Rockwell Scharer III – Mostly moot, with a little endorse on top. Most of the comments here are about the IP's suspected socking, which isn't germane at DRV. That should be dealt with at SPI, where I see it was
raised and already dismissed. To the extent that DRV dabbles in
WP:BOLD draftifications (which is to say, not really), the move out of mainspace is endorsed. Some people will argue (with a certain amount of justification) that this sort of draftification is really a form of shadow deletion, but that's also not an argument that will be decided at DRV. As a practical matter, if you want it back in mainspace, simply submit it for review. Just like there is nothing preventing anybody from moving a page to draftspace, there's also nothing preventing anybody from moving it right back; I suspect in this case that would quickly result in it being brought to AfD, but at least that's a better forum for this discussion. --
RoySmith(talk) 23:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dear Wikipedia administrators, i hereby, request you undelete the article. The article was wrongly deleted by an editor (GSS), i am unable to link any xfd, because the article was deleted directly without deletion discussion process and made it a draft page.
/info/en/?search=Draft:Rockwell_Scharer
I tried to understand what was wrong. He mentioned violation of TOU in the deletion log and tagged the article with undisclosed paid editing. But it's wrong again. I wasn't paid for the editing, i used to be a part of Mr. Scharer's DropKey Studio project and created the article after he won an Edison awards for the project. Scharer previously worked at NBCUniversal Media and Live Nation Entertainment and as a software engineer he designed the cost-tracking systems for the Space Shuttle at Rockwell International and for motion pictures at Paramount Pictures. I had disclosed the COI relation in the talk page already. I believe it's okay now. I contacted Mr. Sharer about the issue and he has provided an affadavit regarding the matter. I can't attach it here, so i have uploaded it here
https://www.sendspace.com/file/nzgrmf
I hope this solves the issue. Please undelete and restore the article to mainspace. I seek your assistance here.
43.245.122.242 (
talk) 21:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Block evasion? Yes, and I have filled the SPI. Regarding undisclosed paid editing,
your accounts were blocked for the same.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 03:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The page exists at
Draft:Rockwell Scharer, so it has not, strictly speaking, been deleted. I don't think this is the right venue to request a move back to mainspace. —C.Fred (
talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Orlando's Summer of Love – Endorse. Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources. Also, the editor who opened this deletion review is advised to write a bit more concisely and to avoid
WP:REFBOMBING. Writing a draft is still allowed.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 09:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted with reasoning that was evidently entirely meritless as shown in discussions and below.
Orlando, Florida's Summer of love was a notable cultural movement in Orlando that was similar to the
Second Summer of Love in the U.K. A one sentence stub was created.
A merge was proposed in which a legitimate concern was raised that the subject title was only used by one author. More relevant reliable sources for this era were added so notability could be determined and the stub was supported by 15 reliable sources with
long quotes within the citation rather than long
WP:QUOTEs within the text.
It was clear to me that using the topic title for this subject would require a new source or a different author so I did not strongly oppose the merge. Apparently, that discussion went "on too long without being resolved" so an
AfD nomination was opened.
The AfD discussion took place during the merge discussion.
The legitimate concern that was raised in the
Merge Discussion and the comments put forth there to support it were ignored
in the AfD discussion.
Illegitimate arguments and reasoning (ones that should be deemed meritless by
WP:AADD policy) were put forth at AfD to nominate and to delete the page per the outcome of the proposal.
I have asked the deleting administrator at AfD for assistance. However there has not been clarifying reply to date and I'm not sure whether the editor does not seem to havehas a willingness to further engage
as shown on his talk page.
I do not wish to
WP:REHASH here each previous policy-based argument made in those discussions--Unless it is required. I think we should all be competent enough to review the sources and policy-based discussion(s) points put forth already.
Extended rationale
The relevant policies raised in discussion include (but are not limited to):
The nominating editor, is relying almost entirely upon his great and unmatched wisdom.
This appears to be an attempt to turn the discussions into some type of content dispute or worse, disrupt it entirely (and this includes several actions that I may soon be required to bring to
WP:ANI--not here). In response to my challenging his interpretations of WP policy, he issued several warnings to me that have waded directly into actions that meet the criteria of
WP:DE,
WP:TE and
WP:TOOLMISUSE to defend the baseless nomination action. (since he edit-blocked me too)
This editor has repeatedly refused to answer the critical questions I have asked directly. Despite that bit of
WP:TE they have all but admitted that the concerns raised in Afd were all
WP:AADD, never even remotely policy-based, the apparently legitimate concern raised was just ignored, and the obvious and easy solution of presenting new evidence with an addition of a new source that uses the term thwarted.
