seems way more productive for all of us than continuing this DRV discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. BHG was well within her right to speedy keep, especially in light of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. It's one thing to initiate a dialog to gather opinions to determine how to address it at CFD, but the intent was to sway the discussion in the nominator's favor. That is blatantly inappropriate. ℯ xplicit 07:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Explicit: Perhaps you could point to which specific criterion in WP:CSK applies to this situation, since you believe she was well within her right to speedy keep? AlexEng^{( TALK)} 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment There hasn't been enough discussion (either way) about the guideline WP:NOQUORUM.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Buchalter, A Professional Corporation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was speedily deleted by editor SamHolt6,then immediately and officially deleted by RHaworth. I have reached out to both respectfully, politely, and in good faith to initiate a conversation that would allow us to reach a consensus. However, despite multiple attempts to reach him, I have never received a response from SamHolt6. It is odd that he would suddenly delete a page, but then not be interested enough to reply to any of my communications. RHaworth did respond, but his only response was that the title is “ridiculous and spammny.” There has been zero effort to reach a compromise. Surely, the legal name of a corporation (and/or individual) is neither ridiculous, nor spammy.

This article appears to have been flagged because of a separate and previous article written over a year ago. At the time the previous article was deleted, it appears that a consensus had NOT been reached. This company is verifiably notable, and is mentioned in numerous reliable, authoritative sources. Furthermore, all content that was posted is easily and verifiably accurate. Numerous companies in this industry have Wikipedia pages (and their legal names are the titles).

Further, per Wikipedia’s guidelines, we are all to treat each other with respect and civility (and to always be nice, welcoming and helpful to new users). Please review the actions that have been taken, and allow this company page to exist, or at least provide guidance as to what changes need to be made so that it will be allowed to exist? It is frustrating that no one has given me the courtesy of suggesting what would make this article uphold to Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you in advance for your time. It is important that Wikipedia remain neutral and strives to treat everyone equally. Missfixit1975 ( talk) 21:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Missfixit1975 reply

• @ Missfixit1975: I can't speak to the content of the article as it was just before it was speedy deleted a few weeks back. But, if the content of the article was substantially the same as it was when it was deleted last year, then yes it is a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Further, consensus was reached; there was no opposition to its deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buchalter. As to the name, while I can see where you are coming from as Buchalter does use that terminology, it does not appear to be the company's actual name. Your terminology appears in the footer of the web site, but nowhere else. Their own social media feeds fail to mission the suffix, and in the rest of the website they refer to themselves simply as "Buchalter". So, yes, I tend to agree with RHaworth that the article name is indeed spammy. As to other law firms who have articles here, I'm sorry but it is of no matter to the existence of this article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why. Please understand; WP:DRV isn't a second chance deletion discussion. You can ask for a WP:REFUND and have this article undeleted into your userspace where you can continue to work on it. If you do so, let me know and I can assist you in helping to determine if the article meets our standards for inclusion. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt. The WP:G4 was correct, although WP:A7 or WP:G11 would have worked equally well. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. No reason has been presented to explain how deletion process has been followed. Deletion review is not AFD round 2.
  If you wish to report incivility or other rudeness, this can be done at WP:ANI; however, before doing so, consider whether the conduct is in fact incivil and rude, or is just people telling you something you don't want to hear. Stifle ( talk) 10:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my deletion and propose salt. Per Roy Smith above except I hate these cryptic G4, A7, etc. G11 means nothing to me - I think of it as {{ db-spam}}. "Telling you something you don't want to hear" - well put. Miss Fixit, I tell you with as much civility as possible that in my opinion you are not an appropriate person to be contributing to Wikipedia: you are here to promote your company instead of helping to build an encyclopedia. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Exeunt Vikings stage left, singing lovely Spam, wonderful Spam... Guy ( Help!) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No procedural errors occurred in the deletion of the article. SportingFlyer talk 02:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Appropriately deleted. Recreating an article that was deleted via AfD at another completely inaccurate title raises a few eyebrows, to say the least. Enigma ^msg 04:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was redirected in 2016 because at that time, there were only two sources demonstrated on the article. However, it was moved to Draft:Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky and you can see now that there are several sources, so I believe it meets the WP:GNG and the draft should be moved to article space. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D ( talk) 11:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As the one who added those sources, I feel I should say that Rocket Science Games was among the most hotly-tipped PC developers in the mid-90s. At various points, even David Fox and Brian Moriarty worked for it. With the amount of mainstream press attention and hype this company received (constant Wired coverage, features in NewMedia, the Atlantic, etc.), it would take pretty extraordinary circumstances for one of its released games to be considered non-notable. In this case, I just don't see how it could be done—the sources I've uncovered are just the beginning of what's out there. I haven't even dug into NewsBank/LexisNexis-type resources to find newspaper coverage on the company, which would almost certainly contain even more about this game. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 11:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment A few reviews seem to be present now, but they should be summarized, not just cited (and I don't know what the Loadstar review was supposed to do there). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• I think we could have agreed to move this back into article space without this DRV discussion. The three listed reviews are on the weaker end (one is short and can't see another without a scan) but it's possible to eke out a small article on this name-brand PC mag coverage. Alternatively, this is exactly how the summary style should have happened in the parent article. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 11:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Well, it's not a GA, but it looks OK to me. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Mainspace. The driving reason at AfD was the lack of multiple sources. This is now overcome. It deserves another chance at AfD, if nominated. Endorse the original AfD. Advise the Mac user to WP:Register. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

