Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July

Gang Stalking (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'd like to redirect Gang Stalking to Cause stalking, which was just created. One of the sources for the article mentions that Cause Stalking is sometimes called Gang Stalking.

Note that two previous deletions are from editors who are now gone, Tom harrison (left in a huff) and Altenmann (banned). Jeremystalked _{T C} 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is difficult to find any WP:RS to back up the assertions that this is an objective phenomenon, rather than a belief system. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking, for verifiability problems relating to this article, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause stalking for past history. If the author wishes to create an article about people's belief that they are being stalked by shadowy conspiracies, it should be created at gang stalking: see the discussion at Talk:gang stalking for suitable verifiable mainstream references to the existence of belief in this phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:Gang stalking no longer visible but in principle I support keeping "gang stalking" as a belief system.--Penbat (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support creation of protected redirects of Gang stalking/Gang Stalking to Cause stalking per reasonable nom and assuming the accuracy of the first sentence of Cause stalking, that the terms are recorded as being used synonymously. Protected redirects are less of a problem than salted pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI that part of the first sentence was referenced to a single source which has been removed due to the source not being reliable, so asssumign the accuracy maybe a stretch --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it peculiar that the Anome uses the term phenomenon, modern usage defined as an extraordinary occurance, when in the real cases where it does happen this is simply no different from Scapegoating a well known societal practice since biblical times. Neither do sociologists dispute the problem of Workplace bullying or mobbing and it is disingenuous to assume something well known to occur in the social setting of the workplace would also not be likely to be happening in the social setting of the neighborhood or community. When the whistle blows and people punch the clock, the propensity for ugliness in humanity does not shut down.

  If any controversy should exist it may be for several reasons, one of which is the use of new terminology to describe what the wiki articles above confirm has been around for many years. Secondly, and this addresses his comments about it being a belief, not real, the internet has made it possible for those with genuine mental issues to network. Many with persecutory delusional syndrome lead normal lives yet cannot get validation of their beliefs through family and friends but see the accounts of these cases online, adopt them as their own and even create a culture of codependence on others on the internet.

  However this is a separate issue and should not diminish the existence of what appears to be a societal issue of a cyclical nature inherent to many societies in history.

  I tend to be rather long winded in my comments, I apologize for that, and will summarize the point that several wiki pages exist with a near identical "phenomenon" that aren't seeing doubt injected, if the concern is that it's a mental illness perhaps individuals who believe a well known real problem is solely a delusion should focus their editing attention toward the appropriate pages of the mental illness catagories. Batvette (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear, perhaps I should have said "alleged phenomenon" -- I hope it's clear that I do not believe there is any evidence that meets WP:RS/WP:V that this alleged phenomenon actually exists in the real world. -- The Anome (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Start over From the AfD discussion, there seemed to be no agreement on the scope of the article; whether it should be about real cases, or fringe. As I see it, they;re both valid subjects. If anyone does a decent article, then we can put one into mainspace. Considering some of the discussion, I think they ought to show it here first; it will decrease subsequent difficulties. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-DEAS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD raised by a single-purpose account. I addressed the issues raised in the AfD, but there were no additional comments for three days. Spartaz (who is on holiday) closed this as delete. I contacted him to let him know I had tried to address the concerns in the article. He archived my comment noting that I had added multiple references and that there were more books that could be added without responding to it. Additional comments have since been added to his talk page at: User_talk:Spartaz#Deletion_of_NX_Ideas_article.

• Relist at AFD. I'll assume good faith on the part of the single-purpose account & there were additional calls for deletion. However, there was no discussion after my cleanup, so there is no consensus that the cleaned-up article should have been deleted. Karnesky (talk)
• Relist at AFD. The nom user:Tootitnbootit appeared from nowhere, listed a dozen or so very closely related articles for afd and then disappeared completely 2 days later. This was obviously not a new user so one wonders who it was. There nearly 500 hits on google books for I-deas; difficult to believe that none of these can be valid sources. I would be inclined to relist all Tootitnbootit's afds which resulted in delete (eg NX Nastran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluent, Inc. where the 2 editors requesting deletion have under 100 edits between them). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but relist at AfD The closing admin correctly evaluated the consensus at the AfD; however, the AfD discussion was a defective debate because the revisions to the article made by Karnesky were not evaluated. As such, I recommend a relist to evaluate whether or not those changes establish notability. I'm inclined to believe that I-DEAS is notable per this Google Books search which includes sources such as this, this, and this. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The early delete !votes are weakened due to them preceding Karnesky's edits, and as no one seems to have considered these edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close and relist Deleting admin just passing through with apologies for not responding to the talkpage comment. I meant to research the proffered sources and it dropped through the cracks. I agree that further discussion is merited and would be grateful if the next passing admin could close this and relist. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Baar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

RELIABLE SOURCES for consideration:

Providence Journal [1]. Certainly someone reliably characterized as a "Golden-age power player" deserves inclusion.

NASA: See the notes under "Stages to Saturn" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/sp4206.htm [2]. NASA references his book "Polaris" variously. See notes Chapter 1 #s 11, 13 and Chapter 9 #52.

• I've read the inclusion critera WP:N etc. and can't find any mention of being called a "Golden-age power player" in the heading of an article you are joint author of as being one of the inclusion criteria, perhaps you can point it out to me? What I can find is reference to non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. References to his book clearly are about him, so there may be an argument (assuming the references are non-trivial and there are other sources) that the book is notable, but it doesn't help with him. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me try to understand and rectify.

- The book review in the Providence Journal (certainly a reliable source) calls him a "Golden-age power player." As to notability, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." The very nature of the Providence Journal article is that Mr. Baar is notable and that his commentary about the Golden Age of Advertising important.

- Respectfully, I'm not following how someone could create an important work referenced variously in NASA's own autobiographical history, and the author then not considered credible or important.

- Note: In the deleted biography, there was also reference to a "Memo from the Publisher: James Baar, our editor of military affairs...", Missiles and Rockets Magazine, Washinton, DC, August 1961.

Bdconnolly (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG is that the person has recevieve non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. That isn't met by this. Regarding "I'm not following... then not considered credible or important.", well the point of the guides is that we don't decide that, the world at large does, if the world at large is interested, has taken note, then they will surely write about them? So asking me how the person so referenced hasn't been taken note of by the rest of the world such that they'd write about them is not a question for me to answer, perhaps the rest of the world don't consider that to be as important and signficant as you do? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF NOTABILITY

- In 1980 his book "The Great Free Enterprise Gambit" was reviewed by The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, UPI, Forbes, Seattle Times Magazine, and Kirkus Reviews. (Specific dates and page references are not readily available but can be gotten via the library is that would help.)

- Baar is featured in Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Who's Who in the East, AND Who's Who in Public Relations.

- Contrary to an earlier debate re: O'Dwyer's Directories, these lists are vetted by O'Dwyer news staffers. Baar is referenced variously among the top PR agency executives there.

- Baar's professional memberships have required specific professional qualifications. His memberships have included the White House Correspondents Association, National Press Club (Washington), Association of US Aerospace Industry Representatives-Europe (Paris), Overseas Press Club, National Investor Relations Institute (president, Philadelphia Chapter).

- Note: Reader's Digest. 40th anniversary issue, Feb. 1962, "Big Search for a Defense against Missiles" by James Baar and William E. Howard, p. 127

- Note: New York Herald Tribune, April 18, 1965, p. 23, reports that a copy of "Polaris!" was sent to President Johnson by the head of US Civil Service as part of the recommendation to appoint Vice Adm William F. Raborn, former head of the Polaris development program, Director of the CIA.

207.181.208.142 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist this did not get adequate discussion; If AfDs do not get adequate attention, the process is broken. I note that while some of his books are self-published, some of them are by very respectable publishers. I'm not quite sure what I will say at the AfD. I need to find and read the book reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per DGG and as the original nom. Most of the references mentioned above were unavailable at the time the article was listed, and I'm not sure the creator was aware of where to find the discussion when it was open (or that such a discussion even existed, for that matter). I got contacted about this only after the discussion was closed as delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• More likely he was offline during the time the AFD was open. Otherwise he would have noticed the BIG HONKING BOX on the article with a pointer to the discussion.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as correct, but now relist to consider the additional sources previously unavailable. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Brandon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing but I'm an indie actor/musician in NYC and my page was deleted. I would love to get it back up and running. I was going to add to my page that I am now a working actor as well as musician, and I think between the two I should be considered legitimate to have my page undeleted (currently, i am the voice of 3 nationally running commercials: amex, honey nut cheerios). Please advise! It's been a slow year musically, but I have some major updates to my page if you allow it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbrandon (talk • contribs)

• Endorse The deletion debate was only a couple weeks ago and there's nothing here that would overturn it. You should probably also take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD could have been closed no other way, consensus was clearly to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing is presented here (eg new sources) that changes the very clear consensus to delete at the recent AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media panic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deabte was closed as no consensus. It still could have been relisted on more time to try and it more consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Close was easily within admin discretion. And if you're that keen that it should be deleted, renomination in a month or so is certainly an option. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'd push for merge on the talk page though. The AfD seemed to indicate real support for that option. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed as delete and relisting is no substitute for "no consensus". I agree with Hobit that this article should be discussed in the context of merging rather than deletion so opening a merge discussion would be a good idea.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure; WP:RELIST explicitly precludes relisting where more than one or two people have contributed to the discussion, as well as strongly discouraging more than one relisting. We owe our articles on AFD a speedy trial; continuous relisting until one side is "ahead" in the debate renders AFD equal to a lottery where the winner is whichever side posts the most comments in a particular week. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:RELIST. 2 weeks is long enough for most AFDs. A second relist should only be done if there is a good reason and I don't see one here. Also agree with Stifle about WP:KEEPRELISTINGTILITGETSDELETED (or KEPT). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse pretty unlikely that relisting this would have changed the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Five !votes on an AfD is not an abnormally small number and given that it had already been relisted once another relist seems inappropriate. Additionally it would seem that the emerging consensus was for the article to be merged, and as deleting the article was the one closure I don't think could have been made, there was little to be gained by keeping the AfD open as a merge discussion should be on the article's talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Dpmuk. —mono 05:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenwood Systems LLC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would like to request a temporary review of the Glenwood Systems LLC article (it was retitled to Glenwood Systems by another user before it was speedily deleted by an admin). I ask that the article be restored to my userspace so that I may access the text. Thank you.orangemike (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 and orangemike (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbattick (talk • contribs) [reply]

• NOTE The actual nom is Kbattick, I'm guessing he's having problems with signatures. Orangemike is the deleting admin. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of occupations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator said nothing more than "The result was delete." Not only did he not explain the reason, but he did not take into account that not only were there several keeps, but some people, including myself, had other alternative ideas for this article. These included splitting it into separate lists on occupations within a particular category, or merging some occupations from this list into other articles.

What should be done is as follows: The page should be restored for now, with the result being changed to merge or split, thereby making its information accessible to everyone. The template {{Afd-merge to}} or something similar should be placed on top. From there, individuals can work on moving the information to other pages or splitting into other more discriminate lists where appropriate. Hellno2 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD wasn't especially close or contentious, so the closing statement seems to have been appropriate--there's no requirement for an AFD closer to write a paragraph of explanation for a straightforward close such as this. If you want the closer to explain their rationale to you, the best thing to do would be to simply ask them, but again I'm not seeing any ambiguity in the debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- as Andrew Lenahan says, this was a case of clear consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have happily added some rationale if I had been asked, but this one felt pretty cut and dry, so I didn't feel the need to give an explanation when closing it. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator abandoning his appeal by failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle, this is not a policy-based reason. We're judging the AfD and the article, not the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hellno2 has asked us to review the discussion, so it is reasonable to expect him to cooperate and pursue his nomination if he wishes us to consider his request. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an adversary proceeding or a dispute between individuals--it's an attempt to find the correct solution for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper close. As above, if you want reasoning for the close, just ask the closing admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The policy-based arguments were debated at length but without agreement. There was therefore no consensus. The closer seems to have treated the matter as a vote. Note that this deletion was such a travesty that I expect to be restarting something similar using public domain sources such as this. The main effect of deletion in such cases of great notability is to denigrate and deny the contributions of the project's early editors. This list was, iirc, sponsored by Wikipedia:WikiProject Index. It seems remarkable that this project did not seem to comment in the discussion, giving their views on how we should index our numerous articles about occupations. The voting was therefore dominated by knee-jerk editors like SnottyWong, Reyk and ThemFromSpace, who regularly vote to delete anything and everything. It seems a good example of how AFD has become quite broken because editors with a particular interest in the topic are noticeably absent. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful, Colonel. If you start with the ad hominem attacks, you invite comments about editors who exclusively vote to keep anything and everything. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everyone here is familiar with the inclusionist/deletionist paradigm so it hardly needs explanation. Do we not agree that AFD deserves better than block-voting of this sort? Myself, I usually try to make some effort to engage with the topic, citing policy and sources as seems appropriate. I usually do this in order to save some worthy topic, as in this case, because less worthy topics don't warrant such effort. But I am not shy about deleting articles when it seems appropriate as in this recent case. I don't have the impression that you ever work the other side of the street at AFD but please feel free to correct me. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you were to create a list based on the United States Bureau Of Labor Statistics, that would not be the list that was deleted. It would incorporate by reference the standards set forth by the U.S. agency, and I would be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) if that source contains entries such as party leader and Queen mother, as the standardless deleted list did. Also, regarding your observation that it was "remarkable" that Wikipedia:WikiProject Index "did not seem to comment in the discussion", I would take their silence as consent to the proposed deletion; what prevented you from alerting the project members to the discussion underway? bd2412 T 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was going to suggest that somewhere in the 2,431 revisions of the article there's bound to be one that doesn't include those two, that could simply be reverted to; based upon the hypothesis that the article organically grew from nothing, as articles do, and simply gained some daft additions along the way. Then I looked at the early revisions of the article and the 2001 edit that introduced all this to Wikipedia in the first place, to see whether it was a safe bet, and found that there wasn't such a revision. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only vote to delete pages that don't belong on here. One of my main focuses is trimming indiscriminate lists, so you will see me at debates such as this pretty often. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, well within admin discretion. Consensus does not require unanimity. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure was backed up by both policy and consensus. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was rather clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or recreate A truly unaccountable deletion. As far as I can tell, it was deleted contrary to policy on the basis that a small percentage of the entries were unjustifiable. The topic is notable, sources are available--they were listed in general and they can be added to each entry though it would take some work. Given the available sources, the list would not then be indiscriminate. The simplest thing to do might be to userify and improve and restore; a list without the spurious entries would not be subject to G4, as it would meet the AfD objections. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, DRV is not AfD round 2. We are not here to discuss whether or not you think people should have voted delete, but (given that they mostly did) whether the closing admin correctly gauged the consensus of the discussion- which he clearly did. Secondly, you have badly misread the discussion. The silliness of a few of the individual entries was just one of many different objections to this article, including that it's too broad and unmaintainable to be useful, that it's an indiscriminate collection of information and that it's poorly defined. Reyk _YO! 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree about that this is a notable topic that should somehow be improved. Even though the majority here say "endorse," just like AFD is not a majority vote, DRV is not either. We should start over from somewhere. And we should all have access to the final version of this page prior to its deletion.