I am not certain that new evidence is actually required here for the subject as the nominator dubiously states this was never his concern despite the opening a deletion nomination itself for an admittedly notable thing and the alleged 100% correctness of his refbomb argument. Obviously, this era in Orlando was notable as documented in various reliable non-local sources.
The nominator argues that despite his mentioning of the previous merge discussion no less that twice in his AfD nomination, he states that has no responsibility to acknowledge any of the concerns within it at all and even threatened me for asking about him it.
He also mentions the following policies
WP:REFBOMBWP:COPYVIO and
WP:TNT. However, in discussions with him and a review of WP policies, these do not seem to have merit either.
The last determination for Deletion Review is the question of whether an article about the notable Orlando era should be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported- now in four sources separated by 24 years.
The new 2011 and 2017 source:
Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017).
"Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved October 3, 2017. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011).
"I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. Retrieved 2019-10-16. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way."{{
cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (
help)
Reliable Sources used prior to deletion:
Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998).
"Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..."orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved November 30, 2015. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993).
"All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 16, 2016. [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.
"Aahz...An era of Electronic Music". Orlando.AllOut.com. Orlando.AllOut. January 24, 2015. Retrieved June 4, 2015. If you're from Hawaii "Ohana" means family, if you lived in Orlando in the 90′s "AAHZ" meant and still means family. AAHZ was a late night event that was held at The Beacham nightclub back in the late 80′s/early 90′s. It was so much more than just a night at a club though. It was more of a family reunion every time you walked through the doors. This was in the era where PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect) was still the main player at these sort of events. This was back in the day before distractions like cell phones and digital cameras were in everyone's hands and it was just you, the crowd, and the DJ. The time when music connected people in a way that very few will ever understand. People came from all over the state to attend the famed AAHZ events. This was a place where you could go and totally let loose without fear of judgment by others. People came to AAHZ for the music and the vibe. The way the DJ's were able to use their turntables to emotionally connect so many different people through their music could not be duplicated anywhere. They quite literally had the mood of the entire room in their hands behind the decks. People thrived off of this new underground culture that was being introduced to Orlando through these AAHZ events. AAHZ was in a league of its own in the Orlando club scene, hosting international talents like Sasha and John Digweed, but, little did anyone know what AAHZ would do for its resident DJ's Kimball Collins and Dave Cannalate. Both have become international superstars and a slew of other AAHZ regular customers like Andy Hughes and DJ Icey were not too far behind them. There is no doubt that AAHZ and its DJ's helped put Orlando on the map and in the forefront of the entire Electronic Dance Music movement across the United States. There really is no way to adequately convey the true meaning or raw emotion of what AAHZ was, or why so many people considered it to be "home." ... Unfortunately, AAHZ came to an end in 1992, and with that came the end of an era for the Orlando club scene and Orlando Electronic Dance Music as a whole. The days of AAHZ may never be able to be totally recreated as it once was, however, AAHZ holds their reunion in Downtown Orlando every year, where they make sure that old school vibe is still in full effect. People who were involved in it during its peak fly in from all around the country just to attend and reclaim their little piece of perfect that used to reside in the heart of Downtown Orlando.dead link
Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013).
"Dance dance revolution". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
New evidence exists. There are two sources
WP:SUSTAINED sources for that term.
There is 20+ years of local media coverage, an expansive L.A. Weekly source article and a multi-page Rolling Stone article on the subject in issue No. 0767.
Suggestions that that any of the fifteen (now sixteen) sources are not
reliable or are not
significant coverage to demonstrate
WP:N of this era is the criteria for
TE.
The two editors who endorsed deletion at AfD reasoned that the term
was something someone made up one day. Obviously, there was a reliable source (now, more than one) that used term so this line of reasoning was absurd from the start and the just made it up assertions untrue. The alleged support for this reasoning was that, after a thorough search for other sources was unsuccessful, they determined that there were none and would never be any. I found the new source with a simple Google search so it's apparent that statements about the thoroughness of the search "conducted umpteen different ways" are very highly dubious because the new source with that term was published prior to that editors alleged search. The unsuccessful search was literally the only support for this concern. There was never any legitimate concern of whether this subject would even remotely fail the
significant coverage test of
WP:GNG.
Any endorsement that finds that
this subject was just made up was a ever a legitimate concern or that the
WP:MADEUP reasoning was a correct assessment would preclude starting a new article with this title or about that subject era.
Any new or improved article will have to include restatement and WP:CITETRIM of the exact same deleted, but highly reputable, reliable and verifiable information on the subject and will cite the exact same sources
Claims that "there is no way to notability-test" are in direct contradiction with
WP:N,
WP:NRV, and
WP:GNG.