I was working on this page and have no chance to vote for non-deletion, while I was part of the first discussion. Not sure why I didn't get any message that page was nominated for deletion, how it happened in the past to the pages I edited. I think this is a genuine page worth keeping as the previous and last discussion showed. I would like to add more content to it as soon as it is back. Contacted User:MBisanz and he suggested to post it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkuczynski ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but maybe userfy. I don't think this could have been closed any other way given the existing discussion, so clearly endorse. That said, there's a few things that don't make sense about the above. First, User:Pkuczynski (who wrote but didn't sign the nomination) hadn't made any edits for an entire year prior to this AfD. So, what does, I was working on this page mean? Second, the AfD was open for nine days, so anybody who was interested should have had plenty of time to respond. In any case, had User:Pkuczynski been aware of this and commented in the AfD, it seems likely it might have been closed as NC . Given that, userfying it so they can work on it would not be unreasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I meant that I was working on that before, not during the process of voting for deletion. If you check the first nomination, there was a consensus and I and others made some fixes to the page to make it better and more compliant with the Wikipedia standards. None of those people had a chance to vote during the second nomination. I know it's not anybody's fault. I was just busy with some other stuff when the vote happens and was not so much active on Wikipedia. I just believe this article does not harm anyone and can be preserved and improved. And I am happy to take the lead on this. -- Pkuczynski ( talk) 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If Pkuczynski's putative comments at the second AFD bore any resemblance to the ones he made at the first, then no, they would not have made any difference to the outcome; and he still hasn't made any case to answer here towards overturning it. Endorse. — Cryptic 22:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • So my point of view was that this article needed some improvements, and we already applied some. Willing to work more on this. I am not sure what "endorse vs userfy" means in this context (I was so fasr mainly participating in Polish wikipedia), but I am willing to work further on this article and make it better. If you only allow and help me to do so. Hence my request for deletion review. -- Pkuczynski ( talk) 10:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Ask the closing admin if he will userfy it for you. The answer to the question you asked was pretty obvious. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I did ask and he pointed me to this procedure and asked me to create this deletion review. Not sure what other steps I can make? And how can I unuserify it later? -- Pkuczynski ( talk) 21:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • You asked him a very narrow question, and he answered it. Where did he point you to DRV? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Here: User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_21#Toptal -- Pkuczynski ( talk) 12:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Just noticed that MBisanz moved this article to my space. Once I am done with improvements, how do I request moving it back to the main space? Thanks for all the help so far! -- Pkuczynski ( talk) 12:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: I had a look at the draft and it still fails WP:NCORP. Best keep deleted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Preacher and the Bear ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deb has refused to restore the article I was working on when she deleted it. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Maybe this shouldn't have been speedily deleted, but wouldn't it have been easier and less dramamongering to follow Deb's advice in the last message before you started this discussion: "Feel free to create the article afresh, this time ensuring that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia"? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I agree that it does not fall under criterion A1 used to delete it -- it was specified as being a song with a particular title recorded by a particular group on a particular album. The criterion for A1 is that it is impossible to tell what the subject is. The deleting admin gave the additional argument that it was too incomplete to survive a deletion discussion, but that is not a criterion for speedy. Of course, it could just as easily be recreated, but it seems an obvious error by the deleting admin, who apparently did refuse to correct it. It was in my opinion worth bringing here, because previous discussion on Deb's talk p. indicate that admin's consistent practice of deleting stubs. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Since making my comment above I see that this is, per DGG, a serial problem with this admin, so this is actually a good case to bring to deletion review. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn since (a) it did establish context and (b) the article was deleted 4 minutes after creation (from WP:CSD#A1: Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created). Hut 8.5 18:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, not a speedy candidate, there are a couple of refs in the article which even give it a shot at being retained at afd. Szzuk ( talk) 18:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Sigh. We've got a sub-optimal situation here. On the one hand, I think deb has been a little quick with the delete button in a bunch of cases. On the other hand, FloridaArmy does seem to have developed a history of creating lots of low-quality new articles. The intersection of these two problems has led to these two users butting heads more than once. I think both parties would do well to consider how they can best continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. I'd encourage deb to re-read WP:CSD and be more conservative about pushing that button. At the same time, I'd encourage FloridaArmy to put more effort into writing fewer, but better, new articles. Spend the time to research a topic and start new articles in your user sandbox or draft space. In fact, I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly restored the deleted stub to draft space: Draft:Preacher and the Bear. I suggest it be worked on there to find some good sourcing and sufficient background to meet WP:NMUSIC. It can be useful to go through the WP:AfC review process to get some other opinions on whether the new article is ready for mainspace yet, but that's not strictly required. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. At four minutes after creation, and one minute on the clock after the third edit, that was definitely over hasty and broke the CSD#A1 rule of not in the first few minutes. I wish all new article creators were told to include a source in the first save. I oppose draftification if the author doesn’t agree. Draft space is not to be recommended for any purpose. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You may be right about forced draftification, but in this case, it served two purposes. First, it undeleted it so people could see what it was. The normal tempundelete process would have done that too, but this also allowed continued work on the article in parallel with the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The right to refuse dratification is something I believe in for sure. I don’t support allowing a deleted article at DRV to be improved during the discussion. It can confuse things, distracts from the point of this discussion, and may give the authors false hope. The question is not about the content, but the deletion. When it is clear that the deletion was wrong, this DRV should be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as entirely inappropriate A1. Unfortunately, this is not a rare or novel occurrence with this admin, who has developed a pattern of not seeming to be constrained to apply CSD per their own stated criteria. Jclemens ( talk) 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Plainly neither an A! nor A7. And if BLPPRODs give articles a weeklong grace period, there's no sound reason to speedy delete less sensitive articles as unsourced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn with no action. At the time of deletion, the article read "Preacer and the Bear is an American song recorded by various artists including Phil Harris in 1947, The Jubalaires, and Jerry Reed on his album Georgia Sunshine", which gives sufficient context to identify what the article is about. Whilst the deletion was incorrect, the article has now ended up in draft space which is an appropriate outcome to allow it to be fleshed out and properly referenced. Stifle ( talk) 10:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  I agree that no action is needed. Draft is the best place for attempted articles of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  There may not be any action required as regards this particular article, but surely the action is required to make it clear to the admin who deleted this that such speedy deletions do not conform with consensus, so are unacceptable? I note that that admin has not commented here despite continuing to edit elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  Closing this discussion as "overturn" would suffice to make that so clear, I think. Stifle ( talk) 10:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ascot–Guildford line ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No clear deletes, 3 keeps and 1 redirect, Admin who deleted did not provide a reason for deletion. This has also been noted on closer's talk page Night fury 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, no consensus to delete. Not a reasonable closure. Stifle ( talk) 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus. I'm all for deleting unsourced train-cruft (which this is), but the role of a discussion closer is to weigh the arguments made by the discussants. Looking at the existing discussion, calling this a consensus to delete can only be a supervote. If you have an opinion to express, join the discussion instead of closing. Orthogonal to that, it really helps to provide some insight into why you closed it the way you did. For dead obvious discussions, a one-word close is fine. For a discussion where you're clearly going against the flow for some policy reason, greater transparency is required. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• How are User:Mattbuck's and User:Andy Dingley's comments "no clear deletes"? — Cryptic 12:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Relist so the article renaming discussion can continue. I voted keep but only on the basis of buying time for the rename discussion to conclude, either in the afd itself or after a keep when it would get renamed anyhow. Szzuk ( talk) 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Relist or alternatively (if that's not possible) endorse. The fact the article is completely unsourced is a strong argument for deletion, unless someone can show that sources exist. Nobody did here. Core policy has more weight than vote counts. Hut 8.5 18:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The argument against deletion seemed to be
  1. WP:OTHERSTUFF
  2. What to do with Bagshot et al
  3. The article needs work