  I am not interested in working on the recreation myself. The only way I knew about this AFD is that I added one occupation to the page one time. Therefore, I would not like to have it in my userspace, as I would probably do no further work on it. But I do support something like this being around. Perhaps there is a place it can be where everyone can have access to it equally and readily, whether that by mainspace or somewhere else.

  The closer here should not just make a straight close as "endorse" and that be final just because so many people said endorse. We should find some middle ground. That's what should have been done with the AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'd prefer this exist but discussion was in favor of deletion and I found the keep arguments only slightly stronger at best. NC might have been reasonable, but delete is certainly a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

New sources have came up in Talk:GNAA, which may (finally) be within the threshold for inclusion under the general notability guideline. This should at least be given a new look considering the length of time since the afd was closed. riffic (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion given the history of this article, which is currently indefinitely protected from re-creation, let's see an impeccably-well-sourced userspace draft first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if an admin is willing to userfy, I could add these new sources to the last revision. riffic (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted back in 2006, and the issues with the article weren't anything that could be fixed by slapping an extra couple of sources at the bottom--if anything, our standards of notability and verifiability have tightened considerably since 2006, and you face a very uphill battle in trying to prove that this comes anywhere close to our guidelines for organisations now. If you must try, you'd be far better off starting fresh (and rememberng to attribute every single statement in the new article to a reliable source) than to dust off a 5-year-old reject, add a couple things, and call it a day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to at least see the deleted version so I can have something to work with; do you have comments regarding the sources presented? riffic (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay nvm I just found it on web.archive.org, and agree that it is wholly unusable in its last edited form. Watch this space, I'll work on a (very lightweight) draft soon. riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the sources presented? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on talk:GNAA riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first appears to be a passing mention. I can't see the second one, but based on the number of pages I'd say it's reasonable to assume it's another passing mention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state specifically which sources you are referring to? riffic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were added by an IP today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see a userspace draft. I think the first source is more than "in passing", but not significant coverage. If you have 3-4 sources like that and 1 really good one I'd say WP:N would likely be met. But given the history and topic a userspace draft is certainly needed. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd politely request this review stay open until a draft can be started and looked over in good faith. As well, please state the specific sources you are referring to, thanks. riffic (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A first attempt at compiling a draft is here, and to anyone who claims the sources used are only passing mentions or not significant coverage, let me remind you "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Good job trying to attribute everything, but this pretty much underscores why they don't pass out organisation guidelines: they haven't really done anything. Let's look at what the article actually says: (1) They're named after a movie (2) they posted an offensively-named article on Wikipedia and (3,4) two relatively unknown people may or may not be members. That didn't cut it in 2006 and it certainly doesn't now. There's next to nothing known about them because there's really nothing to know, as they haven't done anything in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per Starblind's excellent summary. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Because the AfD for GNAA is protected, would an admin add the following to the AfD page:

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2006 November 28}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 6}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 18}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2010 July 27}}</noinclude> Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough, done, and thanks for making it so easy on me. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just need one pair of noinclude's instead of 4, you know...:) T. Canens (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deleted darn good try, but I don't think this meets WP:N. Is there someplace it could be added? Is there a list of well-known trolls or something? Goatsex? Hobit (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: doesn't meet N yet, but is on its way to being, I think. What would clinch notability is if we could verify that the iPad leaker did it because he was a GNAA member (i.e., for the lulz). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page should have been deleted, however it is not deleted, plz check. maxval (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page was deleted by AFD (in 2007) but it was later recreated (in 2009). Recreating a page that is substantially identical to a page that was deleted by AFD leaves the new page liable for speedy deletion (G4). But we would need an administrator (who can see the deleted page) to confirm whether the current page is substantially the same as the deleted page. If it isn't substantially the same - and this is probably the safest course anyway given that the AfD was about 3 years ago - you can always request deletion again at WP:AFD.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not substantially the same so is not subject to redeletion. This request is also misplaced; DRV is for appeals against deletion or deletion discussions, not requests to delete an article. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Jennings controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not dispute the original close decisinon, but "significant new information has come to light since [the] deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article."

In February, Inside Edition aired a follow-up to their first segment, which had brought the Jennings case to national attention in the first place. Of course, Inside Edition is still just tabloid TV. But it does underline the fact that this was not a "flash-in-the-pan."

In April, PBS Frontline aired Vaccine War, a documentary about anti-vaccination controversies. The Jennings viral video was discussed for about two minutes therein; Paul Offit is interviewed, describing the significant impact of the original viral YouTube clips on the young people he works to educate. The narration remarks, "this clip of Redskins cheerleader Desiree Jennings went viral ... her story has been viewed and shared almost 2½ million times." The clip is then contextualized in a broader discussion of the impact of new media on the spread of conspiracy theories and popular myths. (Here is the segment on Youtube; the relevant portion is from about 0:58 to 3:10.) Note that PBS Frontline isn't just another TV show; individual episodes of TV shows are typically not reviewed in multiple national newspapers.

On Friday, 20/20 aired a segment about the controversy. One of the main objections to the original article was that the story broke on Inside Edition, a skeezy tabloid TV show. Frankly, I don't see 20/20 as any better, but WP:EVENT#Depth_of_coverage would suggest that it is. (60 Minutes and CNN Presents are given as examples of desirable sources of in-depth coverage, and 20/20 is clearly in the same class.)

I contend that taken together, this subsequent media coverage invalidates the WP:EVENT arguments which were crucial to the deletion. Going down the line, Desiree Jennings controversy now satisfies all of the criteria listed -- WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:EVENT#Depth of coverage, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE.

Perhaps the other rationales given in the delete discussion are still valid. If so, I suggest the article be relisted to find out how things now stand. Frankly, I think these rationales were never valid or coherent to begin with, and relied on unambiguously false claims such as "this article is sourced mostly to blogs" and the argumentative tactic of simply throwing WP:POLICY shortcuts out without explaining their relevance. If it were up to me, I would simply undelete. 76.66.98.247 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (This is User:EvanHarper but my login info is stuck on a broken PC just now.)[reply]

• Note that there is a version in userspace: User:Fxmastermind/jennings. I wonder whether a very brief account of this case might fit within Vaccine controversy or some other article? Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no new information, just additional publicity. The current userspace article is almost useless. Drastic overweight in general; more specifically, use of unacceptable sources for a BLP, excessively long quotation from a single POV fringe source; judgmental characterization of sources; tabloid-style rather than encyclopedic writing. I would strongly support a brief article on this, but only if an acceptable article were written. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What DGG said. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems to have ongoing coverage. Never heard of the distinction between information and publicity, but I don't think it's codified in our rules. It will attract another AfD if it's remade, so make it good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The information vs. publicity is better expressed as reliably sourced vs. blog/YouTube sourced. Since deletion, there is some new information (e.g. new footage), but the story is mostly unchanged. The 20/20 piece makes the controversy notable, even if it is mostly a rehash; the controversy wasn't notable until the mainstream media noted it as a controversy. There is sufficient reliable secondary material to rewrite the article properly.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment If this is returned, isnt it BP1E and in need of a different name? Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore I don't see a reason to disallow its recreation given that it wouldn't be speedable anyways as adding those is a serious shot at improving BLP1E issues (ongoing coverage etc.) Hobit (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted for now until a usable version is written that deals with the controversy, not the exceedingly trivial notability of the person--unfortunately, I cannot think of a more appropriate title. It would be possible meanwhile for a paragraph in the vaccine controversies article, as Fences and Windows suggested. If it is restored or rewritten, the first step will be to delete the text of the interview; a link is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of HeartMath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the subject matter is notable. I edited out all advertising-sounding, self-promotional language. Would like to know what needs to be done to improve article Dcsm23 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the link from the heading - users draft is as User:Dcsm23 --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted The objection at the AfD was not "promotional" but rather "Consensus is that the sources provided are tangential. ". This remains the case. The details were discussed at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse own deletion any AFD where DGG asserts deletion is going to have had very careful evaluation of the sources and there was a clear consensus that the sources proffered with tangential - which means it doesn't pass our inclusion criteria - which require detailed and specific independent sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been able to convince my friend Spartaz that I as likely to be wrong when I argue for deleting an article as when I argue for keeping one DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way that these 4 references:

• www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-03-07-stress-test_x.htm
• www.pbs.org/bodyandsoul/203/heartmath.htm
• www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816624
• Beech, D., Childre, D., & Martin, H. (1999). The HeartMath Solution: The Institute of HeartMath's Revolutionary Program for Engaging the Power of the Heart's Intelligence. New York: HarperCollins. Pg. ix, 283.

Are tangential. Each treats in some detail on HeartMath. I disagree with the claim of tangentiality. I specifically found additional links that weren't tangential. These links were not included in the first two drafts, if you compare them. Dcsm23 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this is an "AFD, round 2" nomination if I've ever seen one. Please see the bolded text at the top of this very page that says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm willing to treat this as round two if it clearly looks like a wrong decision by either the community or the closer has been made in round one. But in this case I've re-examined the sources, and they do not support the article. True, emotional state affects physiology, just as physiological state affects emotions, and performance reflect both physical and emotional condition, but there is no real evidence this organization or its technique is considered to have any significance in dealing with any of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You've already had your !vote above. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  oops; my apologies DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Process Environment Block (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was proposed for deletion by User:Ironholds, who claimed it's about a Win32 data structure that is no more notable than any other Win32 data structure. I then deleted the article once the proposal for deletion period had expired. The author later contacted me to ask for it to be undeleted. I personally think User:Ironholds is right, that the data structure is hardly specially notable, but the author has a steadfast opinion that the data structure deserves its own article, so I am making a deletion review. My vote is weak keep deleted. JIP | Talk 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as a contested WP:PROD the default action should be to restore on request. If it didn't meet any speedy criteria and the PROD is contested (even retrospectively) the correct venue is AFD. I can sympathise that there are probably many such articles which don't and are unlikely to meet the required standard in which case individually determining that is probably not the way to go and nor is just ignoring our general process on a broad scale. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD Per 82, Prod requires undeletion and listing if challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undeleted and listed at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process Environment Block. JIP | Talk 10:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observium (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deleter failed to notice that the article wasn't a new article, but merely an existing article which had already been through the deletion/notability process which had been rename Adamathefrog (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn – Doesn't look like the article falls under WP:CSD#G11. –MuZemike 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per MuZemike, there's nothing particularly promotional about the version that was deleted. It could reasonably be taken to AfD on sourcing/notability grounds, but nothing in that article merited speedy G11. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was taken to AFD. You can see the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observer (Software). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, then it could reasonably be taken to AfD again, couldn't it? Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore deleter hadn't noticed that an AfD, under a different name, had kept this and so not eligible for speedy. Not an unreasonable error, but should be restored at this time. Hobit (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contacted the closing admin, which the nom seems to have neglected to do. Hobit (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) My bad, missed the notice he'd given. Hobit (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. In my opinion it's not spammy enough for G11. Also as it survived an AfD it probably wasn't a speedy candidate per WP:CSD - "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." I suspect the deleting admin may not have noticed that it has survived an AfD and they have not been active since they were informed it had so they may yet reverse their decision. Finally the deleting admin has stated on their talk page that "After two years you had still not managed to add any evidence of notability so it got deleted." Given that lack of notability is not a reason to speedy delete software (as it's excluded from A7) I find this statement odd and it gives the impression that this article was deleted for an invalid reason even if it isn't actually the case. Taken together it's best if this article is restored and taken to AfD if desired. Dpmuk (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he was aware and refused to restore it after Adamathefrog pointed it out to him (see deleting admin's talk page). I'm finding a number of G11 speedies by this admin that look questionable but I can't see the deleted articles to be certain. Hobit (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • RFA is thataway Hobit and its high time you got yourself some tools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The admin involved was made aware of a previous request for deletion due to notability and so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they didn't know it had previously survived an AfD. Speedy deleting an article that has previously been denied as a speedy is in a different league to deleting one that had survived an AfD, even if both are against guidelines. The admin had not been active since before the link to the AfD was posted until about midday today. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & list at AFD This was never a G11, COI isn't a speedy rationale but this hasbeen unsourced long enough that further discussion is necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Not exclusively promotional, if promotional at all. Strange call. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deleteion. Apologies, deletion was for lack of "credible assertion of importance" rather than evidence of notability. And after two years it still lacked that credible assertion. Where was I advised that the article had survived a previous AfD? If Adamathefrog had told me that I might have acted differently. Instead he chose to descend into personal abuse. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that same section on your talk page "Hi, The Observium article was not a new article, it was a move of the existing ObserverNMS article, which had existed since 2008 (and had been kept despite an early request to delete it do to its notability). Please undelete the article. I suggest that in future you check to make sure that "new" articles aren't merely moved articles and be less heavy handed in deletion." I agree his response to you was an attack, but he was also right. A)You should have checked the history and B) this had made it though AfD and so isn't eligible for speedy deletion. He didn't use standard Wikipedia jargon explaining the situation, but I think his point was clear enough. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that argument will be valid the day they start teaching the general populace Wikipedia administravia classes in school, until then, the vast majority of people probably will not understand jargon and procedures, though I expect that is a subject which is well understood. RHaworth seems to be quite rude to everyone from what I've seen, and that prompted the tone of my response to him.
      • Even if true, it turns out on Wikipedia (and usually in life) you are better off being polite in the face of rudeness. In fact I think you get bonus points in the great Wikipedia karma train for being polite in the face of unreasonable behavior. Stern can be okay, but rude almost never. :-)Hobit (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording you quote there seems like it's based on the A7 criteria but as I'm sure you're aware A7 only applies to articles on certain topics and software is not one of these topics. "Web content" is but I believe it's generally held that when a program is downloadable and runnable on a computer this is not web content but rather software and so ineligible for A7.
• Overturn Even if the requester hurt the deleters feelings it doesn't change the fact that this article is not eligible for speedy deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & list at AFD Based on what has come to light above about the previous status of the article, it isn't eligible for speedy G11, but it certainly warrants more discussion at AfD for non-notability. That much is obvious. Lahnfeear (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epic browser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin failed to recognize that the browser is notable as being the first web browser from India designed specifically for Indian taste. In addition, Epic did receive sufficient news coverage from reliable sources for its release...the can be found at: http://www.epicbrowser.com/media1.html Smallman12q (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reason you did not discuss the closure with NativeForeigner prior to filing this DRV? NW (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No...should I have?Smallman12q (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that list has actually expanded quite a lot from when I deleted it, 12 hours ago. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people don't notice they are supposed to contact the closing admin. They miss the box that starts with "If your request is completely non-controversial..." because that conditional doesn't apply to them they don't read further. I've changed some stuff to make it more clear. Probably should just move stuff instead... Hobit (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've further clarified the box and have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:DRV_contacting_closing_admin_first.Smallman12q (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I have been glad the closer actually paid attention in this discussion. I believe URL showing press mentions has been growing in response to this deletion by Wikipedia. Authors of the article were from that company using Wikipedia for promotion. This should stay deleted until someone without conflict of interest makes a fresh recreation without the deleted material. Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have look at the media URL from Epic and am not impressed that any of these sources are not just more download links and press release repeats. Miami33139 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all are Press releases and blogs, but the first two from the The Times of India and PCworld would appear to be RSes. Hobit (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn though the close wasn't unreasonable there are now two very good sources (first two in link provided above) and a number of poorer sources things might well be reliable. !vote in the discussion was clearly toward keep and now we meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt this article is notable in more than one way

• As the first web browser customised specifically for Indian users (features like Indan languages can be typed in any of the fields of a web page) and the media publicity achieved through which;
• It contains many hiped features, like incorporated anti-virus, and the debates related to them whether they are worth to use or not

there are reviews either promoting the browsers or pointing out faults. to get some information in NPOV, i (hopefully like many) searched Epic Browser in the wikipedia :( hari 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkrishnan (talk • contribs)

Four paragraphs in a localized edition of PC World, which are still just restatements of the talking points in the press release, do not mean the product would meet the notability guidelines. Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not against overturning it, to be honest, as the list of sources continues to grow. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the link is at Epic (web browser).Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• the press release seems to have been regurgitated in a number of reliable sources, but they all seem to be simply regurgitations of the press release at this time. Active Banana (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times of India and PCworld, two significant publications, took a press release and used it as part of an article. Both have by-lines of their own writers. Hardly a regurgitation and in any case, the point is that reliable sources covered the material themselves, which is the core of WP:N. If they based it mostly on a press release an interview, or anything else isn't overly relevant to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite relevant. If we allowed press releases to satisfy WP:N, we'd have a ton of pages on products that are totally non-notable, but which media outlets regurgitated because they get paid to. If ToI and PCWorld India write an independent review on the browser, rather than just "hey, it exists based on this press release," then it would satisfy WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, a cut-and-paste from a PR release would be useless. PCworld clearly used it and liked it (and said so) and is a real review. The Times of India is less clear. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Vohwinkel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was 4 to 2 to keep including the nominator. As the closer mentioned one of the keep !votes was very weak, two claimed that while there was only one independent RS that could be found the massive scope of his work makes him notable, and one claimed that sources likely exist (assumedly due to that massive scope). WP:N is a guideline. As we all know we often delete articles that meet WP:N because the discussion shows that the subject "just isn't notable". This one provides significant evidence (read the discussion) that he is notable. In addition there are plenty of RSes beyond the one solid RS, from which to write a quality article. They just aren't independent (such as his own bio) or in depth (such as the databases which list all of his works). In summary, we have one source for WP:N, plenty of material to write an article with, and a strong indication that the person has a body of work that is notable. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If, as the closer correctly states, the Delete arguments are "...all soundly grounded in policy and guideline" (and the Keep arguments are not), but the guy is actually famous, should the AfD have been closed as Delete? I wouldn't have done it, but he did, and that's within his discretion as a closer. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- if you take away the personal attacks, the mistaken assertion that AfD is a vote, and the forlorn hope that (despite all evidence to the contrary) there's sources out there somewhere, there's nothing left on the keep side. Correct close. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Reyk. Vague assertions that there are sources out there don't cut it. The burden of proof to verify and provide citations is on users seeking to include or retain material. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We often delete articles that do meet WP:N because the subject "hasn't done anything notable". WP:N is a guideline and that cuts both ways. Could you give an example of an article where WP:N isn't met but yet you would say it should be kept anyways? If not, are you claiming WP:N is a lower bound? I'm honestly trying to understand how someone with the credits this guy has (more than 300 major projects to his name) isn't worthy of inclusion if _anyone_ not meeting WP:N will ever be. As Alzarian16 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz indicated there are plenty (and I do mean lots) of RSes that briefly mention him (things like "art is great as you'd expect from Franz Vohwinkel"). Hobit (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I disagree with what you've said there, but my comment didn't mention sources... Alzarian16 (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opps. Fixed, thanks. 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, probably to no consensus, possibly to relisting. The closing rationale is good up to a point, but I have to disagree with its conclusions. One strongish keep, three weakish keeps and two fairly strong deletes doesn't seem to me like a consensus to delete. The AfD was relisted a week ago, and the only comment since then was a keep. If a delete close wasn't appropriate then, it's even less appropriate now. I'm all for administrative discretion but this one seems to take it a little too far. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per Alzarian16. Commercial artists are notable principally for creating notable work, and there seems little doubt that the subject's work has received significant reliable coverage, as was established in the AFD. I don't see an "I can't find sources" claim as a soundly grounded in policy !vote; when there are as many potentially usable sources as turn up i a basic Gsearch, [3] [4] [5] [6] examples, the advocates for deletion need to do something more than strongly state their position; they need to credibly explain their basis for holding that position. Saying "I can't find sources" isn't really much more strongly grounded in policy than "Look at all the Google hits I found" is. Also, the closer inappropriately characterized a comment on the nominator's pattern of nominations as "ad hominem," which it wasn't, and shouldn't have discounted it on that basis alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, DRV is not AfD Round 2. Secondly, it is wrong to say "I can't find sources" is ungrounded in policy because that is the very essence of our verifiability policy. Thirdly, the supposed sources you mention are mostly fansites: I was unconvinced of their reliability then the AfD was open and remain so now. Fourthly, on what grounds do you claim the "ad-hominem" vote should be counted? Reyk _YO! 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn relist+1 keep != delete. On a more detailed note, are the notability guidelines being applied appropriately to commercially successful artists? I strongly suspect not. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as "no consensus" at the very least. I know that my comment in the AFD wasn't a particularly strong one, but I did make it before Hobit found more sources. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Solid close, grounded in a very reasonable application of policy. Eusebeus (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, which was the consensus. The keeps arguments were that for this particular article, the sources were sufficient to meet the intent of the guideline. As guidelines are flexible, if the clear majority of the people present think that an exception should be made, it is made. The judgment about when to interpret a rule flexibly or even to use IAR is that of the community, not the admin. If the admin wanted to argue that the aticle did not reasonably meet the guideines, he should have contributed to the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per consensus at AfD. And, although this isn't AfD2, there's quite a bit about him in the German media.[7][An award http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://de.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Franz_Vohwinkel] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Just a little too far outside a reasonable reading of consensus, in my view. NW obviously didn't think there was consensus when he or she relisted on 1 July, and just one keep !vote later it was closed as delete. AfDs are allowed to set guidelines to one side, for good reason, when considering the inclusion of an article: Hobit certainly gave good reason, and DGG obviously concurred with it. I don't think these !votes ought to be lightly dismissed (unlike the other keep !votes). --Mkativerata (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus but permit relisting. Although I understand the closer's rationale, I cannot agree with it. I agree with them discounting the "ad hominem" !vote as no argument was given to support it given that the nominators actions do not seem disruptive. I also think it's reasonable to give less weight to "I am confident that more sources" as they don't actually list any examples and this isn't a topic where internet sources should be hard to come by (due to the age of the topic). However I think that both the other keep !votes were grounded in policy and guidelines, both WP:IAR and the message at the top of every guideline (which WP:N is), specifically "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", suggest there will be cases where strict application of guidelines does not make sense. We have to allow consensus to change and new consensus to develop and in the case of deletions the best place for this is often at AfDs - if a "common sense exception" is cropping up often enough then the guideline probably needs changing. One !keep vote clearly appealed to this sort of argument and although the other could have been clearer it's obvious to me that they were as well. With two !keep votes and two !delete votes both giving reasoned arguments I think this should have been closed as no consensus, or possibly re-listed. I know a second re-list is rare but I would like to see more discussion of the keep arguments presented here, given that they are arguing for an exception, so think this may have been one of those cases where it made sense to do so. With that in mind I would specifically allow a speedy relisting, with appropriate opening rationale, so this side of the argument could be discussed further. Dpmuk (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep as there was no consensus for deletion. Keep votes addressed the issue of notability and assert that it was met, and there appears to be no reason to disregard this consensus. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As Franz has illustrated at least three of my games, it would wrong for me to comment on the keep-or-don't merits of the article, or the close itself. But I think I can comment neutrally on the notability issue. In the game hobby, Franz has major notability. He is one of the most sought-after artists in the German-style board game industry, having illustrated over 300 board games, including Puerto Rico, The Settlers of Catan, and most of the other major games in the genre.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I have to agree with Alzarian16's analysis of the debate. The consensus, based on weighting the arguments presented in the AFD, was not "delete". I'd even go as far as to agree with DGG that it was keep, based on very good reasons presented at the AFD and here that Vohwinkel is probably notable enough to warrant an article here but I won't disagree with a overturn and relist close. It's quite clear from the discussion here that further discussion to decide this article's faith would be beneficial. Regards SoWhy 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Halevy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wikipedia is a communuity; with community standards. Browsing Wikipedia for bios will yield certain bios that have very little reference information, lack of any real reason for notability, and yet the articles remain. Jeff Halevy didn't fall into any of these criteria. In fact there were no issues other than frequent vandalism for quite some time. For one reason or another this entry, which I created, came under attack. The entry meets the WP:BIO guidelines 100% and further, it ABSOLUTELY FALLS WITHIN COMMUNITY STANDARDS. I don't understand why this entry was sent to AfD, especially when it had ample sources -- and no, Halevy is not a barely mentioned expert in them -- he is in fact either the key expert/focus (eg NASCAR and Self), the creator (Exercise for Men), the focal point (British Virgin Island News), etc -- just to name a few.

Why was this deleted by Courcelles? Chad hermanson (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The short answer to this question is because of this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and may I say I resent my time wasted on looking into this. First of all, The AfD discussion was turned into a complete shambles by a bunch of single-purpose new anons. Tip: if you want the Wikipedia community to view your appeal with respect, don't do that. Second of all, the guy is not notable, OK? It's an encyclopedia. We have articles about Einstein and Raphael. Sure we have less notable people than that, but there's a limit. Third of all (and what matters), the close was completely in process and correct. The Delete arguments were cogent, the Keep arguments were not. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was "cogent" about the delete arguments, which were limited to fails WP:BIO and lack of notability? And more specifically there were some very sound keep arguments, complete with refs - what exactly wasn't cogent about those? Chad hermanson (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's usual to give administrators enough time to reply to your request to reconsider before listing here.
  It is also usual to give little or no weight in AFDs to new or unregistered editors, as the AFD process solicits the opinion of the community rather than of groups of people who may have been canvassed for their opinions. The closing administrator has properly considered all these factors, so I endorse the decision. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at my contributions, I see I made zero edits between the post on my talk page and the filing of this DRV, a period of seven hours. I don't normally like to comment in DRV's over my decisions, but given the timeline, I will here. One, the request of this DRV is other stuff exists. Great argument for sending other articles to AFD, not a great argument for keeping this article. The single user that argued to keep the article besides SPA's and the article's creator even admitted the subject was "Borderline notable", which other users disagreed with, and showed that there is not the significant coverage required. All in all, since this has come here, I endorse my own close. Courcelles (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The policy-based argument was almost all on one side here. Correct close. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Celebrityworkout.com? Do I need to elbaorate? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OverturnCan someone state the exact policy in violation here and how the supporting refs (eg Self, Better, CBS News, etc) don't legitimize this entry? Please be specific, as I have read WP:BIO and terms for notability over and over and still don't understand why this entry was deleted. Chad hermanson (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck your bolded sentiment, as nominator your opinion is already noted, you don't show that more than once. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was as specific as could be in the AFD discussion. I told you that sources about the person were required, not sources that didn't provide a single biographical fact. I told you that if you didn't produce such sources, you wouldn't make a case for keeping the article. You continued to cite articles that contained zero information about the subject at hand, and that provided zero support for the content you were adding, and — Lo! — you failed to make a case for keeping the article. This really isn't hard to understand; and you cannot now claim that you weren't told what would happen and how to prevent it, because you were, quite clearly, several times over. (And that's not counting the fact that you've been pointed to the verifiability policy every single time that you've edited a page.) I even directly asked you to supply what was required. You totally ignored the request, and instead went off on a completely irrelevant tangent about gymnasia. You have no-one but yourself to blame, here. You had a lot more prodding in the right direction than most people get in AFD discussions, and you failed utterly to do what you were told you needed to do. You're not even doing it now. (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, Uncle G, so may I humbly ask what specifically you would like me to provide? I provided links to one of Halevy's international speaking appearances, a six-page spread in SELF dedicated to his work with one of his celebrity clients, a link to a nationally syndicated piece that aired on CBS, NBC and ABC regarding his NASCAR athelete trainig (Better), many other articles where he was quoted as the only expert, an article Halevy wrote himself (Exercise for Men, an international publication), his being featured on an expert panel for the New York Daily News, being nominated as one of 'America's Ultimate Experts' by Woman's World (highest readership amongst women), and other articles where he was either a contributing editor or the expert opinion of the piece. I'm not comparing Halevy to Einstein as falsely represented above, but he is certainly notable in his field - evidenced by his spokesperson gig for Energy Kitchen (backed by vitaminwater founder Mike Repole). Can you please help me rewrite the entry so it is acceptable by community standards? Thank you. Chad hermanson (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G's post which you response is for says "I told you that sources about the person were required", i.e. the person is the subject of the source. I'm not sure how that can be much clearer, what you go on to list here are a series of things which aren't "about the person" let alone meet the general notability guideline standards of independance etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, yeah, 82.7.40.7...that doesn't help at all considering that the NASCAR, Woman's World, Self, British Virgin Island News and Exercise for Men refs are about Halevy; same with this piece: http://www.vitaljuice.com/entry_detail/everywhere/10534/This_personal_trainer_wants_to_answer_your_every_fitness_question_.htm. And most experts on a subject are less often written about than their opinion covered; think Stephen Hawking versus Snooki. Uncle G can you please help me out here?

Chad hermanson (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Unfortunately to satisfy WP notability you do need articles about the person; that is usually a good marker of their notability. There is a very big difference between sources featuring the subject (which is what you had) and sources about the subject (with tell us something about them, their biography, etc) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't help if you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "I can't hear you", which is exactly what you are doing. Multiple people have looked to the sources and said they aren't about the subject, yet you apparently steadfastly refuse to listen. http://www.vitaljuice.com/entry_detail/everywhere/10534/This_personal_trainer_wants_to_answer_your_every_fitness_question_.htm is not about Halevy, he isn't the subject of the article. It tells me not one piece of information about him other than being a personal trainer, it's about the fitterwith website and even the coverage on that is trivial and wouldn't satisfy the WP:GNG. As for your statement about experts being written about less than their opinion covered - the essence of notability standard is if the world at large interested in something (i.e. they've taken note) then they'll write about the thing they are interested in. In the case of Stephen Hawking people are sufficiently interested in the man as well as his area of specialism, they've written directly, and in detail, about him as well as his opinions on stuff, it's the former which makes him notable. There will also be other physicists quoted, opinions requested etc. who don't have articles because as an individual they aren't notable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Feature" vs. "about"? That's not true. Where in WP:BIO and notability criteria does it say that? Please quote the actual section. Further NASCAR/Better, Woman's World, Vital Juice, British Virgin Island News are all about Halevy.Chad hermanson (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria - if he or she ...has been the subject... WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Again, not helpful, 82.7.40.7. Read what you're citing from. #1: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards...(WP:Creative) Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." #2: Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;". These have all been met, particularly with the above mentioned resources. And, Tmorton166, though the Vital Juice piece is about fitterwith.com, Halevy founded and is the CEO of that entity. Ronz, who in fact is the one who AfD'd this, and I are rerwriting this entry anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.206.186 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again only unhelpful because you just read what you want to read, rather than listening to the multiple experienced editors. And your perpetual misreading and twisting of the guides is little more than sophistry. I'll give up here since it's quite clear the only answers you are interested in are the ones you want to hear, rather than reality. It's been through AFD and the consensus of established editors was it didn't meet the standard. Here that has been endorsed by a range more experienced editors. If you want to convince yourself that they are all wrong whilst you are of course right, then more fool you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacological dissidence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New information available on google search, proof of general soundness of the idea of the article. It was deleted as "soapbox ranting" among other calificatives. It was actually an academic term coined in Spain at least since Historia de las Drogas of Antonio Escohotado (an enormous and serious work) was published! Drcaldev (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse original close. Consensus was clearly to delete the article. And oppose re-creation because the new sources you describe amount to a single passing mention in one book. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Changing !vote to Very strongly endorse upon examination of the original article. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, which was obviously with consensus. Oppose recreation as the sources just don't add up to a notable topic as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as accurate reflection of policy-based consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• EndorseCorrect close and no justification to re-create at this point. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A previous administrator made the claim that Mikie Da Poet was not credited at all on the official site for Exploitation of Hip Hop (http://www.businessasusualhiphop.com/home.html) But in fact, if you click on the official trailer on the official home page, Mikie Da Poet's song is playing throughout the entire video. To add, at the end of that video, he is credited as a composer with the featured song.

Date- March 4, 2004, Fox News anchor David Navarro reported that Mikie Da Poet is a "hot new star". They went on to a graphic during his live performance that stated that Mikie Da Poet

was "the new Eminem in the eyes of music critics and fans everywhere." 

Note - He was performing alongside notable platinum selling artist Do Or Die. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6fID8VcHGs)

Date- January 10, 2010, EIN PressWire World News came out with an article/press release plugging a new song featuring Ghostface Killah (formerly of the Wu-Tang Clan) featuring artist Blaq Fuego. The following quote was taken from the second paragraph - "The Ugandan born lyricist moved to Chicago reaching international levels

to further his career in music and has since then been featured on 

exclusive projects with Chicago's Hip-Hop icons, like Mikie Da Poet". (http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/77967-international-superstar-blaq-fuego-has-collaborated-with-ghostface-killah-on-iron-man-2-project)

Mr. Pirruccello is the one who executed the licensing agreement between Mikie Da Poet's "Exploitation" song and 20/20 Multimedia. Their company is producing the Exploitation of Hip Hop film/documentary. A list of notable people, along with Mikie, including contact information for his office are located on the following link. (http://musiclaw.bz/Frame-687733-page1namepage687733.html?refresh=1214121829116)

To conclude, going back a

decade, when Mikie's name was spelled "Mickie", he was featured on the highly touted

album "Monsters Of The Midway". This album featured artists including Twista and Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, where they are known for their hit song "Midwest Invasion". Specifically, Mikie was featured on CD #2, track 13, titled "Life In The Cold". (http://snypamuzicc.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html)

Final thought - To say that Mikie Da Poet is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page is just not true. It is supported by the facts stated above with links and sources. 98.212.29.179 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possibilianism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This overturn request stems from over a year of new data. The article "possibilianism" was originally posted when the term became widely discussed on NPR, New York Times, and other independent, reliable sources. On 21 Feb 2009 the page was nominated for deletion and was merged with Sum (novel), which is a book whose author had first introduced the term. However, in the intervening 12 months, possibilianism has become a term with over 10,000 google hits, and it is the subject of dozens of newspaper and magazine articles (New York Times, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Guardian, Nature, Salt Lake Tribune, etc -- see original ref list). Possibilianism solidly meets the criteria for inclusion based on verifiable and objective evidence of notability. It has received significant national and international coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Some are referenced below. Because Wikipedia's policy of inclusion rests on notability and verifiability, and because the article is fully referenced from independent and credible sources, we respectfully request an overturning of the previous deletion. Selected References (all of which were included on the original page)

• NPR Talk of the Nation: Interview with David Eagleman, Feb 17, 2009.
• Envisioning the Afterlife, interview with David Eagleman on NPR's On Point, Feb 27, 2009.
• Stray questions for David Eagleman, New York Times Paper Cuts, July 10, 2009.
• Writing about what comes next. Houston Chronicle. Feb 16, 2009.
• Houston author stunned by buzz over 'possibilian' theory, Dallas Morning News, June 16, 2009.
• Neuroscientist Imagines 40 Different Versions of the Afterlife, KPBS interview with David Eagleman, Mar 16, 2009.
• The Soul Seeker: A neuroscientist's search for the human essence, Texas Observer cover story, June 3, 2010.
• For 'Possibilians,' afterlife is one big ... well ... possibility. Salt Lake Tribune, Jul 9, 2009.
• Keeping an open mind about death. Miami Herald, July 7, 2009
• So crazy it might be true. Building Design magazine. Sept 25, 2009.
• Fiction beyond the grave. Nature. April 30, 2009.
• "I'm a possibilian", Rick Kleffel's The Agony Column, Mar 13, 2009.
• Are you surrounded with authentic communities?, The Huffington Post, March 1, 2009.
• Choose your afterlife, MSNBC.com, Sept 10, 2009.
• Choose (after)life. The List Magazine, Issue 643, 4 November 2009.
• You could be a Possibilian..., The Daily Monitor, Uganda.

217.41.228.33 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the convenience of readers, can you please provide direct links to some of those articles? Stifle (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I would consider this for restoration. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. That's pretty convincing.—S Marshall T/C 10:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Original result was correct at the time, but the sources given here are easily enough to justify recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the sources provided above demonstrate that there has been independent coverage of the subject, more than enough to justify an article. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy restore Obvious case at this point. Just !voting in case someone is waiting on more more voice to speedy this. No reason to wait.Hobit (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Previous reviews stated that this artist was not notable. Here is the link to his iMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2559613/ He is listed with the soundtrack credit, composter credit, and part of the cast for a new documentary/film coming out starring the likes of Kanye West and Mekhi Phifer, titled Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop. Bigticket88 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as the regular regurgiation of this at DRV by SPAs. IMDB is not a reliable source anyone can sign up and add info to it. The apparent official site for the film [8] doesn't make any mention, not even as a composter (sic) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per above with consideration for listing at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close as above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Barberis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New evidence Deletion review discussion questioned Barberis's notability. Recently, Barberis was incorporated into the University of Toronto Press's Canadian Who's Who of 2010. According to the CWW wikipedia page, "CWW is a comprehensive source of biographical information on leading and influential Canadians and is used by researchers, the media and other interested parties to obtain background information on such individuals." Canadian Who's Who This information was not available at the time of the deletion discussion and can be added to the page. Kanis103 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn That was a fairly broken discussion. One person claimed the awards listed were for a call center (they aren't), two people discussed some fairly good sources (one quite good [9], one with two paragraphs or so on the subject [10]). FisherQueen indicated that one more source would likely move them from delete to keep and the second source was supplied. Both !votes after the sources were supplied were keeps (though one was a bit cutting both seemed to think the sources were enough). I think it's a keep. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily undelted for discussions DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin: I accorded no weight to the self-confessed "pointy keep", thank you very much. Not to mention that comparing directors and porn actors, whose notability is evaluated under a different guideline, is like comparing apples with oranges. MQS's keep was based on meeting ANYBIO (presumably based on the awards), but he supplied no evidence that the awards are notable and thus failed to overcome FisherQueen's argument that "those awards weren't reported on by any independent sources". T. Canens (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: no one bothered to notify me about this discussion; I would have missed it had I not seen DGG restoring the article on my watchlist. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize if I didn't format this discussion appropriately; however, I did contact you earlier. If you look in your July archives, I asked for a reconsideration of the deletion due to the new information received regarding the Canadian Who's Who Reference text. I feel that it would be considered a reliable independent source regarding Barberis's notability. When a response was not received, I put forth the appeal here.Kanis103 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies about not responding to that; I must have missed it. But when you initiate a DRV here, you need to notify me by placing {{subst:DRVNote}} on my talk page so that I know that a DRV has been initiated. Anyway, no harm done. And the answer to your question is: it depends on the depth of coverage: a simple mention would not count, but if it's multiple paragraphs written by someone unrelated to Barberis, it probably would. Without seeing the text, it is impossible to tell. T. Canens (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the information. Having never done this before, I wasn't sure if I was doing this correctly or not. RE: Canadian Who's Who. According to the text, the University of Toronto Press contacts individuals who they've deemed appropriate for inclusion. They provide individuals with a questionnaire and then they compile the biographies based upon the information. In the foreward of the text it states, "Biographies are chosen on merit alone. Those listed are selected because of the positions they hold in Canadian society, or because of the contribution they have made to life in Canada." (Elizabeth Lumely, Feb 2010) This foreward and the biography itself can be scanned to be included as an independent source. Kanis103 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The pointy keep did however claim there were enough sources, which by the letter of WP:N there were. MQS make a similar comment. Yes they could have explained themselves _much_ better, but I'd claim their vague wave toward a guideline was enough when the article did meet the letter of that guideline. "Meets WP:N" or "doesn't meet WP:N" are air and common !votes when the letter of the guideline is or isn't met. ANYBIO is the same. Hobit (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • No objections to restoring MQS' draft from me. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within discretion. MQS's keep !vote asserts ANYBIO without anything else - this must be read in light of the more thorough consideration of the awards by FisherQueen and Stifle above him. On objective strength of argument, the closing admin was entitled to close this as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore MQS' userspace draft. The article has sufficiently improved that the AfD should not bind its retention. I don't know whether the article fully establishes notability; the point is that should be judged at AfD (if anyone wants to take the restored article there) not here). --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as proper reading of the debate and within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to endorse the deletion, but would support restoring MQS's userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A defective debate that wrongly focused on the current state of the article rather than its potential. With the honourable exception of Kanis103, I find it hard to believe that many of those comments were based on a diligent search for sources. The close was in accordance with consensus but the consensus was not in accordance with policy. Relist for a proper discussion by editors inclined to search for sources and evaluate whether an article could exist with this title—not whether this article can exist with this title.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given we are discussing what people meant by their !votes, I've contacted all AfD participants who haven't already commented here. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article without prejudice based upon newer evidences above, unavailable at the time of close. I imply no disrespect to closer, as his decision was per consensus... but as User:S Marshall clarifies above, the consensus itself was flawed, being based upon current state and not upon potential for improvement. To explain my own !vote... it was based upon the numerous assertions of notability that allowed me a per-guideline presumption that sources existed and upon the article tone and style being addressable as a surmountable issue. So let's give the closer a thank you, and let's get back to work on making the article suitably encyclopdic for the project, and not argue about how bad it originally was. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way... the "BCCMA" awards in the article come from the British Columbia Country Music Association... and yes... they appear notable,[11] and the awards citable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OverturnI do not see a consensus to delete. In particular the delete argument "Delete unless cleaned up" was dead contrary to policy. Even more, the very nomination was not sure of notability, and was also basically s nomination for clean-up. (Everyone who said it needs cleanup were of course correct--it certainly does). Fisher Queen asked for a better source, and one was found. That leaves no valid delete arguments. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've already !voted, but I think User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis gets us to WP:HEY in a DrV. Nice job MQS. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article - as per Schmidt and DGG, and without any disrespect for the original closing admin.--Kudpung (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted with a single vote, that is a consensus of one. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two votes...you didn't count the nominator Purplebackpack89 06:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nom, an indexer, a !voter and the closer unanimously failed to object to deletion. What more can we do? Do you, Richard, have a reason for keeping the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse last I looked there was no quorum. Ideally each afd would have between 20-30 well argued policy based votes for the closing admin to weigh but since this one only had 2 - both of which has a strong grounding in policy - the decision was pretty straightforward and the close was correct. If you want this back some evidence of notability would be much more persuasive then counting votes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or relist to get a better consensus and a more reasonable outcome. If the website isn't independently notable it should simply be merged into the main article on its founder. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as this is about as invalid of a DRV rationale as one can possibly imagine. I would also note the bad faith shown to the closing admin, with the posting of a one-liner questioning of the close, followed by the notification that it was heading to DRV TWO MINUTES LATER. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There was one vote of "delete" that pointed out that maybe we shall see this article one day, indicating that the voter thought it MIGHT be notable. This is about as far from a consensus as we can get... It is the accepted norm that such articles are relisted for more discussion. DubZog (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist- A nomination and one delete vote do not, at least in my opinion, a consensus make. If its deleted after more discussion, thats fine, but in a non-speedy situation, we should err on the side of caution, and relist for greater discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist- per Umbralcorax and DubZog. Let's have another look at it. IQinn (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- As Spartaz says, there is indeed no quorum. I looked at the nomination and the sole !vote, and found that they were well thought out and grounded in policy. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can Mr. Norton explain why he failed to make meaningful engagement with the closer of the discussion before listing here? As a frequent DRV nominator, he is well aware of the process. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, discussing it with Cirt would have been a damn good idea. He closes a lot of AFDs as "delete" with one !vote but restores and relists most of them on a talk page request. Too late for that now as it looks as if this DR will be endorsed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Stifle and Tarc's questions on the rationale/timing, and Spartaz' rationale on closing. It had more review opportunities than a PROD. If you want it in mainspace, create a userspace draft and ask the closing admin to review the new article. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone do a temp. undelete so we can all see the article. What little discussion there was discussed the sources as they existed, it's hard to see how valid those comments are. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, didn't look at the cached version.[reply]
• Endorse reasonable close, but userfy upon request. Seems like it might well be notable. Relisting would have been a reasonable (and IMO preferred) solution, but this was within discretion. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per consensus at AfD. The only quorum required is a public listing of seven days - if people choose not to object to deleting the article, and there are only 2 (well-argued) cases for deletion, that is enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist it is ridiculous to close after so little discussion. With so many AfDs , not everything gets considered the firs time round; 1/4 or so of the article are relisted, and I can so no reason why the debate on this one we should not consider it further. I urge the closing admin to simply relist of his own accord. As the cache is not stable, I have undeleted the article for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse: As Kativerata noted, there were two people who expressed opinion on this, the voter (who apparantly improperly closed it as well), and the nominator. Even if the AFD is lacking in numbers, it does have a strong argument for deletion. Purplebackpack89 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The user who started this DRV is the same person who originally created the article. By the way, since the article history has been restored, can the talk page be restored also? Purplebackpack89 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, for what it's worth. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purple, how come you didn't tell RAN when you AfD'd the article? Reyk _YO! 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For those with some extra time, this loooong AN thread from 2007 may be if interest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall doing a good deal of work helping to remove the spamming from this site on Wikipedia, but their misbehaviour is no reason not to have an article on it. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an article because of it but still thought it might be of interest. Part of the original deletion rationale was WP:COI so it does help to know why that tag was on the article in the first place. For what its worth, the article predates the spam issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse due to the nominator's failure to respond to reasonable questions or pursue his appeal. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Cardinale (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as "The result was delete. Feel free to redirect the page later, as an editor-decision." I think there was no obvious consensus based on the arguments provided and when I asked for an elaboration on how the admin found this consensus I was given no elaboration. Based on the arguments provided I feel the article should have been closed as no consensus, but it is hard to figure out why it was deleted when not given an explanation. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I probably would have leaned towards keeping the article, but this close was, in my opinion, within the admin's discretion. When you see a late run of !votes all going the same way, it counts for a lot towards establishing and gauging consensus because these people have seen all the previous arguments, weighed them, and decided that one was stronger. I also think it's unfair to criticize the closing administrator for not giving you as detailed an explanation as you wanted because your question was faulty. You claimed that the last few !votes hadn't mentioned the WP:GNG. They had, and Cirt told you so. I'm not sure what more needs to be said about that. Reyk _YO! 04:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just realized I messed up that sentence because I originally meant to say none of the delete arguments addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1 and then I decided to added the part about the delete arguments saying it did not pass WP:GNG enough though there were multiple reliable sources and I did not remove the "none of" from the first part of the sentence when I added it to the second part. Aspects (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the clarification; it certainly lessens the confusion. Still, I am sticking with the first half of my endorse because I still feel this was an acceptable close. Reyk _YO! 04:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: can someone do a temp. undelete for purposes of this discussion? There was a claim of improvement and sources but no details in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Uncle G. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC or relist deletion was within admin discretion given the !vote count, but seeing as how this clearly meets the letter of WP:N and even the spirit and there is a good argument for WP:MUSICBIO this is clearly a keep and the admin should have taken note of that and weighed the arguments appropriately. There is one local press article where with an article solely on her on the front page, two others solely on her in the NY Post and NY Dispatch plus other limited coverage all in the article. There is no way three articles on her don't meet WP:N. That no one other than Erik made that argument doesn't negate it and the admin should have noticed that. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It was me who added the sources to the article, and my read on this is similar to Hobit's. One of the difficulties is that the two discussants who responded that the article did not meet the GNG, 137.122.49.102 and Shadowjams, did not say why they believed the sources I added were insufficient. I was not sure how to respond to them in the discussion, and I'm not sure how the closing admin would know how to weigh their !votes. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The page has been relisted. It is now back at AFD, for further discussion, there. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Auer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Alexf speedy deleted this stub of the German actress Barbara Auer within a few hours of its creation, citing A7. This was despite the stub stating she was an actress that appeared in multiple notable films. Alexf was notified but so far no response. AfD would've been the proper procedure if an editor didn't feel this topic was notable, although even then I think it would've been too quick to start deletion proceedings. --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cache suggests the article said : "Barbara Auer is a German actress. She has appeared in multiple television shows and films including Meine Tochter gehört mir, Impossibly Yours and Waiting for Angelina.". Since the notable films are all red links, I'm not too suprised the admin couldn't see and substantive claim of importance. This seems one where discussion with the admin should be the best course of action, I can't see it as a reasonable expectation for a response within 4 hours before escalating. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three "red inks" are award winning German films.[12][13] and the third was directed by notable director Hans-Christoph Blumenberg. And I now see from the first link that Auer is a BEST ACTRESS WINNER for the German Film Awards!. This is a first that I've seen such a winner of such a prestigious award get deleted, no less speedy deleted. This just wasn't a case for such quick speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the article didn't say any of that stuff. Feel free to recreate with an indication of importance which has substance (as it appears you can) and there will be no issue. There is little of no point in going through a 7 day process to restore what was there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to close this.--Oakshade (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate with proper sources.[14] No question that she is notable (see her German wiki page). But do we really need to undelete an unsourced one sentence half-stub? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the admin that deleted the article. I was out all this Saturday, so I did not respond quickly enough for this gentleman. I see the article has been recreated. BTW, the above description explains the reasoning behind the deletion pretty well. No sources or citations, red links as movies she acted on. It is the job of the poster to ascertain notability, or at least place a {{hangon}} tag on the article . Neither was done. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is deleted almost immediately after a speedy tag was placed, it's impossible to know the need for a {{hangon}} tag. I was given zero notification of a speedy deletion tag. The reason given for speedy deletion was "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", not "No sources or citations."[15] No sources or citations is reason for article improvement, not deletion, especially speedy deletion. The "red links" charge is a classic case of systemic bias. The "red link" films are all notable films in Germany. Just because a non-German English speaking editor didn't recognize them, it was wrong to assume they were not notable.--Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• restore not that it matters much given the short stub. It did assert notability, just not in a way the admin noticed. In any case, I think a good faith request for an undeletion of an A7 speedy should be granted. Hobit (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Strong indications of notability and disputed speedy deletion. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, mootly; deleting admin based decision on "notability," which by policy is too high a bar to set for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faceboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Faceboy article has deteriorated since it was last nominated for deletion. Lots of dead links or links that lead nowhere but the homepages of the referenced periodicals. Faceboy himself in one of articles basically says he's notable for being non-notable. He fails the googleability test badly. Faceboy basically runs an open mike he pays for (word is he's independently wealthy) there's little secondary sources on him. He's an obscure figure outside the Lower East Side art scene becoming more obscure by the minute. Moreover what is in the article is a complete mess of original research and anecdotes. You'd think if he were notable then someone out there would've fixed it up a bit in three years. Perhaps the Faceboy article can be merged into Art Stars the most notable Art Star Margaret Trigg is in there, she doesn't have her own wikipedia article, and she starred on an ABC series. Wlmg (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue simply renominate it for deletion or propose a merge on the articles talk pages, DRV isn't going to overturn a deletion debate from 3 years ago. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is no clear reason for deleting the page while two users were opposing deletion and also there were 35 reliable reference for this subject. I invite Wikipedia editors to have a look on this page and give a reasonable statement for deletion or undelete the page.--Transcelan (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist There was one comment that made a pretty good case for deletion and two (or likely one) person arguing to keep. With no !votes to delete and no pressing BLP need to delete, a relist probably was the best bet. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, IMO the nom itself counts for 1 delete vote. After that, there's a Wall o' Text from the suspected socks to wade through, so no other opinion at this time. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Well written nomination not refuted in the debate. User:Farhikht's reads as supportive of the nomination. All other comments read as the author and socks. Advise User:Transcelan to gain some experience contributing to wikipedia on other subjects, and that if he establishes himself as a an experienced editor in good standing, the community will give him more trust. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Not enough participation to judge a consensus here. If there was a serious BLP issue to consider I would think differently, but I can't see one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Would relist here. Technically, the close is defendable but a more proper debate about the sources should really occur. NW (Talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the start point of afd I tried to find some more references about the subject, the creator of the article also tried the same, I think the references must be traced out by an editor to decide about them.I am searching on internet to find more proper references, I think Persian references are useless because there are many of them, but I try to find just Euro-American references in this case.--Transcelan (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NW, that more discussion would be good, but it was open long enough and AfD is overloaded already overloaded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, there is no quorum at AFD and the keep side have produced no sources. What is a relist going to achieve. Source it and it can be undeleted immediately. What's the point of the process wanking? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the fact is that the article has 15 more sources from the beginning of AFD, I invite the editors to check them, also a simple Google search would be useful in Persian or English. . I think they are enough, but I am still searching for more sources.--Transcelan (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist If anything, reading through the AfD discussion the consensus seems to be in favour of the "keep" argument... DubZog (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for the purpose of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to BLP, an article must be NPOV, V and NOR. It seems the first author of the article used Adamar Literary Journal, published in September 2002 as the start point. This text also appears in Barcelona Review in May 2008; other sources about the subject uses almost the same information(NOR). The article also uses a neutral point of view (NPOV). neglecting four references(self-published online websites) other source of the article have acceptable ranges of verifiability like Olifante, El Periodico de aragon or Radio Farda (V). Another question about the article could be the question of notability and this question is tight to the situation and the ground of notability. If the editors are interested they can just have a look in report on censorship p.34-p.39 to know more about the situation of modern poetry inside Iran. The subject belong to the very first generation of Iranian poets after Islamic revolution that Euro-American society heard their voice and translated them. The censorship inside Iran also restricted western media to know more about a generation of poets and writers who appeared after the revolution. Iran student protests, July 1999 had important role to announce new voices of the country out of the country. The fist book of the subject in Spanish translation by Clara Janes appears in 2003 and the website for National Award for Work of a translator is verifiable enough to approve the book. Notes like Gizonak sugeari written by Kirmen Uribe in Berria and interviews like Iran en Trasmoz in El Periodico de aragon speak about a good coverage about his works. Also his presence in international ground of poetry festivals hold by Olifante or Imac founded by Ernest Benach bring some degrees of significance; the referenced talks of the subject in research and academic ground as in international symposium of Rumi hold by Tukish Government and UNESCO or International Nietzsche Symposium could also support the idea. Also he won the translation grant of FILI hold by Finnish Literature Society that approves his other mentioned activity as translator. While I was searching I found another reference speaking about his presence[16] in Semana Poética hold by Dickinson College, USA. Therefore, I think the article has all the conditions of being restored. --Transcelan (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You can only !vote once, and the nomination counts as one, so I've struck the "Restore" portion of your comment. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  actually I did not vote, I opened the discussion. but I change your struck to a comment. my purpose was to clarify some sorts of references.--Transcelan (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the close of the AfD (on a close call where the closer said he exercised his judgment based on his opinion of the weight of the arguments related to BLP 1-E and not news, since the keep and delete votes were balanced numerically), this woman and her case have continued to receive a great deal of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources [17]. I would like to see the article restored so that it can be expanded with the additional coverage and sources it has received. If it was a close call before, I don't see how it can still be considered so now. Thanks for your consideration. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and censure nominator, as these frequent and frivolous challenges are becoming disruptive. We have a policy of WP:ONEEVENT that is as clear as day here and easily and correctly applied to a woman whose only claim to fame is being fired for having a nice rack. That is all. DRVs are to correct administrator mistakes and errors; "I don't like the decision" wastes everyone's time. Tarc (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had recreated without permission you would be bitching and moaning. This is the correct process as far as I am aware to try and recreate an article that was deleted in a close call before getting lots more coverage. You are the one who should be censured for your misrepresentations of what policy says and your aggressively antagonistic behavior. I posted the one event policy once already for you, so please read it. The extent of the coverage makes clear that the event and the woman rise above the policy threshold. Whether you think she's insignificant and what you make of her "rack" is entirely irrelevant, and always has been. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't "nice rack" = nice BLP violation under the new Herostratus standards? Anyhoo, this DRV is completely legit, I'll write more about it later as I've previously discussed this close with the closing admin but it appears its archived already.--Milowent (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh darn, I got my "let's delete attractive chicks!" Afds confused, as this one has already been to DRV, and lukewarmly endorsed, I guess.-- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14.--Milowent (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought I'd seen it before. Perhaps it's time to update WP:HOTTIE to indicate that being an attractive female is actually a reason to delete :-) Hobit (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination). Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That one I'm actually okay with, she was trying to maintain a low profile and she was thrust into the spotlight very much against her will. The rest, of the recent "you can't be notable, you're too cute" ones leave me a bit cold. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, deja vu all over again...I even made the same rack observation a month ago. Well, that makes this DRV even more ill-advised than previously thought. We've already been over this ground before, there is nothing new about this woman's case that warrants a second review, just a basic, inept understanding of BLP policy, particularly 1E. Close up this waste of time and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Number 1, one issue in the AfD was that it wasn't clear if coverage would be sustained. It clearly has been... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore Leaving aside the question of the close of the AfD itself (which I'd say was boarderline at best), it's clear that coverage of her continues to exist and we are past BLP1E. I'm finding news coverage as recently as 18 minutes ago according to Google News and an article pretty much focused on her from last week. [18]. As this was deleted more than a month ago, I think we are seeing sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reasonable DRV nomination. I think I am not seeing good new sources, just repetition of the original story, with no discussion of the person herself. Recommend userfication and improvement in userspace before reconsideration at DRV, to clearly show what new content new sources actually provide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Fair nomination, and there are new sources to consider, but they aren't enough for a speedy recreation. So let's try userfying it and see what happens. We might get a decent article out at the end... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore-There is sufficient coverage that it exceeds WP:BLP1E. She was also featured on msn's front page several times in July and has a short msn popular searches article. She is still mentioned in reliable sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore as there was no consensus for deletion in the face of reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The earlier deletion endorsement might have made sense when this was arguably a BLP1E. The ongoing coverage makes this no longer a BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and Restore which was the apparent consensus--and according to the further coverage. I think Tarc should be careful about trying to impede or discourage reasonable appeals carried out according to perfectly normal of Wikipedia process. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Restore - There wasn't a consensus to delete this and there were valid arguments on how this was not a BLP1E case. And as for Tarc's comments in this DRV, this was a perfectly valid discussion opening. --Oakshade (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse the status quo as the June DRV closer (I was just notified of this discussion). I think my previous DRV closure was correct in stating that there was no consensus to overturn the article in June (and the weight of that discussion should be considered by the closer of this DRV). Looking at this new July DRV, the line of discussion does not seem to be any referendum on the June DRV that I closed—but is instead reviewing the AfD that the June DRV reviewed. Although I appreciate not being raked over the coals for my DRV closure, I am kind of annoyed that the stare decisis that it represents is being ignored here. Although I see some vague hand-waving about continued coverage that somehow allows this article to pass BLP1E, there is really no convincing evidence that anything substantial has changed since June. Although consensus can change, this feels like repeatedly forum shopping DRV in an effort to get a more inclusionist sample of participants. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of July 23, she is still being referenced by reliable sources such as this Huffington Post blog post Just How Good Is Too Good Looking in the Workplace?. She has had sustained coverage for almost 2 months...well beyond that of BLP1E. (Sorry that you weren't notified earlier, I had believed that the nominator had followed procedure...).Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two months of one events is still...wait for it...one event. Big breasts and lawsuits don't move one to the John Hinckley standard, the actual example cited at WP:BLP1E. The problem here boils down to WP:HOTTIE which is IMO a variation of missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinckley is undoubtedly notable for one event. The same cannot be said for Shirley Sherrod, Alvin Greene or Debrahlee Lorenzana, only one of whom is white. Unsure on their respective breast size, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Greene is notable both for being a Senate candidate, for a felony sexual assault, and for being a bit...unready for public office, to put it mildly. I count 3 events there. For Sherrod, the article is actually about the event, Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, not the person. Any more red herrings you care to serve up? Tarc (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore: same thing as Oakshade and DGG. For what its worth, I have the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it for any BLP concerns.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore The individual is not a non-public figure, coverage has been ongoing, and the original close should have been at most a no-consensus to begin with. The fact that it's been to DRV twice is disappointing, because it clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Wp:CCC is the WP equivalent of stare decisis, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly polling DRV until you get the result you want is not consensus changing. It's forum shopping. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my argument last time round. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- one event is still one event, even though some members of the media still are covering her, it doesn't consist of a different notable event. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell if you are arguing WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, so I'll respond to both. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" (emphasis mine). The continued coverage is more than enough to show she isn't a low-profile individual and is unlikely to remain so. Of course her doing things (her stuff with lawyers, going on TV shows etc.) also add to that. The second is there to help resolve "unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both". If you are making that argument then I'd expect a rename and rewrite would make more sense than a delete as many of the sources and sections would be really useful in an article on the event in question. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put Hobit. Essentially the delete arguments amount to "I Don't Like It", because the substantial coverage overwhelmingly establishes notability and it just keeps growing. For example we have more international coverage from the last few days including from India [19], Germany [20] and Thailand [21]. The legal case is also progressing with representation from Gloria Allred, and the latest edition of Newsweek (July 17) also reports on the issues involved. Individuals' biases against covering subjects related to beauty, discrimination against attractive women, and white people with breasts should be ignored as so much foolishness. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except no one is actually saying "i don't like it". They are saying that continuing coverage does not make the singular event notable enough for an article in this particular case. Arguing against positions that none here are actually advocating is a bit of a strawman on your part. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E states The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is appears clear that with persistent coverage for over a month in dozens of reputable sources that this should serve as indication that the individual is indeed notable for the event(s).Smallman12q (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV day 10? Why is it when a BLP about a female like this is concerned, when its fairly obvious that the article should be restored, the deletion review stays open so long?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • because its a tough call and most passing admins probably don't agree with the consensus here... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's silly, we have 3.36 million articles and this is no Brian Peppers drama fest.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is fairly obvious, IMO, that it should stay deleted. If these "obvious" opinions are that disparate, then closing is no easy task. Tarc (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - See what people think now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/keep deleted. WP:BLP1E applies. @Hobit et al., BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, ..." (emphasis mine). The word "otherwise" indicates that the "low-profileness" is to be assessed without regard to said event; for otherwise by definition any person to whom BLP1E applies would not be low-profile precisely due to that event and that event alone. One event is one event, even if the event is long in duration. There's nothing that suggests that she would not remain low-profile, once we remove this single event - her firing from Citibank and its aftermath - from the calculus. No objections to userfication, because, after all, I could have missed something... T. Canens (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good point. I see that otherwise as "other than that flash-in-the-pan coverage", but it can certainly be read as you are doing. I think that your reading allows for an "event" to be stretched to cover a wide variety of events. In fact, extended coverage usually isn't over the one event per se; it is about things that happen past the one event. In this case: She was fired. She sued. She prompted (and continues to prompt) discussion about appropriate clothing for work. Each of these things prompted new coverage. Even in some cases coverage about the coverage. Even if your reading is right, the thing we should do is move the article, not delete it. BLP1E states: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I'm fine with renaming the article. As I recall the article was mostly about the event anyways. But BLP1E doesn't direct us to _delete_ the article... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, not a particularly good point. One "event" is just one "event"--ongoing coverage is not the same event. See WP:WI1E. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A reasonable close that had proper regard to policy, the rationale for which still applies. Agree with Tim Song's explanation of BLP1E. There may be occasions on which coverage of a BLP1E is so extensive that the subject is no longer a BLP1E but that is just not the case here.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Farber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

meets general notability requirements as per 3 sources: (1),http://www.nysun.com/opinion/new-yorks-rising-sarah-palin/86036/ (2), http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/albany/20081101/204/2730 (3), http://www.observer.com/lydiadepillis/344/swimming-against-tides-young-republican-challenges-gottfried. Saul Farber is the main subject in all sources and all sources are secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Saul Farber is also included as more than a trivial mention in several other articles and Saul Farber has received the republican nomination in the November 2010 state senate race.

I spoke with the admin but he is busy/on vacation and unable to address it. Thank you! 69.193.146.42 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - The notability guideline was correctly interpreted by the closing admin. Purely local coverage...an online tabloid (NY Sun), an online newsletter of a nonprofit watchdog group (Gotham Gazatte) and a borough paper (Observer)...falls short of the GNG. Tarc (talk)

• Does any of the substantial coverage relate to anything other than the 2008 election race? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. An uncontroversial consensus-based close. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the !vote was pretty clear, but the topic met WP:N with a bit of room to spare (2 good articles and 4-5 minor ones) and BLP1E is a stretch at best IMO. But others felt that BLP1E did apply and there you are. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2020 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

By a simple count we see that there is nothing clear about the result, seven users said delete, seven said keep and a few users on both sides suggested alternatively for the article to be userfied. As for the arguments, administrator that deleted the article, chose to go with the argument on violation of WP:CRYSTAL which was not accepted but widely argued in the discussion and the issues raised were not addressed by the user who filed a request. The problem with this view is that 1) the UEFA European Football Championship takes part regularly, every four years, since 1960, and the assumption that it wont take place for whatever reason in 2020 can be seen as the violation of WP:CRYSTAL and not vice versa and 2) the acronym UEFA stands for the "Union of European Football Associations" and the fact that its member Associations are talking about the EURO 2020 means that there is no reason to believe that this tournament will not take place, the fact that the technical meeting of all Associations hasn't taken place in UEFA headquarters where the dates will be set and the official bidding open doesn't mean that the article should be erased as plenty of national Associations and national Governments have already announced their plans to file a bid (they haven't done so yet because the official bid filing process isn't open yet - and it will be some time before UEFA opens it - and not because there is some doubt over whether the EURO 2020 competition will take place which is the main argument for deletion). So I would like to request for the deletion to be overturned based on the fact that there was no consensus on the AfD. If there are open arguments and if there is not even a simple number majority (although it's arguments that count which is where we go to point one as we don't have consensus on any argument) then the closing decision cannot be deletion, it can only be a constatation of no consensus. Avala (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have we stopped asking admins to look at the arguments again or is the policy now to just haul them in front of DRV if you don't like the outcome? I'm always dubious about any nomination here that starts with a nose count cos it shows the argument isn't going to be based on consensus in the way that wikipedia does it. So Endorse my own close because I read the arguments and this was a clear violation of crystal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Striking because I'm tired and forgetful and I actually directed people to DRV in my edit notice. Apologies for needlessly being mean Avala Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your page says "I'm on holiday until 27 August" so why should I question that? As for reading it through, why are you focusing on vote count when I mentioned it only to show that not even there is any consensus on deletion while I discussed the issue with arguments with much more detail and quite clearly said that it's the arguments that count. Admin is to assess how the users expressed their will, not to choose which one he personally likes more. You are stating here how you deleted because "this was a clear violation of crystal" but this is not right, it's against the rules for you to delete because you chose in a tied no consensus situation which side you like more, you can only delete if you found "that there is consensus among the users to delete because this was a clear violation of crystal" but you couldn't do that as there is no consensus on arguments in that AfD (nor the numbers), it's the only fact and that is my point, this needs to be closed as no consensus.--Avala (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as original nominator. AfD discussions are not a simple matter of counting "votes", they are based on who presents a better argument through knowledge of Wikipedia policy. The subject of UEFA Euro 2020 is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, there is no doubt about that. Just because a country has announced its intention to bid to host an event does not mean that event will take place. But I'm repeating myself. I completely agree with the decision taken by the closing admin. – PeeJay 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However this is only your view, but the matter in discussion here is that this was not a consensus view as there was no consensus while a decision was made by an admin to take action which is not in line with the fact that there was no consensus so that was supposed to be a conclusion. As for the argument on CRYSTAL, you can read below in a comment by another user why it simply doesn't stand here.--Avala (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn sources found in the cache appear to be plenty to overcome any kind of WP:CRYSTAL issues. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." this is almost certain to take place and speculation about it is very very well documented from what I can tell. The !vote isn't strong enough to overcome the guideline policy. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey TT, per the above, the admin's standard message had directed them not to (if I'm understanding the discussion correctly). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I didn't contact the closing admin as his talk page notice says that he is on vacation until the August 27, not because I didn't want to. Please reconsider your vote in light of this information. Thanks,--Avala (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: There was no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin's opinion that deletion was appropriate is a valid opinion, but the sum of good faith editor contributions to the discussion did not approve deletion. And no BLP or contentious materials concerns to support extra scrutiny arguments.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fand training camp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This one is a bit of a long story. The first AfD was back in Aug 2009 by User:Anthony Appleyard as "casting keep". The second Afd, from May 2010, received basically no participation even after two relistings and got a NAC. The third one was closed as "no consensus" earlier this July, after two relistings and only two !votes. After that, it was AfD-ed again, by the same nominator, Iquinn. That was a mistake, IMO. I thin k there was a case to be made for a delete closure in the 3d AfD and I think that one should have been taken to DRV rather than submitted to AfD again. However, the 4th AfD received a substantial degree of participation. There was, IMO, a substantial policy-based consensus for delete in this 4th AfD. It was clearly demonstrated that there was a single source for the camp (a long judicial transcript of the Guantanamo Combatant Review report) that contain a single sentence with a single mention of the camp. A pdf copy of the report was also posted at the NYT site. Even if one takes the view, that that posting constitutes a separate source, this is stlll two one-sentence mentions. Barely passes WP:V and far far far below any reasonable interpretation of WP:N. These points were made at length during the AfD and no convincing counter-arguments were presented. If evaluated on the merits of policy-based arguments, the 4th AfD should have clearly been closed as delete. The article's creator commented in the AfD that he would have preferred to see that AfD extended for another week(since he was not notified of the last AfD). Even that would have been fine, IMO. Instead, the AfD was closed, again by User:Anthony Appleyard, as "The result was Keep as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user." That is, it was closed on procedural grounds. I tried contacting User:Anthony Appleyard, but he did not really elaborate on his reasons and instead referred to the merge discussion that he started at the article's talk page. I feel that this AfD should have been closed on its merits, in view of its fairly substantial participation, and since the article so obviously does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. I request overturn and relist or overturn and delete. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn and delete - Fact: This here is the only know information in the universe about this camp and therefore it fails WP:GNG WP:V. The arguments and !votes clearly supported nothing else than delete. There was little participation in the first three discussions even after multiple re-listings only the 4th discussion finally had a good participation and discussion. I am not a wiki lawyer and i can not say if my re-listing violated any wiki laws. That what i can say is that it was done in good faith with the intention to have a good discussion and to improve Wikipedia and to get rid of an article that violated our own basic quality rules. I do not have any objection against relisting at Afd, if somebody expresses that he wants to further argue that this one sentence in one source would be "significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - I have no idea how this could have reasonably been closed as a keep. Every keep vote (all 3 of them) was based on a debunked argument saying that a single mention in a single transcript of a single detainee's hearing is "significant coverage". nableezy - 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I can't !vote to overturn because I think a NC close was inside of admin discretion (if just barely) and I think merging would still be a reasonable outcome. But given the horrible sourcing, I'll treat this a AfDx (where x is a large number) and claim we should just delete this. Frankly there were no solid arguments to keep. 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
• Overturn to delete - There was one primary "keep" by ANowlin, with 2 "per ANowlin" follow-ups. It does not seem that the closing admin took into account how weak this sole opinion was, and how easily it was rebutted. Two reliable sources hosting a PDF of an interrogation, during which the camp is name-dropped isn't even in the ballpark of "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpreted the closure as a procedural close, an appropriate one, given that how marred by irregularities the {{afd}} had been.
  • Your characterization of the OARDEC allegation memo as the "PDF of an interrogation" is not accurate. The Supreme Court forced the DoD to prepare these memos in its 2004 ruling in Rasul v. Bush. OARDEC was a separate agency from JTF-GTMO that ran the camps. The officers who prepared these memos did so after reviewing intelligence reports from at least six agencies, the FBI, CIA, State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO. They independently reviewed, collated, analyzed dozens, sometimes hundreds of documents per captives. If the Al Fand camp made it into the final memo summarizing those dozens or hundreds of secret reports then it has far more significance than your characterization that it was "name-dropped" implies. It was not a passing mention. I suggested merge in my proposal of late March. I suggested merge in the 3rd {{afd}}, and in all the other recent {{afd}}s our nominator instantiated. I think an important question that should have been considered at all these similar {{afd}} is whether there were sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, sentence, or list entry in a broader article. I request you give fair consideration to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There where no irregularities in Afd's and there i nothing wrong with the description "PDF of an interrogation" and as said this is all information on the planet we have about the camp. One source one sentence. See the second document. It is the PDF of the controversial tribunal where the detainees had the opportunity to reply to allegations without given the right to see the evidence or sources for the allegations. Uuuuhhh... the State Department, the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, the Criminal Investigation Task Force, and JTF-GTMO, the FBI the CIA... Maybe it was even the MI6 or Mossad... Only the habeas corpus Judges had the opportunity to have a closer look at the source of the allegations. Just read some of there opinions how often the allegation were just based on the false statements of other detainees they made under torture or intelligence errors. Fact: All the talk about the original source here are speculations and waste of time. We do not know. Merge? This one sentence allegation against Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr? I agree this should be on Wikipedia. I have suggest to merge the allegation against him into Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr and i have pointed out that the one sentence information is already in that article. So there is nothing to merge. Time to get rid of the article here that always was nothing more than a Wikipedia:Coatrack of Khalid Mahomoud Abdul Wahab Al Asmr. You created the article in 2006 with insufficient sources in the hope that more information would appear. But it did not happen. Time is up let's get this deleted now before it harms out reputation as an reliable encyclopedia. Just my opinion. IQinn (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Taking this AfD on its merits I cannot see how, on the basis of the arguments presented, it can possibly have lacked consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources is sufficient for an article and meets WP:V. I note the extraordinarily close timing of three of the comments above. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, which three of the above comments were, in your opinion, extraordinarily close in time? And which major internationally known sources actually reported the information in question? Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no information being reported, it is a one-line mention in the part of a prisoner interrogation. And just what the hell is that "close timing of three of the comments above" comment supposed to mean? If you're going to make bad-faith accusations, at least man up and make them clearer. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "major internationally known secondary source" has said one word about this camp. Two "major internationally known secondary sources" host the same public domain document that makes exactly one mention of this camp. Would you also like to note the close timings in the three responses to your comment? nableezy - 16:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has seen significant off-site canvassing, I understand the concern, but there was, and has been, no communication with me about this DrV other than the text here. Also, there seems to be only one source that indicates this camp exists and given the lack of anything else, I don't see how we can claim that camp _does_ exist. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say, the "extraordinarily close timing" remark was an unexpectedly low blow from DGG and I feel somewhat offended. DGG knows me reasonably well as we often comment in the AfDs listed in the academics&educators delsort list, and we also collaborated a couple of years ago on revamping the WP:PROF guideline. After I filed this DRV listing, I notified the closing admin, put a note at the top of the Al Fand training camp page and a note at the talk page of the last AfD. That was it, the grand total of my actions. I did not try to notify anyone else about this DRV in any way, shape or form, on or off wiki, or in the form of psychic signals or whatever. Nsk92 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The close timing, NSK, foes not refer to your appeal--how could it? yours was the first comment--it refers to the timing of the comments after that DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are repeating your peculiar slur. That is not an acceptable behaviour. Since I am obviously one of those to who you refer, come out and make your accusation in public. As I have said below, much earlier, it is offensive. Your equivocal comment abive simply adds weight to the slur. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Close timing? Better get off the fence and say what you mean, DGG. That was offensive. I dropped by the AfD page and thought the closure was disgraceful. Now what exactly are you accusing me of? What happened to civility and assuming good faith? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG could you just confirm that this is the information you mean by "The information as reported by major internationally known secondary sources" or to provide a link to the information. All previous discussions have shown that there are no other information. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - there was a clear consensus to delete, and there's no evidence whatsoever that the camp meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Claritas § 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I looked at this and was going to close as delete but then got distracted. This clearly has no sources so we should not keep it and the closing rational has no basis in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin on 3rd AFD – I stand by my close on the 3rd AFD, as there was no consensus for deletion there, with one person favoring deletion aside from the nom and two others for merging; there was no headway made since the 2nd AFD, and I made that clear in my closing rationale. That being said consensus can surely change, so I have no comment as to the 4th AFD close at the moment. –MuZemike 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- I believe there are very strong arguments that this article should be merged, which I was not able to express in a timely manner because of several factors that left the {{afd}} disrupted to the point of being compromised. I believe that a procedural closure was one of the appropriate choices open to the closing administrator. I believe the relisting I requested, and which the the contributor who initiated this DRV endorsed would also have been appropriate. I do not believe deletion was appropriate because the nominator's behavior left the {{afd}} too compromised.

  Full disclosure: (1) I started this article, and about two dozen similar related articles, as I described in this proposal. (2) User:Iqinn, the first contributor to weigh in on this DRV, is also the contributor who, in a series of consecutive nominations kept this article at {{afd}} for 52 days.

  Several of the contributors who have voiced "overturn" or "delete" opinions hav commented that no strong counter-arguments were offered at the {{afd}}. Well, if I had been informed of the {{afd}} I would have offered what I regard as strong arguments for merge.

  On the wikipedia we are supposed to make our decision through trying to establish a true consensus through collegial, informed discussion. Iqinn chose not to inform the individual who started the article of the {{afd}}. It is not a true consensus when a nominator chooses not to invite those he or she knows will disagree with them. For it to be a true attempt to arrive at a real consensus, those who hold a differing view need to have a fair opportunity to present their counter-arguments to the nominator's arguments.

  Further, I believe a nominator has an obligation to be collegial, not partisan. Nominators shouldn't withhold important information from the others interested in an {{afd}}. Iqinn chose not to inform those participating in the {{afd}} that I had drafted a good faith proposal to merge the less well documented training camps.

  Nominators should present misleading information in a misleading light in order to "win" arguments. Good faith contributors work to build a better encyclopedia, not to "win" battles. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a battleground". I have a serious concerns about this "request for eyes" at User talk:Jimbo Wales "...clearly fails WP:N WP:GNG since many years but continues pushing against policy makes a deletion impossible." This request inaccurately implies the article has been abandoned, for years, when the nominator is well aware I recently requested discussion about merging articles like this one. The comment unfairly implies I am a POV-pusher. The comment inappropriately implies bad faith on my part.

  A closing administrator can't say how many of those who voiced a "delete" in the {{afd}} would have been convinced that a merge was an acceptable alternative, if Iqinn hadn't chosen to withhold this informmation.

  Let me briefly explain why I think merge is more appropriate than delete. While there aren't sufficient WP:RS to support individual articles for most of these training camps, there are sufficient WP:RS to support a paragraph, or a sentence, or a list entry, in a broader article on the general phenomenon. Well over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation that they attended a training camp. Close to one hundred of the captives were alleged to have attended the Al Farouq training camp. The 9-11 hijackers were alleged to have trained here, as were the Buffalo Six. Dozen were alleged to have attended the Khalden training camp. Ahmed Ressam, the millenium bomber trained there. I suggest that the general approach favored by User:Iqinn, that the only coverage of the less well documented training camps should be in the articles on the individual captives alleged to have attended them, is a serious dis-service to readers who want to study the general phenomenon that over a third of the Guantanamo captives had their detention justified based on an allegation they attended a camp. Readers who look up a camp here on the wikipedia, because they read in the MSM that a certain individual attended a particular camp, they should be able to count on us to help them see who else was alleged to have attended that camp. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you several times in AfD3, a merge as a form of AfD closure is only appropriate if the article to be merged is fairly long and contains a significant amount of verifiable material. This particular article is extremely short, and contains about one sentence worth of verifiable material. If you want to briefly mention the Al Fand camp in some other article, with a ref, there is nothing that prevents you from doing that right now. You don't need a merge for that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on Jimbo's talk page does not suggest that you are a POV pusher nor did i suggest that you act in bad faith. That is simply wrong. Hmmm he was busy with Wikimania but maybe soon he will have more time and i am still interested to hear his opinion. Let's see.

Correct me if i am wrong. So basically your argument is hey look User:Iqinn is acting in bad faith. How dare can he keep trying to delete one of my articles. I strongly reject this and your claims are simply false. As your recent personal attack on me that my User-Id had been used by multiple users is simply wrong. All this could have been fixed already if you would be willing to work with the community and please once again stop your personal attacks and withdraw your bogus accusations.

Facts: You had the opportunity to merge or delete your article or moved it to your user space since more than three years. It had a notability tag since a very long time. The first Afd already left little doubt that it fails WP:V, WP:GNG. You vigorously rejected any attempt by the community to improve on this issue with any solution that did not meet your POV. Uninvolved people from the community in truly good faith took even the time and came to your user page to work with you and offered their advise and help with these articles that you have created. As far as i can remember you did not even answer him. Right?

In your merge proposal here you basically justify it with the argument that many bad guys attended the Al Farouq training camp and Khalden training camp. That might be true and both of these camps have a lot of reliable sources. On contrast we know nothing about the al Fand camp. We do not even know if it existed. Where it was. Who run it. What happen there. Uuuuuhh...maybe even Osama bin Laden was running it in his basement? Maybe? Maybe not? Pure speculations. There are also no other detainees accused to have attended the camp. That is wrong. No verifiable information apart from this one sentence what is the allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and this information belongs and is already in his article and can be found by any Wikipedia user - once again there are no other verified information. Nothing is lost in deleting this article and you are free to move it to your user space. Regards IQinn (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep result: has multiple reliable sources, there's nothing here indicating an abuse of administrator discretion. Dedicated campaign against this one article is troubling--what exactly is it hurting, even if verifiable but non-notable, to draw such a dedicated opposition? Seriously... why? Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just what exactly are the multiple reliable sources here that cover this camp? I have only participated in AfD4 and AfD3, and I find it shocking that an article with such dearth of coverage and so manifestly failing WP:N has been kept. Nsk92 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Because if we do not care about our own basic quality standards than we loose our status as a reliable encyclopedia. IMO one even more important issue is that this one sentence is an allegation against Khalid al-Asmr and to have just visit an al Qaeda related training camp once is enough justification to keep somebody in Guantanamo without charges until the rest of his life.
  • This one sentence allegation is covered in the detainees article Khalid al-Asmr and there is absolutely nothing else known about the allegation or the camp. Nothing else than this one sentence.
  • Nevertheless we have this article here that has been online for almost four years as a WP:Coatrack most of the time with the claim that this camp was run by al Qaeda what is not verified at all. I have remove this misinformation here, it was re-added and i remove this misleading information again.
  • We have to be careful with some articles. If this article stays on or would be merged into an article that suggest something that is not verified than we are losing all trust of our readers.
  • Bottom line: I would like to ask you to have another look at the sources and to provide us with links to the multiple reliable sources. This here is everything we have so far.
  • If you can not provide us with multiple reliable sources or you do not reconsider your !vote than i highly suggest that your !vote and argument should be discounted by the closing administrator. Why? Because i care about Wikipedia and i sure you also do. IQinn (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin, especially if the comments at what has essentially been a continuously running discussion over multiple AFDs is taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the creator of the article argued for keep since the 3th discussion and all keep arguments were debunked in the 4th. The closing admin did not really explain so far how he valued the strength of the arguments. Could you please just comment on the given arguments and policies. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete I was going to DRV this myself. I don't know the story behind, but no way the consensus was to keep. The only keep argument was rejected clearly in the AfD, by showing that the article cannot be based on more than a bare mention in a single source. --Cyclopia^talk 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and Merge as was suggested in the AfD and by the closer. No sense in losing the history. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What history is there that is worth saving? There is about one sentence worth of verifiable material in this three-sentence article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good start to me. Why lose the history of that content and its creation? Freakshownerd (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What valuable content would we be losing? If the article's creator wants to add a sentence about the camp to another article, there is nothing that prevents him from doing that now. No merge is needed for that. Merges are for cases where a significant amount of verifiable information may get lost. This is not one of those cases. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as I can see, somebody has already added such a mention to Afghan training camp. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a huge issue in this particular instance, but especially for a subject where there's some disagreement over whether it's independently notable, it seems to me especially prudent to preserve the history in case substantial coverage emerges and it is appropriate to break the content back out. One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is the way that changes can be preserved so that the history of an article can investigated. I don't see any advantage to losing those tidbits however small may appear to be now. Amnesia and alzheimers are diseases of the memory, and similar afflictions have a tendency to corrupt our history. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my book, having a single one-sentence mention in a single document is as far as the subject can be from being notable without failing WP:V. That sort of thing ordinarily does not even warrant a redirect, since redirects are meant for likely search terms. This one certainly isn't a likely search term. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this: Khalid al-Asmr the article you want to merge to. I suggested this before and explained why above. Could you please clarify what article you mean. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Delete I never, ever, ever agree with overturning Admin decisions in a DRV -- not because Admins are infallible, but because because up until now I've never actually seen one where I find myself completely flummoxed as to how the Admin at issue came to the conclusion he/she did. I've seen plenty where I've disagreed with the outcome, but that's not the salient issue at a DRV. Here, I see absolutely no evidence that there is anything like consensus to Keep or "Keep as no consensus" (I'm not sure what that means -- which is not to say it's meaningless, this is actually a request for clarity if someone cares to offer). The one keep vote that actually offered an argument (the two others merely agreed) had their argument pretty thoroughly rebutted, in my view, and the snout count is 7 - 3 in favor of deletion (with one of the 3 keep votes qualified as a "weak" keep). Yes, I am perfectly aware that snout counts are not the be-all-end-all, but I'm not sure how you take a 7-3 count in favor of deletion, where only 1 of the 3 keep votes actually offered an actual argument, and where that 1 argument was subjected to a very policy-based rebuttal... I don't know how that amounts to a Keep consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and Merge (per Freakshownerd). I'm a little concerned with the "veracity" of the attempts made in trying to delete this article; and what damage its existence actually does to the project. Option "B", please... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOHARM - a classic example of a bad AfD argument. As for "veracity", just what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that the arguments for deletion lack veracity? If yes, in what way? As for merging, the point has been already discussed above, in fact below Freakshownerd's comment. There is nothing to merge here and nothing of value in the article's history log that hasn't already been mentioned in another article. Plus, like I said above, a single source having a one-sentence mention of something does not usually merit even a redirect - redirects are meant for likely search terms. Nsk92 (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the pointers! "Veracity" (headslap) - poor choice of words on my part, I guess. I'll comment further on this as it develops (or maybe I won't). We'll see... Doc9871 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. Not only were there more delete !votes, they were also far better grounded in policy. I have great respect for Anthony but it looks to me like he's misjudged this one. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without regard to the vote count, I believe the closing admin had the authority to close the {{afd}} on procedural gounds, because it had been disrupted. (1) Isn't a single nominator unhappy with previous {{afc}} closrures, keeping an article at {{afd}} for 52 days, is, I believe, unprecedented? (2) Aren't nominators obliged to offer collegial nominaions? Isn't the withholding of key information, like the original article creator asking for feedback on how best to merge the article information that should have been offered to participants in the {{afd}}? (3) Shouldn't nominators refrain from implying bad faith on the part of article creators, when asking for more input, as our nominator did at User talk:Jimbo Wales? (4) Aren't our decisions supposed to be made though a collegial discussion, where all the policy-based views are laid out? And is this process disrupted when the nominator chooses not to inform the article creator? I learned of the deletion when there were just hours before it closed. At that time I suggested relisting. I believe close as no-consensus due to disruption or relisting would have been appropriate choices. In my opinion, due to the diruption, neither a delete close of the 4th {{afd}}, or an overturn and delete conclusion here, are appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Wrong. As explained above there where simply not enough participation in the first Afd's and in addition our article creator did not show any sign to work towards any consensus that did not meet his personal POV. His reluctance to fix the problem that he had created is unprecedented.
    • (2) Wrong. No information were withhold in the 4th discussion. All arguments where on the table including the one of the previous 3 Afd's. One sentence in one source and an article creator who is unwilling to follow the rules and to listen to the community.
    • (3) Wrong. My question to User talk:Jimbo Wales did not imply bad faith on your part. As i already have explained and clarified above.
    • (4) No. there was no disruption just our creator who had the opportunity to work with the community and towards consensus in all these discussions but did not do so. Like he did not show any will to work towards consensus in similar discussions. He should have agreed do move these articles to his user space long time ago. His behavior is in my opinion disruptive. IQinn (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete- Consensus was to delete. There is no room for administrator discretion here: the weight of numbers and weight of argument leaves no doubt what the consensus is. Reyk _YO! 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Per the reasons articulately stated by JClemens. Accurate reading of lack of consensus by closing admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JClemens reason is based on his claim that there are multiple reliable sources but all the discussions and search over years have shown that there are no multiple reliable sources. Just one sentence in one source. I suggest the same as i have suggested under JClemens !vote. Please provide us with links to this sources as this is a highly doubtful claim or otherwise your !votes should be discounted by the closing admin as the basis for your argument is simply wrong. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. The numerical count was clearly in favor of deletion, although in a range normally within the range of closing admin's discretion. Nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with the discretion of the closer in this case. The article's sourcing is not up to scratch, only one trivial mention of a camp which might have existed. All the "keep" votes seem to rely on a very thin foundation. The information on this supposed camp is so thin that there is absolutely no way a reasonable article, even a stub article, can be written. Nothing on the supposed location. Nothing on which people were a member. The camp is simply "too secret". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete per the clear consensus in the AfD debate to delete the article. The "delete" votes were well-grounded in policy, whereas the "keep" votes and their assertions were not. It appears that a merge to Afghan training camp is not viable per this edit summary (rv - it is not verified by any source that the camp was in Afghanistan nor that it was used for militant training so i remove it per WP:V), so I support overturning to delete instead of overturning to merge. Cunard (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Hollies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting CSD. The group features three members of Rye Coalition and has three full-lengths out on Ernest Jenning; see [22] and [23]. Requesting Undeletion as the article is not a clear A7 target. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't see the deleted version, but if Chubbles is willing to commit to sourcing and expanding this in a reasonable time frame, I'd support undeletion. Otherwise I've no opinion on the A7 as I can't see the article. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'll fix her up if she's in trouble. Chubbles (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a time frame of say 7 days after this DrV closes be something you think you could manage? I just think people are more likely to support the restoration if someone says they will fix it in a certain period of time... Hobit (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or we could just userify it now for him to work on... Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly, either works, but you're more likely to get more folks involved if it's in mainspace. Having it there for another week (assuming nothing actually happens) is an extremely minor cost. I can live with either... Hobit (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I can add a couple of references in this week. Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate Any disputed speedy arguing for notability based on a willingness to add sources and expand the article should be respected (unless there is a BLP issue or some other supremacy clause involved. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by default—the initiator of this DRV failed to discuss the XfD closure with the relevant admin, which is a required prelimanary step. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The deleting admin does not appear to be active right now. In any case, to keep the link red just for that reason is a bit lawyerly... Chubbles (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DRV clearly states, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first," (bolding copied from the original). That seems very clear to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting Speedy Close. Ugh. I'll just recreate it. Chubbles (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't speedy-close if other editors have expressed multiple viewpoints. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Faye Hill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi. I believe that this article should be un-deleted because there were relevant arguments that the topic met notability requirements WP:NOTABILITY and that other articles exist that have passed previous AfD's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rachael Faye Hill (the articles topic) was also featured on the Granada News channel today speaking about the book that she is currently writing which means that the article can no longer be described as WP:BLP1E. All of the sources are also WP:VerifiableCrazyMiner (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Sourcing is not the issue when deciding a one-event BLP. Policy was interpreted correctly in this case, nothing to overturn or review. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own Close Firstly, you are supposed to discuss concerns with the closing admin before listing a deletion review. Secondly this was deleted under BLP1E not notability so the question is whether the subject is notable for more then one event. The consensus was that she wasn't so under policy that was the correct close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse A reasonable close given the discussion, but NC would have been fine too. We have football players whose "one event" was doing well at sports. We have actors whose one event might be winning an Academy Award and then fading from view. Why not a record setting academic? Well, that would have been a great AfD argument, but as far as DrV goes, there was a reasonable belief that this had a BLP1E problem and no solid arguments to the contrary. So acceptable close. If and when her book comes out, I think we'd be past BLP1E though... Certainly not trying to maintain a low profile at that point and we'd perhaps have more than one event. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse classic one event; the counterexamples listed are for significant achievements, not merely graduating from medical school. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say getting a medical degree at 21 is a more significant achievement by nearly any measure than playing professional football. But more so, we use coverage, rather than our own opinions, to determine what is worthy of note. The coverage is there. Now is this one event? The AfD pretty much concluded yes, and so the closer correctly went that way. Do I think it qualifies as one event? No, not really, no more than winning a major prize or playing one season of a professional sport. It is a culmination of a lot of work and effort over an extended period of time and the coverage makes that really plain. Still more of an argument for AfD though, so I'll shut up. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The articles topic (Rachael Faye Hill) was on BBC news again today discussing her book along with additional sources emerging from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-10637958). I think that this article is moving past BLP1E due to the fact that there is increasing activity around her book. As such, I believe that notability outweighs the previous BLP1E argument that closed the AfD. CrazyMiner (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing a book about being the youngest doctor ever doesn't really advance the notability much. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recall notability isn't the issue, BLP1E is. No one, as far as I know, has contested her meeting WP:N. The question is if she violates BLP1E. And if she writes a book and that gets coverage I'd say A) we have more than one event and B) she's not maintaining a low profile so BLP1E wouldn't apply for 2 different reasons.

• Advance the notability beyond BLP1E, I meant. She is not going to suddenly be known as an author now though, she still has nothing going for her, encyclopedia-wise, other than being a young doctor. We need to resist the urge to write articles about every insipid flavor-of-the-week news story. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a pretty crazy slippery-slope. X is one event. Y only happened because of X. Z only happened because of Y. You could argue that a Einstein's one event was being smart and everything followed from that... In any case, the low profile part would be blown to heck if she goes on a book tour. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's why we have these sorts of discussions, to determine what is an actual event and what is not, or even if the event itself is so notable (e.g. John Hinckley) that it is an exception. 1E isn't a one-size-fits-all policy. Einstein is orders of magnitude more significant than big-breasted unemployed women and twenty-something doctors, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn to No Concensus. About an equal number of editors commented on both sides with concrete comments, some better-some worse. In my opinion that is the definition of NC. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote, look at the arguments not the headcount. See comment below the next vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As above, no concensus was achieved - there were the same number of votes for keep as delete. As per the requirements of closing an AfD, if no concensus is achieved then the article is to be kept. By applying this principle, the admin who closed the AfD as delete did so incorrectly and went against WP:Articles for Deletion. Due to this, the article should be reinstated. MartinManson (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a vote you know. Consensus is judged by measuring arguments against policy and guidelines, not by counting snouts. N/GNG is a guideline which means its subordinate to BLP1E which is part of a policy. So, if there are not well founded arguments that this is not a BLP1E, which there were not, then the policy will trump a guideline every time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that it is not simply a vote, however there were sound arguments on both sides and so this is where the main lack of consensus lies. There were many arguments that the article was not simply a BLP1E in that Dr Hill has been featured on the news many times, most recently last night which is around 3 to 4 weeks since she first made the news. The fact that a book has also been discussed on the news etc means that BLP1E no longer really applies as there is more to the topic than one sole event. MartinManson (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse—a well-reasoned decision from an administrator faced with what was anyway a rough consensus to delete. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no consensus; the vote was even and there were strong arguments on both sides to both keep and delete the article. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note—a query has been left for the initiator on their talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation Ongoing news coverage suggests subject is notable beyond one event. If improvements in sourcing are still insufficient another AfD is also an option. At the very least userfy the thing and give it some time so the author can work it up. Cheers. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Utterly illogical. There is nothing to work on; more work cannot make a "one event" event magically morph into one+. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." If she is still being interviewed on television news, is writing a book, and still receiving coverage, those are good indications that she is not likely to remain a low profile individual and/ or that the event itself is notable. If the recent news coverage mentioned (that occured since the close of the AfD) isn't yet enough, then userfy, as I suggested, and allow the author time to see if additional coverage emerges. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, illogical. Articles are userfied because work could be done on them now, not to let it sit around and wait to see if things happen. If the situation changes down the road, undeletion can be requested. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just constantly say that people's arguments are illogical. Some good points are being made here. Due to the fact that there is on-going coverage of the story 4 weeks after it originally emerged shows the fact that the topic is trying to gain wide spread notability. The fact that a book is being produced on medical education, not about herself, removes the BLP1E argument from the situation. MartinManson (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can constantly say whatever I please, it is up to him to refute it. This person is known for no other reason than being 21 and graduating form medical school. If she does something more with her life, great, come back in a few years and write an article. As long as it is just this "young doctor" angle, there is simply nothing to work with. Keep deleted, find something worthwhile to do elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can indeed say whatever you please, as can we all - I refute it. There have been just as many arguments for keeping this article as there have from you and a few others to delete it. In this regard no consensus was made as the arguments for deletion were just as strong as those to keep it. The story is still being discussed in the media; it was on the news today that Rachael Hill is going to appear on GMTV which is a UK daytime chat show as well as appearing live on Channel 7 news in Australia tomorrow night. THIS IS NOT A BLP1E - the topic has been constantly discussed over the past 4 weeks and is evolving all the time. To be honest I don't like your tone, as others haven't, which is evident by the fact that someone has recently created a complaint discussion about your attitude. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is still being discussed is largely irrelevant, if it still about the same young-doctor story. Encyclopedias are not a repository for every nicey-nice, feel-good headline story of the day; this is still nothing more special than one smart woman who graduated early, a real-life Doogie Howser. WP:BLP1E, textbook. And please, I know it's hard, but try a bit less discussion of me, and a bit more about the topic. Your arguments will come across as more credible that way. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On-going coverage of an article reinforces its suitability to be included in Wikipedia. Multiple, on-going new sources mean that the article should be included to support further research on the subject which yes, is a public interest article at the moment, but is prompting discussions of ethical and morale issues in relation to entering advanced education at an earlier age than others. Believe us all, it isn't hard to ignore you, but the way you are dealing with some other issues, including this one, at times borders on WP:UNCIVIL. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop frothing at the mouth over me, please, it is quite unbecoming. There is little "on-going coverage", per Google news. That is not a whole lot of hits; what it is is exactly what you just admitted to, "a public interest article at the moment". Despite what you and some ardent supporters try to push other wise, it is no more than that. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ardent supports? No, just those who can see two sides of an argument. Google News is not the be all and end all of citation sources... for a start it does not include the Daily Mail which has the 2nd highest circulation in the UK at 2.2 million papers per day - this paper did a full page spread of Rachael Faye Hill on page 5. MartinManson (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The decision seems reasonable. If she becomes notable for her book, that's a different story, but it may never get written, who knows? And she isn't the youngest, as was made clear in her article, just the youngest in about 200 years (which is nice, but there's always going to be a youngest). Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - there will always be a youngest, but the fact that she is the youngest now is highly notable. Wikipedia is full of articles about people who have, for example, played professional football for a short while and then never really done anything else again, yet they have wikipedia articles about them. I put it to you all that this topic is a lot more notable than a short term athlete. MartinManson (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw with this argument is that WP:ATHLETE is a well-established and widely-accepted notability guideline, created to address athlete inclusion that may not meet the WP:GNG. Sadly, there is no WP:YOUNGESTDOCTOREVER to cover this specific topic, so the GNG and 1E are the measuring sticks that we use. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, she is not the youngest doctor ever, that so far as I can see goes to John William Polidori who received his degree as a doctor of physik, which was the 19th Century equivilant of a medical degree on 1 August 1815 "at the unusually early age of 19". Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and allow recreation No consensus was reached - strong arguments were made to both delete and keep the article. As such, I believe WP:NC applies here. The on-going coverage means that BLP1E is no longer relevant as the topic is not just a "news of the day" story. I also saw the news article about her appearing on GMTV which shows a strong, on going interest from the mainstream media. I also feel that deleting this article would be unjust as there are many different wiki entries about one-off celebrities that have attracted much less notability and a distinct lack of verifiable sources which goes against WP:verifiable. As such, I believe this decision should be overturned and the article recreated. CrazyMiner (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please strike this vote, you already voted by nominating and you don't get two votes when everyone else has one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely a valid argument. If there are other problematic articles that you know of, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is infact a very valid argument - it is a mechanism for finding out whether an article has grounding to exist as a wikipedia article. Obviously another article of a similar topic does exist, WP:HEENAL RAICHURA to be exact. As such, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good argument that this article should be reinstated. CrazyMiner (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note—I now have reason to believe that the initiation of this DRV was wholly disruptive – ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you link to the right diff? That's a comment by you asking a question and him blanking it. Can't really get to where you are based on that. People can control their own talk page. Rude yes, but also allowed. Hobit (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er—did you read the material he deleted? I asked if they would link to where they discussed with the closing admin before filing for DRV (as is required), and they removed my question without reply. From which one concludes that they did not fulfil the requirement, and will not even apologise for it, which is disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hrm, all he did was link to the DRV that he had already started. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a REQUIREMENT, it is SUGGESTED that the closing editor be contacted. I chose not to contact you which I am allowed to do. CrazyMiner (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first," (bolding copied from the original at WP:DRV) – you think that that's completely optional and just a suggestion? And if so, perhaps you could explain your reasons for choosing not to. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]