Assertions that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates
WP:AADD#Article size and
WP:STUB among others.
Assertions of great and unmatched wisdom or 100% correctnesscarry no weight.
WP:LONGQUOTE and
WP:PLRT is not a
WP:COPYVIO. Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a
WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.
WP:TNT applies to "a page that is hopelessly irreparable." It would never apply to a one-sentence stub or notable subject that should remain after a
WP:FAILN test.
WP:TNT is the easiest concern to overturn at DRV.
WP:REFBOMB only applies to a deceptively "loading up of an article with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It's has a different purpose from a
WP:CITEKILL which is not to deceive.
Citation overkill is not going to impact the readability of a one-sentence article. "but it can call the notability of the subject into question...experienced editors need to scrutinize the article and each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article." Regarding "I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them...I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best." from the
WP:THREE essay (or
WP:TLDR) is not logical reasoning given that one purpose for a
WP:LONGQUOTES for a citation is "in order to facilitate verification by other editors". If somebody agrees to look at three, and you give them more than three, they're likely not to look at any of them and it automatically fails
WP:N. Given the
WP:LONGQUOTEs, this article only fails
WP:N out of laziness. That is this part of the
WP:THREE essay's reasoning as applied to this particular deleted page is just silly. However for the number of appropriate sources, there is similar guidance from
WP:CITEKILL which states two or three sources may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.
WP:CITEMERGE and
WP:CITETRIM is required and/or an expansion greater than one sentence per citation. Deletion is not the solution for the problem described by
WP:THREE.
Any AfD discussion that "was conducted on the grounds that as written, the article was a piece of junk..." or "the problem was that the article, as written, was a worthless piece of garbage..." is illegitimate (again
WP:AADD). These are the the motivations opening the AfD in the nominating editor's own words. The motivation for AfD was not
WP:N. AADD arguments are not a legitimate reason to nominate an article for deletion.
I've added a new quote from one of the previously used citations above: [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.Johnvr4 (
talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I've added yet another new source above: "It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.”
For those that are actually counting, that is now four sources over 24 year that have made the
Summer of Love comparison. There is not a
snowballs chance this topic would ever legitimately fail
WP:GNG. No amount of votes endorsing the AfD can overcome that fact.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the AfD clearly reached consensus to delete. There was no mistake made in the close. I'd even be tempted to salt, because we absolutely cannot have a repeat of
this.
ReykYO! 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse, but allow draft. The AfD was clear, so endorse that for sure. But, that was a year and a half ago, and apparently there's at least one new source, so there should be no objection to somebody trying to write a new article on the topic. One of the major objections at the AfD was the absurdity of the referencing, and as noted by Reyk, we can't do that again. So, I'm fine with keeping the deleted version deleted and allowing somebody to try again from scratch in draft space. And, yeah, the nomination is rather over-the-top. Let's hope that's not a harbinger of what a new draft might look like. --
RoySmith(talk) 21:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Properly deleted. To contest, see
WP:THREE. 3, not more than 3. See also
WP:TL;DR. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse firstly the OP needs to learn to write more concisely. I haven't read the entire
WP:WALLOFTEXT above and I don't think anybody else will either. We're especially not interested in your dispute with another editor over this. DRV isn't a dispute resolution forum. The term is clearly used in sources, but that isn't enough for an article. For that we need substential coverage, enough that we can write at least a few paragraphs about the subject without violating normal standards. It's fine if an article is shorter than this but there needs to be at least the potential for expansion. It doesn't help that a lot of these sources do not talk about a "Summer of Love" at all, but instead use other names for it. That means we run into issues with
WP:OR if we try to stick all these sources under the label. I would suggest that the OP either contribute to
Orlando, Florida#Culture (which already has the one sentence of prose in the deleted version), start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida (which would likely be an encyclopedic topic) or at least write a substantial draft about the subject matter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse I see nothing wrong with the AfD discussion, nor do I see any new reasons to recreate the article. As per RoySmith and Reyk, having seen the old version of the article, and having picked through this AfD nomination, I'm very concerned about allowing a new draft of the topic, not because I want to discourage the author but because there's a very good chance it will be a waste of everyone's time.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The inclusion of the image of the subject page in the AFD was helpful, because this DRV is resembling the original article as nothing but a
reference bomb. The AFD shows that the closer was reasonable, and the stub with a dump of citations further proves the point, and the appellant is further making the case against themselves here. I would have !voted Delete if I had taken part, and I will still !vote Delete if it is relisted (but I have confidence that it won't be relisted). If the appellant provides yet another
reference bomb, I suggest a
snow close out of mercy.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would urge the nominator to very considerably condense their argument and references in order to aid readability. More is not always better.
Stifle (
talk) 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
This filibuster is not going to help you accomplish your goal. —
Cryptic 16:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
(Condensed DRV statement per request)...
Overturn the original decision and Restore for expansion, improvement, and
WP:CITETRIM. WP Policies already have consensus. No amount of
voting at DRV will overturn a WP policy per
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
WP:AADDis an
essay however,
WP:DPis a policy that requires valid policy-based argument in discussion and incorporates
WP:ATD policy. To start,
WP:DP states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." None of the above votes put forth at DRV are policy-based arguments. Literally not one. The reasoning that notability fails GNG as put forth at AfD was not valid per policy despite the endorsers here. Regarding the size of the stub to sources ratio and
WP:LONGQUOTES, the state of the citations does not determine notability per
WP:NEXIST.
The subject of the entry is the early 1990s scene in Orlando and every single one of the previously used sources covers that topic-- which is criteria of a Citation bomb--"overkill with legitimate source. Based solely on
I know it when I see it arguments which assert that these sources were a Notability bomb and never checking them out for WP:N violates
WP:NEXIST. Disputing an apparently
WP:RS is the criteria for
WP:TE
The alleged
WP:DEL-REASON given at AfD has been thoroughly disproved. Given the sources (both old and new), none of the arguments put forth at AfD regarding the title of the entry had merit. I've asked involved editors ad nauseam to clarify the exact specific policy reasoning for the Afd and deletion so I can address concerns in something new or here. Not one, could provide a simple answer-- without offing reasoning that suggests that a topic must show proof in content to reach the WP notability threshold. They can't do it simply because notability comes from available sources per
WP:CONTN which no editor seems to get. Regardless, any possible WP:DEL-REASON is covered by
WP:ATD. Again, we are referring to policy here-- not content. Re: "'no meaningful content'" assertions. "No Meaningful content" is AADD and Per
WP:ATD-M "Too Small" complaints support Merge arguments-- not deletion arguments. All of this effort is the result of being forced to try to fix a content dispute at DRV. A policy concern was disguised as a content issue by AfD nom. DP, AfD, RdU, DRV forums are only for apparent policy and process errors and concerns--not for poorly disguised content disputes.
When it is poorly enforced, a mistaken policy assertion (see CONTN) that this entry must prove the notability of the subject in its text as the AfD nom admitted is in fact a content dispute. From
WP:DEL-CONTENT, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases ... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor..." Per
WP:ATD-E, Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. "Per
WP:DPAFDThese processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution. If there is no policy basis in a deletion argument, then it carries no weight here.
The (New and old) Evidence is to support use of the term is: The new 2011 and 2017 sources:
Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011).
"I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way."{{
cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (
help)
Reliable Sources from 1993 and 1998 that were cited prior to deletion:
Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998).
"Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..."orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "
summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993).
"All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.
Regarding the essay on a snowballs chances, please consider the
WP:SNOWFLAKE.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note the above was posted by the OP,
User:Johnvr4, and isn't another person supporting overturning the result. Since the OP is assumed to be supporting overturning the result they aren't supposed to post "overturn" comments because that looks like a comment from someone else. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I have unbolded the !vote and noted that it's the OP in a {{
Hover title}}.-C.Fred (
talk) 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
My policy based arguments were never a vote. On the other hand, endorsements without policy guidance are votes. Votes carry no weight in these discussions!
Johnvr4 (
talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
And what I'm making clear is that it's one person with two recommendations (not-a-vote or !vote), not two !votes. In AfD discussions, the normal practice is to strike the duplicate recommendation. Rather than strike your second one, I hover texted it. —C.Fred (
talk) 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I had moved my recommendation so it would not be counted twice. The long DRV reason still applies--its just the long version. I'm sorry if I mangled it and that I forgot to sign my abbreviated reasoning. Thank you (both) for the fixes.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 12:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Johnvr4 is appealing the original AfD. I see no problems with the close of that AfD, and I find that the arguments presented there are appropriate to the article as it existed at the time of the AfD.That being said, there is nothing in the AfD that prohibits creation of a new draft on the subject if the situation changes. To that end, Johnvr4 is welcome to develop a fully fleshed-out draft that gives a good demonstration—through prose about the subject, not a bombardment of sources—of how the subject is notable. The prior article may be a starting point on that path, but it is not an end point. I have no objections to the revisions being restored to Draft: space, but the deleted article should certainly not be put back into main space.—C.Fred(
talk) 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rockwell Scharer III – Mostly moot, with a little endorse on top. Most of the comments here are about the IP's suspected socking, which isn't germane at DRV. That should be dealt with at SPI, where I see it was
raised and already dismissed. To the extent that DRV dabbles in
WP:BOLD draftifications (which is to say, not really), the move out of mainspace is endorsed. Some people will argue (with a certain amount of justification) that this sort of draftification is really a form of shadow deletion, but that's also not an argument that will be decided at DRV. As a practical matter, if you want it back in mainspace, simply submit it for review. Just like there is nothing preventing anybody from moving a page to draftspace, there's also nothing preventing anybody from moving it right back; I suspect in this case that would quickly result in it being brought to AfD, but at least that's a better forum for this discussion. --
RoySmith(talk) 23:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dear Wikipedia administrators, i hereby, request you undelete the article. The article was wrongly deleted by an editor (GSS), i am unable to link any xfd, because the article was deleted directly without deletion discussion process and made it a draft page.
/info/en/?search=Draft:Rockwell_Scharer
I tried to understand what was wrong. He mentioned violation of TOU in the deletion log and tagged the article with undisclosed paid editing. But it's wrong again. I wasn't paid for the editing, i used to be a part of Mr. Scharer's DropKey Studio project and created the article after he won an Edison awards for the project. Scharer previously worked at NBCUniversal Media and Live Nation Entertainment and as a software engineer he designed the cost-tracking systems for the Space Shuttle at Rockwell International and for motion pictures at Paramount Pictures. I had disclosed the COI relation in the talk page already. I believe it's okay now. I contacted Mr. Sharer about the issue and he has provided an affadavit regarding the matter. I can't attach it here, so i have uploaded it here
https://www.sendspace.com/file/nzgrmf
I hope this solves the issue. Please undelete and restore the article to mainspace. I seek your assistance here.
43.245.122.242 (
talk) 21:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Block evasion? Yes, and I have filled the SPI. Regarding undisclosed paid editing,
your accounts were blocked for the same.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 03:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The page exists at
Draft:Rockwell Scharer, so it has not, strictly speaking, been deleted. I don't think this is the right venue to request a move back to mainspace. —C.Fred (
talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Orlando's Summer of Love – Endorse. Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources. Also, the editor who opened this deletion review is advised to write a bit more concisely and to avoid
WP:REFBOMBING. Writing a draft is still allowed.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 09:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted with reasoning that was evidently entirely meritless as shown in discussions and below.
Orlando, Florida's Summer of love was a notable cultural movement in Orlando that was similar to the
Second Summer of Love in the U.K. A one sentence stub was created.
A merge was proposed in which a legitimate concern was raised that the subject title was only used by one author. More relevant reliable sources for this era were added so notability could be determined and the stub was supported by 15 reliable sources with
long quotes within the citation rather than long
WP:QUOTEs within the text.
It was clear to me that using the topic title for this subject would require a new source or a different author so I did not strongly oppose the merge. Apparently, that discussion went "on too long without being resolved" so an
AfD nomination was opened.
The AfD discussion took place during the merge discussion.
The legitimate concern that was raised in the
Merge Discussion and the comments put forth there to support it were ignored
in the AfD discussion.
Illegitimate arguments and reasoning (ones that should be deemed meritless by
WP:AADD policy) were put forth at AfD to nominate and to delete the page per the outcome of the proposal.
I have asked the deleting administrator at AfD for assistance. However there has not been clarifying reply to date and I'm not sure whether the editor does not seem to havehas a willingness to further engage
as shown on his talk page.
I do not wish to
WP:REHASH here each previous policy-based argument made in those discussions--Unless it is required. I think we should all be competent enough to review the sources and policy-based discussion(s) points put forth already.
Extended rationale
The relevant policies raised in discussion include (but are not limited to):
The nominating editor, is relying almost entirely upon his great and unmatched wisdom.
This appears to be an attempt to turn the discussions into some type of content dispute or worse, disrupt it entirely (and this includes several actions that I may soon be required to bring to
WP:ANI--not here). In response to my challenging his interpretations of WP policy, he issued several warnings to me that have waded directly into actions that meet the criteria of
WP:DE,
WP:TE and
WP:TOOLMISUSE to defend the baseless nomination action. (since he edit-blocked me too)
This editor has repeatedly refused to answer the critical questions I have asked directly. Despite that bit of
WP:TE they have all but admitted that the concerns raised in Afd were all
WP:AADD, never even remotely policy-based, the apparently legitimate concern raised was just ignored, and the obvious and easy solution of presenting new evidence with an addition of a new source that uses the term thwarted.
I am not certain that new evidence is actually required here for the subject as the nominator dubiously states this was never his concern despite the opening a deletion nomination itself for an admittedly notable thing and the alleged 100% correctness of his refbomb argument. Obviously, this era in Orlando was notable as documented in various reliable non-local sources.
The nominator argues that despite his mentioning of the previous merge discussion no less that twice in his AfD nomination, he states that has no responsibility to acknowledge any of the concerns within it at all and even threatened me for asking about him it.
He also mentions the following policies
WP:REFBOMBWP:COPYVIO and
WP:TNT. However, in discussions with him and a review of WP policies, these do not seem to have merit either.
The last determination for Deletion Review is the question of whether an article about the notable Orlando era should be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported- now in four sources separated by 24 years.
The new 2011 and 2017 source:
Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017).
"Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved October 3, 2017. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011).
"I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. Retrieved 2019-10-16. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way."{{
cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (
help)
Reliable Sources used prior to deletion:
Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998).
"Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..."orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved November 30, 2015. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993).
"All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 16, 2016. [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.
"Aahz...An era of Electronic Music". Orlando.AllOut.com. Orlando.AllOut. January 24, 2015. Retrieved June 4, 2015. If you're from Hawaii "Ohana" means family, if you lived in Orlando in the 90′s "AAHZ" meant and still means family. AAHZ was a late night event that was held at The Beacham nightclub back in the late 80′s/early 90′s. It was so much more than just a night at a club though. It was more of a family reunion every time you walked through the doors. This was in the era where PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect) was still the main player at these sort of events. This was back in the day before distractions like cell phones and digital cameras were in everyone's hands and it was just you, the crowd, and the DJ. The time when music connected people in a way that very few will ever understand. People came from all over the state to attend the famed AAHZ events. This was a place where you could go and totally let loose without fear of judgment by others. People came to AAHZ for the music and the vibe. The way the DJ's were able to use their turntables to emotionally connect so many different people through their music could not be duplicated anywhere. They quite literally had the mood of the entire room in their hands behind the decks. People thrived off of this new underground culture that was being introduced to Orlando through these AAHZ events. AAHZ was in a league of its own in the Orlando club scene, hosting international talents like Sasha and John Digweed, but, little did anyone know what AAHZ would do for its resident DJ's Kimball Collins and Dave Cannalate. Both have become international superstars and a slew of other AAHZ regular customers like Andy Hughes and DJ Icey were not too far behind them. There is no doubt that AAHZ and its DJ's helped put Orlando on the map and in the forefront of the entire Electronic Dance Music movement across the United States. There really is no way to adequately convey the true meaning or raw emotion of what AAHZ was, or why so many people considered it to be "home." ... Unfortunately, AAHZ came to an end in 1992, and with that came the end of an era for the Orlando club scene and Orlando Electronic Dance Music as a whole. The days of AAHZ may never be able to be totally recreated as it once was, however, AAHZ holds their reunion in Downtown Orlando every year, where they make sure that old school vibe is still in full effect. People who were involved in it during its peak fly in from all around the country just to attend and reclaim their little piece of perfect that used to reside in the heart of Downtown Orlando.dead link
Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013).
"Dance dance revolution". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
New evidence exists. There are two sources
WP:SUSTAINED sources for that term.
There is 20+ years of local media coverage, an expansive L.A. Weekly source article and a multi-page Rolling Stone article on the subject in issue No. 0767.
Suggestions that that any of the fifteen (now sixteen) sources are not
reliable or are not
significant coverage to demonstrate
WP:N of this era is the criteria for
TE.
The two editors who endorsed deletion at AfD reasoned that the term
was something someone made up one day. Obviously, there was a reliable source (now, more than one) that used term so this line of reasoning was absurd from the start and the just made it up assertions untrue. The alleged support for this reasoning was that, after a thorough search for other sources was unsuccessful, they determined that there were none and would never be any. I found the new source with a simple Google search so it's apparent that statements about the thoroughness of the search "conducted umpteen different ways" are very highly dubious because the new source with that term was published prior to that editors alleged search. The unsuccessful search was literally the only support for this concern. There was never any legitimate concern of whether this subject would even remotely fail the
significant coverage test of
WP:GNG.
Any endorsement that finds that
this subject was just made up was a ever a legitimate concern or that the
WP:MADEUP reasoning was a correct assessment would preclude starting a new article with this title or about that subject era.
Any new or improved article will have to include restatement and WP:CITETRIM of the exact same deleted, but highly reputable, reliable and verifiable information on the subject and will cite the exact same sources
Claims that "there is no way to notability-test" are in direct contradiction with
WP:N,
WP:NRV, and
WP:GNG.
Assertions that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates
WP:AADD#Article size and
WP:STUB among others.
Assertions of great and unmatched wisdom or 100% correctnesscarry no weight.
WP:LONGQUOTE and
WP:PLRT is not a
WP:COPYVIO. Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a
WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.
WP:TNT applies to "a page that is hopelessly irreparable." It would never apply to a one-sentence stub or notable subject that should remain after a
WP:FAILN test.
WP:TNT is the easiest concern to overturn at DRV.
WP:REFBOMB only applies to a deceptively "loading up of an article with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It's has a different purpose from a
WP:CITEKILL which is not to deceive.
Citation overkill is not going to impact the readability of a one-sentence article. "but it can call the notability of the subject into question...experienced editors need to scrutinize the article and each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article." Regarding "I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them...I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best." from the
WP:THREE essay (or
WP:TLDR) is not logical reasoning given that one purpose for a
WP:LONGQUOTES for a citation is "in order to facilitate verification by other editors". If somebody agrees to look at three, and you give them more than three, they're likely not to look at any of them and it automatically fails
WP:N. Given the
WP:LONGQUOTEs, this article only fails
WP:N out of laziness. That is this part of the
WP:THREE essay's reasoning as applied to this particular deleted page is just silly. However for the number of appropriate sources, there is similar guidance from
WP:CITEKILL which states two or three sources may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.
WP:CITEMERGE and
WP:CITETRIM is required and/or an expansion greater than one sentence per citation. Deletion is not the solution for the problem described by
WP:THREE.
Any AfD discussion that "was conducted on the grounds that as written, the article was a piece of junk..." or "the problem was that the article, as written, was a worthless piece of garbage..." is illegitimate (again
WP:AADD). These are the the motivations opening the AfD in the nominating editor's own words. The motivation for AfD was not
WP:N. AADD arguments are not a legitimate reason to nominate an article for deletion.
I've added a new quote from one of the previously used citations above: [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.Johnvr4 (
talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I've added yet another new source above: "It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.”
For those that are actually counting, that is now four sources over 24 year that have made the
Summer of Love comparison. There is not a
snowballs chance this topic would ever legitimately fail
WP:GNG. No amount of votes endorsing the AfD can overcome that fact.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse- the AfD clearly reached consensus to delete. There was no mistake made in the close. I'd even be tempted to salt, because we absolutely cannot have a repeat of
this.
ReykYO! 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse, but allow draft. The AfD was clear, so endorse that for sure. But, that was a year and a half ago, and apparently there's at least one new source, so there should be no objection to somebody trying to write a new article on the topic. One of the major objections at the AfD was the absurdity of the referencing, and as noted by Reyk, we can't do that again. So, I'm fine with keeping the deleted version deleted and allowing somebody to try again from scratch in draft space. And, yeah, the nomination is rather over-the-top. Let's hope that's not a harbinger of what a new draft might look like. --
RoySmith(talk) 21:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Properly deleted. To contest, see
WP:THREE. 3, not more than 3. See also
WP:TL;DR. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse firstly the OP needs to learn to write more concisely. I haven't read the entire
WP:WALLOFTEXT above and I don't think anybody else will either. We're especially not interested in your dispute with another editor over this. DRV isn't a dispute resolution forum. The term is clearly used in sources, but that isn't enough for an article. For that we need substential coverage, enough that we can write at least a few paragraphs about the subject without violating normal standards. It's fine if an article is shorter than this but there needs to be at least the potential for expansion. It doesn't help that a lot of these sources do not talk about a "Summer of Love" at all, but instead use other names for it. That means we run into issues with
WP:OR if we try to stick all these sources under the label. I would suggest that the OP either contribute to
Orlando, Florida#Culture (which already has the one sentence of prose in the deleted version), start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida (which would likely be an encyclopedic topic) or at least write a substantial draft about the subject matter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse I see nothing wrong with the AfD discussion, nor do I see any new reasons to recreate the article. As per RoySmith and Reyk, having seen the old version of the article, and having picked through this AfD nomination, I'm very concerned about allowing a new draft of the topic, not because I want to discourage the author but because there's a very good chance it will be a waste of everyone's time.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The inclusion of the image of the subject page in the AFD was helpful, because this DRV is resembling the original article as nothing but a
reference bomb. The AFD shows that the closer was reasonable, and the stub with a dump of citations further proves the point, and the appellant is further making the case against themselves here. I would have !voted Delete if I had taken part, and I will still !vote Delete if it is relisted (but I have confidence that it won't be relisted). If the appellant provides yet another
reference bomb, I suggest a
snow close out of mercy.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would urge the nominator to very considerably condense their argument and references in order to aid readability. More is not always better.
Stifle (
talk) 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
This filibuster is not going to help you accomplish your goal. —
Cryptic 16:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
(Condensed DRV statement per request)...
Overturn the original decision and Restore for expansion, improvement, and
WP:CITETRIM. WP Policies already have consensus. No amount of
voting at DRV will overturn a WP policy per
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
WP:AADDis an
essay however,
WP:DPis a policy that requires valid policy-based argument in discussion and incorporates
WP:ATD policy. To start,
WP:DP states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." None of the above votes put forth at DRV are policy-based arguments. Literally not one. The reasoning that notability fails GNG as put forth at AfD was not valid per policy despite the endorsers here. Regarding the size of the stub to sources ratio and
WP:LONGQUOTES, the state of the citations does not determine notability per
WP:NEXIST.
The subject of the entry is the early 1990s scene in Orlando and every single one of the previously used sources covers that topic-- which is criteria of a Citation bomb--"overkill with legitimate source. Based solely on
I know it when I see it arguments which assert that these sources were a Notability bomb and never checking them out for WP:N violates
WP:NEXIST. Disputing an apparently
WP:RS is the criteria for
WP:TE
The alleged
WP:DEL-REASON given at AfD has been thoroughly disproved. Given the sources (both old and new), none of the arguments put forth at AfD regarding the title of the entry had merit. I've asked involved editors ad nauseam to clarify the exact specific policy reasoning for the Afd and deletion so I can address concerns in something new or here. Not one, could provide a simple answer-- without offing reasoning that suggests that a topic must show proof in content to reach the WP notability threshold. They can't do it simply because notability comes from available sources per
WP:CONTN which no editor seems to get. Regardless, any possible WP:DEL-REASON is covered by
WP:ATD. Again, we are referring to policy here-- not content. Re: "'no meaningful content'" assertions. "No Meaningful content" is AADD and Per
WP:ATD-M "Too Small" complaints support Merge arguments-- not deletion arguments. All of this effort is the result of being forced to try to fix a content dispute at DRV. A policy concern was disguised as a content issue by AfD nom. DP, AfD, RdU, DRV forums are only for apparent policy and process errors and concerns--not for poorly disguised content disputes.
When it is poorly enforced, a mistaken policy assertion (see CONTN) that this entry must prove the notability of the subject in its text as the AfD nom admitted is in fact a content dispute. From
WP:DEL-CONTENT, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases ... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor..." Per
WP:ATD-E, Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. "Per
WP:DPAFDThese processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution. If there is no policy basis in a deletion argument, then it carries no weight here.
The (New and old) Evidence is to support use of the term is: The new 2011 and 2017 sources:
Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011).
"I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like
Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as "all night raves." ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as "infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way."{{
cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (
help)
Reliable Sources from 1993 and 1998 that were cited prior to deletion:
Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998).
"Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..."orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "
summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993).
"All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. A re-invented
Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.
Regarding the essay on a snowballs chances, please consider the
WP:SNOWFLAKE.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Note the above was posted by the OP,
User:Johnvr4, and isn't another person supporting overturning the result. Since the OP is assumed to be supporting overturning the result they aren't supposed to post "overturn" comments because that looks like a comment from someone else. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I have unbolded the !vote and noted that it's the OP in a {{
Hover title}}.-C.Fred (
talk) 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
My policy based arguments were never a vote. On the other hand, endorsements without policy guidance are votes. Votes carry no weight in these discussions!
Johnvr4 (
talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
And what I'm making clear is that it's one person with two recommendations (not-a-vote or !vote), not two !votes. In AfD discussions, the normal practice is to strike the duplicate recommendation. Rather than strike your second one, I hover texted it. —C.Fred (
talk) 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I had moved my recommendation so it would not be counted twice. The long DRV reason still applies--its just the long version. I'm sorry if I mangled it and that I forgot to sign my abbreviated reasoning. Thank you (both) for the fixes.
Johnvr4 (
talk) 12:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Johnvr4 is appealing the original AfD. I see no problems with the close of that AfD, and I find that the arguments presented there are appropriate to the article as it existed at the time of the AfD.That being said, there is nothing in the AfD that prohibits creation of a new draft on the subject if the situation changes. To that end, Johnvr4 is welcome to develop a fully fleshed-out draft that gives a good demonstration—through prose about the subject, not a bombardment of sources—of how the subject is notable. The prior article may be a starting point on that path, but it is not an end point. I have no objections to the revisions being restored to Draft: space, but the deleted article should certainly not be put back into main space.—C.Fred(
talk) 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