Of these, 1 is not a valid reason, for 2 I suggest following commons with Ascot to Ash Vale Line, for 3 I suggest that if it has no references it failed WP:GNG or frankly doesn't exist at all. I can start calling Iron Man and Vision the Redvengers, but that doesn't make Redvengers a thing. Oh, and Nightfury, I nominated it for deletion, that's a pretty clear vote for deletion. - mattbuck ( Talk) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. In consideration with the amount of detail in the closing statement, that was definitely not an acceptable close. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC). I presume that the closer felt that the keep !votes were below being worth acknowledging, but I disagree. The closer needed to state, in the close, the reasons for deletion that need to be overcome to allow re-creation. The words are provided by delete !voters, but the closer needs to point to them, preferably repeat them. Some would call this courtesy, but I believe it is policy per WP:ADMINACCT. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Nowhere do admins get to delete unsourced stuff just because it's unsourced; there has to be a credible argument that it's unsourceable per WP:DEL7. No such effort was undertaken. Jclemens ( talk) 08:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to sourced recreation. Contrary to the above, being unsourced is a compelling argument for deletion per WP:V if nobody actually bothers to find and add sources after a reasonable time. Sandstein 10:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:V applies to specific article content, not the existence of entire articles. This is well-established. Jclemens ( talk) 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Even if that were so, which I don't agree with, here the two are the same: the entire article was unsourced. Sandstein 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The deletion nomination wasn't rebutted at all. There's a notion that part of the line used by the service isn't otherwise described, but that's not the article that was written. If it's a service, there are no sources describing it. Spartaz should have written a better close, but the outcome is defensible. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • At what point does a deletion nomination become so weak as to not even need rebutting? Given the erroneous assumption in the first part of the rationale, one cannot take the fact that the second half references notability as actually referencing actual WP:Notability. Jclemens ( talk) 23:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not following you. The central claim is that this article, despite being titled "line", was actually describing a service. That wasn't rebutted during the discussion, unless you count the person claiming it was in fact a line, though they provided no evidence for that claim. Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Relist I do not think the conclusion was unreasonable, but I don't think it's defensible - this is a close that needed a bit of explanation as to why, as opposed to just a delete, as it's in that grey delete/rename/no consensus area. Given there's not much of a consensus with this deletion review, I see no harm in letting the process play out a little longer. SportingFlyer talk 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (I would vote endorse if relist is not considered by the closer as I think the two delete votes had stronger policy.) SportingFlyer talk 06:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, there is good agreement in the AfD and now in this DRV the article should be renamed Ascot to Ash Vale Line, I presume this will close no consensus and suggest the closer offers a draft to anyone who wants it for recreation of the said article. There is a ref here [12] demonstrating it is network infrastructure that we keep. Szzuk ( talk) 10:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The deletion close was predicated on reading the comments not the bits in bold. My take was that this line's lack of sourcing was not refuted. The keep arguments were either assertions or discussion about what to do about stations on the line. The policy based arguments were to delete. Since then it appears that the line is not to guildford but to Ash Vale that probably explains why there is no sourcing in reinforces the fact that this line is not a real thing. Obviously, the thing to do now is to source the Ash Vale line and create an article about that but, since I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a discussion on my talk page - just notification of the DRav, I shall leave that to the closer to determine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - no way this could reasonably be closed as delete. Clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE. No objection to relisting, as there were only a few keep !votes. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. As Smartyllama said, this was definitely a supervote, and it does not help that Spartaz provided no closing statement in the AfD. Lepricavark ( talk) 20:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn' to NC or Relist--Supervote.And it doesn't help that Spartaz lacks the ability to write closing statements. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 08:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kadhja Bonet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Clearly notable as cited to very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the most recently deleted version cited a couple of reasonable-looking sources [13] [14] and I think that's enough for it to get past A7. Hut 8.5 17:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Grudging overturn. I can't imagine this getting past AfD, but there are indeed two plausible looking sources. I don't think either of them are enough to meet WP:NMUSICBIO. The NPR piece is an interview. I can't figure out if Clash is a WP:RS or not, but it doesn't impress me as being something we'd base WP:N on. However, WP:AfD is the right place to judge notability, and as this is a marginal WP:A7, we should give people the chance to review the sources. I've tempundeleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Agree it's gonna be marginal at AfD, as RoySmith suggests, but it's past A7. -- joe decker ^talk 17:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. NPR/World Cafe coverage is a reliable indicator of notability, and is certainly enough to defeat A7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Consensus appeared to be towards "merge with Template:Missing information" or "keep", not "delete" and/or "deprecate". There is no reason to ignore consensus. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin comment - the TFD nominator wanted to deprecate use ... migrate any uses that include a "reason" parameter to {{ Missing information}}... any remaining uses should be removed and the template should be deleted or redirected.. There were four "per nom" !votes using various terms (support, delete, etc), one "per SFB" (who !voted "support" of the nomination) and the rest supported various versions of the nominating statement. The end consensus was that the template should not be used any more, there was a better template to replace it with, and any uses that weren't obvious should be removed. I gave specific instructions because a simple result of "merge" was insufficient to accurately reflect the consensus of the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 12:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  Also, for what it's worth, the OP of this thread did not contact me prior to me receiving notification of the DRV. I don't particularly care since they at least informed me of this discussion, Hhhhhkohhhhh was nice enough to notify me, but I figured it should be mentioned since that's step 1 of the instructions. Primefac ( talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, supervote. Stifle ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  ​Genuinely out of curiosity, how is it a supervote to close almost exactly in line with the nomination? Primefac ( talk) 13:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  It appears I skimmed the debate a bit quickly and seeing three different sets of bolded comments considered a no consensus to make sense. Whereas, properly, "support", "delete", and "merge" were all of the same effect. Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 10:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse--I would have closed the TfD in the same manner.For the record, I fail to make head or tail of Stifle's one-word-!vote. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• endorse, the outcome cannot be to "merge with {{missing information}}" because {{ Missing information}} was not included in the discussion. Frietjes ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_19#Template:Incomplete WP:FORUMSHOPPING isn't going to help your case. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closer clearly not ignore consensus. The result contain merge then delete. @ Lojbanist: please do not repost this template to TfD again, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 06:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Finding consensus for the nominators proposal was an acceptable reading of the discussion. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Günter Bechly ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Reading through the previous DRV from February, it is absolutely inexcusable that this article remains deleted. It is shameful enough that it was deleted in the first place, but the prior DRV included ample sources, and none of the detractors provided a cogent argument for why they did not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. I believe this page was either deleted due to extreme prejudice or an ideologically motivated "consensus" and should not only be undeleted, but protected against future deletions. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 18:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You mean Günter Bechly, not Günter Bechley. I have corrected the links in the request accordingly. This was last discussed here at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 3, where consensus was that the page should remain deleted. Unless you have new relevant information to add, this request is likely to be closed without action. Sandstein 13:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I closed the last DRV. One thing that's obvious here is that this is a topic which has attracted lots of sock/meat. And here we have an editor who created their account in 2010, made a handful of edits, then didn't make any edits until suddenly a few days ago, they came back to life, immediately got into a deep talk-page discussion about the difference between essays, policies, and guidelines, then quickly found their way to DRV.   Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse unless someone wants to make a serious (and well-sourced) argument that the situation has significantly changed since the last discussion a couple months ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The fact that I don't normally have time to spend editing Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the merits of my request or to my merits as an editor. I have actually supported Wikipedia financially because I value this resource. When it comes to controversial subjects, however, it leaves much to be desired.

The irony is that if Gunter Bechly wasn't notable enough for him to have a dedicated Wikipedia page, the deletion of that page has in and of itself made him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. He is now the subject of numerous articles in sources of varying degrees of reliability and the subject of criticism by "reliable" sources who have an axe to grind because of his changing views on evolution. Here is some documentation of his academic and general notability:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guenter_Bechly - As you can see, he has 97 pieces of published research which have been read 11,586 times and have been cited 1,299 times. That's an impressive academic record by any standard.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=byMvnWsAAAAJ&hl=en - Google scholar registers a total of 1979 citations. How much research would an academic have to produce, and how many citations of his work would be required, to conclude that he has had a significant impact upon his profession?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110719072804.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/14/4231744.htm

https://freescience.today/story/gunter-bechly/

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/damn-i-didn't-win-censor-of-the-year-again - Jerry Coyne isn't a reliable source, but I'm sure many of the denizens of Wikipedia would consider him one.

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/scientist-comes-out-against-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/02/02/wikipedia-erases-scientist-history-12517

Note that these are just the English language sources I found in my brief research, whereas he is a German scientist. There were many sources I could not evaluate because they were written in German (and there were others written in Spanish.) Snoopydaniels ( talk) 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endrose per RoySmith. Szzuk ( talk) 17:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Szzuk: Refer to my reply above. There are plenty of independent and reliable sources to justify an undelete. He was notable before the delete, and he is even more notable now in the wake of the delete. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Referring back to what I said at the previous AfD, we have always for everyone else accepted that having described even a single biological species is notability, and he has described several, and also a genus; this is way behind the minimum necessary. There has sometimes been a certain lack of understanding about the importance of people in descriptive biology,but even so I do not think that in the last 11 years of discussions that anyone with a record such as this was even suggested for deletion. A case can be made that the involvement of coi and sockpuppettry may have affected the issue, but he is sufficiently notable that we need an article nonetheless. The conclusion at the last Deletion Review was "Endorse original close, no consensus on recreation... Somebody might want to try writing a new draft from scratch, " and that "the socking/canvassing is no more than a minor annoyance. " I intend to write an article myself after what I consider a reasonable period of time. I regret this was brought here without giving me a chance--although it will be about another 6 or 12 months until I get to it. I will also repeat what I said before, that I can find no real explanation for the deletion except his unpopular positions. There have often been nominations for deletions of scientists who are notable, but who also hold views supporting creationism or climate change denial or the reality of parapsychology (in this case it's creationism) . I continue to consider that as prejudice, and a disgrace to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, this article should exist (per DGG and WP:N), but we reached a conclusion what we had wasn't enough. I think that's wrongheaded, but that is where we are. But I don't foresee a strong enough consensus to overturn those decisions. But endorse last DRV close, overturn AfD to NC on the basis of WP:N being met in spades as a factual truth. Hobit ( talk) 21:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Dr Bechly still does not meet the minimum standards for WP:notability or WP:Academic. DGG ( talk · contribs) says that there has been a standard of considering "anyone" who has named a taxon as notable, but there is no such policy in any of the biology projects I have ever seen.-- Kev min § 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Kevmin: That is just obviously false. How does he not meet the requirements for WP:Notability or WP:Academic? Unless you can back up your claim, then your endorsement is meaningless. See WP:DEM Snoopydaniels ( talk) 12:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

See the Oct 2017 deletion log. There is no significant secondary coverage of Bechly himself present so WP:NOT is not satisfied, and writing articles on things does not satisfy WP:Academic. The small amount of coverage that has happened since has not been about Bechly, but about the faux drama of the Wiki article, so there is still no coverage of Bechly.-- Kev min § 12:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, that's clearly not true. Both the DRV from February and this DRV include many sources demonstrating significant, reliable and independent coverage. Coverage of the deletion itself includes coverage of Dr. Bechly. They are not mutually exclusive subjects. In fact, WP:N specifically says that the subject does NOT have to be main topic of the source in order to be considered significant coverage. So your argument fails on that score as well. Meanwhile the first possible criteria for WP:Academic is to have had a significant impact in one's discipline. Writing articles does not satisfy that criterion, but writing articles that have been cited almost 2000 times does satisfy that criterion.

Quoting WP:Notability:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources...The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.

Also, WP:N specifically says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So even if the articles are solely about Bechly, that is an invalid basis to discount those sources.

Snoopydaniels ( talk) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The "significant coverage" presented in the original AfD was thoroughly examined and debated at that time and found wanting. There were no indicators of significance ever presented in independent sources under WP:GNG. The coverage in sources that were significant were entirely tied to organizations with vested interests in describing Bechly as prominent and repeated on this project by obvious puppets and shills. The sources presented in the first deletion review and those presented above do not clarify the original discussion because they are fundamentally not about Bechly but instead are about Wikipedia. The attempt to claim that a person who was not notable magically became notable because he was judged to be non-notable is at best convoluted and nonsensical. As mentioned, his initial descriptions of multiple species does generate citations. Having spent some not-insubstantial time reading through the citations to Bechly's papers, I found that these citations were not especially numerous and were almost invariably mere acknowledgements of these initial descriptions. I differ from DGG in that I do not consider this a significant scholarly impact and so Bechly's work did not qualify under WP:NPROF#1. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Eggishorn: The wording of your argument makes it sound like you may not understand the "significant coverage" element of WP:N. The content of the source doesn't have to "indicate" the significance of the subject if by "significance" you mean "importance." Nor does the source itself have to be significant in that sense. The source simply has to cover the subject in enough detail to extract the relevant information without having to do original research. The source does not have to supply every detail required in order to write an encyclopedia entry. The mere fact that the subject is considered worthy of coverage, whether in depth or in summary, is what indicates notability. (Indeed, that's the dictionary definition of notability.)

For this same reason, your claim that "The sources presented in the first deletion review and those presented above do not clarify the original discussion because they are fundamentally not about Bechly but instead are about Wikipedia", even if it were true, is irrelevant. Again, WP:N specifically says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The very fact that the deletion received coverage by reliable, independent sources is indication that he was notable to begin with. Go back through the DRV logs and let me know how many deleted articles have received similar coverage. The whole reaction to the deletion invalidates the claim that he is not notable, even if you don't think that notability is justified by his accomplishments.

Your opinion on the significance of the citations is irrelevant. The notes on criteria 1 from WP:Academic do not describe the character of the citations beyond the kinds of materials in which they appear. WP:Academic only says that they have to be sufficiently numerous. I linked to two different sources of information about citations and they are very numerous. If you look at the average citation rate of articles in plant/animal sciences then compare that to the citation rate of Dr. Bechly's work, his is something like double the average.

Finally, WP:Academic also considers making a "significant discovery" sufficient to make someone notable. This is established by "a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." By your own admission, it took you no small amount of time to review the citations of his work and those citations were often acknolwedgements of Dr. Bechly et. al.'s description of newly discovered species. So you yourself have just inadvertently affirmed that he meets criteria 1 of WP:Academic on the basis of having made a significant discovery.

I totally grant you that Dr. Bechly is not the most notable academic in the world. Perhaps not even in the top 50%. That does not mean he isn't notable at all and it does not mean that the article should have been deleted. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 21:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Snoopydaniels:, firstly, and at the risk of some self-aggrandizement, I should say have been involved many AfD discussions with fair "success" rate. This is hardly evidence of infallibility and neither is it a claim to some sort of exalted or senior status but I think it is cause to believe I have a generally-acceptable understanding of notability criteria. I therefore ask you to please not attempt to lecture me on the meaning of those standards.

Your second point is merely to repeat the argument that coverage of the deletion of Benchly's article since the original AfD discussion creates notability. Repeating something multiple times, no matter how many times you quote notability guidelines out of context, does not make it any more true. No coverage of the notability debate anywhere has any significance on Benchly's notability. At most, they may make for plausible citations in a Wikipedia article on how the project's notability debates are covered in mainstream media.

Thirdly, AfD and DRV discussions are nothing but discussions by various editors of their opinions on the indicators of notability. It is up to the closing administrators evaluate whether they think those opinions are valuable or helpful. Pronouncing another editor's opinions irrelevant creates the appearance of bad-faith prejudging of those evaluations and is not usually helpful to the discussions. Let the closer decide what is relevant and what is not.

Fourthly, you misunderstand what my comment about "...some not-insubstantial time..." Such time commitment requires only my diligence in using standard databases to first find articles where Benchly was cited and then to locate the articles and then to read these articles and then to track down the actual text that cited Benchly and then to back-track it to Benchly's original papers and then to determine if those articles showed any evidence that Benchly's papers had significantly influenced the citing papers. This would be require a commitment of "...some not-insubstantial time..." for even the merest handful of citing papers. Many of the citing papers were quite long and cited dozens, if not hundreds of other papers. That I engaged in such effort does not demonstrate anything about Benchly. If it necessarily demonstrates anything, it either demonstrates something about the influence and significance of the citing papers or it demonstrates my commitment to giving Benchly a fair hearing.

Finally, I'd like to give you some free advice (worth exactly what you paid for it, of course). WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion with detailed disputations of each and every editor who disagrees with you contributes little to the eventual outcome. Your opinion on whether Benchly meets the notability requirements is clear already to whomever reads this discussion and to whomever may eventually close it. Unless you can present some new evidence that the original AfD discussion was wrongly-decided mere contradiction of editors will likely not overturn the prior discussions. As that essay makes clear, Benchly's notability would be best demonstrated if either:

1. There was overlooked evidence that Benchly met the notability criteria which was available at the time of the AfD discussion and which was not presented or discussed at that time. (So far: No)
2. There has been new significant coverage of Benchly himself or his research in reliable, independent, secondary sources that is not directly tied to the deletion discussion. (So far: No)

Saying that so far the answers to those questions is no does not mean it must remain no. If you can provide such then it will be taken seriously here, at least by DRV !voters with an open mind (of which I count several already participating here). Anything else is just re-plowing the same ground. Do with that suggestion as you will. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Your reply is a bit mystifying. If this is a forum for editors to voice their opinions, then I don't see how you can object to me expressing my opinion about where your reasoning is faulty, regardless of how long and storied your career as an editor. And I have no idea how that's supposed to demonstrate bad faith on my part, if indeed that is the whole purpose of this forum.

But unless I'm very much mistaken, this isn't just a forum for airing opinions. It's a consensus building process. Therefore, it's hard for me to see how addressing specific objections raised by individual editors in order to bring them around to my point of view is counterproductive. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If it's mystifying, it's only because you likely haven't read the linked essay. You will never bring all editors around to your point of view. Consensus isn't achieved by outlasting all other editors until you bring everyone else into agreement or your opinion is the only one left. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It's mystifying because you are contradicting yourself. And I never said anything about bringing all editors around to my point of view. But it's painfully obvious that some of them haven't given a lot of careful thought to this. Snoopydaniels ( talk) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

FWIW, WP:PROF does not require significant coverage. It requires basically being an authority in the person's field (most of the other possibilities there are just shortcuts for proving an authority in the most obvious cases).

As for using describes a species as an equivalent of that for WP purposes, the guidelines are what we do as much as what we say, and I do not remember any article on a person who described even one species ever having been rejected. I may have missed some, of course, but I have made this argument once or twice a year for 11 years now, and it was always accepted.

significant coverage does not mean enough to write an article without OR. That's WP:V, with the qualification that primary sources are sufficient for the basic facts of a bio, and if they are enough to show the qualification for notability--for WP:PROF, for example, to show important publications or a major prize or a named professorship, that's sufficient. "significant coverage " for the GNG means something more substantial than a notice--something that indicates that writing about the person was because the person was considered important. How it is actually interpreted in different fields tends to vary. How it is actually interpreted in an AfD depends of what result one is trying to reach. Anyone experienced at AfD can in any except the most obvious keep or deletes take the same references and make a plausible case for significant or not significant. The reason WP:PROF does not require significant sources is because the ones in the usual sense are rare in this field to find for people who are not media personalities or famous, and the consensus has been that we want broader coverage than that in science. (And, for that matter, because I and others made an argument that anyone whose work was cited a few times probably had it discussed in enough detail to meet what could be called significant coverage, and that means every post-docand up would get an article, and the consensus has been that we don;t want that either. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Kesari Tours ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page was speedily deleted under G5 four times by User: DGG, User: Sandstein, User: Fram and User: SpacemanSpiff. I got to know about these series of deletion after my article got nominated for Speedy Deletion by User: DGG. I have gone through the past articles created by random users and I found that it was completely promotional content but if you go through the content uploaded by me was factual. I actually came across this organization while planning a trip with my friends. While searching for more information about the company, I found that it is not present on Wikipedia which is an extremely important platform for any user who is seeking information about the company. So I created this article but I was not even considered for discussion on deletion of the article by User:DGG. I have also requested him to open discussion with me on his talk page and let me know if I can edit that article. As per User:DGG, he was suppose to review and get back to me but I have not yet heard back from him. As a contributor, I will like User:DGG to review the article Kesari Tours and let me know if I can edit and publish it again. I have included all the relevant news sources to support the facts and figures mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Latest version of the article was written in obvious marketing speak (which people who work in marketing often genuinely do not seem able to see), and I endorse the deletion. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have another question too, raised by User:Usernamekiran below. How did you examine all the previous versions and determine that they were completely promotional content - when they were already deleted, and you are not an admin and can not see them?

Finally, Gadgetsgigs, do you have any personal/professional connection with Kesari Tours? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) @ Gadgetsgigs: hi. just a question: how did you go through the past articles created by other users? This would be handy, i find it useful, but i dont know how to do it. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment: Actually, the second-to-last deletion was the result of an AfD I closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesari Tours; and the speedy deletions were per G11 (advertising) or G4 (recreation after AfD). I don't really see anything in this request that calls the result of the AfD into question. Sandstein 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close of the AfD and the G11 deletions. Obvious COI editor needs attention too. — Spaceman Spiff 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: given the filer's rationale provided here, and at DGG's talkpage; it looks like they are requesting for the article being considered to be published rather than reviewing the AfD. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and keep salted. Promotional/non-notable, come back when you have a neutral sourced article. Stifle ( talk) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Jzsj/sandbox ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

copyright infringement The above entire page was just deleted for "Investigation of potential copyright issue". Now all I'm asking is that I have access to the material that I had laboriously collected so that I don't lose it, and can copy it to a word processing page outside Wikipedia. Contrary to the directions given in the deletion notice that "Temporarily, the original posting is still accessible for viewing in the page history", the User:Jzsj/sandbox: Revision history page gives no live links. I'd appreciate having access to the material at the bottom of the page just long enough to copy to a work page outside Wikipedia. I'd copied the material at the top of the page (which was preceded by the title "QUOTES FROM GAUDETE ET EXULTATE") and will not use this method again seeing it causes problems. But I had no copy of the material at the bottom of the Sandbox which consisted in quotes from books with the complete references of the books listed. The deleting editor's objection is given that there were no words of mine interspersed with the duly cited material. I will avoid this in the future but would like to recover this material to work it up outside Wikipedia. Any help with this is appreciated. The deleting editor may possibly be an address created only for this delete, since it was created only April 3 and has no other entries on the talk page.@ 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26: Jzsj ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Looking at the deleted text, it looks like it's a copy-paste from http://w2.vatican.va/, which says, © Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Copyright violations will-not and can-not be restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please note that you are referring only to the top one fourth of the page, which I agree should not have been so broadly referenced. What about the bottom three fourths which was duly in quote marks and referenced, where the only mistake was to not insert much commentary of my own between the quotes? The deletion notice says that parts of a page can be separately handled. And the question is not about deletion but about making the matter available for a day so that it can be copied outside of Wikipedia and a full week's work not lost? @ RoySmith: Jzsj ( talk) 18:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I picked something totally at random, about 3/4 of the way down the page: In his first meeting with the media, the new pope explained his choice of the name "Francis". That's almost word-for-word from a CNN article. I suppose it's possible to tease apart the parts that are copyvios from those that aren't, but that's a lot to ask from people. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how you can say that. In the CNN article I read rather: "The new pope explained his choice of the name Francis in a meeting with journalists Saturday and discussed how he wished for a church that was both poor and 'for the poor'." Jzsj ( talk) 22:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lena Piękniewska ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

no notability, no resources except one youtube video and one article. This wiki-article (in Polish and English and French) clearly seem to be for marketing only :( Lantuszka ( talk) 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If your intent is to nominate this for deletion, you want to do that at WP:AfD, not here. If you need technical assistance with the nomination, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Oussama Belhcen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hi, I am editor for 4 years in arab wiki ;... I am Moroccan and I never heard about this singer nor in the national television, radio or international ... it is an article made especially to promote a young nascent singer ... all the sources are not reliable taken of sites closed or youtube channel or his songs does not exceed 5000 views or unknown sites. I searched for other reliable articles but I failed User:Aelita14 —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• It looks a non-admin closed early as a speedy even though no deletion had taken place? Am I getting that right? Hobit ( talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Well, no. There were two afds after that one. The last, now linked in the header here, looks overturnable both procedurally and on its merits, if DRV ever did that anymore, which it doesn't. But my best guess for what Aelita14 was trying to do was renominate for deletion and running into the first afd, and got misdirected here. — Cryptic 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. I missed the date of the AfD that was linked to. I agree, that does look like what's going on. Hobit ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• I'd be fine overturning to delete on strength of argument and having dealt with some cross-wiki spam from ar.wiki in the past, I can say that this fits the format we normally see in many of those articles (i.e. posted on en.wiki on the (usually correct) assumption that the article will survive an AfD simply because it is ref bombed with sources most en.wiki editors aren't going to be able to read and in a language where Google translate is difficult to make out.)
  In these cases, I typically defer to the ar.wiki users who are engaged in xwiki work as they know the sourcing, and most of them really do only care about improving Wikimedia projects and don't care about the local politics of en.wiki. The arguments for delete were stronger anyway the first time around, and the current note by the OP at this review makes the first keep !vote not particularly strong. If we want to send it back to AfD a 4th time, sure, I guess we could do that, but I think there is enough from the 2nd AfD, the 3rd AfD, and this DRV that we don't need to waste the time and can deal with it here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, my proof of pudding for musicians is how many views they have on youtube, perhaps not ideal, but in this case his top 3 songs have ~ 4,000 views each. As we're here overturn to delete is ok, if it goes back to afd I will vote delete. Szzuk ( talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The number of views, followers, friends, clicks, etc on social media is never a valid indicator of WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sure, I oversold my reliance on that. I can't really decide how to vote on this, on the one hand the close is ok, so it is endorse, I think it is the wrong decision so I'd like overturn to delete and it seems such a long time ago to relist. Szzuk ( talk) 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse There were both keep and delete views at the last AfD, and all based on their views of the sufficiency of the cited sources to establish notqbility. That is a judgement call, which we should not reexamine here unless the process was flawed, or the result ignored policy, or was one no reasonable closer could reach. If this were put up for a new AfD, I would have no opinion -- there are a number of sources, but most are not in English and i cannot judge their sufficiency. Possibly overturn to "no consensus", which would have described the discussion better, and make it clear that a further AfD is not barred. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Unless I'm missing something, the last AFD was two years ago and closed no consensus. If the request is to consider deleting the article, that would be done by lodging a new AFD, not here. Speedy close. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• WP:RENOM. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Renom. Szzuk ( talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• hello excuse me for the inconvenience ... I do not speak English well like Arabic or French ... so it's true I do not know your procedures but I thought I did well by warning you. .. this article is being removed on Arabic wiki because of unreliability of sources and lack of notability .... User:Aelita14 —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• the page Oussama Belhcen in Arabic has been suppressed for unreliability of sources and lack of notability Aelita14 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

137 Avenue, Edmonton ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

137 Avenue is a major east-west arterial roadway in north Edmonton, one of the busiest and most important east-west roadways between Yellowhead Trail and Anthony Henday Drive. It would be north Edmonton's equivalent to 23 Avenue (an equivalent article that was not deleted). More notable than 167 Avenue. MuzikMachine ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but.... The close was certainly fine (hence, endorse), but these mass AfD listings pretty much guarantee that no individual article gets the attention it deserves. We should restore any individual article from this batch that somebody can make a good argument for, and if somebody still thinks it should be deleted, bring that one back to AfD on its own for closer attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Question MuzikMachine, did you talk to Premeditated Chaos about restoring this one article? She is normally a reasonable person and that might solve this quicker than a deletion review. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ TonyBallioni: I haven't, but thank you for giving her a heads up. For full disclosure, I've been working on a list article similar to List of north–south roads in Toronto. I was thinking that articles like 34 Avenue, Edmonton, 34 Street, Edmonton, and 167 Avenue, Edmonton could be integrated into a larger list article; however in looking at the old 137 Avenue, Edmonton article on the Wayback Machine, it seemed a little more comprehensive and could stand alone. Cheers! -- MuzikMachine ( talk) 15:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment The only reason I didn't include 23 Ave in the original nom is simply out of negligence. It is as unnecessary an article as 137 Ave. -- Acefitt 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment For those who are interested, further discussion on list articles. -- MuzikMachine ( talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Being the closer, I won't !vote either way, but for what it's worth unless there's much better sourcing available, I don't think that 137 Ave meets the threshold for for having its own article. I suppose I don't have any particular opposition to a list, so I could restore for merge & redirect. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hongyuan Zha ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

User:Ziyatexie was discovered to be a paid editor. Given the fact that this user was violating Wikipedia policies, there is reason to believe the move to create the AfD of Hongyuan Zha was motivated by the personal vendetta, rather than a valid reason for deletion and an honest desire to improve Wikipedia. Reasons why it should be undeleted.

• The subject is very clearly notable mentioned on Nonlinear dimensionality reduction, Local tangent space alignment, Entity linking, Isometry and several others.
• Co-authored 365 articles in peer-reviewed journals ( Google scholar)
• A previous faculty member of the Department of Computer Science at Pennsylvania State University
• Current Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology
• Scientist who has been named in several patents ( https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~zha/patents.html)
• NSF CAREER Award Recipient
• Speaker at the IEEE Computer Society
• Recieved grants from DARPA, NASA and others.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's Valid Reasons to delete page: "An article about a notable topic that is written like an advertisement, with a promotional tone and style, but which does qualify for an article (under WP:N, the Notability policy) should not be deleted, but should be marked {ad}, notifying others to change the writing style to give it a neutral tone." Hongyuan Zha entry is not perfect but it is a notable topic about a prominent figure in search queries and query execution that is likely of interest to many readers. The existence of the Hongyuan Zha entry surely improves the Wikipedia project. 200.82.132.120 ( talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Articles written by undeclared paid editors are nowadays almost always deleted, unless some experienced responsible wikipedian is willing to rewrite them--which is nowadays very rare, because almost all responsible WPedians recognize that the only effective tool we have against paid editing is to delete the article: not only does the UPE have to refund the money (unless they're being really dishonest), but potential customers will learn that it is not practical to try to get a WP article in that manner. Writing an article as a UPE is explicitly a violation of the Terms of Use, and no website should permit such deliberate and blatant defiance of the TOU.

It's not a personal vendetta, it's a very public effort by the volunteer editors here to remove the contamination of undeclared paid editing (UPE), editing which is practice is almost always highly promotional--for why else would someone pay for an article about themselves. (Sometime the UPE is hired by the place the person works for, but it comes to exactly the same motive and the same result.) When I listed he article for AfD, I said "He is notable, so someone without a coi might want to eventually write an article. " The point of "eventually", rather than immediately, is to balance the need to discourage UPE with the need to have a WP article on notable people.

This is apparently your first edit on Wikipedia. If you have connection with the subject, you ought to declare it. If the connection is paid, you must declare it.

And I do want to point out that none of the factors you mentioned by itself shows notability. The citations, however, show him an authority in his subject. There is also a problem with "In January 1999, Zha was selected by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to direct the NERSC as visiting research scientist" -- Director of NERSC is a very major position, and would shown notability, but he was only 6 years past his PhD at the time. There are similarly unsourced claims. The article would need to be rewritten, not restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This was an interesting AFD which showed a clear consensus to delete, even disregarding the donkey vote. If the edits creating the article were Wikimedia:Terms of Use violations then to delete these edits seems reasonable to me (providing deletion is not disruptive). Considerations of notability may well be thought secondary, likewise whether promotional style might be editorially improved. So there was a good policy basis for the voting. Thincat ( talk) 08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, a clear consensus to delete at the AFD. I don't see that there would be a problem if a non-UPE were to want to come up with a new article from scratch. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC). reply
• Endorse and salt. The problem with just deleting is that it's not enough. Whoever paid for the article can just find another person to create it for them. Maybe even a sock of the first UPE. Repeat as many times as necessary for the article to stick. Salting the title will put a stop to that. If any legitimate user later wants to write a high-quality article about the subject, they shouldn't have any problem doing it in draft space and getting the title unsalted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• It is not our usual practice to salt until the article is recreated at least once without improvements, and in most cases we wt for the third try. We usually assume good faith even here--we assume the subject has probably learned the hopeless of hiring an unethical paid editor. Most of the time, that is what happens. If it does get re-created, then we know something--WP:BEANS about the details. ``

WP:AGF only goes so far. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Reluctantly endorse I domn't see any policy or RfC indicating consensus to deleted any edit by an UPE, and I would have !voted keep on this AfD, but the consensus was clear and could not have been closed in any other way. Do not salt, and there should be no prejudice against recreation by a non-COI editor. Salting a notable topic is almost always a mistake. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Something seems off here. Guy doesn't even have a reasonable webpage and he is paying someone for a Wikipedia article? Something seems off here. Nearly any academic with an interest in PR creates a personal website. His exists, but is really limited. I'd rather not see this salted. Hobit ( talk) 04:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

fwiw, his most cited articles, have GS cites of 1747, 891, 684, 645 . Some are major journals/conferences, some not but on fashionable topics. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• • Some are pretty obscure. Others (AAAI for example) are not. Hobit ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse ArbCom has made clear that the TOU i.r.t. paid editing must be followed locally. If this is the case, we must also have an effective enforcement mechanism. We delete articles that are created by editors who are not allowed to post here (see G5) and I think this in analogous. We can determine by consensus the correct way to deal with this, and in that AfD, the consensus was clear. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was clear support for deletion, so the only way this could be closed as anything other than Delete is if the argument for deletion (undisclosed paid editing) is considered to be very weak, and I don't think it is. In any case I don't think we're going to restore it at the request of an IP who may well be another paid editor. Hut 8.5 18:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Melanie Melanson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The Afd was posted up on the 8th and after a few opinions were offered was closed by a non-admin on the 9th. Those of us, like me, who wanted to participate hurt our noses on the slamming door. So I hereby complain. Why so fast? We usually allow some time to pass so that contributors can contribute. (Greetings, Grace.) - The Gnome ( talk) 11:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• TheGracefulSlick - the nominator - properly closed the discussion per WP:SKCRIT(1) per the withdrawal of the nomination without any non-Keep !votes present. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Meh. From a purely procedural point of view, when I withdraw a nomination I've made, I just strike out my original comment, make it clear that I'm withdrawing it, and let it sit for somebody else to come along and officially close. Doing it that way avoids getting bogged down in the kind of meta-discussion we're having here. In this case, however, I don't think the discussion could have gone any other way, so it's kind of a moot point.

On the other hand, this ended up being a sub-optimal discussion. Most of it got off on a tangent about an unfortunate characterization made in the nomination, and very little of it was actually about the article itself. I think the best thing at this point is to just move on, and allow anybody else to open a new AfD if they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yep, best to move on. Take care, all. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, Reasonable speedy keep. No prejudice against anyone else renominating if, in view of the coverage mentioned in this AfD, an editor thinks in good faith this is not notable, or there is some other valid reason for deletion. Anyone (such as The Gnome) who had planned to comment in the AfD can comment on the article talk page, or start a new AfD. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse exactly as DES. The close was fine, but if you think it should be deleted and want to start a new discussion, go for it. If you do it soon, you might want to notify everyone who participated in that AfD. Hobit ( talk) 01:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, valid speedy keep given that the nominator withdrew, and there were no calls in the discussion for deletion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC). reply

List of Nintendo products ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don't think "keep" is an accurate reading of this discussion's consensus, especially for when this is undoubtedly revisited in the future. Moreover, it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin since the discussion was not "beyond doubt a clear keep". When I asked the closer to revert and let an experienced admin handle the close, I did not receive a response, so here we are. Even with an ungenerous read, I would call this plainly "no consensus", though I think the close can optionally afford more nuance. czar 02:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Gun use ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was speedily deleted under G5 after twice being moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use to Wikipedia:Gun use by User:FlaTeen and User:MargeDouglas, both socks of User:HughD. It was not created by a sock, it was merely moved by a sock. I found this to be a useful essay that is relevant to ongoing discussions at WP:GUNS, and I would have moved it to essay space myself if somebody else had not done it. I have tried to discuss this with User:Berean Hunter, the admin who deleted it, to no avail. – dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sounds like it should probably be put back in the original location, maybe move protected if it's a sock target. Could you describe the gist of it? Jclemens ( talk) 01:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

It's an essay about including criminal use in articles about guns. The editor made a list of common arguments against the inclusion of criminal use and rebutted each one, citing various policies and guidelines. The author hasn't edited in over a year and appears to be retired. I think it should be moved to WP:GUN USE by a legitimate editor, or preserved at the very least.

I'm concerned about Berean Hunter's premise that an essay should be deleted to prevent it from being targeted by socks.– dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn clearly not a valid G5, the page was started and almost entirely written by Felsic2, who isn't a sock. The fact that some socks like making edits to a page is not a valid reason to delete it, we can use protection if it's going to be a problem. We can restore it to userspace or potentially to some other title in project space. The content looks perfectly reasonable for an essay. Hut 8.5 11:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Restore to pre-sock state, which would be this version. I have no particular opinion about whether it should stay in the original userspace, or be moved to WP space, but given that it seems to be a target for socks/vandals, some sort of (less than full) protection seems like a good idea. It represents one person's personal view of things, but it makes that clear via the essay template. I can't see any reason it shouldn't exist in project space (as do many such essays). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Let the essay's author make the request. As dlthewave mentioned, the essay was something a user had in their sandbox. It had previously been pushed as an essay but rejected as POV pushing [ [15]]. I suspect if it were added to the project again one of three things would happen. 1. It would be rejected as a poor essay as it was the first time. 2. It would have to be extensively rewritten/edited. 3. It would result in a protracted debate/disagreement on the project page. The only reason this has come up at all is because of the activities of a prolific sock (20 entries and most for more than one IP or username [ [16]]). Since then we have a problem with a very active sock now twice trying to push this out. Per WP:DENY I agree with Berean Hunter who deleted it as a way to deal with a very active sock. Springee ( talk) 16:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Which speedy deletion criteria would that fall under? – dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no such thing as a "rejected" essay. Essays, by their very nature, just represent the opinions of the person who wrote them and some number of other editors, they don't have to have general acceptance. In any case the fact that two people on a Wikiproject talk page didn't like it means absolutely nothing, and this doesn't have anything to do with whether the essay met the criteria for speedy deletion. Any other rationale would mean the page has to go to WP:MFD to be deleted, and it wasn't. Hut 8.5 17:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

More specifically, WP:NPOV only applies to encyclopedic content, i.e. articles in mainspace. Pages in user or project space, while certainly subject to some restrictions (copyright, libel, hate speech, etc), are not required to be neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore Clearly a bad speedy, as this was neither created by, nor primarily edited by, a blocked or banned user. Being moved from one namespace to another by a blocked user or a sock does not justify a G5. Whether it should then be edited and how, and whether it should be moved and where, represent normal editorial decisions which need not be discussed here. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Strictly procedural overturn, as not a valid G5 or any other speedy deletion. Anyone has liberty to list at MFD, move back to userspace, or perform other normal editorial actions. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The deletion criteria did not apply: "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". I had come across the essay possibly from past Talk page discussions in which the creator participated. There's no evidence that I could see in the editing history ( Special:Contributions/Felsic2) of the editor being a sock or a banned user. Felsic2 appeared to have been an editor in good standing. Since the essay has been a target of socking, I suggest it be EC protected if restored. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Procedural Overturn per Stifle. Clearly not eligible for G5. No opinion on the usefulness of the page, but if we are going to have rules around speedy deletion they ought to be followed. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC). reply
• Page restored to original location at User:Felsic2/Gun use pursuant to consensus and move protected.
   —  Berean Hunter (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Smoky Mountain Opry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The original article was deleted because it appeared to be an advertisement. I would like for this page to return so that I could add reliable sources about this theater, as well as the theater under its former name, "The Miracle Theater". For example, the theater was mentioned in a New York Times article back in 2009. Also, the theater's former show--The Miracle--was discussed in depth in a local article back in 2008. As for the Theater's current brand--"Smoky Mountain Opry", there are numerous sources that connected the old Miracle Theater to the current brand, including a recent post on Inside Pigeon Forge. Plus, there are many other articles that discuss the Theater's current events. Unfortunately, the Smoky Mountain Opry faced notoriety in 2018 for a gas leak that hospitalized three employees, one of which became dead. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I don't think undeleting this would be a good idea at all; it was indeed quite promotional (I'd have honored the G11 tag instead of taking it to AFD), and was primarily written by a sockpuppeteer originally banned for extensive copyright infringements. You're of course welcome to write a new article making a better case for its notability, especially since the AFD is so old. — Cryptic 05:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• The page was quite promotional and does smell as if it's been copied from somewhere - as noted the creator was a serial plagiarist. This Conservapedia page is copying the deleted version if you want to get an idea of what it's like. I think you'd be better off writing something else from scratch if you think it's notable. Hut 8.5 16:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply