List of Crayola colored pencil colors ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It's surprising that while the crayon list was kept, this list was deleted, probably because relatively few people voted in this list. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• What in particular do you think was wrong with the close? It looks pretty straight forward to me. If I was closing this, I'd note that User:P Aculeius was actually arguing to keep, but that's not enough. I'd scratch my head over User:Anna Frodesiak's comments because I can't actually tell if she's arguing to keep, or delete, or neither. I might have possibly relisted this with a note to Anna to clarify her intentions, but possibly I wouldn't have bothered. Note, I closed a couple of the other Crayola AfDs, but I didn't look at this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Simply the fact that although the crayon article (with many votes, regardless of direction) was kept but that this article was deleted. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • That's not a valid reason to start a deletion review. Please read WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Additional information about this deletion review is that I would like comments primarily from voters who voted to keep the crayon list. I especially want people to be aware that that list survived Afd but this one didn't, with one of the main differences between the 2 Afds is that this one had few votes. Georgia guy ( talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• I'm sorry that I didn't have the energy to contest this, as it looked like a valid article (less certain about "paints"), but I've only really been involved with the crayon articles, which I worked extensively to reform from earlier versions. I think this could be reconstituted eventually if it can be properly sourced, and I think that should be easy enough to do. Although in theory the colors should be shared with the crayons, so it may not be that important for every product to have its own page. Crayola crayons are, as one editor pointed out, "iconic", while the colored pencils are less so. However, if the editors trying to remove most of the color data from the crayon articles succeed in their argument for excluding it, then there won't be much point in recreating this page either, since it'll be difficult to document the colors if the best sources for them are excluded. You might want to weigh in on that debate, if you hope to reconstitute this article at some point. P Aculeius ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Hi, RoySmith. I just posted at the AfDs to connect them together since the nominator didn't use WP:MULTIAFD. That was all. I have no opinion on the articles themselves. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It looks like one user decided to go after a bunch of Crayola pages simultaneously without doing the WP:MULTIAFD, but I don't see any possible remedy for this particular article - it's not as if the articles were similar enough that the multi was excluded improperly, and there was only one keep vote. I don't agree with all of the deletion rationales, specifically the apparent sales catalogue argument, but there's no consensus/effort whatsoever to keep this page. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this perfectly straightforward close. AfD is not a vote and there is no minimum number of participants needed to form a consensus. –  Joe ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, entirely correct closure. WP:LC applied. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Seems quite reasonable. Different discussions, different pages, different outcomes. The close is fine, and I don't see any evidence to suggest it should be overturned. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Education Not for Sale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I belive that the AFD was closed a bit too soon. With only 1 vote for keep, it would be a tie. Also, based on his statement "I was more reluctant than usual to relist Shadowowl's nominations because of the sheer volume and their evidently indiscriminate nature", the editor seem to be biased against User:Shadowowl because of his actions. I had closed my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination) and request that the first be re-opened and re-listed. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It seems that there is already a DRV going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 29. I wasn't aware of that DR as there was no indication anywhere that one was being opened. Not sure how to proceed. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Mr. Roboto Project ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I don’t believe the closer correctly interpreted the result. As I said on their talk prior to coming here [1]: ...as far as policy-based arguments go, both I and the other “delete” comment made them, and the single keep voter tacked on some WP:ROUTINE sources without actually adding a single word to the article, and then added their novel, admittedly unproven theory that this club may have influenced others when in fact the article makes it clear that it was inspired by a much more well know club in California. In short, no compelling argument to keep was made in my opinion.. Their response [2] didn’t address the substance of the delete arguments, that even with the added sources WP:CORPDEPTH had not been met. It was already resisted three times, so telling me “nominate it again, don’t go to DRV” is not, in my opinion, an acceptable response. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist - closure is terrible, advice to Beeblebrox is fully worse. Nick ( talk) 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• As the NAC closer, I don't think it was anything other than a no-consensus despite Nick's bullying on my talk page which nearly caused me to miss my train- coincidence? Seriously though there was only one keep vote from a veteran editor that added references and only one delete vote, with no other participation. The references added were described as routine but not unreliable or inadmissable. If it had not already had 3 weeks I would have relisted, and I suggested renominating, I did not tell anyone anything,thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

See, this makes it sound like you were counting votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments presented. Citing policies and stating how they apply should count for more than “I slapped some local sources on it and have a personal theory I just now made up that it might be important” which is the entire substance of the only keep comment.

And if you actually read my nomination, there is in fact concern about primary sources, for which the article has been tagged for nearly ten years, including one that amounts to “the guy who founded it told me”. Adding two brief articles about them moving location ( sources that manifestly were not used to write the article as the person who added them didn’t change a word) doesn’t overcome that problem. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm confused as to how I'm now being blamed for Atlantic306 being unable to arrive at a railway station in a timely fashion. I would suggest such a conspiracy theory casts serious doubt about the competency of Atlantic306. Nick ( talk) 20:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You obviously can't take a joke Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh, you're claiming it was a joke. Are you now going to claim your AfD closure was also a joke ? Nick ( talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• • did you see the word seriously in my comment which meant the previous comment was a joke, if you can't recognise humour your competency is poor Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • getting back to the afd, there was no analysis of the sources added by the keep voter by the nominator in the discussion and the delete voter's analysis was not corroborated by the nominator or anyone else regarding the extra references, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Education Not for Sale ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Had only one keep vote, consensus can not be determined with 1 opinion/vote. Please relist the AFD. » Shadowowl | talk 15:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• I see no evidence that you have first talked to the closing admin, as required by WP:DRV#Instructions. I suspect this can be resolved quickly and painlessly if you go do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Read WP:RENOM. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Insufficient participation to provide a consensus. Stifle ( talk) 10:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• This has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). I suggest we just let that one continue. I do think this would have been better off relisted, especially as the first attempt to renominate the article was speedily closed as being too soon. Hut 8.5 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  I had closed it because everybody was saying to re-open a deletion review first. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  Ugh. As that's been closed, relist, either this one or one of the subsequent ones. I concur that this is now very silly. One comment in an AfD doesn't equal a consensus for anything. It's certainly not the kind of consensus which would justify shutting down subsequent AfDs on the grounds that there was a consensus in a previous AfD. Granted, the nomination in that AfD wasn't very good, but there are other people who want the article deleted who have cited better rationales. Hut 8.5 18:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sigh. I'm not one for being a slave to process, but this has gotten a bit silly. At this point, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). Ignoring whether that discussion should have been started or not, it exists. Closing this DRV and letting the AfD run its course seems like the least disruptive way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• If the sources in the article were clearly over the bar, this would be a reasonable close (strength of argument). But they aren't (only one is an independent source and while it's very good it's only one). So relist was the right option. That said, given that it's at AfD again already, close DRV per Roy. Hobit ( talk) 02:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Hobit: I'd ask you to reconsider whether close was wrong in light of the context I've posted below. But either way, I don't believe that personally evaluating the quality of sources is either expected of a closer, or even within our remit of judging consensus. The fact that sources were cited in the article was sufficient to refute the nominator's statement that "it has no sources" – and that was, in fact, the entirity of their argument for deletion. Even if this wasn't an unusual AfD, if there are no valid arguments for deletion to be found in a discussion, I tend to close it as keep regardless of the level of participation. –  Joe ( talk) 07:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

In general I do think a closer needs to evaluate the strength of argument. And when sources listed, that includes checking to see if those sources can reasonably be counted toward WP:N. Two of three are written by the group itself, so those aren't usable. That leaves one source (which IMO is very strong). But yes, the argument for deletion was just plain wrong, so I can see why you might close it as keep. That said, in the case of a 1 to 1 argument, closing as something other than NC or relist probably would benefit from a closing statement. I took the "no sources" to mean "sources aren't enough" but that isn't what they said. Hobit ( talk) 12:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Hobit: The Guardian piece https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf also looks like a primary source. At the bottom of the article, there is a tag saying "blogposts." I had closed the 3rd nomination since people were saying I had not followed proper procedure. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• WP:SNOW "Endorse" this DRV. Close AfD3 as "Procedural keep", as per the SNOW already there. Impose the WP:RENOM recommended two-month moratorium for a new AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closer. I'd like to provide some context here, which I would have been able to do at the beginning had Shadowowl followed the instructions and discussed it with me before taking this to DRV. Or at least informing me. Shadowowl nominated over a hundred articles for deletion on that day and I ended up closing the vast majority of them. They were initially discussed at ANI where it became clear that they were completely indiscriminate; the nominations were mostly copy and pasted and at points was creating 4 or 5 per minute. Still, my understanding of the consensus at ANI (which I wasn't involved in) was that these shouldn't be blanket closed, so I endeavoured to evaluate each AfD individually.

I would have been foolish to completely ignore the context, though. Specifically, consider that: despite the efforts of several users, the massive volume of Shadowowl's nominations that day meant they all had much lower participation than usual; I assigned virtually no weight to Shadowowl's arguments given the evident lack of WP:BEFORE; and I was reluctant to put off closing large numbers of discussions for another week simply out of blind adherence to process. Essentially, my process became to evaluate most of the discussions as if they were PRODs: I soft-deleted them if nobody opposed, and closed them as keep. (In the very small number of cases where there was substantial discussion and other editors agreed with the nom, I of course closed as delete). Initially I relisted some, like this one, where only one person had objected, but by the end of the day I'd come to the conclusion that that this was giving more credit to the nom than was due.

With that in mind, I'll paste my reasoning in this specific AfD from this belated discussion on my talk page:

AfDs are closed by comparing the weight of arguments. The nomination said that it was "impossible to determine" whether the subject was notable because of a lack of cited sources. This is a considerably weaker argument for deletion than arguing that a subject is not notable, and is bordering on invalid; the general consensus is that AfDs are expected to be based on a prior examination of the available sources by the nominator. So we have a weak nomination that was then specifically refuted by the other participant on two grounds: that the article does in fact have sources (easily verified), and that there are reasonable WP:ATDs that weren't considered. Therefore we are left with no valid argument for deletion and one good, policy-based argument for keeping.

I have to say that, having spent the best part of the day closing Shadowowl's nominations in what I think was the fairest possible way (surely spending significantly more time on them than he did in the first place), I'm disappointed that he opened this DRV without even a courtesy ping. –  Joe ( talk) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• The AfDs and DRV over this one page, Education Not for Sale, were bad enough to call for procedural closes and a moratorium on renomination. There are 147 of them?! This page topic is moderately historic, and past, 2005-2009, and the article quality is easily good enough for New Page Patrol. There is no rush to delete this one. Close this DRV with "endorse". Close AfD3. Impose a two month moratorium. Disabuse all that 137 AfD nominations in one day is not a good idea. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Yep, so many that it broke the log. See also this current ANI on the nominator. –  Joe ( talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

To be fair. I wasn't aware that there was already a Deletion Review going on and was following procedures. And I am not User:Shadowowl. He never started the discussion. I did. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You have been pinged https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&type=revision&diff=852778649&oldid=852778594 -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Whoops there is TWO DR going on I didn't realize one had already been opened..... now what? I had also opened a DR at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 31, not realizing that there is one already going on. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Closing the other DR review and copying over comments from second deletion review:

• Relist: I belive that the AFD was closed a bit too soon. With only 1 vote for keep, it would be a tie. Also, based on his statement "I was more reluctant than usual to relist Shadowowl's nominations because of the sheer volume and their evidently indiscriminate nature", the editor seem to be biased against User:Shadowowl because of his actions. I had closed my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination) and request that the first be re-opened and re-listed. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Added comment: The Guardian piece https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf also looks like a primary source. At the bottom of the article, there is a tag saying "blogposts." -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

"Belated" in the sense that you had already renominated it when you asked me to reconsider. Shadowowl hasn't bothered to notify me at all.

I was not "biased" against Shadowowl. I gave what I believe to be a fair summary of the consensus at all the discussions he started, many of which I closed as delete. When closing AfDs it's normal to consider the consensus across related discussions (in this sense all the AfDs, and the ANI, can be considered related discussion) and other relevant community norms, e.g. policies and guidelines. –  Joe ( talk) 11:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I asked you to consider when people were saying the deletion review was perhaps the proper procedure. I wasn't sure whether to withdraw the 3rd nomination or not since it did have a delete vote on it by an IP and an editor who later striked out his vote on the grounds of procedure.

My AFD used a different reasoning to ShadowOwl and there were two votes for delete. One on the grounds of WP:SOAP. So technically the 3rd nomination could be considered on its own weight.

That said since people said Deletion Review was the correct venue, I decided to follow the procedure. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Renominate Andrew's argument for keeping the article was extremely weak (an argument could be made -- or even assumed -- that the merge target he suggested also does not merit a standalone article, and since almost none of the content is sourced it shouldn't be merged without reliable sources anyway), and should have at most been taken as a basis for a "no consensus" close; "[consensus to] keep" when the AFD was 1-1 at close ( with neither editor having been blocked as NOTHERE or some such) is inappropriate. That said: @ Tyw7: you really need to be more careful with these notifications; "deletionists" like you are definitely the lesser of two evils when it comes to WP:CANVAS, but notifications like the one you sent me are inappropriate, since I have never, TTBOMR, expressed any interest in this article whatsoever. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  I figured you might be interested since you have clashed heads with Andrew before. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

That is blatant votestacking. –  Joe ( talk) 11:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I did notify Andrew too. I only notified Hirijiri because they was involved in other AFDs involving User:Shadowowl so I thought he might want to chime in with his opinion. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Erm, you just said that you notified Hijiri because of his history with Andrew. Which one is it? Half a dozen other editors have been more involved in the discussions around these AfDs than Hijiri (or Andrew), and yet you chose to notify only the person who had consistently defended Shadowowl. You've already been warned about WP:CANVASsing twice, so I strongly suggest you stop sending notifications unless it's required by policy. So far you've largely escaped the repercussions of this mess, although the nominations you threw into the midst of Shadowowl's were just as bad, IMO. I'd be careful about walking further out onto the thin ice if I were you. –  Joe ( talk) 11:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hiriji had a history with Andrew (having clashed with him on several AFDs I've participated) so perhaps he had something to chime in with this DR request. It was nothing to do with him defending Shadowowl. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) So far I've just nominated stub articles that didn't have references in foreign language. I had a check on Google before hand and they didn't seem notable. Plus the stubs were unencylopedic and based on the comments by Shadow, they could be considered disruptive as they were created by a banned editor, who was accused of bot-like edits. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you don't see the problem with notifying an editor of a discussion specifically because you think they will disagree with an involved party, you really, really need to read WP:CANVAS again. –  Joe ( talk) 11:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

And I had a read and I guess it could come up as a bit canvassy so will stop further notifications. I thought that Hiriji perhaps know of Andrew more than I did, and I was just wondering whether Hiriji wanted to chime in his opinion of the request. It wasn't done to garner a vote against Andrew or in favor of Shadow. If it had come across that I did, I apologize. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Tyw7: It was disruptive and counter-policy for you to notify me because of my history with Andrew. Yes, Andrew does frequently, knowingly, flout our deletion policy and (often aggressively) insist that most of it doesn't even exist, and yes he has made some !votes in AFDs over the last few months that have convinced more than a few editors that he needs a TBAN. But I'm not interested in undoing everything he does just because he did it, and I would appreciate you not, essentially, asking me to. Also, my involvement with the Shadowowl AFDs was mostly limited to crappy one-sentence content-forks, which clearly doesn't apply to either of these pages.

Joe Roe: I think Tyw7 will take your warning seriously now that I've seconded it, and I think a warning is probably where this should end if he does. There are serious concerns with Andrew Davidson's editing, including to some extent in this AFD (and, ironically, canvassing), and until something is done about it it's possible that going after editors for attempting -- even misguidedly and disruptively -- to address it, in a manner that is above what is necessary (in this case a stern warning), will have unintended side-effects.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I was not asking you to undo it. You know more about policy and Andrew than I did and I just thought you might want to chime in. I was not trying to be canvassy or anything. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you seriously think your message to me was okay and not canvassy, that is actually a much more serious problem than if you acknowledged that it was inappropriate and promised not to do it again. I think it would probably be better if you refrained from issuing any notifications that you are not required to issue until you have better wrapped your head around WP:CANVAS. Yes, it sucks that most deletion and similar processes have these unusual "It would be good if you notified..." that some people treat as "obligatory" when tou don't follow them, but unless you are told you are required to do so, it might be better to not. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say it was not canvassy. I was just explaining why I did it and I didn't intend it to be canvassy (at least I didn't send it out intentially to try to canvass anyone). And if I had unintentially crossed the line into canvassing territory, I apologize. As I mentioned above I won't send notifications unless required to. -- Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk •  ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Relist. There was insufficient discussion. The problem with the multiple AfDs entered at the same time is it made adequate discussion difficult. I know myself how easy it is to get impatient when one sees a large number of apparently bad articles, but the more they are, the more it helps to proceed systematically and patiently. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse ordinarily an AfD should not be closed with only one !vote and no relists. However, this was not an ordinary situation given that Shadowowl had opened over 100 AfDs, evidently without doing any BEFORE work. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  How about if another editor did the WP:BEFORE? I'm more than happy to go through the references for that article and be a second nominator. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 17:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  If you followed BEFORE, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  That's the problem. A bunch of people was lampooning me for not following the proper procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). And the reason given above why the first AFD should stand is that there was a lack of BEFORE done by ShadowOwl. He tried opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (2nd nomination) but was quickly closed, with the recommendation of DR.

  Therefore, I recommend that a second editor being able to co-sign the first nomination or allow the third nomination to run it's course with the "speedy keep" and "procedure keep" vote struck out. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  As I understand it, the first AfD was opened by ShadowOwl as part of a batch of over 100 AfDs. That's just too many AfDs to open at once, especially since ShadowOwl was not doing any BEFORE work. I believe that Joe Roe handled the situation appropriately. With those AfDs now closed, I don't have any problem with ShadowOwl, you, or anyone else gradually resubmitting the articles to AfD, provided that the proper BEFORE work is done. That's not what ShadowOwl did with the second AfD; instead, he complained about Joe Roe's closure of the first AfD and said nothing about the merits of the article in question. Then matters became even more confusing because this thread and the third AfD were both opened. I would recommend that you wait for this thread to be resolved before doing anything else. If the article does return to AfD in one way or another, I would recommend that you and ShadowOwl avoid commenting on the closure of the first two AfDs and focus on the merits of the article. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I think one of the problem is that Shadow did not post any notices of this DR. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Stifle and DGG. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 05:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Växjö United FC ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

• Overturn and list at AfD. WP:A7 does not apply when there is a Credible claim of significance. I don't know if participating in the Svenska Cupen is enough to pass WP:FOOTYN, but it's certainly enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment as the speedy delete of the article I would not dream of arguing here or anywhere else. I took the view that as any Swedish league team can enter this competition then accepting entry as conferring relevant notability would be equivalent to conferring notability on a British team from a minor league who entered (as any team can) the FA cup. If consensus does not agree with my interpretation then I hereby apologise for the deletion. ---- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 21:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Anthony Bradbury: It is completely untrue that any British team can enter the FA Cup. Only teams playing in the top 10 levels of the English football league system can enter, and even then only if their ground meets a series of criteria set down by the FA. Some random pub team playing in their local park would never be eligible to enter. -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yes. I meant, but did not clearly state, any league team. ---- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 17:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The corresponding article in the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Växjö United FC, has been deleted. For possible sources, see Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Eastmain: - two years ago, prior to them playing in the Swedish Cup... Giant Snowman 14:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Clearly passes WP:FOOTYN as we presumptively keep all clubs that appear in a country's national cup. Would vote to keep if proposed at AfD, especially since its next match against Hacken will generate press coverage. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy list at AfD. A contested pedestrian CSD#A7 should be speedy listed at AfD on any reasonable request. If someone wants the discussion, let them have the discussion. I advise User:Anthony_Bradbury to do this immediately, as a courtesy to the editor requesting, with no implications beyond that. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD (as article creator) - should never have been deleted as A7. Giant Snowman 07:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 12:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Clearly passes WP:FOOTYN, but happy to go to AfD for consensus. Fenix down ( talk) 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Given that the subject meets a subject specific notability guideline, it's clearly not WP:A7 eligible. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per above with listing at AFD optional if someone brings it there after restore. Had sufficient claims to indicate significance (competing in a notable league Division 3 (Swedish football) suffices imho, no matter the Swedish Cup participation). On a side note, I find it disheartening that Anthony Bradbury thinks that an experienced editor (and admin) would create A7-eligible content. While we are not supposed to have hierachies, I would like to think that someone like GiantSnowman will not create content that should be speedy deleted and a reviewing admin should consider that. Regards So Why 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

While I agree with User:SoWhy that this should be overturned, I disagree with his reasoning. All editors, including admins, should be held to the same standards. Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. Articles are judged on their content, not who created them. The one time I commented in an AfD that we should trust some particular editor because of who he was, I got my head handed to me, and rightly so. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: I'm not disputing that people make mistakes. However, I think we can agree that such mistakes, especially creating A7-worthy articles, are increasingly rare for experienced editors. As such I think the spirit of collaboration ought to prompt an admin considering such a deletion to verify that the user really made such a mistake. Speedy deletion is a possibility, not a must, and it's entirely reasonable to decline a request based on the fact that one can safely assume that the creating editor has considered the subject's significance before creation. Anyway, my !vote was based on the clearly existing claims of significance. That last part was only an obiter dictum if you will. Regards So Why 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Yoshiki Nakajima ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This DRV is intended as a test for consensus, as it's been several months since the AfD. As per the consensus on the original AfD discussion, Nakajima's article was deleted for not meeting WP:ENT and for lacking coverage in reliable sources. Since then, he has been cast as Yoshifumi Nitta, the main character of Hinamatsuri, and he has even released a single that charted, albeit that peaked at #42. He has also been cast as the main character of the upcoming series Ingress. There also appears to be at least some coverage specifically about him now, such as this, this, this, this, this, and this, among others. Based on these circumstances, is the article now eligible to be recreated, or does he still not meet WP:ENT? The closing admin Sandstein said he was not against this being taken to DRV, so here it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

IMO this is not really a matter for deletion review; deletion review is more appropriate for questioning whether the deletion was carried out properly according to the AfD discussion at the time. It's not really possible at this board to do a whole new evaluation of the subject's notability. If there is new information suggesting that the subject may be notable now, I think the best approach would be to request that the article be restored to a draft or userfied, so that the new information and references can be added. Most admins are happy to restore an article to non-mainspace (draft or user space) for that purpose. When the article has been significantly improved from the deleted version (so that it does not qualify for WP:G4), it can be moved to mainspace. And if someone thinks the new version still does not meet WP:ENT and should be deleted, it would be taken to AfD a second time. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:DRV#Purpose however states that a deletion review may be pursued "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", and that's what's being discussed here. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 16:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• None of the sources given are in English - that makes verifying the sources difficult on the English language Wikipedia, and doesn't give me confidence that the subject is notable enough for the English Wikipedia. It may be more appropriate to see if an article could be built on the Japanese language Wikipedia first, and then seek to have an English language article. Looking at the deleted article, there is not a lot of hard information there - it mainly consists of lists of productions for which the subject provided a voice-over. SilkTork ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

He already has a Japanese Wikipedia page at ja:中島ヨシキ. With that said, it's not much better, though to be honest, the quality of Japanese Wikipedia articles on voice actors is hit-or-hiss. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 04:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Draftify. Undelete and move to draftspace. The AfD was consistent with draftifying. Draftify was an explicit option put by User:Narutolovehinata5. User:K.e.coffman's ""does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON ..." is consistent with draftify. The nominator here (the same User:Narutolovehinata5) makes the case that things have changed, although it is not clear that anything new means passing NACTOR. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Hullaballoo and Joe Roe below, that coming to DRV was premature. Don't come to DRV if the reason for undeletion is uncontroversial, such as new information, but instead ask at the user_talk page of the deleting admin, or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, or ask anyone listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Come to DRV if your request for undeletion is refused, and you disagree. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Not a DRV matter. "Significant new information has come to light" properly refers to information available at the time of the original discussion, which was not appropriately raised or weighted. It does not relate to a subject who may have become notable due to subsequent events. Just write a new article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Agreed, not a DRV matter. The points you've raised ("new information") by definition have nothing to do with the previous deletion, because they hadn't happened yet. When a subject that was previously deleted for lack of notability becomes notable, the previous consensus is no longer valid and you can simply recreate the article. If you want the previous version to build on, use WP:UNDELETE or ask an admin to restore it to your userspace (I would be happy to). If you want a second opinion on notability, try posting on a relevant WikiProject talk page. –  Joe ( talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Draftify so the OP can try to build a version which demonstrates notability. That decision is in scope for DRV if the deleting admin opposes restoring the article to draft (not sure if that's happened here). Hut 8.5 06:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

COSCO fleet lists ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As discussed on the closer's user page, numerically the discussion is Delete 2, Draft/Userfy 1, Keep 0. And there is a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for delete - per WP:CLOSEAFD. The main decision to make is to either delete or to userfy. SilkTork ( talk) 08:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Wrong there is at least 1 keep Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you point it out. I went through the discussion on the closer's user page, and the closest I could see was Nosebagbear who does not make a comment explicitly in favour of either keep or delete. He says that notability is an issue, but if sources could be found then he would !vote keep. You could count that as a keep or delete. Keep if sources were found, but delete if not as notability is an issue. As it stood at the close of the AfD there were no independent reliable source discussing these ships as a group, so we could count Nosebagbear as a delete, however he did say he didn't want to go delete as he hadn't done the appropriate research himself, so I have left him out of my count. Some closers may have included him as a delete. However, without evidence of the appropriate sources I don't see how what he says could be construed as a keep. SilkTork ( talk) 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Me Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Could you point it out. As I said on the closer's user page, you are mainly asking questions as you appear to be unclear on the process. Copy and paste the words you use to indicate that the list should be kept. It appears to me in that discussion that you are uncertain if the list of ships should be standalone or included in the company article, rather than you are arguing for the list to be kept - you say "I was, originally, going to add them to the main COSCO shipping page but was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page. I'm quite happy to move them there if that is deemed preferable." SilkTork ( talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

In context that was an answer to someone suggesting that lists of vessels in the main article was the way to do it. I wasn't unclear about it, as I said, I was "was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page". Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 08:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD nomination was lackluster, with no enthusiasm at all for deletion, until after the third relist and then the enthusiasm was solely SilkTork's. The answer is Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, specifically "make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time". SilkTork is better advised to make a fresh renomination that try to rescue that mess. I may agree with deletion at AfD2, but counterarguments that should be expected to SilkTork's !vote are: The page is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT of COSCO and this not so subject to LISTN or even the GNG. The WP:NOT alleged violation is not articulated. As the list is a Spinout of COSCO, Talk:COSCO must be notified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for an AfD to be closed as Delete I would expect to have at least two people other than the nominator support deletion. Any less than that and the AfD will be closed as no consensus, soft delete or relisted if there isn't sufficient support for another option. Here SilkTork was the only participant to argue for deletion other than the nominator, and several other participants did not support deletion. It doesn't help that the argument made by the nominator is very weak. I don't agree with the OP that the draftify comments should be treated as equivalent to deletion as they don't seem to support the central view that the topic is unencyclopedic, and soft deletion is out because the AfD had participants who didn't support deletion. If someone else had turned up and made a similar argument to SilkTork then I would be happy to close this as Delete, but that didn't happen. I suggest renominating in a month or so. Hut 8.5 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closing AfD is not about weight one set of bold words against another. That this discussion was relisted three times, saw significant participation from multiple editors, and yet only one of them was willing to hop off the fence and give a bold-face !vote for delete, is a sure sign that no consensus was reached. I would have closed it the same way. –  Joe ( talk) 13:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Arguing that Murgatroyd49 did not speak in favour of keep at the AfD because he did not write a bolded keep or even use the word is simply being bureacratic. The removal of the prod, and the defence of that at the AfD, was enough to show where the editor stood and the closing admin was entitled to take that into account. Spinning Spark 23:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• By the way, I notice that Statistics on World's Containership Fleet and Its Operations lists the COSCO fleet. This was published in 1983 and most of the current COSCO fleet is post this date, but it does show that such a list has been taken note of by RS independent of the company website. Spinning Spark 00:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Read through the close and thought the closer did a great job of summing up the responses. I think the remedy here would be renomination in a few months' time. SportingFlyer talk 22:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Dan Dubeau ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Dan Dubeau is notable to the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as he spent over a year as Acting Commissioner, (a position in which, aside from the individual's physical rank, is identical to that of the Commissioner), of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Data collected from the RCMP website, although he is not listed as an official Commissioner (like Zachary Taylor Wood), leads me to believe that he is as notable as Beverley Busson and Zachary Taylor Wood, both of whom have held the position of Interim/Acting Commissioner in the past, and thus have their own pages. Therefore, my vote goes to Allow recreation or undeletion. Fhsig13 ( talk) 20:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at AfD. Nit: It doesn't look like you discussed this first with the deleting admin, User:Ad Orientem. You really should do that before you come here. In any case, I think this was a poor WP:A7, which ... does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. I don't know if being deputy commissioner of the RCMP is enough to pass WP:BIO, but it's a credible claim. One could make a reasonable argument that since we don't have a WP:NRCMP guideline, WP:MILPERSON might be a reasonable stand-in, in which case, Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces would apply here. Certainly, if we've got all the people in Category:American police chiefs, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP should qualify. AfD would be the place to figure out if it does or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith:Thank you for your opinion, however I would like to point out that I was only notified of the speedy-deletion nomination at 2:20 AM in my timezone, with the deletion occurring at 3:37 AM, which had pretty well rendered any discussion from my end impossible. Otherwise, I agree with the points you are making.

• Restored per author's request and upon review. I have doubts about WP:N but I will concede that an officer at that rank of the RCMP probably meets the much lower bar of A7. Courtesy ping John from Idegon. You may want to send this to AfD. @ Fhsig13 I don't object to your asking for another look, but it is customary to discuss on the deleting admin's talk page before coming here. Not a big deal. But just file that away for future reference. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This RfD closed as "delete" when I think "no consensus" should have been more appropriate. The closing rationale admitted there was a split between views, said "there isn't a clear numerical majority" (which is fine, as long as one side isn't making !votes against policy or stating arguments to avoid, which they weren't), and said "I'm wary of such closes looking like supervotes". Well, quite. The problem is here is this gives a signal for all the other "joke" shortcuts listed at User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms to be deleted too, which I'm not sure we want to go that far. While I did think, "it's just a joke, the encyclopedia isn't going to crash and burn if it gets deleted, get over it", the result of the RfD has been challenged on the closing admin's talk page, so DRV seems the logical course here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I read the discussion as decidedly on the side of delete. “No consensus” may have been defendable, but “delete” is easily defended. The close was well explained and well reasoned. The two “keep” !votes were weak in being philosophical rather than on point, and I urge them to consider that philosophy belongs in essays, not these ONEWORDSLOGANS. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I thought it was a terrific close by BDD. The "keeps" were mainly arguing that profane redirects in general are okay, which is agreeable to me but that's not why it was nominated for deletion. The last sentence of the closure encapsulated that perfectly. It's fine to have profane redirects, but they should at least make sense, which is where this redirect failed. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the argument that the redirect should be deleted because it's profane or offensive was rebutted but the argument that it doesn't make that much sense wasn't, and that's a good argument for deletion. Hut 8.5 18:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Neutral - I think the close can be viewed as reasonable solely because of the creation circumstances. The main portion of BDD's close that I disagree with is the notion that the ambiguity of the redirect was a strong argument for deletion. That holds true for mainspace redirects but not for projectspace shortcuts of which a vast number, if not majority, are ambiguous. There are some regulars at RfD that seem to consistently disfavor redirects that are profane or not politically correct, but BDD is not among that group. I cannot quite endorse the close, but I am not at an overturn either. I would not oppose a relist if that were to gain support. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 03:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, roughly in line with Hut 8.5's view. -- joe decker ^talk 23:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I'll just copy what I posted at the closer's user talk page: I have to call shenanigans on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 13#Wikipedia:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN close.
  • Two respondents suggest deletion. The only rationales they offer (same as the nominator) are:
    • May be battlegroundish/pointy; plus a claim – with zero evidence of any kind – that it's directly a cause of "so much drama", which is not actually plausible.
    • It could have pointed somewhere else.
  • Two respondents say to keep, with the following rationales:
    • No evidence of disruption, and similar to many other humorous but vulgar redirects that we keep ( WP:NOTCENSORED)
    • Almost any more-or-less natural English shortcut could point to other pages than they do, but we do not delete them. In fact, we tolerate potentially ambiguous project-space redirects all the time.
  • Other respondents joked around, and made an observation this way or that way but didn't strongly advocate anything in either direction.

The delete rationales are refuted, the keep ones are not. You said you were trying to avoid a supervote, but it was a supervote, and not just a tie-breaker, but ignoring the stronger rationales.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus, and in a case like that, the closer should say juast that. If they thought one result was better than the other they should have commented instead. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The RfD was open for 17 days. The issue is a triviality, nothing of substance was at stake, editors had already voiced opinions as to which result is better. More !votes expressing opinions would just better populate to distribution of opinions, probably as I read them moderately favouring the delete side. Waiting for more participation on an unimportant question is exactly why rough consensus is a thing, the XfDs need to be practical working systems that produce implementable decisions, and RfA-vetted&baptised closers are entitled to reasonable discretion to make a decision so that the project can move on. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Tavix. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ankit Love ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Background: The page was first created sometime before 2016 and was deleted by a first AfD. At the time, the issue was that Love generally failed WP:GNG: his claims to success in the music and film industry appeared to be unsubstantiated in a significant number of references.

Since that 2016 deletion, Love gained some further prominence as the leader of the One Love Party, contesting four parliamentary and mayoral elections. The article was recreated in light of his unsuccessful political career, and a second AfD had a significant consensus to delete, although scrolling through the AfD discussion itself, it's clear that Love was mentioned in a significant number of sources.

Now: As someone who contributed to neither of the two previous discussions, I started contributing to Love via the One Love Party article, which I am currently overhauling. The difficulty is that the One Love Party was largely a one-man band, with Love being the candidate in four of the six elections the party contested, so some level of biographical detail to Love was necessary - especially when some of the party's policies (e.g. reunification of India and Pakistan) directly related to his background in India and his ancestral claim from a provincial royal family and most of the sources of the party come from interviews focussing on Love.

Which is more, and this is the crunch-point, from what I understand as a non-follower of Indian politics, Love became the leader of his father's party, Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, which contests elections in Jammu and Kashmir, in May 2017. Like I said, I don't follow Indian politics, but I understand that this is a regional state party that has had some electoral success, having once formed part of the state government. In light of Love's extensive biographical coverage in articles during his time at the One Love Party and his present leadership of the state party, I think there is a case that WP:GNG can be met. (Honestly, the whole film-maker/musician thing is very unnotable.) So I would ask that we consider reopening the article. MB190417 ( talk) 22:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endose any proposed deletion of this grossly overblown article about a trivial subject with insignificant sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC). reply

"insignificant sources" => There are 47 currently on the One Love Party article I am editing (and I have not searched for new sources since I started editing the article), including from independent, fairly reliable websites such as The London Economic, local newspaper gazettes (e.g. Hackney Citizen, GetWest London), The National Student, Business Insider, London Live and Hindustan Times. Of these 47 sources, I estimate about a dozen of them are in-depth interviews with Love discussing his background and political campaigns. There may be further sources from India since his appointment as leader of the state party (not my area of expertise). That the article is "grossly overblown...about a trivial subject", I think I agree (it's difficult not to see him as an eccentric campaigner; many of his claims about being a musician/film-maker don't stand up to the test; and the extensive discussions, sockpuppetry and bludgeoning in previous AfDs speak for themselves); that there are "insignificant sources", I think is perhaps tenuous. MB190417 ( talk) 10:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this is not the place to re-litigate the AfD and there is no question that the consensus of the discussion was to delete the article. Pretty much every time I have dealt with anything to do with this person there has been over-the-top promotionalism and sockpuppetry involved. If anyone wants to write a new article with legitimate, independent sources then I strongly suggest it go through AfC to avoid the obvious CSD and/or AfD which will surely follow. Jbh ^Talk 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I recognise that the previous AfD had a strong consensus to delete and that there is OTT promotionalism and sockpuppetry involved whenever this chap comes up. I have no previous connection with either of the AfDs, nor a COI. I think it's sensible to suggest that any new article should go through AfC - this would also temper the concern about the number of sources available. But I don't think that this quite addresses my point that since the previous AfD, new sources have come out because of his continued political campaign in the UK (even if his political career in the UK on its own fails WP:POLITICIAN on grounds of his lack of electoral success and mere routine coverage of a mayoral candidate), and - more importantly - he is now the leader of a state party in India which, as I understand, has had some previous electoral success. Granted, on their own, these individual claims probably wouldn't meet WP:GNG - but together? MB190417 ( talk) 10:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – Last deletion was a snow close, I don't see what has changed since then. — JFG ^talk 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. If a person's notability really has changed, then deletion of an old bad article does not prevent or forbid the creation of a new better version. Given the blatant conflict of interest sockpuppetry that infected the prior attempts, however, we have to be very careful here. So if the requester is really certain that the notability equation has changed enough, then they're more than welcome to try their luck at submitting a proposed new article through the WP:AFC process or in their own sandbox — but nothing about the process requires the deletion of an old bad article to be overturned before anybody's allowed to even attempt the creation of a new better article. An AFD deletion is not necessarily a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article — we have lots of articles about people for whom an early version got deleted, but then the article was allowed to be recreated later because the notability equation changed, and DRV does not have to overturn the original discussion before the article is allowed to be recreated. We already have a process in place by which a proposed new version can be submitted for review — and if it's good enough, then its quality will automatically override the AFD discussion without DRV needing to get involved at all. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Whatever happens, given the overlap, I don't think there's justification for a One Love Party and an Ankit Love article. One Love Party can be described as a section within an Ankit Love article, or vice versa. At this point in time, I think an Ankit Love article probably makes more sense than a One Love Party article. What I'd do is add any new Ankit Love RS material to One Love Party, but if the material there about Ankit as a person comes to dominate, rename that article. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Whatever the merits of having an article now, the deletion was clearly justified at the time it was done. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Patrash Hembrom/sandbox/Lucash Hembrom ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Generally, Premeditated Chaos and I are able to reach a compromise when we disagree about a close; as we were unable to do so on this occasion, I thought I would bring it here for more input. See User talk:Premeditated Chaos#"now that we're here". I think the deletion discussion in question should have either been closed as no consensus, default to blank (as no one wanted to plain keep it) or blank (I believe the blank arguments could be seen as stronger in this case). Those advocating for a blank were doing so based on the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline while those advocating deletion were all over the place and did not have a solid foundational argument. I'll also note that one participant cast two !votes, one blank and one delete, and never clarified their opinion. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 02:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Keep or Keep & Blank. There's the issue that, according to WP:STALEDRAFT, this simply does not qualify for deletion on those grounds (since it is not "problematic even if blanked"), but also the issue of a "now that we're here" close that I've seen a few of recently. For context, I started the section on PMC's talk page because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2faction8/Lynn Nunes, not the present article (although it's equally relevant). These seem like "Let's delete not because there's a compelling reason to delete based on policies and guidelines, but because this page is in the place where we delete stuff, so let's delete it." PMC said there was numerical consensus to delete, which was not the case in either of them (most people supported keeping and blanking, as WP:STALEDRAFT recommends). PMC is doing good work in general with the MfDs, I think, but this "now that we're here" justification business is a bad idea. If something should've been blanked (or just left alone), but was brought to MfD instead, it should just be kicked out and blanked, not deleted despite the bad nomination (turning it into a functionally valid nomination rationale). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Silly mfd nomination, a better way is described at WP:UP, but it was a newcomer to mfd so not worth the fuss, and the closer’s closing statement covers it very nicely. Maybe SLAP the double voter, I don’t know. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • ?? Bad nomination, but a newcomer to MfD so instead of showing them what they should've done, validate the bad nomination? That pages aren't supposed to be deleted in such scenarios is why it was a bad nomination. If they're deleted instead, then it's a successful nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah I know. I think I said so. The person you want educated is User:Sam Sailor. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ SmokeyJoe: Thank you for pinging me! @all: If there is something I dislike, it's having my time wasted, and if I have wasted yours with my MfD inexperience, please accept my apology. I can't see the page in question now, but I take your word for granted that it should have been blanked instead of taken to MfD. I'll make a note of this, and you will not see the situation repeated. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The page contained BLP violations and there is no acceptable version (other than the blank screen) to revert to. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC). reply

• ? @ Newyorkbrad and Xxanthippe: As far as I can see, the only person who mentioned BLP was Joe, and he supported blanking. What sort of BLP violation was it such that this deletion review should be not about assessing consensus based on the arguments in the discussion but based on the introduction of new arguments? I cannot see it any longer, but I don't recall anything controversial such that it would be problematic even if blanked. I don't think I've heard it argued before that any statement about a living person without a citation is a BLP violation of the sort that needs deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It is not just that there were unsourced statements, but unsourced negative statements (as well as a few statements which, due to the non-native English, I couldn’t tell just what was meant). If you are looking for a test case for a blanking-vs.-deleting discussion, this isn’t the best choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• • • • • • • For a test case, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Death1276/sandbox would be much more interesting, not that I think there is any merit in spending time on it. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
              • Um, what? The page that is the subject of this DRV is, at least, arguably borderline. The page you just cited was a vicious attack page against a minor. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
                • Maybe it was, but I sure didn’t read it as an “attack” let alone “vicious”, and also considered that no one was identified. Suitable for blanking I say. Procedurally, I note that three people did not read it as G10-eligible. A disconnect between senior admins and lesser Wikipedians on what constitutes an attack page is a reason for alternative opinions to be discussed instead of speedy closed. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
                  • Um, what? That page began This wiki is about this fat smelly kid named [teenager’s name] (stinky fatty) and went downhill from there. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
                    • Actually, G10 is probably an excellent way to deal with that. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• • • I dispute that the page contained any BLP “violations”. Nothing contentious nothing of questionable verifiability. BLP “issues”, sure. Newyorkbrad has been tending to WP:BLP zealotry in mfd posts in recent years, I think adopting the very cautious approach that he noted ( https://archive.org/details/nywikiconf_newyorkbrad_26july2009, as I remember, it’s not working at the moment) a while ago. I dispute that deletion was *required*. Checking a cache version, I don’t see the “negative”, as opposed to “sad”. However, it is obviously someone’s personal story and something never appropriate for mainspace. If it were the userpage of a contributor, it would definitely be acceptable. It was a NOTWEBHOST violation, the person mistaking Wikipedia for a free webhost like Facebook. I crossed the line to advocate “Delete” because we should not be creating precedents for keeping NOTWEBHOST material, but we certainly don’t want every non-contributor’s personal story brought to mfd for discussion. The content is definitely not for requesting WP:Oversight. So, people should just blank these things when they find them. Every so often, we get a Wikipedian who is over enthusiastic at nominating random harmless worthless stuff that should better be blanked, but this is not occurring currently. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I can't speak to anything other than this one, but I'd like to think that with a bunch of experienced editors looking at this, someone would've at least suggested that it might be a BLP violation if it were. Could you restore the page so that this new argument, which we didn't have the chance to evaluate during the MfD, can be considered during the DRV? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        • The last three sentences were the ones I found most troublesome. Granted, this was not the most serious BLP problem I’ve come across in reviewing MfDs, by a long shot. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this is basically a waste of time: we're dealing with a draft article about an utterly non-notable person written by someone who's been indefinitely blocked. It doesn't make any difference whether such a thing gets deleted or is just blanked and left to sit there forever. The draft is so badly written that it's hard to tell what much of it actually means but there is some content which looks problematic from a BLP perspective, so deletion may be the best option to be on the safe side. Hut 8.5 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• This is a mess of stuff that should never have happened. The article should never have been written, the MfD should never have been opened, the close should never have been delete, and this DR should never have opened. We create rules, guidelines and process to assist us, and they have been ignored in every step so far. So WP:IAR applies here - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." At this point we need to ignore due process. It does not serve Wikipedia's interest to undelete that nonsense in order to blank the page, just so we can say that due process has been followed. I like process as it helps us. But every bit of process has been broken here, so which part of the process are we trying to restore and keep faith in? Pretty much everyone involved in this mess needs a wet trout, including us here in the DR for taking part. Endorse with extreme prejudice. SilkTork ( talk) 18:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• If this were really just about this one example, I would agree with you. But -- at least to me -- the issue isn't really this page but multiple instances of bad nominations followed by dubious closes. The point for me !voting to overturn here is to say "because we're here" is not a good reason for deletion, not that I think the content is really valuable. If there were really egregious BLP issues, it should have just been speedied without MfD, but when nobody raises BLP issues in an MfD and there's no real policy-based reason given for deleting, deleting "because we're here" is problematic. None of us really care all that much about this page, I don't think, but people not arguing to keep it doesn't mean delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

User:My_Lord is placing deletion templates on articles that don't suit the Indian nationalist opinion for the disputed Kashmir region. Using his expertise he got deleted pages like 2006 Doodhipora killing, Bomai incident, Ramban firing incident etc. Here is an archived external link to a full article the user and its proxies got deleted so that you can know their intentions. (He also redirected Ghazwatul Hind to a general page to suit his taste.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.193.250 ( talk • contribs)

Draft:Report on a Plan for the Further Support of Public Credit ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Copyright Violation is the given reason for deletion. However the source, whose usage was cited as in violation, is clearly public domain. At the bottom of the page where the source is published ( https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-18-02-0052-0002) is the notice: "The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) is part of the National Archives. Through its grants program, the NHPRC supports a wide range of activities to preserve, publish, and encourage the use of documentary sources, relating to the history of the United States, and research and development projects to bring historical records to the public." The administrator who deleted the page got confused by the difference between the annotations on the primary source document (which were not used, nor cited) and the primary source document itself. Elkamine ( talk) 06:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The document is from 1795. If copyright was even a thing then, it has long expired. And a trout for the deleting admin's responding to a reasonable query with "why are you talking to me?". Stifle ( talk) 09:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Wow, this was a really bad WP:G12. Even ignoring the fact that the document is from 1795, the number and length of direct quotes would probably meet fair use. And yeah, there's some trout-worthy WP:BITEing going on. I can see being short with somebody over some obvious spam, but this was a well-written article about an important historical topic. The original reviewer deserves a piece of that trout as well; don't just run Earwig and blindly accept the result. Take a little time to understand what it means. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per above. And I'll also note that I could tell what admin this was by just reading Stifle's comments. Hobit ( talk) 13:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and WP:TROUT the admin and the tagger. The source is clearly in the public domain - anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US, and this was published in 1795. I can only assume the admin hit the button without doing any checking beyond possibly clicking on the automated copyvio detector, as did the tagger. The response to the creator is also not appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Hut 8.5 17:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn mistaken G12. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as per above – no copyvio.-- Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 03:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Malaysia has announced that they will join the 2018 Asian Games. See https://www.asiangames2018.id/participants/country/malaysia. 219.79.126.116 ( talk) 03:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Is there anything you can actually say about Malaysia's participation, other than the fact that they will participate? Such as which sports they will compete in, or which athletes they will send? That was a significant concern in the AfD and the recreation didn't address this. Aside from the heading "football" (with no content) it didn't say anything other than that Malaysia will be taking part, and your source doesn't either. Hut 8.5 10:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Also worth nothing that the two most recently created versions were written by sockpuppets of Simon 1996 ( talk · contribs). Hut 8.5 10:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• I closed the AfD as WP:SOFTDELETE. Had anybody asked me, I would have WP:REFUNDed this, so the WP:G4 seems inappropriate.   WP:G5 may still be valid, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and forbid re-creation until after "Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games" has enough coverage at 2018 Asian Games to warrant a WP:SPINOUT. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

JasonAQuest deleted sourced information about Ethan van Sciver. When he first asked for a source, it was provided. But then he even deleted the source. I request that his administrator privileges be revoked, since he is abusing his power to ignore sourced information.

Update: Why was this message deleted? This is where people come to explain situations, right?

MontChevalier ( talk) 21:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Anal Cujt ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CHEAP, and "J" and "N" are next to one another on a keyboard, making it a plausible typo. Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This exact argument was made at the AfD, and apparently failed to convince people. So, fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. Anyway, if you followed that argument to its logical conclusion, you would get that there's 8 letters in the title, and (ignoring end effects), each letter has 8 immediate neighbors on a keyboard, so there's 8 * 8 such one-key-away typos. Surely you're not arguing that we should create all 64 of those? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Reply - There were equal arguments on both sides for keep and delete, which defaults to "No Consensus". Since "Anal Cujt" was created, there was no reason to delete it. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 22:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I provided a bit of an explanation of the close on my talkpage, but suffice it to say I did not find the arguments on both sides to be "equal." Regarding process, I think RoySmith is right that this nomination appears to fail WP:DRVPURPOSE. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorseish - really says something that anyone bothers to nominate such a redirect to be deleted in the first place, can't see the existence making much difference one way or another, it's hardly making space for something more important. It also really says something that anyone bothered to try and debate keeping, where as noted it's not going to help anyone since the search function sorts it out anyway. And it says something that we (and I include this comment) waste so much time discussing the point. The deleting admins reading of the discussion to give more weight to the delete arguments doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable and since having the redirect or not seems to make no difference to the encyclopaedia's utlity - so endorse. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 08:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse given it's profanity and given that it's an unlikely typo (though not impossible) it's not unreasonable for others to suspect Wikipedia is somehow attacking this person. So deletion is both reasonable and what the majority felt was appropirate. Hobit ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  Not seeing it myself, the target is Anal Cunt, how is Anal Cujt somehow attacking them? Their real name is hardly prim and proper, and arguably more profane than the typo version. (I endorse above so reach the same opinion of the outcome, but really don't understand the opinion you are expressing) -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 18:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  I read the redirect backwards. In that case, I'm more of an "eh". Endorse by !vote and because I really don't think it matters. Hobit ( talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It's possible for anybody to mistype any title by hitting the wrong key anywhere in the process, and there are eight possible wrong keys for every single letter on the keyboard. Which means that if this is warranted just because j happens to be next to n on the keyboard, then every title that exists at all always has to have dozens or hundreds (eight times the number of letters in its title) of redirects in place from every possible typo. And then we have to start creating redirects from every possible inversion typo, such as "Alan Cnut" and "Aanl Cutn", and every possible variant of "reader put their fingers on the wrong home keys and thus typed the whole name shifted left, right, up and/or down from the correct letters" (e.g. "Sms; Vimy" or "Qhqo D7h5") — so where does this rationally end? Absent any evidence that an n→j error is somehow uniquely common among all the possible "Anal Cunt" typos, or any evidence that this typo is actually commonly seen in the wild in reference to this band, it is simply not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every single typing error that anybody on the planet might ever conceivably make. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per RoySmith and Bearcat. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The given reasons for deletion are lack of sources and that the actress hasn't appeared in notable movies. However the actress has appeared in several notable movies including one that won the State Film Award and National Film Award. All of this is stated in the page. The page provides 3 citations and an external link to IMDB page. In addition, a simple Google search or Google Image search will show that the actress is reasonably famous in the Malayalam film industry. (I'm new to writing / editing articles in Wikipedia. Please forgive me if I haven't followed the proper formats/procedures) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienMaster ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Endorse or possibly relist. The AfD result was pretty clear. I'd like to hear more about File:Vandana Menon.jpg which the nom uploaded. It's listed as own work. It's a studio-quality photograph with no EXIF data in the file. One of two things is true. Either it's taken from a publicity pack, in which case it's a copyvio and not their own work. Or, the nom really did take the photograph, in which case they're a professional photographer who took this in their studio, in which case they have undisclosed WP:COI. Which is it? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This was answered on my talk page. Short version: it's copied from Facebook. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would not be opposed to relisting this, now that the image copyright issue has been resolved (the image has been deleted). There was certainly no fault with the close given the arguments at the time. But, if the arguments made by the nom for this DRV had been made in the original AfD, it seems plausible it would have been relisted for further discussion. I don't think the arguments made here are very strong, but adding them to the AfD and letting it run for another week would do no harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Not a huge NACTOR failure, but definitely a failure. Good close. The nominator here says “and that the actress hasn't appeared in notable movies”. I can’t find where that was given as a reason for deletion. It is in fact irrelevant. The actress may be mentioned in articles on notable films in which she plays a major part. The reason for deletion is the lack of independent secondary sources discussing the actress directly. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and the reason for deletion was the failure to meet NACTOR and GNG and not the copyright issue and the consensus was in favour of deletion. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Raymond Weil ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Speedy deleted as spam without any discussion. Had been speedy deleted in 2007 but was restored later. I think this article can still have some improvement. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 00:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• This actually survived an afd in 2005, though I'm having trouble finding a revision that I wouldn't g11 myself. Even stub-length versions like this, where the edit summary reads "Cleaned to less commercial", still have unsourced effusive praise. — Cryptic 00:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Cryptic, thanks for ping. The article was created by and for the company, under the company name, and the main editor is now blocked as "Promotional username, promotional edits", the text is purely promotional, and the references are junk sources that don't meet the recently updated and tightened notability guidelines for organisations and companies. I can't imagine why we feel any duty to help this company promote its wares here, just because it's managed to get itself blocked. I strongly disagree with any restoration of this promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, an article which has been kept at AFD is immune from speedy deletion. Therefore the deletion of this article was a procedural error. The article probably needs to be stripped back very severely however. Stifle ( talk) 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, and salt. This page has a long history of WP:SPA editing. I've run out of patience to explore the history further, but I've already found:
  1. User:Markvaneck~enwiki
  2. User:Weilowner
  3. User:Madeleinedavis
  4. User:Hermes_2k6
  5. User:PeteDaMan
  6. User:Shamash624
  7. User:Valentinecharb

All of whom, over the span of 13 years, have only made edits to this article, or to closely related ones. The SPA involvement goes back to the original article creation. I've also found extensive copyvios in many revisions, also going back years. It's possible there are copyvio-free revisions somewhere, but I'm not willing to invest the effort to find them. If an established editor really thinks this company needs an article, they're free to research it and try to write something that meets WP:NCORP. But, let them do it their sandbox or as a draft for review.

Stifle is technically correct that WP:CSD says, If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations... But, the AfD was 12.5 years ago. Our standards for WP:AfD in general and WP:NCORP have changed significantly since then. Not letting such an old AfD be a bar to CSD seems like a perfect application of WP:IAR. Not to mention the copyvio issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

PS, for those of you who believe that a 12.5 year old AfD should be proof against CSD, go read the AfD. Arguments put forth for keeping include, Their ads are all over the place, Notable watchmaker with no explanation of what makes them notable, and a couple of, per somebody else comments. In the entire AfD, there's not a single WP:RS mentioned, probably because we hadn't evolved that concept yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the article appears to be riddled with copyvio. The internet archive is having trouble showing me the contents of the one source present in the original version, but the same text is used to promote the company here and I strongly suspect it was a copyvio (as someone in the AfD also thought). I've found several chunks of copyvio in the most recent version. If it is kept then someone would have to go through the thing to exhaustively analyse which bits are copyvio and which aren't, and it really isn't worth doing that for a piece of spammy crap. The AfD is from 2005 and makes some pretty awful arguments by even vaguely modern standards (I suspect that even in 2007-8 those rationales would not have gone down well). If there is ever a situation where it's OK to ignore a Keep at AfD then this is it. Hut 8.5 18:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. RoySmith is right--that 2005 AfD isn't good law and would never be closed that way now. I wouldn't read the speedy deletion policy of endorsing eternal stare decesis for any deletion discussion, ever. If we want to be formalistic, then I would also overturn the original AfD as being no longer valid in light of contemporary policy. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD Based on what's been said above, I'm really tempted to endorse. But this is out of process and an AfD would be better for many reasons (in-process, likely to be the end of the discussion for a while, CSD is a bad place for IAR). I've no problem with taking some non-standard steps like having a temp. restore with the article otherwise blanked during the AfD. If for copyright reasons if nothing else. Hobit ( talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Also, a new AfD would justify the salt given the long history of problems. Hobit ( talk) 22:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • If this is restored I will immediately blank it and list it at WP:CP, which will lead to it being deleted a week later unless someone is willing to put in the effort to weed out the copyright violations it is absolutely stuffed with. Hut 8.5 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, this version, and pretty much every single previous one, is irretrievable copyvio and spam. That's not to say an article couldn't be written - the company is almost certainly notable. But not like this. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Bad Speedy, per Stifle. Should have been sent to AfD, or G12-ed if indeed it was riddled with copyvio. If not, it probably is riddled with bad attribution to sources. Leave it deleted but Allow re-creation, please ensure the first version includes 2 good independent sources. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC). Maybe this1 and this2. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (and optionally list at AfD), essentially per the arguments by Stifle and Hobit. I don't think there was an urgent need to disregard CSD policy and delete this. decltype ( talk) 11:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but allow recreation. The deleted version is entirely advertising, and I can't at first glance find a version that isn't either spam or completely unsourced. This needs to be recreated from scratch by somebody neutral, as the company is indeed notable. The article should certainly not be undeleted as long as there are obvious copyvio issues with it. Sandstein 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Universa Blockchain Protocol ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Speedily deleted without providing any valid WP:CSD reason; under the flag of “page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto” which, no matter enabling some new possible page-level and editor-level sanctions, doesn’t enable any new administrator capability/“sanction” in deleting the pages especially speedily; deleted as “Covert advertising” overriding the ongoing page deletion discussion (if I recall correctly; being a non-admin, I cannot find it anymore) which provided sufficient argumentation about the page notability.

We had a discussion on the talk page of deleting administrator User_talk:MER-C#Selectively_deleting_the_Crypto/Blockchain_related_articles_for_the_reason_of_WP:GS/Blockchain, whether using a WP:GS/Crypto as an explanation of speedy deletion is acceptable to override the consensual decision regarding page notability; but they insisted that WP:GS/Crypto permits for “…any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project”, even though this is related to the editor-level sanctions in the original sanction document, rather than any page-level.

As to me, it seems that the community has authorized WP:GS/Crypto regime to prevent the tendentious and biased editing of the articles, rather than to give a simpler non- WP:CSD-requiring path to administrators to immediately delete pages they single-handedly consider spammy. As a Subject-Matter Expert in this area who made some edits to this page to make it more verifiable, and the person who probably could make this page even better, I’d happily get any guidance and objective third opinion if something indeed looks spammy/insufficiently encyclopaedically, and how it can be improved; but deleting a rather informative page seems an overkill. Honeyman ( talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as standard discretionary sanctions (which these are, even if community authorized) grant administrators the authority to take any reasonable action on pages as well as editors. WP:AC/DS is the controlling bit for the non-1RR section, not what Primefac copied from the Syria sanctions when formatting this page. I don’t see any of the protections being challenged here or at AN, and if they were, they’d be laughed out. The community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content, not just content disputes in the area in question. Additionally, as these are community authorized discretionary sanctions, only AN, not DRV has the authority to Undelete this page without the consent of the deleting administrator. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close - wrong venue. General sanctions must be appealed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. MER-C 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As long as they are the sanctions indeed. As I’ve mentioned already before, WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all. Standard discretionary sanctions doesn’t seem to explicitly allow “speedier deleting” of the pages either (and “or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project” part hardly fits – removing a page is really tough to consider “proportionate”, as deleting a page is always a most extreme measure; and WP:DELETE suggests that improving should be preferred whenever possible). Therefore this looks like just a speedy deletion. Honeyman ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful. MER-C has claimed this as an enforcement action, which means it is presumed one until the community at WP:AN rules otherwise and only the community at AN can rule so, not a DRV discussion. This is because community authorized discretionary sanctions are authorized by the community as a whole at a more prominent noticeboard, so questions as to their validity are subject to community oversight at AN. This deletion can only be overturned there, so yes, I endorse MER-C's call for a speedy close. Also, of course it is proportionate: the creator is trying to destroy the encyclopedia to make a profit. Deletion is the only proportionate page-level sanction for that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I disagree that he's trying to destroy the encyclopedia. He's trying to use it, abuse it, take advantage of it, but not destroy it. A successful parasite doesn't kill their host. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Fair point: makes my point as just well. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I trust that the creator and User:Honeyman are not implied to be the same person? Who was the creator? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
            • I made some changes, rather technical ones, to the article; and even found out and provided the logo image to be used in the article; but most of the article I believe was written by someone else. Being a non-admin, I cannot even check it; and even being an SME, I am not sure if I could have direct contacts of that person/organization. From my side, I could (as much as I can) try to help bringing the page to the Wikipedia level and provide the non-controversial information for it (as much as it seems non-controversial for others and doesn’t involve COI); though I’d definitely love to get some independent eye on it. Honeyman ( talk) 17:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
              • What is "SME"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
                • I mean, Subject-Matter Expert. Seen this term on WP:COI when have been trying to understand for myself if I am in COI with this topic, or just an SME to it. Honeyman ( talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Definitely reject the speedy close request. DRV is the highest court for reviewing deletions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn discretionary sanctions don't allow administrators to delete arbitrary pages within the scope of the sanction. The only sanctions permitted for pages (as opposed to editors) involve imposition of 1RR. The complaint here seems to be that the page was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which hardly justifies extraordinary measures. If the page was created by someone violating a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions then you could use G5, but I don't see any suggestion that's the case. Hut 8.5 21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The 1RR is automatic, and is not discretionary. Discretionary is broader than that and gives admins much wider discretion. As this is the only DS authorized for promotionalism, we’re in uncharted waters, but MER-C’s actions make sense. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• This does not make any sense to me. The wording being cited to support this (which is from ArbCom sanctions) is that admins are allowed to take "reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Really? The smooth running of the project requires that this page is deleted now, and not, say, in a week after an AfD? If we were dealing with a serious BLP violation then that may be reasonable, but the only violation cited is undisclosed paid editing, which many people think isn't a valid reason for deletion at all. Numerous attempts to add a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing have been proposed at WT:CSD and failed to reach consensus, it isn't appropriate to bring one in through the back door as discretionary sanctions enforcement. Hut 8.5 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• The use of Wikipedia for the illegal touting of securities has the potential to be just as bad for Wikipedia's reputation, if not worse, than serious BLP violations. This page was, on the face of it, created by a PR company acting on behalf of the subject. MER-C 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• If the page needs to be deleted for legal reasons then the WMF should either do it or establish a policy directing us to do it. If it doesn't need to be deleted for legal reasons then I don't see the urgency. It would at best sit around for a week with a bunch of warning tags at the top. Even non-blatant copyright violations aren't summarily deleted. And again the discretionary sanctions this is supposedly done as part of don't permit page deletion. Hut 8.5 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• At Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69#ToU_violation, speedy deletion for TOU violations including UPE clearly failed to gain consensus support. The appropriate venue is thus AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• This is much more limited in scope than those anyway, and yes, the DS permit any action deemed reasonable as page level sanctions: I linked to the arbcom page, but that is because these were authorized as ARBIPA equivalent sanctions, which are standard ArbCom DS. There is only one page on this project that defines standard discretionary sanctions, and that is WP:AC/DS. I'll grant whether or not this is a valid use of the sanctions is an open question, but that's not one that DRV is really equipped to handle. DRV typically reassesses consensus or determines if something was a deletion outside the normal process. The question as to if this was a deletion outside the normal process is an obvious yes: the point of general and discretionary sanctions is that the normal process isn't working so we need to give more flexibility for the subject area. The question of whether it is a reasonable use of sanctions is one for AN. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• WP:Blockchain outlines what is permitted as part of the sanctions in this area. It covers a wide range of restrictions on editors but the only page restriction mentioned is a 1RR restriction. There's nothing there that would justify deleting a page. While this wasn't an arbitration sanction I don't think deleting a page would be likely to be seen as a reasonable use of arbitration sanctions. WP:AELOG lists zero cases of arbitration discretionary sanctions being used to delete pages, which means there haven't been any at all in at least the last four years. DRV is the accepted forum for reviewing deletions, including deletions done outside the usual deletion processes, and an attempt to appeal a page deletion to AN would be directed here instead. Hut 8.5 20:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse/speedy close - this page was deleted under GS. First, I believe that such spam should be removed as a sanction on the original creator (and possibly recreated from scratch by s.o. independent). It does not matter whether said subject is notable or not, whether there have been significant edits, it should go - no trophies. Second, the page was deleted under GS, so this is the wrong venue to discuss whether these deletions actually fall under GS and whether a DRV could be warranted, or whether other processes should have been followed or not. — Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Restore' and take to AfD. WP:DS/Blockchain, is not a reason for Deletion, and no DS ever can be. DS are about conduct, not content. I know of no DS ever that that specified deletion as a remedy, and I consider that that such a remedy would be beyond the jurisdiction on ANI or ANB. (or , for that matter, ArbCom). Admins have a role in deletion, which is to interpret the consensus of the community at AfD, or the implied consensus at WP:PROD, or in obvious cases the assumed consensus of Speedy. DS would permit us to ban a person inserting spam, but not to remove the article. The article might of course fall under Speedy criterion, and if so it should be deleted as one -- by another administrator, and that decision, if challenged, can be brought here. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would apply this also to Payment21, deleted by the same admin under the same rationale. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Even if a community general sanction could authorise speedy deletion, which it can't, the sanctions linked above don't specify deleting a page as a specified remedy. Needs to go to AFD and a consensus obtained. User:TonyBallioni quotes requirements that appeals of ArbCom discretionary sanctions must go to ARCA/AE/AN, but this action is not taken under an ArbCom discretionary sanction; it is taken under a community general sanction. Stifle ( talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stifle, the standard DS rules apply to general sanctions minus the arb stuff. Regardless, the page itself makes it clear only AN can hear appeals Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. from WP:GS/Crypto. Any appeal here is invalid, and can’t be used to Undelete a claimed sanction here, and I think that matters as the odds of this getting overturned at AN are significantly lower than they are of getting overturned here.
    Re: the merits of your point, the sanctions authorized were ARBIPA equivalent, which is an authorization for standard DS plus automatic 1RR, which authorizes admins to make any page level sanction they feel neccesary for the operation of the project. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

These have never been applied in such a way as to permit page deletion as a sanction. Trhying to fit an entirely novel proceedure into a general clause dealing with something else does not make policy. Admins deleting articles must follow deletion policy. Nobody in WP has the sort of plenary power that would permit doing "anything", and ANI or ANB or ARB cannot just assume it for themselves. Page sanctions mean sanctions applying on apage to page basis, not enforcement related to the actual content of a page, or to its inclusion in WP. I think we need to decide here in such a way as to put a stop to any such extension of arbitrary power. Normally, when an admin does a Speedy, any other admin can if the situation is clear enough reverse it for good reason after discussion with the first admin, and does not necessarily have to come here--and if disputed only has to come here, not to ANI/ANB. . Making it a page-level sanction means that any admin could delete any article within broad categories and force the discussion on overturning it to go to ANI, which would be a prime example of turning orderly discussion into chaos. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

DGG, I actually think those are fair criticisms, but I also think that this situation is unique in that the community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content that was flooding this area. There is no other group of sanctions authorized for that purpose, so we've never had a situation where deletion could be used as a remedy under them (though, to use the ARBIPA example, I do think we've had some summary deletions there for 500/30 violations, but I couldn't list them.) I think the novelty of this is in part why this is better suited for AN than here. I think MER-C was acting in good faith and in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, but clarifying the limits here should be left to the community as a whole on the board that authorized the sanctions, not to a much less watched board that tends to focus on bureaucracy and process rather than outcomes. That has its place, but it really isn't the best way to resolve this particular question. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If the sanctions allow admins to ban spammers easily but not delete the spam they added that would seem, from the outside, rather bizarre. The sanctions should allow comprehensive solutions to promotional behavior. Let's figure out the answer to the general question first, then decide what to do with this page. MER-C 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not bizarre. WP:CSD#G5 does not apply retrospectively, and WP:BANning can't be applied hypothetically based on future actions by a user. Perhaps the creator was already a banned person? Is there evidence for that? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

We have a method for dealing with spam: G11. It has fairly well established limits and methods for review. It's not subject to individual admin idiosyncrasy-partly because it is an established convention (though not a absolute requirement that no admin delete under it without a prior nomination by someone else), and partly because of the availability of the present process, Deletion Review. The wording used in this DS has been used in other previous ones, and has never to the best of my knowledge been used to justify deletion of the articles. Using it here is my my opinion overinterpreting the wording, rather resembling wikilawyering. It's an example of what we have seen here beofre, wiki-panic, which is a form of moral panic, bu which a particular problem is seen as so immediately critical that it rerquires extraordinary measures. It's never a constructive response. It's especially not a constructive response to a situation where there is already well-established and workable proceedures.

Doing so is a major change, and in my opinion requires a general consensus to modify deletion policy, rather than the limited consensus of an ANI discussion.

MER-CIMER-C, why did you not simply list for G11?

There is, in fact, a very good reason why we don't have this sort of sticky singlehanded deletion at G11. The definition of spam is not necessarily as obvious as a single person thinks it is. My main current activity here is dealing with spam, and I deleted many thousands of G11s- and nominated many thousands that other admins have deleted. enormous amount of work in deleting spam. I think I am about as willing to use G11 as anyone else here--I don't think anyone could say I have ever been willing to compromise with promotional editing. Nonetheless, a few of my G11s have been challenged, and a very few of them have even not resulted in the article being deleted. Similarly I've challenged G11s from others, and usually they go to afd or prod, and are deleted--but a few of them have been kept by consensus. No one here is perfect in any aspect of their activity.

The point of having DS for this topic area is precisely the opposite of what you have stated. We already have an excellent way to remove the spam. We did not have an equally effective way to deal with the spammers. Now we do. Behavior is the role of DS, not content. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with User:DGG, which is itself something. Trying to wedge a general deletion power into general sanctions without obtaining very broad consensus cannot stand. Trying to strip DRV of its core power which is to review deletion decisions and correct those which do not follow policy cannot stand either. The assertion that some class of poorly-specified disruption can allow an end-run around consensus and the normal decision and policy making arrangements on Wikipedia does not stand up to scrutiny. Strong overturn. Stifle ( talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cryptocurrency general sanctions and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol notifying the WP:AN community of this discussion since there is disagreement about whether DRV is the correct venue to discuss this speedy deletion.

  Cunard ( talk) 03:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Discussion of speedy deletion under WP:GS/Crypto at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol notifying the WT:CSD community of the review of this speedy deletion. Cunard ( talk) 04:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Refer the deleting admin User:MER-C, and User:TonyBallioni commenting above the the first line of WP:CSD (admitedly after crawling through an awful lot of hatnote clutter) that says: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here."

The deletion of mainspace pages is most certainly a content matter, and is out-of-scope for arbcom. If the speedy deletion of bitcoin pages is authorised to any admin discretion, then get it written into WP:CSD. Note however the new criterion criterion, or is it that Wikipedia governance has been usurped and this is no long a community run project. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Not relevant here as it was conducted under different authorization. I also consider Cunard’s notification at WT:CSD inappropriate: that is by far the most rabidly anti-deletion talk page on all of Wikipedia. This DRV should be shut down immediately and taken to AN which is the only valid forum for review here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The notification was highly appropriate, as what is going on here is a massive extension of deletion policy and speedy deletion policy. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It was a notification on a page where you could probably find consensus to remove the ability of admins to delete at all if you tried on the right day. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I find that unreasonable. WT:CSD has found and supports a very large number of diverse and broad criteria for speedy deletion, I have proposed a number of new criteria, and have found support and opposition there to always be very reasonable. Once the speedy deletion criteria is supported, there is barely any possible appeal short of questioning that the objective criteria applied. A much bigger issue is ArbCom rulings being interpreted as being above deletion policy. This discussion should probably be list at WP:CENT, or even as a watchlist banner. The policy expansion principle is massive. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This is one page. Of course we don’t need a CENT notice on this. We just need an AN review of one deletion claimed under the sanctions. We’ll have to agree to disagree on WT:CSD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

TonyBallioni, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Log of notifications contains a large number of deletions of articles and drafts. I read no authorisation, but no discussion at all, of deletions. I think the solution is to discuss it and document a new CSD to cover it. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Discussion_of_speedy_deletion_under_WP:GS/Crypto_at_Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_9#Universa_Blockchain_Protocol. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Request temporary undeletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC). Was the page WP:CSD#G11 eligible? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse-Per TonyBallioni's reasoning and IAR. ∯WBG ^converse 06:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Deletion did not come up at the community discussion that authorized GS in this area at all. Even if you can argue deletion is in the letter of GS (I don't think it is), this is clearly not what the community had in mind when they authorized GS here. If you want to use GS to delete, you need a community consensus somewhere that says deletion is an acceptable GS enforcement action. I haven't found any such discussion, and would invite a link to one if one exists. Addressing the article narrowly, change to G11 if it applies, IAR delete it if you can make an IAR case, or send it to AFD. This also applies to Payment21, per DGG. Cheers, Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  After reviewing the article, change to G11. That page would require a rewrite to be encyclopedic and has very little value otherwise. There's no need to use an out-of-process deletion method here. Tazerdadog ( talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

to expand on what Tazerdog and Stifle and I and others have said above, basic policies at WP cannot be overridden by ANI. Suppose under the asserted authorization to do anything necessary for dealing with Crypto, an admin had decided that the best way to deal with the problem was to remove every existing article in the field. Suppose an admin had rewritten an article on a cryptocurrency to be less promotional (which is fine), and fully protected his own version. Suppose an admin had thought necessary for balance to insert a poorly sourced negative statement about a living person. Suppose an admin had thought it appropriate to insert a copyvio from another publication. What the adoption of the sanction means, is that an admin had authority to use any appropriate remedy within the usual scope of what is done at ANI. All rules are to be interpreted reasonably, as Tony Balloni said above. . DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Inquiry I can't view the article, but I suspect it could be deleted per WP:G11, could some admins comment on whether they feel that is the case? If so, the rest of this discussion is not needed here, and the debate over whether Discretionary Sanctions allow for page deletions can be handled at the correct forum (probably ARCA). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I am still requesting temp undeletion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

    Endorse call for temp undeletion Tazerdadog ( talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. As a straight G11, it is a complicated one because it was WP:Reference bombed (from the first version). I support User:MER-C's block of Artox.rb ( talk · contribs), which includes the talk page notice that tells them how to appeal, in the unlikely case of a mistake. With the page history reviewable, I see the user was a four year old barely autoconfirmed sleeper account. I still think Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product is a better approach, one that allows non-admins to be involved in the fight. Even without access to deleted contributions, I think I can see clear patterns in an increasing amount of UPE spamming. I think this spammer is otherwise a user well known to us. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn No GS does not allow admins to speedy delete out of process. That way lies madness. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• GS also doesn't allow its provisions to be circumvented or interpreted at random other noticeboards: THAT way lies madness. Settle/clarify the issue in the right place; i.e., not here. -- Calton | Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close or endorse. Do NOT overturn. This falls under WP:GS/Crypto: if you think it doesn't, this isn't the place to decide or argue the issue. -- Calton | Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Given that this was a reasonable interpretation of GS powers and the correct forum for reviewing those decisions is important I agree with those who say this is the wrong forum for appeal. Also strongly agree with those who suggest that GS didn't authorize circumvention of CSD policy (but I also think it should have and could be with further community consensus). Most content in this area is a scourge on the reputation of the encyclopedia and appropriate actions should be taken to prevent its infiltration. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• endorse after checking the content it is clear that the purpose is promotion. A g11 delete would be appropriate. The advertising is not that covert. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Graeme, it’s not a surprise that it might be G11-eligible, but do you endorse the deletion log summary “09:31, 4 July 2018 MER-C (talk | contribs) deleted page Universa Blockchain Protocol (Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto.)”? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    • There is absolutely no requirement to link to WP:CSD or any of its anchors in a speedy deletion log comment. If you accept that this was a valid G11, then "advertising" was enough. — Cryptic 15:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Cryptic, surely you mean to include fundamentally when using screaming hyperbole to cover a lack of logic? There is fundamentally and absolutely no requirement to be correct when logging deletions, least of all to respect the old policy WP:CSD, now that ANI, once a mere kangaroo court, has appointed itself sufficient to bypass deletion policy through the mechanism of “general sanctions”. Crypto spam must be countered, wikilawyering be damned, Wikipedia:Etiquette is for punces. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Is anyone other than the nom advocating to keep this article on its merits? Unless other people are, I'd suggest a "The consensus is to delete the article" close and having everyone trundle on over to WP:AN to address the GS deletion question. Tazerdadog ( talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That's not the point. There is no speedy deletion criterion for "stuff I don't think should be here". Administrators are only allowed to delete pages in certain circumstances. Chuck out that principle and all sorts of pages could be deleted just because someone doesn't like them. Overturning the deletion would establish that these types of deletion are not appropriate. If you want to discuss the merits of the article then the best place for that is AfD. This discussion is about the merits of the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Even me, being the nom, do not request to return the article and keep it as it is. If the article looks non-encyclopaedically - let’s polish it (and the independent eyes who examine what parts are bad and what parts are worthy to keep, are highly appreciated). If the topic looks insufficiently notable for Wikipedia – let’s put it to AfD, but I am almost sure it will be rather easy to find the news sources proving it is notable enough. The nom’s opinion: Wikipedia will be better with the de-spammed version of this article, than without this article at all. Honeyman ( talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. The article is bad, but not G11 bad. A redirect to Alexander Borodich may be the result of the AfD so it's worth having a discussion, as opposed to deleting due to a consensus here (and/or IAR). I don't see anything on WP:GS allowing for deletion per General Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Just noting my recent suggestion for moving forward at AN here: [3]. I think this was a valid deletion, and that the correct closure of this DRV is likely no consensus based on both the numbers and the arguments, but also think a way to move forward would be for MER-C to mark these deletions as G11 and also subject to the appeal provisions of GS/Crypto. That would both root it in policy while also respecting the wishes of the community for administrators to have more discretion in this area. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ TonyBallioni: Are we to understand that, in your opinion, this qualifies for a g11 deletion? 78.28.45.127 ( talk) 09:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• In principle, this G11 deletion should be listed at AfD for discussion, because some editors in good standing disagree with it meeting G11. I am sympathetic to it meeting G11. It is all non-independent fact-based promotion of a commercial thing, no independent qualitative commentary whatsoever, and the first three sources are 1 & 2 non- secondary source and non-independent and source 3 is a single mere mention, and I think articles on commercial things thing carry the onus of present the best 2-3 sources attesting notability upfront. It is a common trick to WP:Reference bomb WP:CORP-failing promotion, and it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to evaluate the lot. I would personally hesitate because the page was unusually polished looking, and because there are mentions of the topic in other articles, but at NPP I would definitely PROD or AfD it. At AfD I would !vote “delete”. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If one is only sympathetic to it meeting G11, it does not meet G11. For a valid speedy it has to unquestionably meet G11 (though we normally interpret "unquestionably" to mean something more like "very clearly" or "clearly". Looking again, I don't think it meets G11. AfD exists for a purpose, which is to decide whether an article should to stay in WP, rather than make it a matter of opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• overturn Speedy deletion isn't something we do outside of the rules given at CSD because it's so ripe for abuse. It's not a clear G11, so send it to AfD if you want it gone. IAR is a fine thing, but if you want a new criteria, start an RfC. Also a non-trivial trout to any criticism of starting a discussion on the issue at the place that all speedy deletion issues are discussed. That's just silly. Hobit ( talk) 04:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Type 003 aircraft carrier ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Earlier in June, there was was a previous discussion which concluded to merge Type 003 aircraft carrier into Chinese aircraft carrier programme. The decision was to merge, and it was based upon this diff which was very short. I was not part of this discussion as it concluded before I started contributing to the article.

However, after the discussion closed, but before the merger was enacted, there has been significantly more information added into the article which illustrates the notability of the subject. This is the last diff of the page prior to merger being executed, which is considerably more volumnous. As can be seen, the volume of all the information that is now currently available is considerable, and cannot all be solely contained in a short section in this article.

Hence, I hereby propose that the merger of Type 003 aircraft carrier be reversed and the article be split off into its own article again, as circumstances have changed and there is now a significant load of information on the subject that now merits its own article.

N.B.: I had previously discussed this on the talk page of Chinese aircraft carrier programme, and I was advised to put it up for deletion review. — Madrenergic ^talk

• Closer's comment: I wasn't contacted about this, but in my view this is something for a talk page discussion to resolve, after making sure that all AfD participants are contacted. A deleted article can be editorially recreated if the concerns that led to its deletion are addressed. The same applies mutatis mutandis to "merge" outcomes at AfD. Sandstein 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice. I had attempted a talk page discussion but was directed here instead. I have a clearer idea now. — Madrenergic ^talk 17:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• !voter comment - I participated in the original AfD, and commented that this should have been a merge discussion and not an AfD. As this project progresses (assuming it is not cancelled) the viability of a standalone article increases. At the time of the AfD coverage was somewhat lacking and the article itself was in a bad state (e.g. several wrong details). If there is more coverage available now (and ot seems there was more coverage late June) and if the article has been improved, then the rationale for a meege lessens. Icewhiz ( talk) 02:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Voter comment: Only news.com.au, globalriskinsights.com, GlobalSecurity.org, and Popular Science have direct reference of Type 003. All of them were in the article at the time of the AfD. Many of the added contents are synthesis of sources that do not mention Type 003. The Chinese sources generally refrain from referring domestically-built aircraft carriers with their type designation as there are doubts whether the ship launched in 2017 truly is designated as Type 001A. In absence of evidence, any definite claim on the type designation would require certain degrees of original research. I believe it is better to expand those content in the Chinese aircraft carrier programme for the time being. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 05:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• I suggest the participants just have this discussion on a relevant article talk page as the result of the AfD is in no way binding here. This issue should never have been sent to AfD in the first place, as AfD is for cases where the nominator believes the article should be deleted, not merged. We do routinely overturn the results of AfDs with minimal participation if someone asks for it, and this AfD only had two participants. And as has been noted above the results of an AfD don't apply if the content has been drastically reworked. Hut 8.5 06:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD, it’s discussion and it’s close. There is no deletion to review, so close this. To reverse the decision to merge, establish a consensus at the target talk page, Talk:Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme#Proposal_to_Split_Article_for_Type_003_Aircraft_Carrier. That effort has already started, this DRV is a distraction to it, and I suggest speedy closing this. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed, but OP was directed here, so fully reasonable they *came* here. Madrenergic, it would be good if you were to notify all the AfD participants about that discussion if you haven't already. Hobit ( talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The Live Love Laugh Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

CSD'd sans notification of author, current revisions may not reflect past articles ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• I was going through some lists of mine and noticed that an article I created (some time last year, I'm pretty sure), The Live Love Laugh Foundation, was deleted multiple times by three admins Deb, DGG, and RHaworth, for various reasons, such as A7 G11 and G3. However, I did not receive any notices of this, and am fairly sure that the article I wrote was neither promotional, advertising, unsourced, or so poorly written as to be an A7. As best as I can tell from the logs, the article I wrote was deleted by DGG for G11, than someone else came in and wrote 3 more articles which were then deleted, and the current revision of the article doesn't reflect what I wrote. Will someone please email me a copy or restore my revision (or put it in my sandbox) (Not OWNing anything, but making a distinction from what the current and past revisions are,) and if anyone feels they should be deleted could I be sent to AFD instead of deleted speedily. Not accusing anyone of trying to subvert me, but 5 months is a pretty long delay to find out that there were issues with an article that I didn't get a chance to resolve or address. I agree that the current version is not so bueno, and so wish to compare what I wrote last year to the current copy. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Looking over the history, I think at least some of the WP:G11's were reasonable. It looks like this has gone back and forth between some reasonable versions and some spammy ones. The current one doesn't look too bad. In any case, I've undeleted L3X1's most recent edit for comparison. I've also semi-protected the page. I would have no objection to restoring the full history; spam needs to be reverted, but doesn't have to be deleted. For now, however, I've done the more conservative thing that addresses the specific request here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Don't think I can help with this. I just checked and it was a blank page when I deleted it. Deb ( talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• As is usual for discussion here, I restored the entire history, and replaced the latest version with a notice. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• I don't think the version DGG deleted as spam was all that spamy [4]. No opinion on later deletions (I didn't look). But yeah, the topic may not be notable, but the text was A) short B) mostly factual C) had potentially reasonable sources. I'm fine if we restore back to that version. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I doubt it will satisfy our current requirements for notability of organizations, which require sources not based on PR--but that can be discussed in the AfD thatwil linwevitably follow any restoration. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't look closely, but the sources looked credible. But yeah, it may well get deleted at AfD. I just don't think the article was much more than factual statements and it didn't seem hugely promotional. Hobit ( talk) 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This version by L3X1 does not seem unduly promotional; the subsequent incarnation, from revision 831803972 on, contains copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• L3X1's version is neutrally written. It does not qualify for deletion under {{ db-spam}}. Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Draft:Major General William O'Leary QVRM TD DL VR ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Main body text is written by his assistant, myself, and it has been sent around to different forums online - this duplication elsewhere has prompted a copyright infringement and the article was deleted. I have ownership and authority to reproduce the whole text. SHiggs121 ( talk) 22:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note subject of this draft is already present at William O'Leary (British Army officer)   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   23:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• There's a few different issues here. The immediate one is the question of copyright. If you really do own the copyright and are willing to donate it to Wikipedia, there is a process to do that. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. I'm not sure how long that takes to process, but it's not going to be immediate. Next, if you are the subject's assistant, then you have a conflict of interest. Editing on subjects with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. It's not flatly forbidden by our terms of use, but if you do insist on continuing, your conflict of interest must be declared. See WP:COI for details. All that being said, given that you've already uploaded it to various other forums, and given the negative comments on your draft before it we deleted, my hunch is it will be difficult to get this accepted by a reviewer. I can't forbid you from trying, but I do want to manage expectations so you're not frustrated when you run into additional trouble after you've resolved the copyright and COI issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Makida Moka ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I didn't participate in the AFD nomination because I was trying to avoid a possible feud with the nominator at that time. Article was deleted based on existing consensus, which is understandable. Makida meets WP:ACTOR as she has had major roles in my criteria of at least three notable films ( Taste of Love, Code of Silence [5], Gidi Up, etc). Since the article got deleted, she has even starred in more notable films, which are substantiated in references. The reason I am coming here and not meeting the closing admin to draftify is that it will be a disservice to the article creator if I recreate from his work as I wouldn't be changing much. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 18:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Probably the best way would be to restore it to draft, then you can move it back once it's updated and ready. Sound good? ansh 666 03:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Fine by me as long as the revision history is retained. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 11:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• I see nothing wrong with the original deletion, but if the subject has become more notable since then I support restoring to draft space. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that there was nothing wrong on the side of the closing admin, but the AFD might have ended differently if I participated in it, I updated the article severally while the discussion was going on, thinking an independent AFD patroller would participate in my favour but that didn't happen. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 11:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

In the future, absolutely do participate in the AfD! For low-traffic ones, the more useful comments we get, the better. In any case, I've restored it to Draft:Makida Moka. ansh 666 19:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll improve it soonest. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 22:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse; I don't see a solid way to argue that this should be considered no-consensus, and obviously it wasn't a keep. Vote-counting would have us say "no consensus", especially since the only vote after the relist was a comment. However, we have reasonable arguments for deletion, and the post-relist comment from the nominator provides additional reasons to delete. We would need further input for an AFD on a prominent subject (I can't imagine an AFD for an American who's a household name being closed as "delete" if it got this level of participation), but for an obscure subject like Makida Moka, this level is appropriate. Nyttend ( talk) 02:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and allow recreation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makida Moka had only two participants, both of whom supported deletion with policy-based arguments. A "delete" close was reasonable.

  In this discussion, the DRV nominator included an article from Vanguard, a Nigerian newspaper, that was not discussed at the AfD. The source provides significant biographical coverage of the subject. The DRV nominator also notes that she has starred in three notable films, which means she passes WP:NACTOR.

  I recommend allowing recreation first because the source and these arguments were not discussed in the AfD, and second because the closing admin wrote, "Probably the best way would be to restore it to draft, then you can move it back once it's updated and ready".

  Cunard ( talk) 04:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply