Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August

Sean Tse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to the Chinese wikipedia zh:謝嘉強（other name: zh:謝家強), Sean Tse meet the General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I think Notability should not be limited to sources in English. Chinese Newspaper coverage as below: 曼城歐冠名單現華裔小將 國字號新星曾受訓曼聯《鳳凰網》, 曼城小將願為港披甲《明報》, 曼 城 小 將 係 港 人 後 代《蘋果日報》. Nivekin (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the player has not played in a fully pro league. It's also not "significant coverage".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Wikipedia:Notability (sports):「Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.」 so "not played in a fully pro league" may not a reason for deletion.
    2. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline~"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." Those coverages are introductions of Tse with details and should be considered as "significant coverage".--Nivekin (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The AfD appears to have utterly failed to look for, or even consider the possibility of, Chinese sources. At least the first source provided above appear to be both reliable and reasonably substantial. It may well be the case that there's no second reliable and substantial source, and therefore the subject fails GNG regardless, or that AfD may decide that this is an instance where passing GNG nonetheless does not merit inclusion because of the failure of the relevant SNG, but that is a matter for AfD to decide and not us. The previous AfD had no occasion to consider these questions because it completely overlooked the possibility of Chinese sources, and is transparently defective. While we usually limit our reach to whether the process was properly followed, we should not let such a defective AfD stand. Relist. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Not considering Chinese sources for a Chinese topic is a error. I can't evaluate them, but an AfD will be the place to find those who can. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist It's unfortunately all too common for searches in non-English languages to even be attempted at AfD. But that's no excuse for not doing it right, particularly when some potential sources were an interwiki link away, no fussy searching required. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AfD - Nivekin (OP in this DRV) brought forth evidence of Chinese Newspaper coverage, showing it likely there is more such coverage and making the lack of considering Chinese Newspaper coverage at the AfD significant new information for which there should be a new AfD. Some English source information that can be added to the article includes: In May 2012 after the end of the season, Tse was released by Manchester City. "Owen Hargreaves released by Manchester City". Manchester Evening News. May 22, 2012. However, within a few months, South China Athletic Association signed Tse to play for its Hong Kong sports club.Charley Lanyon (September 3, 2012). "South China players slip into their Armani kit for some pre-season fun in Wan Chai". South China Morning Post. p. 2. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - though I fear the article still fails GNG. GiantSnowman 11:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – maybe coverage in Chinese about him is substantial. Maybe not. An AfD will tell. – Kosm1fent 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn Authorship still focuses on original work in yoga and attributes it to herself. This IS WP:NOR. Though the article has been rewritten time and again, it does not remove the basic tenant of self-invention, self-promotion, and a desire for exposure. Once we begin the slippery slope of allowing anyone to name an aspect of their interest(s) after themselves, and allow them to claim the elements of it originally, we fail as a wiki system and do not conform to our own limits. This article is a creation of someone’s original research into their own perception of “yoga” – it is an original "creation" in name designed to promote and bring notoriety. The primary support for the article is a wiki rescue editor who, despite their prior works, is exaggeratingly trying to legitimize WP:NOR, etc. No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Яεñ99 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After multiple rewrites by various editors, there appears sufficient question to accept this. However, we are opening a door that allows any person or entity who can/will/does make self-assertion of new means to old methods. The idea "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is right here in front of your eyes, only it has been renamed in someone else's image. The multiples of yoga enthusists who use "western" methods has and will exist for eons. A good friend of mine is a newly anointed yoga instructor, I now know where and how to tell her to proceed to obtain exposure, promotion, and identity for new practice. Only thing is, nothing about it will be new, just by a different name. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep no way the AFD could have been closed any other way, and being the topic of a New York Times article is pretty solidly notable and verifiable. If the article is NOR/POV/spam/whatever, there are channels to deal with that, but it's pretty clearly not a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Afd closer WP:NOR states that "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It seems quite clear that there are "reliable, published sources" that discuss the topic, and there seemed to be a clear consensus of that in the Afd. So, I stand by my close of this discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The sources discussed in the AfD are independent of the subject -- NOR is a restriction on editor conduct, not a restriction on article subject conduct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A properly and reliably-sourced article and an AfD that found a clear consensus to keep. There's nothing else to do here, DRV isn't Round 2. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, I found something to do: coming here can have the effect of getting needed attention. The article did read and appear as promotional, so I did some additional rewriting: an effective way to diminish the impression of promotionalism is to decrease the use of the name within the article. An additional strategy is to use upper case letters as little as possible. One section emphasizing her personal attention was hopeless; since I could not figure out how to rewrite it, I removed it. The further reading section seemed an attempt to evade the policy on excessive EL's. One was significant, so I moved it to the references and removed the others. At least to me, it reads much better, and I suggest to Яεñ99 to drop this appeal. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Create - articles on Forrest Yoga Circle and Ana Forrest. Not only is Forrest Yoga notable, but the business it originated from, Forrest Yoga Circle, and the topic Ana Forrest meet WP:GNG as well. After all, she's Ana Forrest: Rock star of the yoga world. That's what happens when you get Hollywood celebrities to attend your business in Santa Monica, CA. Here's some source material going back to November 20, 1994 though August 2012:Los Angeles Times November 20, 1994[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with creating any additional articles on this subject - one is enough - although there could be an Ana Forrest redirect page pointing toward this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Melanie here. It is a good indication of promotional intent to attempt to get multiple articles on a topic like this when the only notability for the person is the topic named after the person, let alone the business named after the person. Better to have one solid article, and the present one is the better choice, as the yoga method is more important than the individual and fits better with our articles on other styles of yoga. I agree there should be a redirect from the personal name, perhaps protected. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the redirect page. I will watchlist it, and if an attempt is made to expand it, I will take appropriate action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow endorse the closure as keep. Solid decision by Mark Arsten. The consensus for keep was clear, after the article was majorly improved during the discussion per WP:HEY, and now DGG has removed most of the remaining promotional tone. Ren99 is repeating the same arguments that did not meet consensus the first time around, and that apply even less after several substantial rewrites. There is no basis for a DRV, except that Ren99 apparently dislikes variants of yoga named after their originators, and is unhappy that the consensus at AfD did not go his/her way. Furthermore, Ren99 is dead wrong in saying No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Sourcing IS the key issue for notability, and this form of yoga has received significant coverage, cited in the article, from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle and Boston Globe. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of sourcing, an article will be deleted if it is hopelessly promotional and there is no way to rewrite it, but it would be very unusual indeed to find an article with good sourcing where this would be the case. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawal Based on the corrections, commentaries, and arguments placed forward by DGG - his addresses are the convincing point in this debate; it is painfully obvious that he presents a neutral view that was carefully considered from all sides. In addition, he sought to improve the article personally and without bias, whereas others were unable to achieve his level of disconnect (thanks to Mark too for being supportive and helpful). The "?" intent by some others during the evolution did nothing but sully the process and the content, while also significantly infringing the wiki nom of WP:AFDEQ and leaving an impression of WP:STEAM. As a new editor, I rely on the ability of more seasoned editors to see past the haze and the indiscriminant; I have found one in DGG. Don't use/make insults to post-support your "claims," some of you are very seasoned editors and should know better! There are no winners or losers in a war of words; we are all belittled. Directly invoking names/name-calling is not palatable, particularly when you have no idea of what you are regarding Яεñ99 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think a consensus was reached in the discussion. I think that the deletion should be reverted so that reliable and notable sources can be researched for the material in the article. The article should then be discussed at a later point. I think the subject of the article is notable and I would like to hear/read the opinions of other editors on this topic. marie (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD as delete because, while the decision was not unanimous, the arguments against deletion all rested on verifying the existence or notability of some limited number of items on the list; no editor addressed the relevant question, raised by those recommending deletion, that the overall topic itself is not notable. This is the standard required by WP:LISTN; though those favoring deletion did not refer directly to this aspect of WP:N, it was present in their comments. Weighing the policy-compliance of the articles against the overall "number of votes", I that the net consensus was to delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore: The article was deleted per WP:LISTN, but it follows the notability guidelines 100%. It seems as if the reviewer did not actually take the time to look at the article and sources itself to make a decision. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Sources like MTV, Entertainment Weekly, Huffington Post, Glamour Magazine, etc. wrote articles about the SUBJECT and SET, which would void the explanation of why the article was deleted. The sources found the subject of Lana Del Rey's unreleased music to be notable enough to be written about on numerous occasions. If this article isn't notable enough, well, then I'm kinda confused by the WP:LISTN requirements and Category:Unreleased Music. There were 66+ sources, some BMI/ASCAP/HFA/ISWC, but a lot were independent sources.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer was correct with his reading of policy; that just because the items in a list are individually notable doesn't mean the topic of the list is notable. ThemFromSpace 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic was obviously notable when Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. thought articles about multiple songs were notable. Some articles were about individual songs and some were about a group of songs deeming her unreleased music the subject set of the article. And I don't even see this being done with List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured list.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenta Searching for others [28]" I see no particular consistency. The decisions at AfD seem to depend upon the participation more than anything rational. but this is not unusual for fan-related material, whether or not encyclopedic. Personally, I do not see the point of splitting this: a section in the discography would seem more sensible, I can also see a list of Songs written by ____, with a section for those released by other artists--that would be as standard a thing as any list of works by a writer, and I see no reason songwriters should be treated differently. We've currently been splitting such bibliography pages for literary authors, and I've even argued for it, but upon reflection I think they might be better as an integral part of the main article, which would avoid duplication , as many works will be covered there also. That the Britney Spears list is FL seems very odd to me, especially with its unnecessary & duplicative use of color for what is shown perfectly by the symbols used also. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (Please note I took part in both previous nominations). This discussion should be taken in context with List of Lana Del Rey songs which was closed as keep by the same admin. Subject to WP guidelines and policies, there is nothing in the deleted list that couldn’t and shouldn’t be in “kept” article. That was my position in the first nomination, but due to closing admin’s comments, The result was no consensus. No prejudice toward a future merge discussion., not the second nomination. IMO this whole discussion was never really about content, but article title space and how to big up (and possibly do down) the artist. Finally as per DGG, not sure “unreleased” can exist in separate article space and a number have been deleted over the course of the AfDs for this list.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it was a no consensus. Just to save everyone from looking.--MrIndustry (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Closure was done on the basis of policy and not requests by various parties to let the page be an exception to any of those policies because of any special case the writer of the songs may be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's based on policy then it's a keep. I'm not sure if you read the policy or not.--MrIndustry (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD is not a majority vote. WP:BLP and WP:LISTN take precedence over a bunch of people saying "we need to keep this article because it's important".—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to try to be as nice as possible, but did you even read what I said? Your comment is out of nowhere. Looking at WP:LISTN, it qualifies. So...? I think this needs to be a speedy restore. I'm not sure if you're trolling or what?

  Please read the following quotes from WP:LISTN:

  "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

  "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

  ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."

  So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying. --MrIndustry (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia does not do demands, MrIndustry. "set by independent reliable sources...", well now, let's see. You had dead links, youtube videos, ASCAP entries which were dead, and by the time most of the cruft and like was removed, you were down to practically nothing - since it fell under BLP too, that left it barely verifiable. I participated in the AFD, and I Fully Endorse closure as listed. Fish^Barking? 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Facts are not demands. You obviously didn't check on the article either. There were NO YouTube links other than two which were from Lana Del Rey's official YouTube. There were no dead links other than ASCAP which could have been replaced. I was down to nothing? I'm sorry, but everyone can go look at the article and see sources such as Entertainment Weekly, MTV, Glamour Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post and much more. I love how you guys ignore these sources on countless occasions. Can you please explain which part of WP:BLP it violates as well?--MrIndustry (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet all of those other sources pointed back to YouTube bootlegs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter. They still had critical reception of the song. You expect articles to be allowed to post unreleased music? Let's move back to List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Britney's article isn't notable whatsoever, I mean, she doesn't even perform the songs and never will. Lana's is a part of her past and still performs the songs. Britney's article also has 31 dead ASCAP links. Would you like to play this game? --MrIndustry (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Was it critical reception or "Hey look at this new leaked Lana Del Rey song someone on YouTube found"? And I can't really do anything to the Spears article until a precedent gets set here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more notable ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Er..."So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying." - Now you correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks very much like a demand that we pack this shit up and put your article back. No? As I said, Wikipedia doesn't do demands. Fish^Barking? 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So both articles are probably not worth keeping, but a proper decision still needs to be made here before moving onto any other deletion discussions. I think "Delicious", "Big Bad Wolf", and "Ghetto Baby" are perhaps the only ones that would possibly receive any coverage based on the references I went through (and even then I severely doubt that). We certainly would not be covering the entirety of the unreleased catalog of Ms. Grant in her various personae..—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Who gave List of unreleased Britney Spears songs the featured list? I think they would beg to differ. Also, what about List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. He's more well known as a person, but it's the same thing. And those are not the only songs with critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional comment, WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." For the List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SOFIXIT—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure I'm doing that right now. :) --MrIndustry (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'm usually up for including darn near anything related to notable music artists: I tend to want to keep articles for just every album and every single. But an article of unreleased songs from someone who's only recorded two albums is just plain silliness. Simply put, outside of iconic artists with massive cultural impact (like Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson), unreleased stuff is out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do remember she still performs these songs and it's not like she has 5, she has well over 2 albums worth of songs. She had previously unreleased Sirens, and another called Rock Me Steady. I wouldn't be so argumentative towards this subject if she had rarely any songs, but she has a large unreleased discography that makes her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Starblind and others. The sourcing is just not strong enough for what is being sourced. Insomesia (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What other sources would you like? I included top news sites.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since there have been no additional comments, I want to place this information for the reviewer to read easily.

From WP:LISTN: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."

This article follows WP:LISTN, so I'm unsure why it was nominated for not following this. The article does not have any YouTube links (other than Lana's official which is acceptable), the sources provide critical reception to the songs. They are independent of the subject and also talk about Lana Del Rey's unreleased music as a set. People are also claiming it violates WP:BLP, but I have yet to see anyone say why. I see complaints of sources above, but the sources are top news sites, so I'm shocked to see them trying to make claims. Like List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material, Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography seems notable enough to have its own page, if not more notable. Britney's sources are the same, if not less notable than Del Rey's, and Michael's sources are a book. So anyone trying to claim sources must be oblivious. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article had all of these bad links until I went through and removed all of them to show that there was nothing useful for the article because every other link was broken or did not show that the listed items do anything other than exist. Other articles are probably worse than the Lana Del Rey one, but they haven't been looked at. All I do know that from the Lana Del Rey page was that every news source that you added was no better than the YouTube bootlegs. The nature of sources always need to be looked at, beyond the fact that the publisher is considered reliable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword: HAD, the sources are notable. We've already discussed this so why are you bringing it up again? The sources included critical reception and not all had bootlegs. Your argument is invalid because I can go through every source on wikipedia and 99% of them, I can find a YouTube link to a bootleg on the website. End of conversation. --MrIndustry (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cannot be notable. They can be reliable. And this is in regards to the nature of the sources used on this article. Outside of dead links to song databases and two postings of demos to the official YouTube channel, all that's left are reliable sources posting links to illegally uploaded YouTube videos. And it's already been determined that we at Wikipedia cannot use those as sources. There was no critical reception of these songs. None were examined in any feature other than being "Hey, this is that cooky Lana Del Rey before she got famous", other than perhaps her cover of that one other song that wasn't even a single by another artist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very condescending and very wrong. I've already proved this wrong. You're a broken record - I'm out. But here's me proving you wrong, again. "Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more reliable* ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception." See the critical reception and no YouTube? There's a link to another article, but that doesn't count. I've proved all of you wrong in these posts. This is just going to turn into another pointless thread. I hope the reviewer actually reads this rather than basing it off accusations. And if you claim there's no precedent for unreleased songs, make one before reviewing this. --MrIndustry (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nothing wrong with Qwyrxian's policy-based closure. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Due consideration was given to the quality of the sources and what they stood for. This is not an example of a snowball without consideration. --Bejnar (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I saw nothing wrong.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The only thing I could find about unreleased and Lana Del Rey is a January 22, 2012 Los Angeles Times article (photo caption?) mentioning two songs and a still-unreleased album.[29] The Los Angeles Times article didn't name any songs on the unreleased album. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You must not be good at using Google. You can also try looking at the article for the 66 sources, or actually my links in this review. try this.--MrIndustry (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (& weak endorse) Just as a frank commentary, when I saw this listing I figured that Lana Del Rey must be one of the older, extremely influential blues or jazz singers like Aretha Franklin or Della Reese. As it turns out, this is a proposed listing for a 26 year-old young woman with little notoriety outside of her fanbase to have produced the lengthy commentaries above. No offense to Ms. "Del Rey" (not her birth name), but the staggering number of words above probably take up more space than all of her lyric sheets combined. With that in mind, as her career builds over time and a significant quantity of back log becomes available, maybe then this would be a better fit for inclusion. I might suggest that using one of her surnames (as listed on her Wiki page), such as the "List of unreleased Sparkle Jump Rope Queen songs" may have a more remarkable, memorable, and noteworthy impact. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought about using "List of unreleased Elizabeth Grant songs" but since she's not notable under that name, I didn't suggest it. Although they could do that and do a re-direct for Lana Del Rey which would make more sense.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still not notable for inclusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Holy crap. Can you shut up already? I have an actual comment towards something and you keep repeating that it's not notable. WE GET IT. YOU DON'T THINK IT'S NOTABLE. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But you don't realize that this is the reality about this subject matter. It's not my opinion. Wikipedia has rules and regulations concerning what is and is not allowable content and the AFD and this DRV are showing that the extensive unreleased catalog of Elizabeth Grant when she was or was not "Lana Del Rey" is not suitable for coverage on this project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My sources are reliable whether you (and everyone else in this DRV) think so or not. It follows Wikipedia's policies whether you think so or not. I've already explained why all of you are wrong. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRindustry, shouting does not make you more correct. Additionally, you may want to consider that, if a large number of experience WP users are telling you something, it is entirely possible that they may be right, and you are wrong. Also, it would help if you would try to understand what we're saying. No one is saying those aren't valid WP:RS. We're saying that the consensus was that the topic as a whole has not been discussed. While individual unreleased songs of Lana del Rey have been the subject of coverage, there has not been any coverage of the concept of a body of work called "unreleased Lana del Rey songs". And that is what is required. Again, the analogy is this: I could produce a list of People who own Range Rovers. And I could find reliable sources for it--hundreds if I stuck only to people with WP articles, thousands if I included anyone. But that would not make the topic of "Ranger Rover Owners" itself notable. That is exactly what is happening here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Her unreleased discography has been discussed in a set in various sources. & I was not shouting. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• MrIndustry has copied the entire article in its most recent state into his sandbox. I'm not sure if this is allowed, seeing as we are pretty much deciding here that it is not fit for the article space.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is. It's his sandbox, not in the mainspace. Zac  05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted, which is what we're deciding here. It's a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE now that we're deciding it should not be an article in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what you mean by "But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted". He could email himself a copy of it if he so wishes to, does that make it "so it won't be deleted"? And besides, I don't see anywhere where this article was banned from being created forever. If he wishes to have it in his sandbox and keep working on the article that is fine by him. One day, if it becomes notable enough, it could be recreated. There's nothing wrong with that. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's keeping a copy on site because the page is going to be deleted and kept deleted. It'd be fine if it was userfied but now he's just doing his best to keep the page alive. There's a reason he's doing his damnedest to keep the page from being deleted entirely. Hell, it's even been copied over to a Wikia. The transfer to his userspace is subverting the discussions we've been having and that's a disruption of Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You appear to be assuming extremely bad faith against this user; I suggest you tone it down. The sandbox is not causing any disruption. You may wish to take a look at a similar situation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo. Zac  07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • He has been working his hardest to keep the page from being deleted and he refuses to work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. He also refuses to acknowledge that this is a serious discussion and constantly responds to things with "lol" in the edit summary. And that page was deleted, anyway. This is not being used to construct a draft. It's being used to avoid deletion of the content he's worked hard in putting in the mainspace where it does not belong. And he took the opportunity to do this in the time period in which this discussion will be closed, rather than when it was first undeleted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now, we clearly is working the hardest to keep the page, but you, on the other side, are working the hardest to get it deleted. That page was deleted at the user's request; that's not the point. I will ask you once more to stop assuming bad faith on their part. If he just so happens to recreate the article after this discussion is over (and said to endorse the delete), then that's when you can say things like that, but not now. Don't assume anything. Zac  07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Just to clarify, Ryulong, had MrIndustry asked for a copy to be userfied, as the deleting admin, I would have done so. There are no copyright violations (so long as those Youtube links stay off), it's not a BLP issue, and it's not a topic so inherently non-notable that can never be an article (i.e., I wouldn't userfy an article about my mom's cat). It is entirely possible that at some point in the future del Rey's unreleased songs could become the subject of critical review, as has happened for some other artists. So long as the draft is clearly marked as a draft, this is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There clearly wasn't any consensus as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhh - can't we all just get along? This thing isn't a "world-shaker" anyway. Delete it and be done with it Яεñ99 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category is obviously extremely important to many wikipedians. I came upon it, and saw that it was created as a redirect to Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I took it upon myself, without having knowledge that it was previously deleted, to remove the redirect, and add the category to a few gay-male-specific templates and userboxes; It immediately gained over 270 members with several others adding themselves over the next few days before User:VegaDark redirected it to Category:LGBT Wikipedians explaining to me that it had previously been discussed and deleted/redirected to the LGBT category.

To place everyone into the catch-all category of Category:LGBT Wikipedians is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community and diminishes the importance of the subgroup. I feel that every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender wikipedian deserves to be able to freely use categories that enable them to find and collaborate with people of similar points-of-view, world-experience and a mutual understanding of the social and political issues that are not identical to each subgroup; an issue that is basically non-existent for the straight majority who, with little or no conscious effort are able to find others that share their world view by virtue of operating with a straight-is-default mentality. This is luxury that we lack and is only complicated by grouping /everyone/ into LGBT.

The closing argument by wikipedia administrator User: Xoloz stated Deletions endorsed. Prior deletions of other (more "mainstream") gender/sexuality categories do belie the accusations of bias here. The consensus below endorsed the uCfD determination that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism.

As stated above, the categories do indeed contribute value to the encyclopedia by allowing people to find and collaborate with those that share experiences, points of view and interests relevant to their current research and page projects. Comparing sexuality to a zodiac sign and a "status symbol" is an offensive diminution of the importance with which we hold our self-esteem and individuality.

As for the introduction of factionalism, there are many categories that do just that. In fact, by virtue of not being all-encompassing, every category technically creates a group of individuals that are and are not included. Does this mean that Religious Wikipedians shouldn't have an associated category? No, it doesn't. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: - Category:Gay Wikipedians was deleted as a result of the 4 October 2007 uCfD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification. The uCfD deletion of Category:Gay Wikipedians was endorsed at the October 10, 2007 DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Sexuality and gender identification categories. This present DRV discussion is to address the 4 October 2007 UCFD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification/Category:Gay Wikipedians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)

• Oppose - A userbox or some other userpage notice is fine for self-declaration. The purpose of Wikipedian categories is collaboration, not notification. The collaborative category is Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. As has been stated many, many times, one does not need to be LGBT to collaborate on LGBT-related topics. We're all Wikipedians here. And the use of LGBT has long standing consensus. See also WP:WikiProject LGBT. And note: This looks like an attempt at XfD 2. This does not look to meet the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at CfD exactly per the reasoning in the DRV immediately below. Irrespective of what we used to do years ago, it's reasonable to have a fresh discussion at this point.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Category:LGBT Wikipedians is too big. Over 1,400 users are listed in that category, so splitting it in subcategories will help. We have Category:Christian Wikipedians with 22 subcategories, including Christian anarchist Wikipedians‎, Esoteric Christian Wikipedians‎, Christadelphian Wikipedians‎... Double standards?--В и к и T 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at CfD - I don't actually remember past discussions on this topic, so it was probably a while ago... Time to revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jc37, and delete the existing LGBT category that should have been deleted long ago but was recreated out of process. As Jc points out, this is an identifying category, not a collaboration category. Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues is much more likely to actually do so. In fact, I would imagine it's rather insulting to a gay person to suggest that everyone of them can be grouped together and have some sort of collaborative interest by the mere fact they happen to be attracted to a particular sex- and, even if that were true, we would run in to original research problems. VegaDark (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Getting back to the root of the issue, how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia? VegaDark (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also noting that this category should be placed within the LGBT category, along with other similar categories of self-identification (bisexual, lesbian, etc) and that this category is appropriate because some members of the LGBT umbrella prefer a more specific label than the catchall term. ThemFromSpace 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. If editors choose to describe themselves in various ways, knowing that can aid collaboration. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of community--and making clear our extraordinary diversity. Preventing their use for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (I agree with Vegadark that there are finer distinctions possible among both straight and gay, but there are advantages in not being overly specific--there is a point at which it would detract from our basic purpose.) DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) I realise it may be considered an old saw by now, but it's no less true: We're not here for self-expression. We're here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. And besides that, editors can "self-express" on their user page through a userbox or other userpage notice. Categories are for navigation. There is no collaborative need for such a category. - jc37 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  categories in mainspace are for navigation. Categories in user space are for collaboration. We are here to build content, but more specifically we are here to build content by working together. Self-expression is part of collaboration--we need at some level to some degree to know one another. I think to a very limited degree, but it would extend to basic things like this. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that perspective, and would be empathetic to it, except that I have never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than attempts at canvassing/vote stacking at XfD. Plus, just because one may self-assert they are LGBT, doesn't mean they are interested in editing LGBT topics. We had several situations (zodiac being the largest) where it was made abundantly clear that most people in self-id cats are merely doing so for self-id reasons. Self-ID categories as such are thus merely vanity pages, and that falls afoul of WP:NOT. So with that in mind, we're better off having "interested in collaborating on X topic"-style categories. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than..." Yes you have. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16, Neutral good Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance to the link. I see an assertion (which was disagreed with) that thie cat in question was a "by editing philosophy" cat. And even if we were to accept the premise of the nom, that makes it a "how I will contribute" cat, as I note below. So it isn't relevant to this discussion AFAICT. - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Editing philosophy is a self-identification, and a relevant one at that, and absolutely nothig to do with canvassing of XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy to hear that you have never encountered people using the inclusionist category to mass canvass. Or the "against notability" one, or the LGBT one, for that matter. On the other hand, I have seen it. Many many times. - jc37 04:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I have seen it. But you seemed to suggesting that the *only* use of self-identification categories is canvassing of XfD. I dispute this as an exaggeration. I don’t however dispute that it can often be the case, nor that it is a serious concern, including for this category. I wonder, would it be workable if for self-identification catageories, if it were required that a case be made that it has a project-related purpose that is not for canvassing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the current requirement for all Wikipedian categories, per WP:USERCAT, and MANY prior discussions, and WP:NOT, for that matter. That they are to be used for a collborative purpose to build the encyclopedia.

  It's what I've said several times: We're all Wikipedians here, how do you want to help? And a person's race/ethnicity/descent and/or sexuality/gender and/or faith/philosophy/religion simply have no bearing on that. And honestly, I question whether it might actually be considered prejudiced to suggest that it does (I'm not saying anyone is, merely that it's an interesting question.) And that not even taking into account that we have "by interest" categories for topics related to these identifications, which makes all of these self-identification categories duplicative.

  I'll restate: These are just IWANTIT categories. With the followup: "If they get theirs, I want mine". It's all just possessive WP:OTHERSTUFF. - jc37 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• jc37, so you are against Category:Wikipedians by religion, Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, Category:Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by education and nearly everything else under Category:Wikipedians except 'interest' and other project-user-relationship scaffolding? WP:Canvassing isn't dependent on a user category, and in my experience people usually use off-wiki lists of 'friends' to do canvassing. How people use lists of users is as varied as their are people who use them, and misuses (such as canvassing) have their own guidelines. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Has nothing to do with me being "against" anything. It has to do with repeated consensus over years regarding Wikipedian cats. See topical index for an overview of such discussions. And also WP:USERCAT. Oh and as far as this discussion note [[30]] - there were three deletion reviews (concerning gay and queer), over several years, all endorsed. And yes, there has been a LOT of use of Wikipedian categories for attempts at vote stacking through canvassing. (Though these days, editors are usually caught early.) - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your definition of "consensus" must differ quite a lot from mine. There are currently 378 cats within Cat:Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality. Are you suggesting those are all contrary to consensus and should be deleted as well? If so, this isn't the place to make that argument. If not, why single out the minority of Wikipedians who choose to identify on-wiki as gay? Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't do the G4 recreation of this category, someone else did. They were then reverted. This isn't singling anyone or anything out. This is enforcing a previous concensus per policy. If there was new information that wasn't covered in the previous CfD, then I could understand the DRV being started. But there isn't, this is merely IWANTIT trying to use DRV as xfd2. Which is against the DRV guidelines last I checked. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was that the existence of hundreds of categories in Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality indicates a de facto consensus to allow such categories. A further point is that new information per se isn't a prerequisite for new consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's like suggesting we shouldn't revert vandalism, because so much of it exists, it must be allowable. (To be clear, I'm not calling this situation vandalism, I'm making a comparison of things which have had repeated consensus to not have on Wikipedia: vandalism (on one hand) and use of Wikipedian categories merely for identification purposes (on the other).) And that without even getting into the G4 issues.

  I suppose I could also quote WP:OTHERSTUFF too... - jc37 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. One doesn't need to be in a category to foster collaboration. If you want to collaborate, join a wikiproject. Also, just because you're in a category doesn't mean you are interested in collaboration. Most people who use the X wikipedian categories use them for nothing more than a way to state who they are at the bottom of their user page. And as is mentioned above, you don't have to belong to x wikipidians to collaborate on x. These categories are nothing more than a way to bring social features to Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If someone wishes to identify to a category, that is their business. Just being gay does not mean they necessarily identify with people that are LBT, nor should they be forced to categorize with a larger group because of the lack of a scope they find acceptable  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No it's not just "their business". Categories are navigational tools which group pages through the software. If someone wants to self-identify, they can do so through editing their userpage. - jc37 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is Category:Wikipedians by religion with 121 total subcategories, including some really interesting categories like Satanist Wikipedians, [[Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians‎ (??), Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba‎ (???). I don't see how is categorization by religion different from categorization by sexuality?--В и к и T 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-meaning Wikipedians repeatedly create such categories. I haven't looked in Cat:W by Religion lately, last I recall it was only a dozen or so, with a few subcats. But from your comments, I would guess it needs to be looked at... - jc37 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Christian Wikipedians actually encourages it: "If a page for that branch of Christianity does not exist, please feel free to create it." - htonl (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-meaning or not, the issue should be addressed for all categories as a matter of policy instead of singling out one group. And even if we started out with one group as an example I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to start with gay people.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Starting with? This clean up started well over 7 years ago. This one in particular was over 4 years ago. I appreciate you have an opinion, and you're of course welcome to assert it, but please understand that this is merely clean up after long standing multiple consensus discussions. You may wish to look over WP:USERCAT. - jc37 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Jc, do you still not realize that the purpose of this discussion is to indicate that the consensus of 4 years ago no longer holds? DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The "purpose of this discussion" is obviously to re-argue an XfD2. There is no "new information" that justifies this to even be at DRV. The DRV nom concerning female, below, at least has that. This, doesn't. And reading over the comments simply reinforces this. Do you see any "Overturn" comments which show anything other than IWANTIT? or ITSHOULDBEALLOWED? And I include your comments, by the way... So no, this is simply an attempt at another bite at the apple, regardless of how long it has been, which, last I checked, was against the guidelines at DRV. - jc37 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How else would we indicate that Consensus has Changed? To do that we need either unchallenged bold action (which would obviously not work on this topic), or a general discussion in a conspicuous central place. For XfDs,this is the conspicuous central place. We have previously overturned numerous older discussions on the basis that consensus can change, so why not this one? As for two bites at the apple, are you suggesting that once we decide to keep something we can never consider it for deletion? If not, why should it hold in the opposite direction? This is the rational first step to a CfD2. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How else? Let's see. How about not doing a G4 recreation, having it reverted then going to DRV, among other things? How about instead of all that, start a discussion somewhere (WT:CFD for example). Present your case and see if the community agrees that WP:CCC. And life goes on. BUT NOT RECREATING UNTIL CCC HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DETERMINED. Intentionally recreating a G4 is WP:POINT, running to DRV is WP:PARENT (among other things), and the whole thing is just WP:GAME. Using DRV this way when we have a LONG consensus that DRV is not to be used as XfD2, is simply wrong. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DGG. Insomesia (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Anything within reason that can help make new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be permitted, and self-identification within such a category is well within reason. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - It is not right that we allow users to categorize themselves based on their religious beliefs, but not based on their sexual orientation. To have a category that lists gay men can be beneficial to WikiProject LGBT studies by being able to locate users who can contribute to the expansion and development of articles relating to their identification. I would also support categories for Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Wikipedians. There are categories based on which TV shows users watch or what books they read, and surely someone's sexual identification is more important, I think it's offensive. It is important for users who are of a minority sexual orientation to be able identify with each other. NYSMtalk page 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They already can. Category:LGBT Wikipedians already exists. Category:Gay Wikipedians is a category redirect to that, per long convention that we do not split such categorisation, but instead use LGBT. - jc37 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That it not good enough, I am a gay man and I can't relate to lesbians and transpeople, that category is just throwing all minority sexual orientations together assuming all LGBT people are the same. That would be like forcing "Category:Catholic Wikipedians‎", "Category:Protestant Wikipedians‎", and "Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians‎" to only use the blanket "Category:Christian Wikipedians". It is not justifiable to allow the 3 just mentioned subcategories (+ 19 more) for Christianity alone, but yet not allow any subcategorization for sexual identification. NYSMtalk page 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an arguement for deleting the LGBT cat (and also several self-identification religion/faith-related categories). And also WP:OTHERSTUFF, and IWANTIT. Nothing there which rises to the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the inclusion of the religious identification categories for the same reason as the sexual orientation categories, for locating users to collaborate in the improvement of their specific WikiProjects. I don't support the inclusion of this category just because "I want it" as you claim, I believe I have stated valid reasons as to why it's existence is warranted. As Rivertorch stated, something that makes new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be encouraged, the existence of these self identification categories can only be beneficial. NYSMtalk page 01:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  such categories already exist: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, for example. These clearly show that the intent is collaboration, and not just vanity. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as it facilitates collaboration. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

expansion of rationale I don't have the energy to type out all this, so I'd like to quote some of the things I'd like to say. "Just being gay does not mean they necessarily identify with people that are LBT, nor should they be forced to categorize with a larger group because of the lack of a scope they find acceptable."little green rosetta) For that reason, deleting the thing "is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community."(per undeletion nom) I confess I don't see any benefit to the deletion in the first place, and "I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia.(ThemFromSpace) Some have scoffed at the catagory as a collaborative tool. The deletion nom stated, "While a userpage notice may be useful, it's not necessary to have a category identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with. . . ."(Jc37) This completely mises the importance of the category. Anyone "who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration."(Blue Rasberry) Yes, we are all Wikipedians, but we have all these cat's and userboxes to personalize that experience. Deleting this one diminishes that. Dlohcierekim 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, keep the category This is a useful category per DGG and Nowyouseeme. VegaDark asked "how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia?" The category is not to announce an arbitrary action like attraction to a particular sex but to express a social affinity with a group which shares a cultural identity. The assertion is that the demographic who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration. This is analogous with other cultural categories like region, profession, or philosophy. There is an precedent of a long-standing community with a gay cultural identity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not understand what you mean by that. I think that you would not support the redirection of all categories in Category:Wikipedians into that one category because that would not be useful at all. Are you asserting that there is something fundamentally different about a gay cultural identity as opposed to any of the other cultural identities demarcated for collaboration with people who make themselves available as self-identified representatives of a given culture? If so, what is the difference? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean what I said: We're all Wikipedians here. When you interact with me, it doesn't matter what race I may be, what ethnicity I may be, what gender I may be, what faith I may choose to believe, or what sexuality. None of that matters. And Wikipedia is not a social site. We allow social niceties to a point because it can help promote positive, collegiate collaboration. Which is why people are allowed to self-identify by declarations on their user pages. But use of categories is for direct collaboration, it is not for self-identification. Another way to put it: Wikipedian categories are for how you or I intend to help, not for how you or I may describe ourselves. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, essentially per Insomesia (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - The 4 October 2007 UCFD closed didn't list a detailed reason. However, the subsequent October 10, 2007 DRV close noted that the uCfD determination was that the Gay Wikipedians status category (like "signs of the zodiac") does not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. Wikipedia's change over the past five years is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the 4 October 2007 deletion at UCFD. If Category:Gay Wikipedians is again listed at XfD, the question that should be answered in this modern Wikipedia era is 1. does Category:Gay Wikipedians contribute value to the encyclopedia and 2. does Category:Gay Wikipedians introduce factionalism into this modern Wikipedia era. DRV isn't the place to answer these questions. Since we don't have answers, overturn/allow recreation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn Though my inkling is to say "oppose", I frequently remind myself that mine is not the only opinion, times change, and knee-jerk is a problem. Those persons wishing to participate in a categorization of "Gay Wiki..." should be allowed to do so if the category is logical to include. Those wishing omission by denial can always BLP/object their way off the list. People feel a need to "socially identify." We may not all feel a linkage for certain categories, but people do devote lifetimes and -styles to participation(s) in commonalities. Having this listed would provide a central point for like-minded and like-behaved persons to seek mutual ideology, informational exposition, and support. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't help build the encyclopedia. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The community decision to prohibit user categorisation by gender was made by user:jc37 on 20 June 2007 and implemented by user:After Midnight the following day.[31] The categories deleted were:

• Category:Wikipedians by gender
• Category:Male Wikipedians
• Category:Female Wikipedians
• Category talk:Female Wikipedians (its just technical talk)
• Category:Transgender Wikipedians

Roughly four months ago (2012-04-21), user:Ramesh Ramaiah created Category:User female, and until yesterday it had 566 members, and most of them are due to template inclusions. e.g. [32]

Yesterday user:VegaDark deleted Category:User female citing the 2007 decision. I had a chat with VegaDark (User talk:VegaDark#Category:user female), who thinks DRV is needed. I dont disagree.

What has changed since 2007? Two things.

Firstly, I think the community now has a greater appreciation now that there is a real issue with the lack of women here. The WMF has put reducing "the gendergap" as one of its goals. Change involves going the extra mile. We should be employing every tool we can in order to ensure that new self-identified women are welcomed and supported. That is why there was a meta:WikiWomenCamp just for women in Argentina earlier this year (another one is planned for India, next year iirc?), Wikimedia is supporting Ada Initiative, Wikimedia had a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon, WP:Teahouse was created and appears to be successful[33], there are academic studies targeting women (e.g. [34]), and lots of blogging[35]. Women self-identify their gender in lots of ways on their user pages, and a category is a simple way of allowing all those self-identified women to be easily found in one way. There are a multitude of different userboxes for gender, making special:whatlinkshere not very useful. User categories are unobtrusive parts of a user page, for people who dont want to use userboxen at all. Also, user categories are much more user-friendly as opposed to special:whatlinkshere.

Secondly, technology has improved. We now have two WP:category intersection tools, which means that while navigating a category full of women isnt a good use of time, it is now simple to find users who are Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Australia(i.e.[36]), or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine, or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians by degree(i.e. [37]). And one of the category intersection tools allows many of these categories to be combined together. E.g. if an Australia female uni student is look for someone to adopt them, this is female Australians with a degree (currently: User:Ninevah & User:Kla22374).

It is also now possible to monitor changes to any page in a category, including by RSS.[38] This can be used to monitor all self-declared women's user- or user-talk pages for vandalism, flare-ups, achievements, etc. e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Wikipedians_in_Australia

Finally, to pre-empt the inevitable concerns about gender and sexuality being "too messy" to categorise, please consider that Category:LGBT Wikipedians and redirects Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Lesbian Wikipedians and Category:Transgender Wikipedians exist. That category was also deleted later in 2007 (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:LGBT_Wikipedians) however the LGBT category was recreated by user:nathan a few months later stating "This category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community that supports it.", and LGBT members rallied around it to protect the category (see Category talk:LGBT_Wikipedians). It is ridiculous that the current state of play is that LGBT are allowed a category, but women are not. They are both minorities on Wikipedia, and should be afford similar treatment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more note; a fairly comprehensive list of Wikipedias with this category can be found listed in the interwikis of fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur_femme John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: - The only category up for review in this deletion review is the deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians. User:After Midnight deleted Category:Female Wikipedians on 21 June 2007 based on the 15 June 2007 "Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender."[39] The only discussion being reviewed at this DRV is Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own deletion - Procedurally, this was sound. There was an old discussion over the category which resulted in delete. When I discovered a new iteration (inappropriately named, I might add - "User-x" is reserved for babel categories, not categories like this) I checked the old discussion to make sure the reasons for deletion still applied. They did. The discussion had a good showing of participants and was unanimous. The deletion made sense, all of the previous reasons still applied, and the category had been re-created out of process. G4 has no time limit, although obviously consensus can change. The way to go about seeing if consensus has changed, however, is to bring up a discussion here, not re-create the category out of process. That being said, I happy about discussing the merits of bringing back the category here. I would argue that this category is not the type of category we want or need on Wikipedia, even considering "what has changed" as mentioned above. User categories are intended to foster collaboration. There is no collaborative reason to group all females together. Also, if we add that, then we are going to of course have to have a Male Wikipedians category. Half the world's population would fit in one category, the other half of the population would fit in the other. This, IMO, falls under the all-inclusive section describing inappropriate types of user categories. The original reasons were sound, still apply, and the category should remain deleted. Users can use a userbox with the 'what links here" function to find females if they really wish to. If people don't want to use userboxes, that's their own problem. I agree reducing the gender gap is important but compromising the integrity of the user category system is not the way to go about doing so, IMO. Additionally, I'll also add that the LGBT category needs to be deleted per previous consensus deleting it and endorsing it at DRV. It's only managed to stay around because of the headache deleting it would cause, although procedurally sound and IMO beneficial for the encyclopedia to do so. VegaDark (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, VegaDark, I'm afraid the established custom and practice is that G4 expires by effluxion of time. DRV has never decided what the actual timescale is. But you won't be allowed to enforce a 2007 decision over good faith objections, because that would constitute one admin overruling the established principle that consensus can change. A fresh CfD will be necessary.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Only part of that is true. Admin's are to continue to enforce G4, until they shouldn't : )

  While consensus can change, a "good faithed objection" isn't a change to consensus.

  As both JV and VD noted on VD's talk (and you even somewhat note above), a DRV (and/or CFD) is needed to indicate a change in consensus. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV has consistently refused to enforce the outcomes of five-year-old discussions, Jc37. I'm quite sure that it won't enforce this one. A CfD is necessary to show that consensus has changed, but any good faith user has standing to make that CfD happen.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  While it may be what you meant, that's not quite what you said above : )

  Anyway, from your follow up clarification, I don't think that you and I disagree on the process of WP:CCC. Thanks for the clarification. - jc37 12:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think it's exactly what I said, but I'm sorry if I accidentally confused you.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: I read VegaDark's argument above and don't see a single reason for deleting the categories other than process wonkery. Of course gender identification, especially for women, has the chance to promote collaboration and the opportunity to connect people with similar interests. I'm afraid the argument about "all inclusive" is not persuasive, since we know that women editors make up less than 10% of all Wikipedia editors. As for the LGBT category, I think it's obvious that this category provides many of the same benefits: it allows people in a minority (of editors) group to identify and contact each other, to work together, to support each other, and to strengthen the community. The argument for deleting these categories boils down to deletion for its own sake, something hopefully others can see past. Nathan ^T 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "deletion for its own sake"? No. it's an issue of overcategorisation, for one thing. This can lead (has led) to splitting all Wikipedian categories by gender. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the original closer, looking over the past CfDs (and in this case UCfDs), I think that JV's points above indeed fall under the "new situation"/"new information", which is typically required for a Relist at XfD. I could support this premise as long as this is limited to only the specific category Category:Female Wikipedians (and Category:LGBT Wikipedians), and does not lead to splitting anything else by gender/sexuality. So we shouldn't see things like: Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X, etc. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In regards to "all-inclusive". Normally, I would agree, except in this case, I can weakly agree that this could fall under Wikipedia:Systemic bias. - jc37 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. It's been five years and a credible argument has been made that circumstances have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist Echoing my comment above: I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. To the extent editors want to describe themselves here in various ways, knowing this aids collaboration. A special argument was given that this particular category especially aids integration, and I think it's valid. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of belonging here. Preventing them for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (Male WPedians would be a good category too. It does not exhaust the universe of WPedians here as it would for mainspace bios, because not all male WPedians would choose to join it. Quite a number prefer to be nonspecific or totally anonymous, and many who do specify it somewhere, deliberately do not list themselves in any personal characteristic categories at all (like myself). DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Hey women, please come edit the Wikipedia, because whereas before you could self-identify as a female, now you can do it with a category!" Really? This is what's going to fix the gender gap? A category? Pull the other one. As I state above in the gay wikipedians DRV, wikipedian categories are not well used for collaboration (collaboration for years being the main argument for keeping wikipedian categories around). And as I see in this DRV, even that pretense has been dropped in favor of nothing more than self-identification. Not needed for editing the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument is that self identification helps collaboration, for those who choose to use it. All that could be said in opposition is that you don't think it would work for you. I don't want it for myself either, but that's no reason not to allow it for those whom think it would help them DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said time and time again, how does one go about collaborating with members of a category? Picking one at random, leaving a message on their talk page, and waiting for them to respond? How long until you move to the next person if you don't get a response, or a "not interested" response? I'll wager you'll waste a lot of time trying to get someone to collaborate with you using this method. No, I don't think it works for anyone. People keep saying it does, with nothing to back them up. But let's assume for a minute that category-based collaboration works great. Collaboration on what, exactly? When you self identify as "female", it gives me zero guidance as to what you want to collaborate on. Can I bother you on Feminism? Reproductive rights? High-heeled shoes? Female CEOs? Or do you draw the line at, literally, Female? I've asked these questions before, and nobody has ever given me an answer that would make me change my mind on wikipedian categories. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, where do we draw the line? As soon as we allow gender categories and sexual preference categories, the line becomes very blurry about what should be allowed vs. not allowed. How about age? Those categories have long been settled as non-collaborative as well. The best rule of thumb is ask two questions - "Would there ever be an encyclopedic purpose for specifically seeking out users in such a category?" and "If yes, is there a better name the category could have that would better represent the category is for collaboration?" The answer to this first question, for me, is no, and even if there is some sort of collaboration that can occur (let's pretend for a second that all females would be presumed interested in collaborating on the Feminism article), then a better, more collaborative name for the category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism, because there could both be males interested in collaborating on this topic, and because in reality not all females would be interested in collaborating on the feminism article. Why beat around the bush and hope for "indirect" collaboration when we have a perfectly good scheme of creating on-its-face collaborative categories? VegaDark (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In the DRV opening statement I have included examples of Wiki events which are for women only. AdaCamps by Ada Initiative have been supported by WMF and WMAU (and maybe others). The Wikimania's inclusion of a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon was a decision of the Wikimania committe. meta:WikiWomenCamp was supported by WMAT, WMAU, and WMDE and attended by Sue Gardner from WMF. Now it is true that these events arnt' intended to directly result in collaboration on the encyclopedia, however they do help women learn about each other and the issues they face in this male dominated environment, and support each others activities. Survey's are also checking whether these women are being harassed (e.g. meta:Editor Survey 2011/Women Editors) While indirect, they are useful ways to support women who contribute content to this encyclopedia. Note that a "Female Wikipedians" category does not compete with interest categories, such as Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism. We can have both categories, and contributions can choose one or more that they wish to be a member of. It is analogous to "Christian Wikipedians" as a self identification category. I don't want to see a proliferation of self identification categories, but I do want to see basic characteristics allowed for, and gender is part of that. IMO categorisation by age is also fine, and it is implemented without drama in many other Wikipedias (Obviously care is needed for categorisation of minors) - they typically implement it as categorisation by decade, however categorisation by demographic "generation" would also be acceptable.(e.g. Gen Y) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And those are great events, but you haven't explained how they have anything to do with this category. Are you planning on spamming everyone in it to see if they want to attend? Can they at least opt-out of the messages? Because "self-identify" doesn't mean the same as "spam me about women's events". It means nothing more than "I'm female". It does nothing for collaboration, it does nothing for notification, it does nothing to help edit the encyclopedia. If you want social media, join facebook. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How does Category:Female Wikipedians differ from Category:Christian Wikipedians? Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. The point of self-identification categories is to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. They are making themselves available, even if they are not particularly interested in declaring it as one of their interests. e.g. a Category:Wikipedian lawyer may only declare an interest in history, because they use Wikipedia as a way to "get away from work", however they may still be very happy to answer the occasional question if it relates directly to them. Good use of self-identification categories depends on selecting contributors carefully, and accepting that they may not be interested. Heck, they may even be lying about their identity. But despite the warts of this system, it is useful if used well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How do they differ? They don't. Never said they do. Don't assume that just because Christian Wikipedians is a blue link and not up for discussion here that it means I'm for that while against Female Wikipedians. I'm against both. Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. Then why did you bring up the women-only wiki-events twice? You still haven't explained what one has to do with the other. Do you actually have a reason for using the events as a reason not to keep the female wikipedians category deleted? If not, would you mind striking it from your opening statement? to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. Yes, this is my point, exactly, and it was determined that this is not a reason to have user categories. They are making themselves available Again, as I replied to DGG above, how exactly? Can I ask you a question on bra-sizes because you self-identified as a female? Do I pick a name at random from the category to ask a question about women's volleyball? How long to move on to the next random name if I don't get a response (or an "I don't know"). Can I cut down on my research time by asking 100 (or 1000) females the same question at the same time? (and can tell the good folks at AN/I that you said this was ok when I get questioned why I'm bothering our female editors?). Using self-identification categories for collaboration or even questioning purposes is a terribly bad idea. This is why we have wikiprojects. A specific place to go to ask for help that is frequented by people who have knowledge about the subject and want to help. Using self-identification categories for self-identification purposes is also a bad idea. It amounts to nothing more than social media, and that is not what wikipedia is for. You can get the same self-identification by typing "I am a female" on your user page and clicking save. --Kbdank71 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have explained how I use WP:Category intersection to narrow down the results so that I am contacting people who are highly likely to appreciate the 'spam'. The events a) show the commitment of Wikimedia organisations and the Wikimedia community to the objective of understanding and reducing the gender gap, and b) the need for Wikimedia organisations and Wikipedians to support our self-disclosed female Wikipedians. If I misuse user-identification categories, I expect to be lambasted at ANI too. I have explained how these user-identification categories can be used for good and the importance of these good uses, and I am hoping that the community agrees that there are sufficient good uses to outweigh the misuses that are possible. If *you* misuse user-identification categories, that is your problem and you can expect to be taken to ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and "Not needed" is the same as "Verboten"?—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Due to technical overhead for categories, among various other reasons, "not needed" indicates "shouldn't use". Using categories as "bottom of the page notices" has long been frowned upon, especially when someone can add the information to the page without using a category. This is true of all pages, not just userpages. - jc37 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm intrigued! What's the technical overhead, exactly, and could you please enumerate the various other reasons?—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that "not needed" doesn't indicate "shouldn't use", for userspace categories. We apply it to mainspace because a categorisation can be read by our readers as an authoritive unquestionable fact, and it sits there without explicit reference. When "not needed" for mainspace, but still useful, we use hidden or talk page categories. There is also then need for categories to be someone useful for navigation, despite the limit clunky capabilities, and so there is a restriction against overcategorisation. These limitations do not so readily apply to userspace, to self-categorisation by users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever answer which will avoid yet another round of argumentative questioning on your part. --Kbdank71 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a helpful graphic at Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or Relist (no preference between these two outcomes). Five years, the community changes, and there have definitely been changes in the community's concern about the editor gender imabalance. There's enough reason, in my view, to at least reconsider the question. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom. Categories have utility here easily exceeding that of userboxes. Agree with Jc37 that this does not generalise to "Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X", for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think anyone is now arguing for such intersections in user space. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Identity is an extremely personal decision and all efforts should be made to accommodate personal preferences. --BXM 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn, agree with BXM, directly above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I feel this is just as important as other self-identification categories and women are a minority here, being able to find and collaborate with other women (who have their own set of tastes, interests and expertise) would help to foster a better environment that is more welcoming and friendlier to new potential (female) editors. Though no one should take this to mean that I endorse hair-splitting the categories as was mentioned above with an example like "Girls interested in Foo" I do endorse this particular category. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Short of a category name being patently offensive and intended to disrupt, it should be allowed.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn User:After Midnight's 21 June 2007 deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians.[40] - The outcome of Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender only deleted Category:Wikipedians by gender. It did not create a guideline or policy to justify deleting Category:Female Wikipedians or any category other than Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with this, the Wikipedians by gender nom clearly mentions "its three subcategories" in the nomination whether they were specifically spelled our or not. To me it's rather obvious all of those were subject to the discussion and not merely the parent category. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like everything John Vandenberg mentioned in the above DRV nom? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - per nom and Cirt. NYSMtalk page 10:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

As one of the primary editors after article was recreated in July, I was not notified by the individual editor attempting to delete the page by numerous 'speedy deletes' and subsequently AfD. Author in question has been shown to be notable with Wikipedia Policy but that was not supported at AfD after article was 'deletionist' edited. The author is notable, sources were given and validated within the article, and that point had previously been stated by an admin in July on the article talk page. Further references have also shown the author to be within WP:GNG, WP:NOTE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NTEMP guidelines and all his books were properly sourced according to WP:IRS, as was the original independent publisher of his books, etc. etc. Sources about author's life met the three core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and also WP:NRVE. The subject appears to exceed WP:NPF standard. Each "source" in contention should have been addressed individually with WP:BLPSOURCES and not deleted summarily by "one editor consensus" of sources. The author BLP has been a point of contention for some time, going back a number of years and needs to be treated properly. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with Dr. David R. Hawkins or the previous discussions, he is the author of Power vs Force, shown here with endorsement from Wayne Dyer, and eight other books, one of which was co-authored with Dr. Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize recipient. Though his Wikipedia links were pulled, the authors book content is located in a topic section of the article Level of consciousness (Esotericism), discussed in outline. The author has since become a contentiously notable spiritualist working under the guise of science; skeptics regarding his work as pseudo-science, also having published various articles about him as well, which were included in the Wikipedia article prior to AfD.

Publication and Media:

His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007:

Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins.

• http://soulgarden.me/profiles/blogs/david-r-hawkins-interview-on Quick Link
• http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force Oprah Link

Barbara Walters Show Past Guest Bios (reposted at Oneness)-David R. Hawkins

• http://www.experiencefestival.com/barbara_walters_-_age_confusion
• http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/David_R_Hawkins/id/2047910

National Television Appearances:

• MacNeil Lehrer News Hour
• Barbara Walters Show
• The Today Show

Notable endorsements by public figures:

• "...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa
• "...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca
• "I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business...Sam Walton
• "Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer

Books:

• Linus Pauling & Hawkins, Joint Authorship

Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-716-70898-1

• Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-561-70933-6
• Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32612-4
• Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32617-5
• Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32619-1
• Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50071-1
• Hawkins, David R. (2005). Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference. Toronto: Axial Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50073-8
• Hawkins, David R. (2005). Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: The Stairway to Enlightenment. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-4-6
• Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-6-2

Though cross-language projects do not have always the same guidelines, it can be noted that the German project has a bio of this American author at http://de.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=David_R._Hawkins, which as a result of the English AfD closure, two editors involved in this closure have since targeted across language projects to delete it as well. This would seem to imply undue bias.

Policy WP:NRVE clearly states: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet..." if contested "...if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.".

There are a large number of search links to both primary and secondary sources for Dr. Hawkins, his writings, his lectures, as well as video interviews including discussion with Deepak Chopra and other contemporaries. The editors targeting this for deletion appear biased or misinformed, also regarding proper policy application --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (After an edit conflict, during which the nomination statement was both lengthened and toned down): Although a long, rambling nomination statement that includes a bibliography and is replete with accusations about deletionist editors isn't normally a very good sign, and although the discussion was closed in accordance with a clear consensus, it strikes me that there may be a genuine case to answer here. If you look at de:David R. Hawkins you can see a list of awards he's received:- A "Huxley Award" (which appears to relate to schizophrenia), the Physician's Recognition Award of the American Medical Association (which does appear to mean more than just "has qualified as a doctor"), the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame 2006 (and I've found a source to back that up), and the 50-year Distinguished Life Fellow's Honor of the American Psychiatric Association, whatever that might mean. Now to me, and contrary to the assertions made in the AfD, this does look like the biography of a chap who's at the end of a long and distinguished career in psychiatric medicine. The sort of scholar who might well merit a Wikipedia article. While I intend no criticism of the closer who did exactly what he was supposed to do, I think we could be looking at a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The huxley institute is a group that advocates vitamins etc for curing Schizophrenia. The "orthomolecular" group is a similar fringe group. These aren't distinguished or notable awards. The American Medical Association (AMA) Physician's Recognition Award (PRA) is [41] an automatic entitlement for physicians who collect enough educational credits as part of their job, with the distinguished fellow of the psychiatric association it's a standard award you would expect any professional with a long career to achieve.IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was his joint work with Linus Pauling that led to the Orthomolecular stuff. I do accept that notability etc. aren't inherited from the multi-Nobel-prizewinning Pauling to Dr Hawkins; but to me, the co-author strongly implies that this isn't some crank fringe piece of work.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is on the fringe, see Megavitamin therapy for example etc (Pauling was also on the fringe too with respect to this). Note that this doesn't by itself make him non-notable; plenty of pseudoscientists, fringe scientists etc are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Notable author & pseudoscientist. WorldCat l

The books argument is a vote for keep in an AfD; This isn't AfD2. Having books in libraries isn't recognised by WP:AUTHOR as a sign of notability. What reliable sources are there to actually write an article which is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE? There are none in the article and none were shown at AfD. Which arguments do you think were prejudiced? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The AfD argument makes sense for a keep or non-consensus close, but not for a delete close: it is contrary to the overall policy that WP is an encyclopedia, and to make an encyclopedia articles on notable subjects have to be included,unless there is some other reason for exclusion. An erroneous decision on notability harms the encyclopedia. How else but here do you propose to review an afd delete which should not have been deleted? This is specifically the place where people are told to go when there is additional evidence that was not considered at the afd. JClemens below has it right. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There is nothing by the nom saying that the closure was erroneous or did not adequately weigh up the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closure of the AfD by closing admin was not erroneous, he followed procedure. After multiple attempts at speedily delete by a single nominator in the past few weeks, the article was sent to AfD and notifications were not sent to primary editors; the appeal to restore is based on what indicates undue bias against the subject (for that please review edit history and talk page) and summary objection of any relevant material on the subject which lead to, what appears to be, a "defective discussion" and unwarranted deletion on a notable biography within Wikipedia Guidelines. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification shouldn't be expected for anyone but the original creator. Everyone else can just see the notification on the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that point is correct under current deletion policy. Whether it is good policy is another matter: it seems to me it violates basic fairness. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed on both of the comments above, I was not the "original creator" and by the letter did not receive notification; that contributor/creator from 2005 no longer has an account. I was, however, the contributor who requested the article be recreated in July and restored it from a mirrored source. I am aware of the letter of the policy, and also the tactics, purpose and lack of courtesy used here by not notifying a recent editor in this type of circumstance to balance the debate at AfD. It has been clear that the editors deleting the content wanted to have he article removed and would rather have had no arguments presented otherwise. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the significant contributors to the article, and personally I think the version I had edited it into was fine [43], but I'm willing to follow the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After considerable contesting over reliability of all of the sources and information given in the restored article in the first hours of recreation, which rather closely mirrored the German language Article, I conceded it to deletion as it was being repeatedly presented for 'speedy delete' every few mins; then the above 'Endorser' states about a reference, What is unreliable about the reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC), and then again about the article itself, I see no reason why it should be deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC). It would appear to me that even he has had some doubt, as well, over the deletion of this article. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I said in response to your calls for the article you had restored to be deleted [44]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - First, I think I should note that I just now added the deletion review template to the restored page, which had evidently not been added earlier. I'm not sure if, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to notify those who participated in the earlier discussions or not. Getting on point, I find the argument based on WP:NRVE above to be perhaps flawed. That is an older policy, and I think it might honestly do some good if there were some indication on the page regarding the material included in online subscription databanks, which many editors now have. I used a few of those myself earlier, and found no significant discussion of the author. But there is no clear evidence that this individual is "likely" to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources based solely on having written books and appeared on national TV. A possibility, yes, but not necessarily a likelihood. The author and his work seem to be on the margin of pseudoscience, and I have never myself gotten the impression that much of this field gets much if any attention in mainstream reliable sources of a non-local nature, but I might be wrong. Also, I myself checked a few databanks on the subject, and I don't remember seeing anything which clearly showed any degree of significant discussion of the author or his work. This further raises questions regarding the alleged likelihood of significant coverage, although it does not categorically refute it. His work may have some degree of reference in the popular media, and I myself am not sure how policy has changed recently, but I remember taking part in a previous discussion about a biograrphy of a prominent academic in the research into centenarians field which was deleted for lack of notability, and which, I think, even led to the banning of that individual as an editor, although I don't remember the details right now. And, by the way, I generally try to be more of an inclusionist than deletionist, but if the evidence ain't there, I tend to err on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be arguing for deletion on the basis that the work of the author is pseudoscience. We have no such bias. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Reading the German article, it includes many claims which make him "notable", eg one of his book was translated in over 15 languages and listed on bestseller lists. He was named "Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa" in Seoul, he headed the North Nassau Mental Health Center, which was the largest psychiatric office in New York (or USA, not clear from the article). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing was according to the rules. If the article can be rewritten to fit wikipedia standards, go ahead. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Restore because 2 of the 3 above "endorse" opinions are anti-encyclopedic "The rules were followed appropriately" rather than "the correct result was reached". The article in German seems to have a good bit more material, and looks quite a bit better than what's left of our article. DGG's arguments on his notability are also compelling. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The german entry is completely unsourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The information could come directly from the writings of the subject himself, the summary descriptions of him in his media appearances, a local or internal newspaper (many of which I have found are available online), or be outright lies. Comments regarding the notability of the subject based on his works being included in a library are interesting and potentially useful, but I tend to think that they might serve better for establishing the notability of the books themselves rather than necessarily of the author. Please see my comments regarding reliably sources material of David Ownby and David A. Palmer below. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? "The german entry is completely unsourced?" That's very far from true. You could quibble the lack of inline citations, but de.wiki doesn't require them. Sources are listed and in some cases linked. You could also quibble whether the sources meet en.wiki's standards, and I'd agree that not all of them do. But the entry is very far from unsourced.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you know German better than I do, and trust me, that wouldn't be hard, I defer to your better knowledge of the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• relist I'm not at all certain the outcome was consistent with WP:N. And while local consensus can override, there are enough reasons this person appears to be notable that it's worth having a discussion with those issues out and in front and see what happens. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). The discussion began with insufficient information. More discussion is needed. Undelete, allow some editing, and allow a fresh nomination after a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist - Although the closer interpreted the debate correctly, the discussion lacked focus on WP:GNG and instead was focused on personal opinions on how important Hawkins is, largely driven by Iconoclast.Horizon's contributions to that discussion. As a result, available reliable source material was not brought forward. There now is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the AfD deletion. There was some information (listed below)for David Hawkins and kinesiology. Those sources brought up his book Power vs. Force, which was a Globe and Mail listed number 1 best seller.[45] David Hawkins and Power vs. Force puts Hawkins in the news since April 2002. Independent reliable source coverage of that book also includes some biographical material on David R. Hawkins not considered at the AfD. A lot of the reliable source coverage are only book author appearance notices, but some include material that would be good for the article (e.g., [46]) Some other information that should be considered at new AfD includes:

• Elaine Voci (November 1, 2003). "On the night stand". T&D. 57 (11): 85. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Psychiatrist David Hawkins was knighted by Danish royalty for the work presented in Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. He teaches readers that on a primal level, the human brain is a wondrous computer linked to a universal energy field and consciousness can be calibrated on a ladder of spiritual enlightenment. The book is for readers with diverse interests in such subjects as attractor patterns for businesses, kinesiology, and personal transformation.
• Candice Hannigan (April 15, 2004). "Community Of Faith". Atlanta Journal and Constitution. p. 5. David Hawkins, author of "Power vs. Force," will present a workshop {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Doug Guthrie and Kendra S (July 28, 2005). "MSU slips new fees onto tab: In addition to fall tuition hikes, students will pay hundreds of dollars in surprise costs". The Detroit News. p. A01. Retrieved August 26, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Barbara Routen (January 11, 2007). "Democratic Club Elects Its Officers And Directors". Tampa Tribune. p. 2. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Unity in Brandon presents a videotaped workshop by David R. Hawkins, author of "Power Vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior," from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 19 and 26 at Unity, 115 Margaret St., Suites D and E. Hawkins is a psychiatrist, researcher, lecturer and author who first embraced atheism, then suffered from an illness that did not respond to treatment and then lived a hermit's existence for seven years. Close to death in 1965, he had a spiritual awakening and began his recovery, research and writing. In 2003 he became affiliated with the Unity Church. In his book "Power Vs. Force," Linda Compton, spokeswoman for Unity in Brandon, said Hawkins "conclusively proves the ability of kinesiological testing to distinguish truth or falsehood in any statement. He goes on to demonstrate the application of his method in commerce, art, sport, etc. He explains its spiritual application as a path to enlightenment." {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Louisa Deasey (May 25, 2008). "Good vibrations. Focusing on the upbeat and thinking positive will lift your mood and your spirits. By Louisa Deasey". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). p. 16. Retrieved August 26, 2012. In the seminal book on the subject, Power vs Force, by David Hawkins (Hay House), Hawkins discusses the beginnings of kinesiological testing by Dr John Diamond, and how simple methods tested on thousands of people have proven certain words, foods, objects and ideas have the capacity to weaken or strengthen our bodies just by being in our energy field. etc. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Jeff Pierce (July 11, 2011). "Power and Force in Your Trading". The Business Insider. Retrieved August 26, 2012.

From what I found, I don't think there is enough WP:GNG reliable source material independent of Hawkins for a stand alone biographical article on Hawkins. However, others might disagree and a new AfD would allow others to review the new information and come up with their own new info by focusing on what matters: reilable source material independent of Hawkins - see WP:GNG. Probably a better approach would be to post an article on Power vs. Force (book) since that is what is drawing in most of the reliable sources who cover this area. You then could include some bio info on Hawkins in Power vs. Force (book) without having to meet WP:GNG for a biography. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above makes sense, and also highlights one reason for deletion of the biographical article which has not been stated before, specifically, that there seems to be little information independent of the subject himself which can be reliably sourced. In short, there probably isn't enough information for a biography. I remember reading David Ownby's book Falun Gong and the Future of China and thinking that, between his comments in the book and the author biography from the publisher, it contained more than enough information to make a better article than the one whose content was largely deleted as unsourced. David A. Palmer, author of Qigong Fever, included enough personal information on his article on charisma in Nova Religio to make an even better biographical article than this one, based solely on the that one article. However, having looked for independent reliable sources in JSTOR, NewsBank, ProQuest, and a few other databanks, I think it probably would not meet notability guidelines. This also relates to WP:SIGCOV claims for this article, as most of the information which seems to be really independently reliably sourced from a non-local source in the restored article may not necessarily meet that standard. To what extent does the existence of a paragraph or two in multiple non-local media serve to qualify an individual as meeting notability guidelines?

Also, unfortunately, I see another issue which presents itself here, although it may not be specifically applicable in this individual case, and that is the possibility of non-notable authors attempting to game the system and get their biographies included here. This is particularly true of "lesser" figures, and particularly fringe scientists and others. We recently had a case somewhat similar matter relating to the broad field of the historicity of Jesus. I will be rather circumspect, because I am not sure how many details I can legitimately reveal, but one editor sent me an e-mail after he had apparently "retired" when what was later revealed to be his COI POV pushing failed, indicating he had been included in several cable programs in multiple networks regarding the topic, and that made his ideas notable and reliably sourced, from those networks. Now, if he had tried to write a biographical article on himself, instead of inserting his opinions in topical articles, based on the information from the TV shows establishing his credentials, it might have been better sourced than this one was and might have been kept. Instead, he has been subsequently banned from the site and had been sockpuppeting like mad for a while thereafter, until I think maybe he got some sense. But I think his biographical article, had he written that instead, may well have been just as well sourced, if not better, than the material from the deleted article and the sources supplied by the review nominator here, and that the biographical article might have been kept in the first place, without the editor's COI becoming apparent, even though his ideas may have been all but or completely ignored in topical journals as many fringe theories are, so the only material available on them might be positive and his ideas would be presented in the available sources as not being the fringe ideas they rather clearly are.

So, taking a hypothetical example here, let's say I am a community college professor who took the job because it was the only one I was offered. I publish an article in The Fourth R, the journal of the Jesus Seminar, and a book from a very minor press, which are significantly fringey but also appealing to the Christ myth theory camp, and to some TV networks for programs during sweeps periods. They get me interviewed on Coast to Coast AM or possibly more significant TV or radio shows, where I am allowed to expound my ideas at length without significant criticism, because I might be the sole guest on the show. And, of course, the local newspaper or potentially the newspaper of my community college runs occasional articles on me which contain enough biographical material to make a reasonably comprehensive reliably sourced article, even though most of the really biographical content is strictly local. Does that make me notable enough for a biographical article here? I think roughly similar concerns might be indicated regarding the extant article. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there have been frequent comments at afds that X cannot be notable for he is no more notable than the speaker is personally. This seems to be an argument based on some singularly unreliable personal knowledge, that,is, one's own impression of one's importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you got the idea. I was actually trying to indicate that

1) If, in a few sources, there is brief discussion, perhaps a paragraph or two, of a subject, does that count as one of the required bases of notability as per WP:N? I would think the answer is, generally here, no, if it is no more than a paragraph or two.

2) Do purely local sources establish notability, even if they are available on the internet worldwide, particularly if they are the only ones which provide "significant" coverage of the subject? I think the answer there is rather clearly "no."

3) Do a few discussions of a few paragraphs each of the work of an individual in independent sources qualify the individual as personally notable? Probably not, if the discussion is too brief to really do much other than repeat what the individual said with a short response.

4) Do brief introductory discussion of the lives of authors by program hosts and the author, perhaps with a few later comments from both, qualify as significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources? Probably not. And, yes, there is a clear precedent of that type. At least one of the articles Cirt put together on a leader the anti-cult movement, a short article of only a few paragraphs, was cobbled together from short statements about the subject during his interviews regarding anti-cult activities, and he was/is one of the leaders of that movement. In fact, one of the biggest "sources" for the article was, so far as I remember, a single paragraph in a news article. Cirt himself admitted he had to do a lot of work to get the article together, even though it was, ultimately, shorter than the leads of many other articles.

I think these are all reasonable points, actually. Having said all that, with the additional information produced below, I have no particular reservations about perhaps userfying the page, although it should be pointed out that any editor could have asked for the article to be temporarily restored by an admin so the content could have been userfied or forwarded to his e-mail, and, certainly, there seems to be basis for thinking the major book is notable for a individual article. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cite WP:DRVPURPOSE in that you believe new information has come to light, but nothing in the previous article is required to make a new article, which would be required for the overturn according the DRVPURPOSE. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to userfy  AfD is not a vote count.  The nominator failed to note that the article was on the German Wikipedia, and the closer failed to note that the first !vote was a speedy delete criteria.  This article at one point in time was of length 80,000 characters.  In addition to the 143 reflist references, these references were cited:

• Chaney, Margaret K. (1996). Red World–Green World:The Hidden Polarities of Nature. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0964326132
• Dyer, Wayne W. (2004). The Power of Intention. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-4019-0355-X
• Herbert, Nick (1987). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-23569-0
• Pringle, Kevin (February 16, 2006). Ex-radio moderator and Yahoo group moderator on Hawkins' teaching, ACIM Talk at Miracles Center [143]
• Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York, NY: Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3
• Spencer-Brown, G. (1969, 1994). Laws of Form. Portland, Oregon: Cognizer Company. ISBN 0-9639899-0-1
• Wilber, Ken (2001). A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 1-57062-855-6

The word orthomolecular means that large drug companies are both incentivised and monetized to generate negative PR.  How this actually works out for Wikipedia I don't have to understand: the turbulent history of this article becomes less of a surprise.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that userification would be a reasonable course here. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as per own last comment above. I have some questions regarding whether the books above are themselves "reliable" sources, not knowing the publishers of some or the reputations of the authors, but that is a separate matter. Also, of course, I think if the matter is very briefly discussed in any of those sources, those individual sources should not be used to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I notified the AFD closer as that step appears to have been missed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Restore: For those advocating userfy, as per discussion above you will need to userfy that to the original poster/creator in 2005 Paulbard who seems to no longer be here; I personally do not volunteer to do so. Much of this long discourse over all of the references and sources shown here, brings this to my attention WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or when it comes to "quibbling" over the details like these then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If there is such an example of where this might just apply, it is this one. From an outside of Wikipedia POV: The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention. Since I was not aware of the book or author, I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious, so I decided to look up information and ran a search engine check returning hundreds of links to the book and the author, yet I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here, and that a previous article had been deleted on PROD. I did generally respect a fairness of opinion on Wikipedia but looking at the history of this article puts that into question in several respects. I do feel that if I may be curious about this author, then others probably would be as well, and its previous history over the years supports that, including discussion outside of Wikipedia about this one article: Hawkins Entry on Wikipedia, and it makes sense, given the status of this site, to have that information represented here, especially for someone as contentious as this author. I respect the positions of the 'ardent defenders of Wikipedia' over all of the multitudes of rules quoted and various interpretations of the letter of each policy in this case but taken on the whole it collectively misses the principle . --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be userfied to any interested persons page. Mentioning what bloggers have said has little weight here.IRWolfie- (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Let's look at some of the statements User:Iconoclast.horizon uses to defend this article tooth and nail. Mind you, these statements have been stated by him before on other wikipages.

1. "The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention."
2. " I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious"
3. "I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here"

Is it any wonder why then, Wiki would have such a turbulant history in dealing with all of its overly promotional sources, if not by User:Iconoclast.horizon himself? Further, has anyone asked why User talk:Iconoclast.horizon's talk page is practically dedicated to David R. Hawkins? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above statements were in no way presented as 'reasons to defend' this position here, they are taken entirely out of their context by the above user. The statement was made as to how I came to learn of this author in July and my questioning a lack of article here. My personal negative opinion of the author has been stated, yet ignored here. And I am asked to produce source information, locate references, and in process answer to all of the negative feedback and issue created over this article and in so doing my userpage is criticized as being 'dedicated to this author'; again this the same twisting of facts to present something untrue in order to push a case for deletion. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear that you have a bias on the topic, whether its positive or negative is not really relevant. A bias makes it difficult to contribute to an article in a way that meets the Wikipedia:Core content policies. There are a lot of reactions against your efforts which are affecting how editors view the WP:GNG of the topic. The message you should be receiving from the AfD and this DRV is to change your efforts. A best way to do that is to gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject and write a Wikipedia article that reflects the main topic brought out by that coverage. If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too. If you do that, people will focus on the topic and not on your efforts. When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle. I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, which may generate more reliable source information to add to Wikipedia. However, the primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject "

No one to date, not even at the German version, has come up with wp:reliable and wp:independent sources. There has only been one source available, questionable even at best, The Skeptic's Dictionary at 23, 2005|publisher=The Skeptics Dictionary

2. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle."

Well, his books are self-published. And I argue, even at DGG, as to how all of a sudden self-published books are essential to a biography that is being challenged and debated as wp:notable? Then I get charged for being prejudice for focusing in and deleting those sources that were not wp:independent, mostly wp:unsourced material that flooded the article early on.

3. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too."

The second article that David R Hawkins is related to, is called Applied kinesiology. Notice what comment Panyd (talk · contribs) makes in the history:

18:43, 13 August 2012‎ Panyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,867 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Very much not G11. Looks rather like it's duplicating the applied kinestheology article though) (undo)

4. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, "

Doesn't that suggest a violation of WP:PROMO?

5. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced"

And I argue that efforts to find wp:verifiability have been 0, except for the information from the questionable website The Skeptic's Dictionary mentioned above. It has been argued that having this website helped balance the wp:pov from the article being wp:promo, but since it is the only reference for the page... I question that balance.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how much of the really important information about this subject, other than perhaps his Power vs. Force book, wouldn't easily be fit into the applied kinesiology article? John Carter (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to my calculations, roughly 1,514 bytes (par. "Mainstream scientists...) from David R. Hawkins could be moved to the Applied kinesiology page (which is supported by good references) and reworded to wp:scope under the subsection Applied kinesiology#Criticism. Since Hawkins is not notable, and with no published summary of Operah's interview with Hawkins being available, and the self-published material that DGG promotes, just that move alone to Applied kinesiology#Criticism could put the David R Hawkins page to rest (deleted). I support and propose this move.   — Jasonasosa 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Bibliography

Comment:Okay, let's take a look at David R Hawkins Bibliography as brought to our attention in the lead of this page:

• NOT WP:NOTEABLE: Why doesn't Axial publishing an "independent small press" (their words) promote David R Hawkins' (2005) Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference. ISBN 0-971-50073-8, among their Axial titles?

• WP:SELFPUBLISH Veritas Publishing self publishes David R Hawkins' works and he was originally the contact for the website until he started getting a lot of calls.

1. Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32612-4
2. Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32617-5
3. Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32619-1
4. Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50071-1
5. Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-6-2

Note:Why should we allow wikipedia to promote someone who currently self-publishes his own work when that is against policy?

• His only wp:notable book is really: Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-716-70898-1 published by W. H. Freeman and Company
• Regarding: Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-561-70933-6

Who wants to scrape up the tidbits from newspapers and websites that make this book notable? We know we cannot interpret the audio from Oprah's interview with David R Hawkins. Does anyone have the published documented interview? And even at that you would need a wp:reliable wp:independent source to elaborate on the interview.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you may have deliberately downplayed and intentionally overlooked the main reason for his notability by his primary work Power vs Force in attempt to make your argument and to denigrate the rest of his work, and consequential notoriety and recognition stemming from that; again this seems to indicate prejudice. You are accusing me of being "dedicated to the author" but it would appear that '..you protesteth a bit too much..' simply to make your bureaucratic policy points. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, by the letter you are right about not interpreting the audio in context for adding content to an article, but this forum isn't the article and you clearly have Oprah stating that she read the book 'Power vs Force' in preparation for the interview and calls it "esteemed work". I am not implying an endorsement, only she could say that, but she clearly read the book and made note of the author enough to interview him. One doesn't have to have a notarized public transcript for that to be understood. Yet, nor have I presented that as reason to keep the article, just so you don't misinterpret that as well. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Publication and Media

His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007:

Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins.

• http://soulgarden.me/profiles/blogs/david-r-hawkins-interview-on Quick Link

soulgarden.me is not a notable webpage (WP:NWEB), neither is its founder Christopher Witecki, and none of them are wp:reliable.

• http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force Oprah Link

This is about as much information as we get for the interview without interpreting the audio:

"In recent weeks, Oprah has covered topics in her Soul Series ranging from interpreting the law of attraction to gaining insight on the secret spiritual lives of children. Now, Oprah talks with Dr. David R. Hawkins, author of Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, about the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Listen in as Dr. Hawkins explains to Oprah how he reached a higher level of consciousness. Plus, Dr. Hawkins talks about the idea of a ladder of spiritual enlightenment on which our souls can be measured."

This is the only tidbit that comes up in Oprah's search engine for David Hawkins!

• Read more: http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force#ixzz24jY3vdMc

Don't expect to get more from this link... its the same tidbit article.

• http://www.experiencefestival.com/barbara_walters_-_age_confusion

There is no interview with Barbara Walters and David R Hawkins on this page. Why the two names appear on this page, beats me. But after all this website is not notable (WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable.

• http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/David_R_Hawkins/id/2047910

This link has nothing to do with Barbara Walters. This weblink is Global Oneness' "Encyclopedia", another website that is not notable (WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable.

• National Television Appearances:

I ran a search for the following criteria at google.com (MacNeil Lehrer David Hawkins) and the first link I get is this!!!: :::http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6121431/ The Pirate Bay. (Warning! Clicking this link is at your own risk. I do not advocate this website.) This is what it says:

"Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. is a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, and lecturer. He co-authored the ground-breaking work, Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, that helped revolutionize psychiatry. His national television appearances include The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, The Barbara Walters Show, and The Today Show."

• MacNeil Lehrer News Hour
• Barbara Walters Show
• The Today Show

Notice how the above list given by User:‎Iconoclast.horizon is in the exact order. I cannot find any such interviews and no wp:reliable links were provided.

• Notable endorsements by public figures:

"...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa

"...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca

"I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business...Sam Walton

"Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer

I'm tired at this point... Maybe Dr. Wayne Dyer can vouch for him.

You did ask me to find references, source information, etc... I have about 5 more pages worth of complied links, of interviews, articles written about the man or things he has been mentioned in, including 2 recent books written about his works, not to mention 19 pages of negative web commentaries about him full of links, none that I have bothered to make time to go through yet. I will be happy to post them and let you quibble over each one and give your opinion as to why each isn't reliable. I just didn't feel that DRV was the proper place to go into each source one-by-one beyond what was posted in the nomination. I really don't want to bother with it but you seem very determined in your opinion against every relevant piece of material presented. We do appreciate your ever-diligent work on Wikipedia. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry that you are having trouble finding the transcripts and other things you need for confirmations to the TV appearances and radio shows. I did not find much as well, in that regard, besides reprints of past guest information and the Oprah audio; so knowing that ahead of time, I was not using that list to confirm or disconfirm, only to show 'relevant material' for the appeal, not sources for an article, as is described in guidelines --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of German related article

But notice their wording: the "articles must be based on published & reliable sources", not "published reliable sources must be given in the article." (This corresponds roughly to our distinction, between "sourceable" , which is required, and "currently sourced," which except for BLPs, is not.) In any case, in practice, the deWP has a great many unreferenced articles, & seems to be making no effort to remove them. But I do not see the relevance here, for our article has sources--the question , as usual in deletion discussions, is their reliability.

And note their wording in the policy on self-published: generally inappropriate. They are sometimes appropriate here as well as there; here we use the for example to show the views of a person, or routine uncontested factual matter. I do not know their practice on pseudoscience, though I would expect it stricter, but we have always had the policy that widely known theories, however nonsensical, and however unsupported by scientific sources, can be notable enough for an article. That's for theories. I do not think we have a policy extending that to pseudoscientists as individuals, where the criteria is the same as everyone else--except that in practice we have two opposite tendencies, first, to accept that in some fields informal sources may be the best available, and second, there is a certain prejudice agains borderline notable pseudoscientists.

I do not have sufficient facility in writing German to start a deletion discussion at the deWP; it would be interesting to see the result, bearing in mind that they do decide by voting. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this is not the best place to raise this question, maybe a policy page would be better, but I think it does, to a degree, specifically relate to this particular subject, and given the relevance to this page can reasonably be asked here. As a theoretical example, if the author of a self-published book sees that book make it onto a best-seller list, even a local one which is published in a local newspaper, and, on the basis of that information, and perhaps a good agent, becomes available for media interviews, does that help establish his notability? I'm actually not thinking of this particular case, although it might be applicable here, but maybe perhaps an author of a history of Palau, for instance, whose population is 21,000 total. So, again theoretically, even if the main point of the self-published book is that Palau is in fact the last surviving remnant of Atlantis/Mu/whatever, if it contained some material of another nature which might be involved in helping the author achieve "talking head" status in the media, does anyone have any idea what if anything the relevant encyclopedic content regarding him or his book would be?

Also, specifically asking this of DGG for informational purposes, and I want to make it clear it is only for informational purposes, not a "gotcha" attempt, does anyone have any idea on what basis we would be able to establish knowing whether a theory is widely known enough to qualify as a "widely known theory, however nonsensical"? This relates to, among others, an old argument about whether there is basis for a Joseph and Imhotep/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person article. I am told by Christians of a biblical inerrancy POV that the theory is widely known and accepted in that branch of Christianity, and don't doubt that, but had not, at the time it was proposed, been able to find any reliable sources which gave it any length of discussion, so there was no basis for any substantive material from independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no clear cut lines here. I agree that the degree of notability is disputable. About your example, though not relevant here: I think there is justification for such an article. I believe it to be it is a known hypothesis supported by publications (I can probably re-locate what I remember reading--I tend to remember that I have read something, though not necessarily in what book I read it.) sources.) But biblical studies is a respectable line of human scholarship--& can be responsibly studied by people with a wide range of religious views; The hypothesis is conceivably even true even without the belief in the inspiration, let alone the inerrancy of the Bible. (a non-believer would probably word it as a figure like Joseph rather than Joseph exactly as described in the OT.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It would have been good for the closer to include some sort of rationale but the fact here is that there are no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that can be used for the purposes of GNG. The only source currently cited in the article which mentions its subject is this. I was intrigued by the mention above of the subject being knighted in Denmark, so I looked into it. According to his website "In 1995, in a ceremony officiated by the H.H. Prince Valdemar of Schaumburg–Lippe at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary, he became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity.". However, according to this site, that's an "honour" sold by a fake prince to anyone willing to pay $10 (ETA, actually its $10 just to get the info, then $25 filing fee then a suggested $1,400 donation. Still, it appears to fool people quite easily - I might get one for myself). Formerip (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to rather wondering at that, because it did not seem compatible with the rest of the material. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further, why hasn't careful consideration of WP:BLP been considered for this biography? Notice the opening lines for this policy:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:"

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Which means that biographies, especially for living persons, should be scrutinized more so than religious or scientific articles. Yet those who criticize this article for it not being WP:NOTABLE, for those who take the care to remove WP:UNSOURCED and not WP:RELIABLE content, and any WP:ORIGINAL research are branded as prejudice! How dare you (Especially DGG). For further discussion See Talk:David R. Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of half of the publications during the discussions seemed to me an attempt to prevent fair consideration of the individual. I accept your implied correction that it may have been a (misguided) attempt to improve the article. But the idea that the books a writer publishes--even self-publishes is not relevant content in a bibliography of his works is what I consider a true perversion of the meaning of reliable sources, For books, as distinct from minor publications, we have included this in every author bibliography I know of here. I would indeed be reluctant to use any of this author's works, no matter who published them, as sources for anything other than his own views. The principle of BLP is treating article subjects fairly. I have a considerable prejudice against the author's general direction of work myself, but that shouldn't affect the encyclopedia. I despise pseudoscience, but I consider my prejudice against it no reason to remove borderline figures there, andy more than in any other field; I do consider such attempts expressions of prejudice just as much as it would be to try to preferentially remove articles about musicians whose music one hates, or politicians one disagrees with. The very fact that I know my prejudice makes me the more careful not to let it affect my work here. It's accepted that discussions of someone's notability is not a violation of BLP; I think beyond a certain level of unfairness, it does apply to attacks upon it; saying what is the borderline is difficult--we need enough flexibility to permit rational discussion. I also stand by my restoration of content: he did publish them, and the publishers are as stated. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all good and nice... only towards the good professor who lost his mind after a moderate career (or smartly decided to make big buck off incurable stupitity or desperation). But what about being good to the readers of wikipedia? There is a huge number of kooks no serious author bother to write about. They litter local newspapers with ads and interviews, and self-publish abundantly to promote their business. Of course it would be nice to have balanced articles which would describe hem who they really are, but who really cares? Unfortunately without serious criticism there is thin chance to write an article which is less than promotion of the kookery. THerefore it is heavy insistence on solid independent sources as a basis for the article, and various hyperclaims from promotional sources must be ignored if no independent confirmation. Therefore the closure was perfectly within both the rules and the spirit of wikipedia, and this page is not a place to complain how good this article might have been if only it allowed to sit here 3-4 more years (and accumulate more fluff). Staszek Lem (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept there is a problem with articles where all the sources available are those in support of some weird idea, because nobody sensible would conceivably bothered to take it seriously. (this frequently is the situation for articles on paranormal phenomena) But we have no authority to decide on the weirdness of an idea. We can say something is self published. If published by a fringe press, we can add that. We can say a book is held in very few libraries. But we can not judge on what is fringe unless there is a RS saying so. We cannot be concerned that if what we give is factual information, but we think that all available factual information is biased, it would mislead the reader & we therefore shouldn't publish it. That's an expression of our own OR and our own bias, however correct they are. It's really an equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT.

And I accept there is a serious and general problem about local coverage of local authors, and PR-infuenced interviews. We're getting a lot of this , in all subjects. It has no particular relationship to pseudoscience or kookiness--it is even more frequent for poets and novelists and musicians. And businessmen and lawyers and doctors. And student athletes and performers, and town politicians. And not just people: restaurants, real estate brokerages, insurance agencies, merchandisers of all types of products and services. We try to deal with the problem with WP:LOCAL and NOT MEMORIAL. I have consistently argued and will continue to argue that local book reviews of a local author are meaningly indiscriminate, and routine interviews even in national media are essentially PR, with anything the interviewee says being just his autobio and any tributes or complements the interviewer pays him just conventional polite conversation to get him talking. This is one of the reasons I thing the N=2RS rule, the GNG, should be depreciated, and notability of a person or firm judged by whether they have done something important. The assumption that only notable people will get press coverage is amusingly naïve--I find it hard to believe that even 8 or 10 years ago we were quite that unsophisticated. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do broadly agree with your point here. A sitewide Rfc on notability would be a great idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I third the motion. Particularly regarding some topics of some possible significant importance to the WikiProject, which still are difficult to find sourcing for, like, maybe, the emirs of each of the United Arab Emirates, it can be difficult to find. And, for some people working on fringe issues, it can be hard to find anything, other than maybe The Skeptical Inquirer, which offers independent reliable coverage. I think the Menawiki discussion currently taking place provides some indication of the problems finding sources on some subjects which we presume would be notable, but still can't be proven through sources. And, honestly, considering we now have, I think, a bit better idea of what is available in reliable sources, and in RS in English, we might well be able to perhaps rewrite them with a bit clearer idea of what kind of sources are available out there. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Afd Closer If this is overturned, I'd prefer to see a relist or a userfication. I think I closed it correctly, considering the consensus and the weak sourcing offered. I'm still a bit worried about a lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering this fellow, although there are no shortage of "hyperclaims", as Staszek Lem eloquently puts it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of these two edits: [47], [48].  One edit comment is, "(I don't think this book is the source of notability)", and one says, "(remove, I don't think these sources are reliable (or in use)).  The first is an unreferenced claim that redefines that for which Hawkins is "best known", and the second removes five offline book references.  In contrast with the first edit, the German Wikipedia says, "The book has been translated into 15 languages ​​and was in several countries in the bestseller lists."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ok with the first edit, which changed it from saying "he is best know for this book" to "he is best known for his work on X subject" (which was detailed in the book). Not sure it was the best change to make, but I don't find it objectionable. As for the second dif, in which he removes several sources as unreliable, I'm not sure. I'd have to check the publishers' reputations and book reviews to be certain. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The books may well not be reliable sources about anything but their own content and their author's views, as per WP:SPS. That is not a reason to remove them from the bibliography in the article about the author, particularly not during a deletion discussion. The work an author has created should be listed if s/he is notable enough for an article, not all sub topics in an articel need be individually notable nor reliable. That this author has written, and self-published, these books appears to be a clear fact. DES ^(talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist as per DGG. I am not sure if this person is truly notable or not, although from the content of this discussion and the current article i suspect he is notable as a promoter of pseudoscience. The closer may well have correctly interpreted the views expressed. But, in part because of the dubious edits mentioned above, I don't feel that policy-based vs essentially IDONTLIKEIT arguments were properly evaluated, and the discussion was, in effect, poisoned. Yes, we could userfy or delete and then have a new draft written, possible via AfC or another DRV. But will that have any positive purpose not attained by simple relisting? I don't think so. If this close is endorsed, I would be willing to userfy to anyone who expresses serious intent to improve the article. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Tafaj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion was a mass deletion of 6 players. The closing admin correctly waited for 7 days, so the deletion is technically valid. The were two arguments which were brought up as to validate the deletion: (1) Insatisfaction of GNG and (2) Insatisfaction of NFOOTY (Albanian Superliga not being fully pro). For the insatisfaction of GNG, I feel that some of the 6 players which were deleted can have a better chance to stay in Wikipedia, especially Vangjel Mile and Erjon Vucaj (the last one was convocated by Albania last week in the game against Moldova). In addition, right after this deletion took place user:Oltianruci brought the source that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro, and I properly referenced. I cleared the issue with User:Sir Sputnik, who brought the players to deletion: he kindly promissed to not object to this DRV, as now there are sufficient sources that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro. I also tried to solve with the closing admin, but given his inexperience with football, he suggested that I go to DRV. Since the reasons to delete were (1) GNG insatisfaction and (2) League is not fully pro, and since (2) is fully satisfied, a good part of the grounds why the players were deleted in the AfD are no longer there. I henceforth ask for an individual relist to AfD, in order to be able to discuss case by case GNG satisfaction of each of these players. Albaniafutboll (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles were originally deleted for failing WP:NFOOTBALL; new evidence has come to light that they may now pass NFOOTBALL. However, NFOOTBALL is secondary to WP:GNG, and I have concerns restoring basic stubs that may never be improved straight to mainspace - therefore I suggest we userfy all 6 to Albaniafutboll's user space so they can improve on them, before we agree to move some, if not all, to mainspace. GiantSnowman 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your concern is valid and reasonable, and I agree to having the stubs userfied to my user space. Thanks! Albaniafutboll (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that is a good idea. I've moved the 7 articles from the Afd to your userspace so you can work on them. I have no objections to their restoration afterwards, although I suggest you let GiantSnowman or another user from the football wikiproject take a glance at them before moving back to mainspace. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll notify GiantSnowman before sending to main space: that's prudent and good advice. I also involved Oltianruci, the original creator of the articles, and we'll work together on them. Thanks!Albaniafutboll (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Rey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was originally nominated due to "fakery" and puffery, the fakery claim because the original author had apparently written another article of a business colleague, loaded with unsupported content (and as I note in the AfD conversation, there was no shortage of self-promotion in this original article either!). However, after the original nomination and 3 additional delete !votes were cast, the article was substantively revised and supported by a variety of references. Since re-write, Keep !votes have been cast by 2 people (one mine, one "weak" by an editor who was concerned that two people mentioned within the article were the same person - an issue addressed in the AfD conversation) and two Delete !votes (one as a confirmation by an earlier voter and one new voter). With conversation ongoing as recently as 6 hours ago, I suggest that the closing was premature and that consensus had not been reached because the !votes prior to the re-write were no longer relevant to the article being considered for deletion. I have discussed this with the closing admin, who suggested I request a re-listing should I choose to submit the DRV. In keeping with the DRV guidelines, I'm not restating the arguments here, merely asking that the closure be reversed and the article re-listed. I'm happy to converse about the article's content at any time should the article be reinstated. Thank you for your consideration. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum - I've perhaps not made it clear enough by simply linking the conversation I had with the closing admin. In it, he states that while my arguments were legitimate for keeping it, it was only my and one other keep !vote against 5 delete !votes (3 of which were prior to the article being revised. My contesting of the close is that the counting of the votes is immaterial, but rather that the consensus. I do not believe that 3 comments or !votes that were made prior to the article's revision play any role in consensus because they no longer apply. I don't want to re-argue it here, only to have a chance to continue the debate. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_{For clarity, these were my exact words. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

_{100% agree. For extra clarity, here's the entire conversation (again)} Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we please have a temporary undeletion for review purposes?—S Marshall T/C 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Theopolisme _:) 20:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, this was the last, and presumably best, version before deletion. Mark Arsten (talk)

Thank you Mark. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From a purely technical perspective, the AfD was relisted in order to achieve what appeared to be a missing consensus. I think one cannot level the criticism of the closure being premature at the person who closed the discussion. I used the following rationale for nominating the article for deletion: "At first sight this looks to be a valid article, but the references are all primary sources except one minor appearance on a TV show. IMDB, never a reliable source, shows that she was a voice of a dog in a minor production. The article appears to be intended to create notability for this singer rather than demonstrate notability. Wikipedia may not be used in this manner. If she gains notability then an article may remain here, otherwise not." which is not, as the appellant has stated ""fakery" and puffery, the fakery claim because the original author had apparently written another article of a business colleague, loaded with unsupported content". Since DRV is a technical process based upon the technical merits of the closure of the AfD it is important that the appeal is factually correct. There is a point that one needs to close something. The closer is duty bound to weigh the quality of the arguments and the article itself, not the quantity, and I feel they have done this. So I feel I am correct in Supporting the deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarifying Question. Just so I am understanding you correctly (not wanting to argue), you think your original nomination should carry equal weight towards consensus even though the article is quite different then from what it is now? Because I don't dispute the nomination, only the closure. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the person closing the discussion has a duty to look at all the points raised and to factor those against the article as it stood and as it stands. While that does not answer your question directly it does provide a precise answer to the way any and all AfDs should be closed. This is part of weighing the quality, not the quantity, of the points raised. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. The article itself and the quality of the discussion should dictate. However, the closing admin noted to me as part of the reason for closing now were that there were only two keep votes and five for deletion. So, from a technical perspective, it was closed in part due to the count, which is not consensus. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that you might have made that point better in your opening request than deep inside here, and may wish to add it as an addendum. I do not find it persuasive myself, but that is my right as it is your right to raise it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for not raising it explicitly. I had expected people would note the discussion with the closing admin and read it so I'll be sure to be more explicit in the future. I'm not sure why you'd find it unpersuasive, since it agrees with your point that consensus and the article itself should be the criteria, but that's your prerogative. Thanks for commenting. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer is supposed to get it right. The art of closing is to find a way to do it within the rules. Almost any close can be technically justified. If an article is revised in the course of an AfD , it can sometimes make all or most of the previous comments moot. This is not my subject field, but the version of the article restored gives what seems to be a good reference that two (or 3?) of her records charted. The question seemed to be whether the list they charted on was a major list--and that distinction is out of my field altogether. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think that the closer was at fault because he correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion before him. But from reviewing the undeleted article, it's apparent that firstly, the article that was deleted was radically different from the article assessed by the "delete" !voters; and secondly, that all the !votes were "delete" prior to the 13th August revisions, but after them, all the !votes were "keep". This fell short of a WP:HEY rewrite, but the grounds to relist the discussion seem fairly good to me.—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except Kudpung's. Oops. Still, there's a clear pattern to the !votes, with a consensus to delete preceding the rewrite and a consensus to keep following it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Based on S Marshall's analysis of the timeline of the AFD, I support restoring and immediately starting a new AFD to review the revised article. All who participated in the first debate (on either side) should then be invited to participate in the second. - TexasAndroid (talk)

• If the current deleted status is overturned I support an immediate relisting for an AfD discussion and the notification of all participants in the prior discussions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per S Marshall. There was not a consensus to delete the version of the article that existed at the time of the closure as it was substantially different to the version that existed at the start of the discussion. Explicitly inviting all the previous participants to the new discussion would be a good thing imho. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per the three folks above me. Seems a reasonable step given the way the debate went. And notification of all would be a fine idea. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a reasonable way to find the true consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. The opinions on the later added material to the AfD and the change of the article during the AfD in fact was there in the AfD for the closer to consider, so WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information does not apply. The later added material doesn't alter the WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A key here is the independent coverage. Her husband, the successful comedian Ron White, supports her career (it's his record label, etc.). They've put out press releases to get reliable sources interested in writing about her career, but that has not yet happened. The press releases are not independent of Margo Rey, so they don't count towards WP:GNG, even though they are significant coverage. When sources write about Ron White, they do mention his wife, Margo Rey, but that information doesn't amount to enough coverage for a stand alone article even though it counts towards WP:GNG. If her records are charting, then why is it that reliable sources are not writing about her? Without such reliable source material from which to draw material for the Wikipedia article, there can be no article. Since Ron White is involved in her career, you can include a subsection in his Ron White biography about his interactions with Margo Rey's career. Once reliable sources start writing biographical information about her, you then can use that to post an article on her. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this looks like it will be relisted, other info that can be considered at the relisted AfD includes: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct in that no one has claimed that new information has arisen since the closing. The issue in this DRV is whether consensus had truly been reached because new information had arisen in the AfD. Your long list of article might be important to consider, though I'm concerned some of it looks far too much like the original content that caused the article to be nominated in the first place. If this closure is reversed, the article will continue to be updated and the discussed during the relisting. It should come as no surprise that I believe the subject notable, but I will make my point in the article and on the AfD, not here. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, I was able to come up with a good deal of secondary source coverage in some quick and easy simple searches. The deletion discussion should be relisted and restarted in order to take into account the secondary source coverage. AFD is not for cleanup, but the article should be allowed to be restarted from scratch with usage of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiseptic Bloodbath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was originally deleted due to lack of 3rd-party coverage. Since the deletion, the page has been recreated by an IP-based user. However, since the deletion, the album has been released in a physical format and review articles have appeared in the Christian music community which, while not necessarily "Rolling Stone" caliber, are from multiple independent non-self-published sources. I have edited the recreated page and the page in my sandbox to reflect these reviews. My hope is that these reviews are enough to justify letting the article stand with a Cleanup AfD tag. 5minutes (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation: Not sure there was a real consensus for a redirect or anything else, but the redirect didn't delete the article history. Since there do seem to be some new sources, which would allow for testing by a 2nd AfD if anyone wishes, seems fine to "recreate" article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue DRV does not exist as prior restraint on editors who believe the concerns expressed in a previous AfD have been addressed. If the article has been changed/improved substantially, then G4 does not apply and a new AfD can be held if and when someone disagrees that the prior objections have been addressed properly. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Yes, wrong venue, but) Permit recreation. It was a tricky close anyway, which is why I didn't delete the history. If there are more sources now (which was the problem) then fine. This DRV can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Things have changed significantly. Not only does she continue to remain in the public eye (For Example, In Obama email, Fluke accuses Romney of being in 'lockstep' with Akin, but she will be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention.Obama women’s advocate Sandra Fluke to speak at the Democratic National Convention After months of coverage, it is almost impossible to suggest that she is only WP:N for one event. Casprings (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin - I was not contacted before this DRV was opened, and no discussion took place beforehand. I'm still not seeing notability for Fluke outside of the Romney Limbaugh feud. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, as it appears to be directly contradicted by the sources above. For example, being a speaker at the DNC isn't a small matter. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not in WP:POLITICIAN either. It would warrant a mention in the article on the convention, certainly, but unless coverage on her is in-depth then it won't pass the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Romney feud"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what he meant; Rush feud. Convention->Romney->credible mistake.Zaldax (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Add not being American to the list. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - Her fame was launched by Rush but has outlived that incident. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"fame" is "do you remember that person Rush called a slut?"--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't say anything about Rush. She'd be too young to be into that band anyway. Her generation is all Linkin Park or whatever... --MoonLichen (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to Provisional Keep If references to Rush are clarified as not referring to the Canadian band headed by Geddy Lee. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Restore Not WP:WIALPI not WP:WI1E, is covered in multiple reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One event can and usually is covered by multiple WP:RS--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it is almost impossible to suggest that she is only WP:N for one event. This will not be difficult for 209.6.69.227. Though "suggest" will be too namby-pamby. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the ____ time; comments on edit not editor--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore She probably would've been notable even without the Rush Limbaugh incident. I don't like that she is notable, but she is and thus deserves her own page. Someone speaking at the DNC is pretty important, despite how they got there. Naapple (Talk) 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconceivable that anyone would know who she was EXCEPT for Rush incident. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush apparently thought she was notable enough to bring her up on his show. Naapple (Talk) 10:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However inconceivable it may be to you, I can conceive it. From the Beast: "Sandra Fluke Wanted to Speak Up for Women Before Congress". Ms: "Sandra Fluke Testifies at House Democratic Steering Committee Hearing". And of course Limbaugh had some idea of who she was before publicly fantasizing about her. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not fall into the same traps as in the AFD. Keep this NPOV, and avoid the personal attacks. Address the edit, not the editor. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold close and note that this discussion is to determine if the close was valid, not to !vote a second time -- most folks do not patrol deletion reveiw in fact as such !votes do not count at all here. Just whether the close was proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Note: The following non-random editors were CANVASSED for this by an editor here: Roscelese, Naapple, Stillstanding-247, Zaldax, Hoary, and Crisco 1492. [58]. The note is neutral in wording, the selection of those notified is not neutral. Collect (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be a properly constituted DRV, ALL contributors to the AfD would have to be notified. The previous DRV was snuck in without notifications, which is why the Article was even there to be AfD-ed--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Collect, you're basically right about what DRVs are and are not. If I had been asked rather than CANVASSED, I'd have pointed this out. Do note, however, that the page about this says in part Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. I suppose that this, or something like it, was what Casprings had in mind. (Me, I'm dubious.) However, your assertion that the selection of those notified was not neutral surprises me. Note this example of said CANVASSING: Casprings informs his nemesis just two minutes after he informs me. -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was trying to inform some users that had written several comments or longer comments in the AfD. I informed parties on both sides of the !vote. Casprings (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You "informed" a non-random sample, with strong emphasis on those who would seek to overturn the proper close. This is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS at the very least - especially with those you CANVASSed opining at the start of this DRV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty strong evidence of Canvassing, agreed. 3 editors notified in favor of delete (including the nom. and closing admin, so really only 1), and 4 notified in favor of keep, including the two strongest advocates. To neutralize this canvassing, I will now notify ALL editors who participated in the previous discussion who have not already been notified, using Casprings notice. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, I have now notified all editors who participated in the previous AFD discussion. Hopefully that should undo any negative effects of the canvassing discussed above. Zaldax (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There is no consensus to redirect present in the AfD. I don't think that there is a consensus to "Keep" either, but lack of consensus is a reason for a "No Consensus" close not a determination of which side thew closing admin agrees with. There is no overwhelming reason that requires the discarding of the "Keep" opinions as clearly erroneous. They make a reasonable (though not in my own view conclusive) argument that coverage of Ms. Fluke has continued beyond the single incident and that she has become a (marginally) notable political commentator or symbol (cf. Joe the Plumber). That said, given the existence of an article on the original controversy I'd probably favor a redirect as an editorial decision. But in the absence of a clear consensus there is no reason to force one. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand your point, unless you are assuming Redirect, Delete, and Merge are all separate and distinct options; in reality, they all lead to the same thing, just put in a different way. The closing Admin obviously combined the three, a completely justified action, and supporting a clear Consensus on the AfD.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn/restore -- Similarly to Eluchil404, I think it's obvious that there was no consensus in the AfD to delete/merge, and I'm genuinely puzzled by that close. The arguments about subsequent developments are also moderately persuasive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold So far there is zero evidence that the AfD close was improper. There is nothing to prevent any editor from recreating this article with the new, and from my eye, information that establishes notability.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/restore. With no disparagement to the closing admin. That she will be a headliner at the DNC tips her well into the notability on her own as a speaker. She's getting coverage now and more will pile on with whatever she states. Likely Limbaugh will put his foot in his mouth again as well and try to take credit in some way. The closer wouldn't have known she would be featured at the DNC but now that she is we have tipped past the threshold. Insomesia (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again, too many times through this process; endless "redo" demands with every mention. Time to stop WP:CRYSTAL about what she WILL become, hasn't happened yet, predictions wrong.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold deletion, but potentially with no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance I've a rather extensive argument for my (rather unusual) opinion, but as I'm working on other things on Wikipedia at the moment I haven't finished putting it "on paper" yet. I'll return here shortly, and replace this message with my actual reasoning. In the meantime, just wanted to put that out there so my position is known. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC) See extensive argument further down the page. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Permit recreation. Its pretty clear to me there was no consensus in that AfD to redirect. The closer felt it was the strongest argument, but it was not one that persuaded the participants in the discussion to reach a consensus. And Fluke's continuing press coverage has taken a jump even since the close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be the case, but do note that the majority, or at least most vocal, of the editors who supported keeping the article have a record of supporting that position reaching back all the way to the beginning of the Limbaugh scandal. There's a difference between a "close" AFD and an AFD in which one party has no chance whatsoever of being convinced, and, to put it bluntly, showed no willingness to budge on their position. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So there is a substantial block of editors who have a strongly held position, all the more reason there was no consensus. Life goes on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Zaldax is referring to is the fact that there are a small number of editors that repeatedly try to insert Fluke into multiple sites, always say that things Fluke are critical to multiple articles and are being turned down by multiple editors on multiple articles. Empty votes are just about never in doubt, the question is whether there are any truly NEW arguments that would cause WP to reconsider. WP articles do not exist just because a few editors "want" them.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Restore - It was a bad close; Fluke is now a public figure and fallout from the incident lingers. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So why has the fallout not been addressed in the RL-SF controversy article? Zaldax (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Fallout in what sense? Thus far, little, except that news hits reflect the desire of Democratic strategists to remind voters of the RL-SF controversy, a campaign strategy that was dropped in the summer due to lack of traction. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold deletion, but with no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance As the original nominator, I have a rather extensive response to this DRV. I'll do my best to address everything one point at a time. Okay, here we go...

• Regarding this review itself, there should have been a discussion of some sort first, as per Deletion Review policy. The lack of discussion, combined with the aforementioned Canvassing and Caspring's long history of Fluke-related edits worries me quite a bit, to be honest. However, since we're here, I'll concentrate on the questions at hand.
• Regarding the original AFD, I believe that the closing admin's decision was completely and totally justified. Wikipedia' deletion policy emphasizes that AFD is not a simple counting of heads, but a careful and thorough evaluation of the discussion and arguments involved. The AFD outline for "Rough Consensus" explicitly states the following:
  

"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."

Furthermore, the guideline goes on to state:

"Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. (emphasis added)

• Several of the primary concerns relating to the now-deleted article on Sandra Fluke focused on the two bolded clauses. In particular, I argued, and still hold, that the article itself represented a potentially dangerous WP:POVFORK of the article on the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I ask that you compare the most recent revision of the article on the controversy with the last version of the Sandra Fluke article prior to the redirect. Note that the only relevant information on Fluke's post-scandal (i.e. her "notable") actions is limited to a single section, "Support for President Obama".

• As argued in the AFD discussion, simply endorsing and campaigning for the President is not a notable action in-and-of-itself, and does not justify a separate article, especially in light of BLP concerns. As such, during the AFD discussion I suggested numerous times that an "Aftermath" section be created in the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article after a redirect, to cover Fluke's 2012 campaign appearances. This is especially relevant, given Limbaugh's comments on the matter (which therefore justifys inclusion in the "controversy" article). However, even after the recent revelation that she will be speaking at the DNC, this section STILL has not been created. I'm puzzled as to why this was not done, especially given the closing admin's statement:

"The result was redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

• Frankly, I think Crisco hit the nail on the head. Much of Fluke's coverage was and remains passing mentions, as she remains a participant in the 2012 election campaign. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, such a feat is not notable by any means. Given that the Romney campaign has not commented on her directly, any comparisons to Joe the Plumber are faulty, as she has not nearly attained the same level of recognition.

• Why, therefore, would I possibly support recreation in the future? Frankly, we have no way of knowing if Fluke's speech at the DNC will be a notable event. As per WP:Politician, simply speaking at an event, no matter how notable, does not confer notability on its own, and does not justify a separate BLP article (especially given concerns about edit-warring and POV content.) As editors, none of us have a working crystal ball, and no one yet knows if her speech will have an impact, or if it will be resoundingly ignored. Likewise, in an election year, things tend to be blown out of proportion. (Note that Presidential elections are explicitly given as an example in that link.) As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can't look at every single development in the campaign to justify the creation of an article; wait and see if these events continue to be covered by reliable sources before judging their significance. As Fluke's campaign appearances and continued notability relate exclusively to her actions in the prior scandal, readers searching her name are likely looking for information about the controversy which made her notable, not her biography.

• In conclusion, I believe that the original decision should be upheld, and that the article should not be recreated until at least after the her DNC appearance, if not until after the election. Arguments made in the original AFD discussion continue to hold, and the lack of updates made to the RL-SF controversy article is a worrying development. Furthermore, a planned speech at the DNC does not clear the notability hurdle for article re-creation until the speech actually occurs; re-creating the article now would be jumping the gun, to say the least. Therefore, I end with this quote from Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines on restoring deleted content.

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (P.S. Apologies for the extensive length of this post.)[reply]

Comment One, I tried to contact editors that were clearly involved in this. The last time I did this, I was told I did it in secrete. Two, I can't edit the SL-RL page because it is protected. Third, I thought she was WP:N a long time ago. So what? Casprings (talk) signature re-added Zaldax (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could have filed an edit request, just like newly-registered or ip editors wishing to edit a partially-protected article. If you had drafted your additions on the talk page or in your sandbox, I'm sure an admin would have tentatively added them, particularly given the closing comment. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of inappropriate reason for DR Using "I can't edit the SL-RL page because it is protected", when it is protected because of (Caspring's) edit warring is de facto an admission that the purpose of the DR is to allow an editor to add information that, due to NPOV concerns, is inappropriate. WP:POVFORKs are EXPLICITLY forbidden for precisely the reason Casprings just inadvertently gave; new articles are not allowed just to let one set of partisan editors put THEIR information on one page, another on another. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain - This is getting ridiculous. We've had multiple closes, and a previous DRV. This is clearly consensus after 2 afds and 1 prior DRV. Similar names keep showing up wanting yet another bite at the apple. That, plus many of the comments above indicate a desire to redo the AfD rather than review whether or not the close was proper. As Collect says, DRV is not to relitigate the issue, it's to judge whether the close was proper. Concerns about canvassing only drive home that point. Thankfully there was a neutral message that went out to contributors to the prior AfD, however even with that, it highlights why DRV is not a second vote, and why this DRV is a painfully obvious attempt to keep an article that has no consensus to be kept. Shadowjams (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the woman keeps getting mentioned in RS'es in different contexts, the "she's not independently notable!" mantra loses steam every time. While there are certainly plenty of debates that should be in PEREN, debates over people who continue to garner RS coverage do not properly belong there, because any time you add more RS coverage, the notable/not-notable balance is changed towards notability--granted, often insufficiently per article to change the outcome, but it's also not correct to characterize repeated reexaminations as without merit. There is no such thing as a living person whom we can conclusively say will never become notable in the future, is there? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So when she becomes independently notable outside of the RL-SF controversy, we can create an article for her. We can't create an article on the basis that she might be notable enough in the future. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Jclemens, that's exactly what was discussed ad nauseum in every prior afd/drv, and those sorts of discussions are exactly what ought not be happening at DRV. Those claims about new RS showing up were hardly unknown in those prior discussions, and were not only addressed, but were the crux of the entire conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain' This DR nomination is a naked absurdity. Here we have a page that has been deleted twice (I think), most recently just a week ago, and the nominator comes back with "Wait! She's notable now. She really, really is. Obama said her name!" Or something, whatever it was. WELL, NO. Fluke was just a party tool and nobody would know her name at all if it weren't for Rush Limbaugh's ability to promote it. She hasn't had "months of coverage", that is pure fiction. She isn't notable now and she won't be notable after the convention. Sorry. 74.61.32.25 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold for now. Can't we just undo the redirect when she inevitably runs for congress? There's no hurry in the meantime. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. IMO, there never was a true consensus to delete/merge. Opinion was sharply divided, and although the majority of !votes supported deletion/merging, those who supported keeping the article had sufficiently reasonable, non-frivolous arguments that they should not simply have been dismissed as not being "the strongest". For what it may or may not be worth, if this had been a WP:RfA, it definitely would not have passed, even if the closing 'crat had felt the opposing arguments were weak. — Richwales 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Without arguing the merits of the article itself - which can be done when it's restored, the fact that there's this much dissension about the close seems an indicator that there wasn't real consensus on the AfD. I know you admins have a tough job, but the arguments for keeping this article need to be looked at objectively. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain per Shadowjams. This venue is to uphold or overturn deletions, not to rehash the AfD. The closing admin took the strongest argument and appropriately closed the AfD. This is not a vote (hence the ! in front of all the people that keep talking about "!votes"). GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Miscellaneous comments. First, on this DRV. I doubt that there was any intent to "canvass", but the DRV is a mess in other ways, amply explained by others above; but also because the request is feeble on its own terms. Things have changed significantly. Not only does she continue to remain in the public eye [...] but she will be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Continuing to remain [whatever₁] is not a change, let alone a significant change; and being announced as a future [whatever₂] is hardly a big deal. (If [whatever₂] is itself a big deal, then let's wait until it actually transpires or at least until there's an unusual degree of fuss over it.) ¶ Secondly, on AfD3. The ruling was: The result was redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article. I disagree with parts of this, but my disagreement is of course neither here nor there. This disagreement aside, I note that this mentions a "bunch" of arguments other than dismissively, and tentatively infer that the closer sees at least some merit in some of the arguments other than the one that he/she takes as the most compelling. As for the last sentence, such information could indeed be merged there, but I predict that its addition would be stoutly opposed by people claiming that it's irrelevant or at best peripheral to this controversy. ¶ On the deleted article: This does indeed say little more about Fluke than does the article about the controversy. But take a look at its talk page (in a stage before removal of all its content): this clearly shows extraordinary efforts to label as trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic virtually anything about Fluke that's not central to the Limbaugh kerfuffle. ¶ On Zaldax's somewhat unusual and elaborately explained proposal: I disagree with a number of Zaldax's premises. However, I appreciate his/her thoughtfulness and open-mindedness, and Zaldax's conclusion seems sensible. No lasting damage will be done to popular understanding of politicized social issues, politicking, etc, if an article on Fluke is not (re-)created pronto; it can instead wait until after the Dems' national convention, if Fluke's contribution to that convention (or something else about her) has got coverage in the meantime. Past experience of the enthusiasm -- on view in the talk page, the AfDs, and here -- for interpreting anything about Fluke as insignificant or incompetent, every event with which she is linked as "manufactured", and every comment about her as ephemeral or trivial, etc makes me suspect that this will continue and axe-grinders will have to be told firmly to lay off, but Zaldax gives me some hope. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- Sorry, but WP:BLP1E should never have been considered in the deletion process. The policy requires that a person be an otherwise private individual who is not trying to remain in the public eye. In writing an op-ed for MSNBC, appearing at the Democratic National Convention as a speaker, none of these are choosing to remain an otherwise private life. They only strengthen her notability INDEPENDENT of Rush Limbaugh. In short, the policy used to open the AFD should never have even been considered in the discussion or the close. She has done more than enough to show that her notability is separate from Limbaugh. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you get the INDEPENDENT part; even Obama emails refer to her as the woman called a "slut" by Limbaugh, as do the Democrat press releases. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold: previous AFD was per policy and !voters offered reasoned arguments for deletion. The subject still has a BLP1E problem.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: WP:BLP1E indicates it is only for low-profile individuals. Do you feel that applies in her case? Given congressional testimony, writing and op-ed piece for a major news organization and speaking at the DNC would seem to make her pretty high profile really. Or do you feel the low-profile requirement of BLP1E is not appropriate in this case for some reason? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore She has turned out not to be just of temporary news interest. I think anyone could have reasonably predicted that this would be the case, but some of our discussions seem to avoid making even the most conservatively sensible assumptions about the likely future. We should not make such predictions where they might lead to harm, but this is not the case here . This is an absurd overuse of BLP1E--as Umbralcorax says, it was intended primarily for private individuals incidentally the center of media interest, but I think we probably do sometimes validly use it also for individuals just over the border from private to public; however, her notability was public from the start. Closed wrongly, by a misunderstanding of either policy or the facts of the matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think anyone could have reasonably predicted" - That would still fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL, even if its a reasonable expectation. Hence why we don't phrase things like "so-and-so is an Olympic competitor from China" until the person actually competes, even if it is confirmed that xhe will compete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold deletion, but no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance. As closing admin. My thought processes were essentially as Zaldax outlined, and I've yet to see any really in-depth sources detailing her as a person. She could certainly become notable, but I don't think she's crossed that bridge yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly uphold deletion according to arguments made above, e.g. by Zaldax, which show that the subject's notability credentials have not changed. I support reconsidering the entry for possible Re-creation, in case of subsequent, relevant events, e.g. notable-enough appearance in the Democratic Convention. -The Gnome (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing about the subject's notability has changed. Still fails WP:BLP1E. I'm also dismayed, but not terribly surprised at the canvassing of users that would be sympathetic toward recreation of this article. Trusilver 07:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Per Eluchil404, I can see no consensus in that debate. Per Umbralcorax, BLP1E only goes so far; Neil Armstrong and Lee Harvey Oswald are only really significant for one event. What matters is the level of enduring coverage afterwards. The notability arguments should carry little weight, because they wrongly assume that a lack of notability should mean deletion; widespread though this belief is, it's also wrong. I blame the current fashion for pretending WP:ATD doesn't matter.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:I disagree, I think that the BLP1E concerns do have a great deal of weight. It is my understanding that the BLP1E policy also exists to avoid the proliferation of biographies which can be subject to recentism, edit-warring, and to encourage coverage of such individuals to focus on the pertinent, notable events. In this case, that would be a strong argument in favor of keeping coverage of Fluke restricted to the RL-SF controversy. (At least until the DNC, if her speech is indeed notable. If (and pretty much only if) the speech is not well-received and covered in numerous RS, then I would continue to argue that a separate BLP article is not necessary.) Furthermore, I'd like to reiterate that this was a close AFD, but that does not mean that it should be a "No Consensus" outcome. As the Deletion policy clearly states, it is up to the closing admin to evaluate the arguments, and make a decision based on the points made by the contributors. Even if an AFD is sharply divided, if the closing admin feels that one side has a stronger argument they can, nay, should make a decision based on their judgement. To overturn this AFD based on "no clear consensus" after each side has made reasonable arguments would make it that much harder for admins to make difficult decisions in the future, and would push AFD even closer to a vote than it already is. Even though a minority of editors supported keep, and a majority supported delete/merge/redirect, keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" works both ways. Remember, our consensus policy states:
  

"Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes."

I'm also a little offended by the above suggestion that participating editors ignored WP:ATD. Note that attempts were made in the past on the article's talk page to improve some of the content in question. Furthermore, when I made the nomination, it was with regard to objections to some of the fundamental aspects of the article; in particular, concerns about failure of the ten year test, redundancy vis a vi the RL-SF article (and consequent POV-Forking), persistent edit-warring, and other BLP-related concerns. This wasn't purely a dispute over page content, which is the only case that the WP:AFD page explicitly cites as a dispute usually not met via page deletion. I nominated the page not because it had not been improved, but because I believed (at the time) that it could not be improved, and that the article itself was fundamentally flawed. While some of my concerns, particularly independent notability, may be alleviated by Fluke's future appearance at the DNC, I firmly believe the editors involved in the discussion knew WP:AFD, and took it into consideration.

Lastly, to address comments about notability and widespread coverage afterwards, I'd like to point out two things I also mentioned in the previous AFD. A lack of notability, especially concerning BLPs, is a fundamental reason to delete a particular article; remember that WP:IMPORTANCE is a redirect to WP:N. Keep in mind the "page in a nutshell":

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

The point can, and has, been raised in the past that Fluke has not received consistent and persistent coverage from numerous independent RS in the past; instead, her coverage has come in spikes. Keep in mind recentism when considering the lasting importance of her coverage. As this is a BLP, these question should always be asked:

1) Are more readers looking for the RL-SF controversy article, or SF's biography?

2) Can this new information be included in the existing controversy article? Does it justify inclusion in a separate biography?

I posit that, at least until the DNC, the answers are "Yes," "Yes," and "No," respectively. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I think that a lack of notability means "do not have a separate article". WP:ATD requires us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before recommending that deletion should take place; there's a useful discussion of the principles to be followed at User:Uncle G/On notability. A lack of notability by itself does not mean, and has never meant, "delete this material", irrespective of whether the subject is a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree (somewhat). Which is why we redirected (not deleted) the article, and why the closing admin (and myself) suggested a merge of the relevant content from the article's history into the RL-SF article. With regards to the linked essay, I actually feel that strongly supports many of the cases for deletion/redirection, and doesn't support keeping Fluke's bio. Really, points 1) and 2) above explain why, in my opinion, the actions taken were the correct ones. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Sorry, but suggestions were made on the AfD that if interested editors wanted to add new material and revisit the consensus on the RL-SF Controversy article, that would be welcomed, and none did. Similar result when the SF article snuck through DR; invitation to improve and see if a WP:N standard could be met, instead of going immediately to AfD, was agreed to, and instead, partisan Fluke supporters just tried to re-do settled consensus, re-add inappropriate material, and generally do a "re-do". Extensive suggestions for revision of the RL-SF page exist, and the RL-SF page exists; all people want is already there. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, sure—I'm sorry, I've been unclear. What I was saying was that the above considerations affect the weight given to the "delete" !votes in the discussion. I would assess the !votes supplied by The Man Who Would B.B. King and 209.6.69.227's as light bantamweight. The Gnome's was more substantial, perhaps welterweight sort of level. Whereas I'd put Hoary's !vote around cruiserweight for specifically addressing the opposition's arguments and for taking account of several different policies at once (he does get a mild penalty for sarcasm and attitude).

  Being in a whimsical mood, I've used boxing weight analogies there, which aren't meant to be taken seriously, so let's not debate those in any detail; the substantial part of this post is to try to illustrate how I think considerations like ATD affect the !vote-weighing process.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• restore I'm unsure if the orginal close was correct or not. But thankfully that doesn't matter. Sustained coverage has made this person notable. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Restore - A majority of the "delete" votes were of the "flash in the pan" variety which as pointed out numerous times above is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, a majority of the "keep" !votes were of the "she's still notable! Look at all these stories!" variety, which as pointed out both here and in the AFD discussion glossed over the fact that most mentions of Fluke were in passing, not to mention the failure of WP:NOTNEWS. One cannot simply say "She's notable!", one must argue why she is notable. The failure to do so on the part of the "keep" editors is partially why the article was deleted in the first place. Again, I encourage everyone to review the AFD more closely, as well as the arguments contained within, and to keep in mind the purpose of a DRV. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to quote Shadowjams's rebuttal from earlier up in the discussion, which I feel summarizes some of the issues we're facing perfectly.
  

"With respect...,...that's exactly what was discussed ad nauseum in every prior afd/drv, and those sorts of discussions are exactly what ought not be happening at DRV. Those claims about new RS showing up were hardly unknown in those prior discussions, and were not only addressed, but were the crux of the entire conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)"

Couldn't have put it better myself. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Eluchil404 and Umbralcorax; if BLP1E did apply, it does not now, similar to Joe the Plumber - she is speaking at the DNC, if nothing else, and that may be connected to her activism but is certainly not connected to the "Rush controvery" - indeed, her scheduled speaking before Congress is how Rush heard about her. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Folks, there is no doubt at all that she meets WP:N. There are hundreds of sources. So those arguing she is not "notable" are frankly wrong, there are clearly multiple reliable sources that meet the requirements of "notability" as it is defined on Wikipedia. The key question is if she passes WP:BLP1E. Those that are arguing she does not, need to show all three of the following are true
  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
  3. The event isn't significant and the individual's role within it isn't substantial and isn't well-documented

Folks have argued #1 claiming that all further coverage (DNC speaker, as an author, endorsing Obama) and prior coverage (giving testimony before congress prior to Rush saying something) are all the same event. That seems a huge stretch, but okay. There are also arguments that the event isn't "significant". I think that can go either way. But how on Earth is #2 met? This is someone who has regularly been discussed in the media, who has two jobs in the media (if I've followed this correctly) and is speaking at the DNC. She's in no way a low-profile individual. All three of these have to be met. Meeting #1 requires huge logical contortions. Meeting #3 seems a bit of a stretch. Meeting #2 just seems impossible. No one made a good argument in the AfD that she did meet #2... Hobit (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You left out of the part of #2 that says WP:BLP1E is meant for "low profile" individuals. This person is in no definition "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think my statement "She's in no way a low-profile individual" agrees with you. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotcha, Hobit. "Meeting" a criteria could be interpreted either negative or positively and I misinterpreted your sentence. I totally affirm what you're saying. This person doesn't meet WP:BLP1E excusion criteria and has become very high profile.--Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While I personally still hold that, until after the DNC Fluke still meets BLP1E criteria, I would like to reiterate to those in favor of restoring the article that notability is not the only criteria that the article was deleted under. Please see my post earlier for more information (I don't want to take up all of your time rehashing the same points.) Furthermore, allow me to remind everyone that, under our BLP policy, the burden of proof is on those wishing to undelete the article to establish that Fluke personally is covered to the extent that a separate, biographical article is necessary, rather than mentions in the relevant articles, and that the restoration of her biography would not violate WP:10YT, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:POVFORK, to name a few. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold: As others have said, the page has been up on AFD before, and the result remains the same. Her notability, such that it is, is limited to the Rush Limbaugh controversy, and the redirect is appropriate. Once she has notability outside of the Rush Limbaugh controversy, perhaps speaking at the DNC (provided it doesn't rehash the controversy), the topic should be revisited. Biccat (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order for the relevant policy (BLP1E) to apply, she needs to be a "low-profile individual". I'd think that her confessional testimony, media jobs and being a DNC speaker would put her well over that bar. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biccat didn't cite BLP1E there, he simply reiterated that there is already a relevant article. BLP1E is an arguable point, but the fact that an RL-SF controversy article exists, and that all of Fluke's notability stems directly from said incident, is not. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe highly in applying the ten year test to any political articles. If Sandra Fluke will still be primarily seen as "that person Rush Limbaugh called a slut" ten years from now, then she is not notable and this article has no business being recreated. If she has some kind of legitimate notability that exceeds her BLP1E 15 minutes of fame, then I agree she's notable. I don't think she has it yet, though. Having read through every source I see so far, she is nothing but a divisive tool for political mudslinging in US politics. If this wasn't an election year, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now, because she would have already long since fallen off the radar into a permanent exile into BLP1E-land. I strongly caution against the trend toward making Wikipedia more US-centric than it is right now. If this event occurred surrounding political elections is nearly any other country, no one would care... and we certainly wouldn't be spending this much time talking about it. Trusilver 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of curiosity, I ran some Google Insights searchs for the term "Sandra Fluke." I'm not sure everyone hear is going to like what I found...

• Comparison of US, UK, Canada, Australia
• Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of English speakers
• as above, but with Canada and Australia substituted for India and the Philippines
• Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of internet users
• Searches for "Sandra Fluke" over the last 12 months]
• Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of internet users over the past year
• Comparison of US, UK, Canada, Australia, India over the past year.

Note the news spikes. This isn't the strongest case for Fluke's "enduring notability"... Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bonus" Comment: Here's the Google trends result for "Sandra Fluke" Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google trends aside (however did we exist without Google?)... Notability is not required to be ongoing in order to satisfy WP:GNG. Very specifically, if you look at WP:NTEMP once a person is notable, they remain so. The additional coverage only supports ongoing notability. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which I respond, Notability is not permanent. Few things on WP frustrate me more than the lack of attention paid to WP:NOTNEWS...Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quoting an essay, I'm quoting a policy. I understand your frustration, but I think the argument against notability in this case is misguided. WP:NOTNEWS is about the content of the article, not notability. The presence of an article is justified if someone has been or is currently notable. Cheers Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quoting an essay, but that's because I think "Notability is not temporary" is frequently misunderstood, as well as being one of the more hotly debated policies here on the wiki. That policy is aimed less at "flash-in-the-pan" type figures, as Fluke may be (again, no idea how the DNC speech will be received), and more at, say, obscure historical persons and the like. It shouldn't be used to conflict with WP:NOTNEWS; policies and guidelines do not exist in isolation. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)None of that research is surprising or in conflict with the fact that her notability rose in the United States and she is now a key speaker at one of the most watched events, the DNC. Being a speaker at the event will bring even more coverage to her nulling the BLP1E concerns and tipping her well past the notability threshold. This is also new information since the contested closure of the AfD. You have written a very large amount of text (WP:TLDR by my take) and don't seem to be swaying consensus away from restoring the article as reaching independent notability. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I've done is written a comprehensive, reasoned reply to each point laid out by the opposition; something which many here and in the AFD failed to do. Certain parties continually trumpet Fluke's notability, without explaining why they think that is the case. I have given you data, arguments back by policy, and a thourough, reasoned rationale; there is no reason to cite WP:TLDR, which by the way is one of the most presumptuous possible ways to dismiss an argument. My apologies for the bluntness, but did you perhaps consider that essay "TL, DR?"

If you review this DRV, so far there's clearly no consensus one way or the other to overturn the decision. If you really want this article to be restored, perhaps consider responding to some of the above dialogue with a thorough, reasoned argument, and supporting points with policy, guidelines, essays, and evidence. Otherwise, continued shouts of "She's notable, and this will be restored", will fall on deaf ears. Best wishes, Zaldax (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure that google news trends were policy. That said, I see a trend line that doesn't hit zero throughout the months, showing clearly constant coverage. Coverage certainly spikes. It happens with many people. I assume the Queen of England's coverage would spike around her jubilees. However, she is still WP:N . I see most votes and most arguments supporting recreation. Casprings (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at how low that trend line goes, though. Furthermore, check the google insights that I also linked; no one outside the USA gives a damn. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to compare Sandra Fluke to the Queen of England; heck, it's not even valid to compare here to Joe the Plumber; not only was he a HUGE talking point, but he's running for congress! One more thing; would everyone who cites arguments of notability as reason enough to keep please address the many, many other concerns already expressed, such as POVFORKing, Edit-warring, the existence of a perfectly good parent article, and the WP:10YT? Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that this is not a venue to rehash the AFD, nor is it allowable to argue "there's a majority, so that's clearly the correct action, and therefore consensus" here (especially since many have complained that the AFD was too close to call, even though a numerical majority favored delete.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to "would everyone who cites arguments of notability as reason enough to keep please address the many, many other concerns already expressed, such as POVFORKing, Edit-warring, the existence of a perfectly good parent article, and the WP:10YT?" Sure. It's not a POV-Fork by it's very definition, it's a biography about a notable person and POV issues are fixed through regular editing. Edit-warring is almost never a reason to delete an article, in fact it rather speaks to why an article would need escalating protection. One facet of Sandra Fluke biography may be more extensively covered elsewhere but that's true with nearly all biographies. And waiting 10 years seems like a really bad idea for any policy unless you're trying to keep your child from dating or driving an automobile. Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the trend line. It is still there. You are forgetting Wikipedia:BASIC. He has had coverage had coverage from multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. She is WP:N. I like google stats also. However, they don't replace wikipedia policy. Casprings (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to deny the antecedent, as well as not take each policy in isolation. Once again, please see the fantastic advice that is WP:10YT. Point is, the trend line, and those google insights demonstrate that her notability is at present much lower than some would like to believe. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that WP:10YT has nothing at all to do with waiting ten years before creating an article, perhaps you might like to actually read it before making ill-informed comments? Trusilver 01:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt at humor. I don't see 10YT justifying not restoring this article. Insomesia (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see both endorse and overturn people citing WP:BLP1E in their arguments. However, those who say BLP1E precludes an article on Ms. Fluke have made, at best, WP:VAGUEWAVEs at the guideline. I challenge those who believe that BLP1E supports the preclusion of an individual article on Ms. Fluke to articulate in detail why and how you believe that it does so. Failing an articulate and detailed exposition of the supposed policy basis for those arguments, I suggest that the closing administrator should accord them appropriate (that is, markedly less) weight. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Restore per Casprings Go Phightins! (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
• Uphold Deletion, with no prejudice for future recreation if becomes notable for more than WP:1E. Subject is primarily notable for the event, and related after effects of, that is covered in the article Rush Limbaugh Sandra Fluke controversy. Other mentions of the individual have been of passing mention, and fall under WP:ROUTINE. As far as the individual speaking at the DNC Convention, we do not know if that event (the speech) will be notable itself, or part of a larger notable event and otherwise un-notable in the wider context of that event. (For instance because someone is the head of the delegates of state X at a number of national conventions and speak each time to say where the delegates of that state get allocated does not make that individual notable) Therefore, this presently falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Now if that, or future events become notable, independent of the subject's original reason for notability, than perhaps the article can be recreated. However, it is my belief that this discussion is premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/permit recreation It is difficult to tell from the brief closing statement what factors went into the closer's rationale or what weight was given to specific policy-based arguments. Since discussion in the AfD centered on the extent and ongoing nature of the coverage for this individual, it would have been nice to see a more detailed explanation of the closer's rationale in regards to BLP1E, especially the clause stating that the policy "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." The reference to Fluke's introduction of the President of the United States as "saying that someone introduced another person" seemed oddly flippant to me and Fluke's writing for news outlets and ongoing appearances on television do not seem to have been addressed in the closing.

Aside from the quality of the close, the ongoing coverage of Fluke has continued. Most recently she has written an open letter addressing the Republican Party platform and has been slated to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Both events were met with a flurry of news articles. Given the tenor of this election cycle, it is likely we'll be hearing more from Fluke as well. Here is a sampling of the many, many news articles that have been written about or have featured Sandra Fluke since the close: [59][http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/sandra-fluke-is-back-rips-legitimate-rape/][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those articles only mention the subject tangentially, and the ones that don't say somewhere in the first few paragraphs something to to tune of "Fluke, who was called a slut by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh,..." The fact that they seem to need to remind us why we should care who she is only goes further to reinforce Fluke's lack of independent notability. Without the Limbaugh incident, she would be completely irrelevant. Trusilver 00:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm taking on good faith that RightCowLeftCoast genuinely considers a state delegation chair's announcement of that delegation's vote to be comparable to someone who is speaking to the entire convention from the lectern as a keynote speaker for determining whether the speech is notable. My opinion differs, in that a speech from the stage will a) be covered and widely reported by the press; and b) not at all comparable to someone standing up and announcing the count of votes from their state. But, even that distinction is unnecessary as Ms. Fluke to has already surpassed BLP1E and GNG requirements - news outlets are covering her upcoming speech quite heavily and while I fully understand the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the article's content, coverage by WP:RS is the fundamental bar which must be met to identify notability. Her upcoming speech is not WP:CRYSTALBALL as it's neither unverified speculation nor is the event scheduled in any way not notable. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - original finding, as what notability there is still stems from the original event. Cashing in on one's proverbial 15 minutes does not overcome that. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge/redirection, this is a classic case of BLP1E and for merging. If there was no Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article, then perhaps a case could be made for creating an article entitled Sandra Fluke, but both articles are really about the Rush Limbaugh statements and fallout. Fluke herself is not notable. Note the lack of analysis by secondary sources on her. Speciate (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Written, apparently in all seriousness, by Tarc, slightly above: Cashing in on one's proverbial 15 minutes does not overcome [a shortness of notability]. First, it's not "proverbial", it's cliché. (It comes from a bon mot first uttered by the pop artist Andy Warhol; and, if WP is to be believed, soon bored even him.) I have rarely encountered such repeated and desperate-sounding attempts to describe the timespan of a person's fame as "15 minutes" as I've read about Fluke. Face it: (i) Most people given articles in WP were never much written about in the newspapers; (ii) Fluke was news for days, not minutes; (iii) like it or not, Fluke is still news; (iii) to interpret Fluke's perhaps disappointing failure to gracefully disappear from public awareness (and leave menfolk free to babble about women, morals, etc) as cashing in on fame is unusually cynical; I wonder if Tarc would care for a similar interpretation of the careers of figures in politics with whom he doesn't happen to disagree. ¶ Such silly talk aside, let me repeat what DGG wisely said: This is an absurd overuse of BLP1E--as Umbralcorax says, it was intended primarily for private individuals incidentally the center of media interest, but I think we probably do sometimes validly use it also for individuals just over the border from private to public; however, [Fluke's] notability was public from the start. Closed wrongly, by a misunderstanding of either policy or the facts of the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I think what people are saying is, "subtract the Limbaugh controvery, and what you are left with is not enough." As I say above, there is an article in which Sandra Fluke gets encyclopedic treatment, and a second article is not warranted. Speciate (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely disagree. What Limbaugh did was to propel Sandra Fluke quickly into the sphere of recognition she may may/may not have been looking for. She was on a trajectory before he made his comments, and she has taken his incredible poor decisions and parlayed it into furthering her points. Now despite the events, she is again speaking her opinions on behalf of the Obama campaign and the DNC. Without the Limbaugh foot-in-the-mouth misstep Fluke is still a national figure speaking for a constituency which may be lacking a national figure. Whatever the steps to ascendency she is now here and her coverage in reliable sources attests to that. Insomesia (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Allow article creation - We appear to have thrown common sense out the window on this one. There were multiple events - she spoke before Congress, Limbaugh commented, reliable sources reacted by writing and continue to write extensive biographical information on Fluke, causing more events, and more writing by reliable sources. That alone was enough for a stand alone biographical article on Fluke. Fluke has used this to create a career out of being an in demand speaker and commentator, and the reliable sources have reacted to these events by writing and continue to write extensive biographical information on Fluke. That generated more source material for a Wikipedia biographical article on Fluke. Subtract coverage on the Limbaugh controversy from the topic and you still get an incredible amount of reliable source biographical information on her from which to develop a biographical Wikipedia article on the topic. Wikipedia isn't here to make decisions based on hypothetical situations -- If it wasn't for x ... (e.g., If it wasn't for the Limbaugh controvery). Also, Wikipedia isn't here to sit in judgment of publishing decisions of the reliable sources, we merely are here to post a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topics the reliable sources cover. The reliable sources publish biographical information on Fluke, Wikipedia develops a biographical on Fluke using that reliable source information. It is straight forward. There's no basis to believe that this event-reliable source coverage symbiotic relationship will do anything other than continue, giving Wikipedia more content for the biographical article on Fluke. She's going to speak at the Democratic National Convention for goodness sake! Please admin with common sense, step forward and put an end to this by restoring the Sandra Fluke article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting makes sense. The continuing long tail interest in Sandra Fluke outside of the Limbaugh controversy and evolution of Sandra Fluke as a public figure suggests than an independent article has merit as she is a public participant in notable events independent of the controversy that first made her notable. Much as Tito the Builder has emerged from single event notability for his connection to Joe the Plumber, Sandra Fluke's continued public activities suggest merit for an independent article which continues to grow. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No argument that Tito the Builder probably needs re-examination, but WP:OTHERSTUFF prohibits this as an argument, as was EXTENSIVELY discussed on the AfD.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Uzma; on the surface, a valid point, problem is, NONE of these are either unrelated or un-connected. She was an obscure individual (and no, her Biography is razor thin, not unlike those of other 20- or 30-somethings right out of law school), she was CHOSEN as the passive face of a protest that was really by Congressional Democrats, she didn't speak or testify before CONGRESS, the same Congressional Democrats staged a media event before a Democrat audience, and the publicity that event got, mostly due to Limbaugh, not the strength of any arguments, was a highly orchestrated political effort. She is now a paid campaign operative, and mostly has a function to remind people that Limbaugh was nasty (and by implication Republicans). All the same thing. There is a real problem with the INDEPENDENCE of Fluke events, and none but the Limbaugh part really got to the level of WP:N. There IS a suggestion that the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy that the RL-SF Controversy might need to be expanded to include the impact on the election, commentary on the Fluke comments, and the political strategy involved.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. The AfD was properly closed, and consensus, which is only being challenged on the basis that Delete, Merge, and Redirect, all of which are the same thing (redirecting the Sandra Fluke article to Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy) are somehow different, was properly evaluated.

Analogies to Joe the Plumber were discussed, and are problematic (as discussed on the AfD, partly under JtP, partly under "actions" vs events) since unlike JtP, Fluke really is and was a bit player in someone else's drama. While an unknown (as both Joe and Fluke were) changing a campaign by taking the initiative ON HIS OWN, and forcing both candidates to focus on lunchpail issues is notable[JtP], in contrast, having a politician pick someone off the street to be a surrogate face on their own protest is, well, an average Tuesday (or in this case, Wednesday) on Capital Hill [Fluke]. JtP was an independent voice, changed the debate, and was adopted by BOTH campaigns as a result. Fluke has never been independent (she is now a paid campaign operative, even LESS likely to be either independent or original), never really made substantive contributions, and is ONLY being promoted as anything by one wing of one Party, and related to the PR success, the RL-SF controversy. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that at some point the significance of the RL-SF Controversy has to be re-assesed, and if THIS TIME, (news spikes reflect changes in the Democrat campaign strategies) the Fluke strategy works, would be open to expanding that.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - confusion in "keep" votes Also have to remember, as pertains to the Joe the Plumber analogy; we have ONLY a Joe the Plumber article, not TWO articles on both JtP and the "Joe the Plumber - Barack Obama dispute". Several "Keep" votes on the AfD were not arguments for a separate article, but could be taken as arguments not to delete/merge the RL-SF controversy article. The decision of the admin took into account that there already was an article that included all BLP-compliant information on Fluke, and that there was both clear consensus to merge, AND that the RL-SF controversy article should remain. Keep !Votes need to address the issue of TWO articles, one of which, the Fluke article, never contained more than a few sentences of extra information not contained in the RL-SF article. Clear FORK(WP:REDUNDANTFORK, possible WP:POVFORK) , just like a "Joe the Plumber - Barack Obama dispute" would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Thus far, extensively discussed on AfD, never addressed on this DR. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TWO articles, one of which, the Fluke article, never contained more than a few sentences of extra information not contained in the RL-SF article: You're right, it didn't; but this was at least in part because of the extraordinary efforts made by certain editors to belittle any other proposed/attempted addition as trivial. See the edit summaries and this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; few sentences because beyond the RL-SF controversy, there isn't much to speak of. Attempts to puff up the SF article immediately violated WP:PROMOTION WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RS--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah. By your understanding, ex-IP, there isn't much to speak of, and the efforts were to "puff up" the article and this "immediately violated" WP:PROMOTION and the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore or allow re-creation. Tiresome cliches about "15 minutes of fame" notwithstanding, she seems to moved beyond merely being some radio gasbag's target. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per S. Marshall. The AfD discussion indicates no consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore as per numerous statements above. The appropriate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison is Vicki Iseman, FWIW. Both of the women involved in these two articles pass the threshold for notability at this point, although the recent comment by Anonymous209.6 about multiple articles is extraordinarily relevant. Both of these BLP subjects should have only one article which is substantially about them, although at this time the biography articles are the appropriate targets. Horologium (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Iseman AND John McCain lobbyist controversy articles are an odd example. Not sure either is all that notable, but the Event article is the one that really should be the only one to remain, much like the Fluke situation. The Event article should probably be renamed to reflect that it is mostly about the New York Times, and the lawsuit from publishing unsupported rumors.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More media coverage of Fluke.

In Nashua visit, Sandra Fluke paints Romney, Ryan as extreme, out of step

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ AND SANDRA FLUKE MAKE THEIR PRESENCE FELT AT THE RNC

So how much more coverage is required before this is WP:N?Casprings (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until she has enough independent notability that new stories don't have to start with something like "Fluke, who was called a slut by Rush Limbaugh..." It seriously makes me question her notability when every single journalist feels they must remind us why we should care who she is. Trusilver 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was going by Wikipedia:Notability (people). I was under the strange impression that number of RS and longevity of coverage mattered. I am glad you pointed out where I was wrong. I will be sure to take the reporters reference to an event into account. Casprings (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two new references. One is by "Hope Hodge Follow @MissHedgeHodge" and doesn't immediately look to me like an authoritative source. As for the other, it's from the website of a regional newspaper, and it speaks of "noted activist Sandra Fluke" before it mentions Limbaugh. Yes, it does indeed say that she "clashed with commentator Rush Limbaugh" and later that "Her testimony prompted Limbaugh to call her a prostitute, among other terms." Yes, it's conceivable that without such nudging, readers wouldn't know who she was. But NB that the very same article reminds use that Limbaugh is a "commentator" and talks of "Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis." Why not simply "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" -- is their notability so minor that the author has to remind his readers who they are? Or is it perhaps that certain arguments may be used to belittle Fluke but not to belittle those at or close to the other side of the "war on women"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The Nashua Telegraph story linked to above, IMO, portrays Fluke as a feminist spokesperson generally, and the story is not simply a rehash of the Rush Limbaugh incident. Yes, the story does make passing mention of Fluke's clash with Limbaugh, but this is reasonable as a way of identifying her to readers who will remember her from that earlier event. I have believed for some time now that Fluke merits an article of her own (not simply in connection with the Limbaugh thing) — and as I said a while ago, I disagree that there ever really was a strong consensus for deletion in the first place — and the Nashua Telegraph story reinforces the opinion I had already held for overturning the deletion. — Richwales 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ad homenieum argument, hoary. It's always hilariously ironic to see someone accuse another of bias while glaringly betraying their own bias in the same comment. I regret to inform you though that I could really care less about any of the players in this little drama except from the aspect of how it affect the project. American politics has, from a world perspective, an extreme tendency to turn anything into a politically divisive news story. That presents certain problems from our perspective... things that common sense tells us should never be notable suddenly become notable with the WP:GNG rubber stamp. I suppose it was Ms. Fluke's good fortune that she was called a slut by someone notable in an election year, because had that not been the case, we wouldn't even be talking about it. The project should always be looked at from a world perspective, yet we have the tendency to create bushels of US-centric political trash articles. I would LOVE to say that the subject has some kind of notability that could stand independently without the connection to some windbag on the radio, but she doesn't. She's an election year political tool meant to somehow rub some Rush Limbaugh dirt off onto a presidential candidate through guilt by association. I have noted before that if this was almost any other country in the world, we wouldn't even be discussing this. If you feel that the subject has a legitimate claim to notability that can stand without the Limbaugh connection, then that's a perfectly reasonable argument. However, I do think everyone should look at the big picture and make sure we aren't just allowing WP:V to automatically equal WP:N. Trusilver 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, I guess you mean. You fascinate me: (i) How have I attacked an argument by attacking its messenger, and (ii) what is the bias that I have glaringly betrayed? (In the meantime, I'm happy if I have caused hilarity.) ¶ You end by pointing the reader to WP:N. I've just reread the topmost part of it; is there any other part to which you'd like to draw my or others' attention? -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business school par (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello

I've created the page Business School PAR twice and every time it was speedy deleted because it was an advert. Please answer me why is it considered as advert, having in mind that this page is not: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Z%C5%A0EM

Thank you for your answer.

Sincerely, Parovci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parovci (talk • contribs)

• The page was deleted because it contained promotional language. In fact at least part of the article was copied from various pages on the institution's website in violation of copyright, and we do not undelete copyright violations under any circumstances. Hut 8.5 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

By my count 16 of 37 (43% of respondents) were in favor of keeping the article with the rest split (10.5 each) among merge and delete. I find reading a consensus to merge a bit questionable. Furthermore, by my observation, the content was never merged into the page. These Foo on Twitter articles have been quite controversial. At the original DRV, I have pointed out that even User:Jimbo Wales is in favor of WP supporting social media content according to his State of the Wiki address. My question in this case is whether consensus really existed to do anything to the article. The closer (Fram (talk · contribs)), who was also the closer at Justin Bieber on Twitter, clearly favors the merge arguments, but I do not believe that they reached a consensus. It seems to me that the interpretation that the less than 30% who voiced an opinion to merge voiced more policy grounded arguments is weak. I think content should be WP:PRESERVEd until there is true consensus to do otherwise. I think we can be fairly certain that if this was closed as no consensus, further debate would be opened in subsequent AFDs until a stronger consensus emerged. I find it premature to side with anything other than no consensus when over 40% say keep, less than 30% say delete and less than 30% say merge. Even combining delete and merge into one voice still leaves us with a 43/57 voice that is not really a consensus IMO. Arguments can be made that AFD is not a vote, but I just don't see the lack of cogency required for that to be relevant. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I think the !vote was, at TonyTheTiger says, fairly close. But moreso, the closer closed the discussion indicating that WP:NOT applied here. I believe if anything the discussion leaned the other way. Disclaimer: I was planning on filing a DRV here too... Hobit (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse (the mandated merge), but maybe "no consensus" between "keep" and "merge". I disagree with the closer's implication that the discussion found that WP:NOT was crossed. Some alleged so, but others disputed, and the allegations were not substantial. I might recommend a relist with the only options being "keep" and "smerge and redirect". I predict that this hypothetical, if tested, would support the second. I.e. I see a rough consensus to mandate the merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What mandated the merge?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the best word choice. Essentially, the close, finding a consensus for merge and redirect, forces interested editors to retrieve content from the history to merge into the target, as their best option. Of course, no one is forced to do anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by AfD closer. Votecounts and "Jimbo said" are hardly compelling arguments. As I have stated elsewhere, we shouldn't on the one hand discourage "me too" votes and on the other hand have a votecount at the end of the discussion (in general, not just for this discussion alone). Furthermore, people should take into account all opinions, from the first and the second AfD combined, not just the second AfD on its own. There is no reason to only give the second AfD any weight, and not the first one. We should also take into consideration Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 98#Appropriateness of "X on Twitter" (or similar) articles, the closest we have to an actual articulated policy or guideline. As for "the content was never merged into the page."; the content is still available in the history of the original page, anyone who wants to "preserve" it can do so. Fram (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TonyTheTiger, are you under the impression that it's up to the closer to perform the merge? It's not. That's content-related work, and for those admins who still do any content work, they're doing so without their admin hat on. With their admin hat on, their jurisdiction is conduct and consensus, not content. The closer says "the consensus was merge" and then waits for the debate participants to do it. (This means that many "merge" closes don't actually happen. I've noticed that we Wikipedians, as a group, are often much better at saying what other people should do than at doing things.)

  I'll recuse from adding a word in bold because I participated in the debate. What I said during the debate was that a merge was the objectively correct close but I couldn't see a local consensus in that particular discussion for doing it. That is still my position.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to understand why if you have come to the conclusion that there was not consensus, you would not state that in bold. BTW, I do not feel the closer should merge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because as someone who participated in the debate and has already expressed a view, I'm not to be coming to this debate without preconceptions. I don't know whether the regular DRV closers give people who participated in the AfD less weight, but in many cases I think they probably should, because a lack of objectivity clouds judgment. Recognising this, it's my usual practice not to add a word in bold when analysing a debate in which I participated.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the close was reasonable, and I'm not impressed with the reasons given to overturn. Jimbo's opinions on the subject don't carry any more weight than those of any other editor, and even if they did it wouldn't make any difference (I'm sure almost all editors believe Wikipedia should have some coverage of social media, and I'm sure Jimbo wasn't trying to say that all articles on social media should be kept). As pointed out by S Marshall above an admin who closes a deletion discussion as Merge is not obliged to merge the content, and whoever does this would also have to decide what content should be merged (an issue that wasn't mentioned during the debate). There's nothing to stop anyone merging the content right now. WP:PRESERVE doesn't have any application: as noted by the "Problems that may justify removal" subsection, if the Delete commenters are right that the page fails WP:NOT then that policy agrees that the content can be removed. It may be best to think of the Merge closure as a compromise between the extremes of Keep and Delete. Merge is technically a variant of Keep, and many of the Delete commenters thought some sort of merge would be acceptable. Hut 8.5 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Smokey Joe, that keep or merge are the only two policy based rationales, here, as I indicated in the second AfD. And as I also noted, the sources, including two textbooks lead to keep over the unsubstantiated NOT claims (both in text and spirit). The first AfD was found to be procedurally defective, and not to have been grounded in policy. As for the Village Pump discussion, which is not a policy or guideline, that was also addressed by discussants in the second AfD, and found wanting, as a basis for consensus in this case. Finally, I take exception to the closer on their talk page indicating they completely discounted my argument, either because they misunderstood it, or because they have a particular bias in regard to the topic. Like S. Marshall, my position has not changed; it is also contrary to the close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus for any particular outcome. The closer's comments above indicate that they based their decision upon another discussion at village pump not the actual AFD discussion. That village pump discussion is not policy and was not mentioned by anyone in the AFD discussion. The close was therefore a supervote, being based just upon the closer's view of the matter, not the discussion. Warden (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect: "That village pump discussion is not policy and was not mentioned by anyone in the AFD discussion." Please reread the "merge" comment made by S Marshall on 07:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC). It was also referenced by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and by Arathald. Fram (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. The comments of Marshall and Arathald, which were informed by the outcome of the RfC, both indicated a consensus to Keep in this case. Czarkoff dissented and presumably still wanted a merger but there was no consensus for this. Warden (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You apparently don't "see". Marshall clearly changed from "keep" to "merge" based on the RfC... Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Marshall said, "I can't pretend there's a consensus in this discussion to do that. [merge]" and confirms this above. When well-informed participants are plainly saying that there is not a consensus, you should please listen rather than imposing your view. Warden (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could I be the one to interpret what I said, please?

            I did change from "keep" to "merge" based on the RfC, and I said that "merge" was the objectively correct close. I also said that I can't see a consensus in favour of the merge in the debate. Fram's close takes account of more than just that one debate; I'm not sure whether I agree with that approach or not, so I've kept quiet.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • Thank you. We agree that there was no consensus and this is my position here. For avoidance of doubt, my !vote of Overturn stands. Warden (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • We agree that there was no consensus in that particular debate. In my view the substantive question here is whether Fram had to close (a) just the particular debate before him, or (b) a gestalt of all the various debates on that subject that had taken place. If (a), then an overturn would be the correct outcome here. If (b), then I think we would have to endorse, because taking the various debates as a whole, there is indeed a consensus to merge. I'm undecided because I can see good arguments that support both positions.—S Marshall T/C 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The gestalt approach would be poor procedurally because it would allow admins to pick and choose admissable discussions and so exacerbate the problem of supervoting. But, in any case, the RfC on village pump did not indicate a single, uniform outcome for such cases. The closer of that discussion found that "For the vast majority of celebrities, their use of social media is best covered within their main biography. There may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable...". Ashton Kurcher is clearly one of these exceptional cases because of his prominence on Twitter specifically, with sources calling him the King of Twitter, for example, and this point was made during the discussion. Fram's interpretation seems more severe than the finding of that RfC and so was doubly improper as it followed neither discussion. Warden (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, that's one of my main concerns with the gestalt view. Another is that if an older debate is taken into account, it violates the principle that consensus can change. But equally, if I've expressed a view in one debate that was then procedurally closed, or restarted due to sockpuppetry or something, should I have to copy/paste it into the new debate before it "counts"? That represents an opportunity for bad faith users to game the system the other way, by preventing sysops from considering things they really should consider. All in all it's probably best if we don't have a firm rule on this.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two ways of dealing with lack of consensus: one of them is the tradition Non consensus close by which we keep a separate article, and the other is the less traditional but equally useful compromise of a true merge of a substantial portion of the content. To characterise one as a matter for AfD to be decided by consensus as evaluated by an admin, and the other as consensus to be found by a discussion on the talk p. to be evaluated by whomever chooses, is really artificial. In some cases for various reasons a merge is not a possibility; in this case it clearly is. Our formal policies are of no real help here--they represent an excessively rigid categorization of the possibilities. Technically, Col. W's view has much to be said for it, but I still would not follow it, if only because it is very likely to lead to further inconclusive discussions. In terms of the best way of handling the actual material at issue, I'd follow S Marshall. I think this is just the sort of situation for which IAR was designed, where the rules do not produce the best and most reasonable result. (In the longer run, we really need to reconsider deletion policy with respect to the problem of individual vs. merged articles--I have long argued for deemphasis of the concept of individual articles as opposed to keeping content; I recognize it leads to fuzzier results, but I think the fuzziness is often closer to the actual situation. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse— the administrator did a good job in closing the Afd. There was certainly no consensus to keep the article in that form. And regardless of how many editors voted keep, some of the imput from them could have been easily discounted whilst determining a consensus (not going to say who). A small paragraph on the main article is more than enough. Till 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when do we merge when there is no consensus to do anything? The fact that there was no consensus to keep does not mean that if there was no consensus to merge or delete that we should do anything but close as no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure There was clearly no consensus to keep and a merge means that some of the content will still exist, even if not as a stand-alone article. The fact that delete/merge were pretty much evenly split would lead to the conclusion that there was no clear consensus to delete, even if there was agreement that the article as such should not exist. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when do we merge when there is no consensus to do anything? The fact that there was no consensus to keep does not mean that if there was no consensus to merge or delete that we should do anything but close as no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I explained my thinking properly. The consensus was clearly in favour of the article not existing. It could have been deleted entirely - merging allows the relevant content to be somewhere on Wikipedia. If I were a deletionist, I could be happy that the consensus to not keep the article had been followed - if I were an inclusionist, I could be happy that the relevant content has been left somewhere on Wikipedia. It could have been closed as no consensus, but that would imply that the keeps and deletes were more evenly argued, whereas in this case the consensus was clearly to get rid of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, as the most logical outcome given the multiple discussions involved. (Disclaimer: I participated in said discussions). --Nouniquenames (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Also, the vote count ratio is irrelevant for weighing up the consensus. An appeal to what Jimbo said is an appeal to give Jimbo a supervote. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure: the arguments in favor of keeping were too weak, and head count doesn't help to hide this fact. Are we going to run through deletion revisions every time TonyTheTiger disagrees with discussions' outcomes? Oh, and again the supervote of Jimbo Wales... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure: seems like the most reasonable interpretation of consensus. Can't find any error with the admin's reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The "merge" and "delete" voters are essentially arguing the same point and can be lumped together. They are both saying, "There should not be a standalone article on this topic" and the only difference is what happens after the article is removed (i.e. is it merged/redirected or is it deleted). Therefore, if we're going by vote counting, it's more of a 60/40 in favor of merging. Apart from counting heads, if we look at the first AfD (full disclosure: I closed it), the first DRV, the VP RFC, the second AfD, and now the emerging consensus at this DRV... I think the consensus is absolutely clear, and I feel like we're beating a dead horse on the subject. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to close this but then I realised I had voted in DRV1 and also that there were two important issues that hadn't been airsed in the DRV. Firstly, merge is functionally the same as keep so it is utterly nugatory to seek to overturn a merge to a keep. The second issue picks up on some the concerns expressed here on how we judge consensus. Not only do we not count votes but the weighting we give to competeing strands of opinion can and should reflect the wider weight of community support for those particular strands On that basis it is not only reasonable but actually proper to allow a meta consensus to inform the outcome of a local discussion even where the strand of the meta-consensus is not widely represented. I therefore endorse this close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's odd that 'merge is a form of keep' and that 'merge is a form of delete' have both been argued in the endorse comments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not actually: merge is both keeping information and not keeping article as whole, and in this particular case it is something that intersects with most "keep" and "delete" rationales. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merge is a form of keeping information for the editor and deleting it for the reader. Editors will be able to find the information if they search edit histories, but readers who search the merged content will not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My findings are different: when I follow wikilink Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, I'm redirected to merged information. What am I doing wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article at issue here was over 6500 characters of readable prose. The section you are pointing to is less than 400 characters of readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The target article isn't protected, and the AfD was closed with "merge" outcome. This means that encyclopedic content should be merged to the target by the interested users. As the deletion log and DRV record of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter unanimously suggest, the most interested user is TonyTheTiger, who happens to be you. So probably you could address your concern ("merge is a form of ... deleting [information] for the reader") yourself? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alanscottwalker - obviously I am not in agreement with the argument that merge is the same as delete or I wouldn't have made my comment. If you search DRV and Talk DRV for merge is keep you will find hundreds of discussions and DRVs where this has been aired. Up until 2009/early 2010 the process would have been to close all DRVs that were merged if the nominator wanted it changed to keep because DRV in those days took the view they were the same. Afterwards, consensus changed to allow discussions to run because we accepted responsibility for confirming a merge outcome was correct in an AFD. Although some do insist that merge is delete, a close reading of the archives will show that this view has never gained consensus. I'm not trying to pull tenure here but I have been a regular at DRV since 1996 and closed hundreds of them when I was an admin so I'm confident I do understand how we work here. If you disagree please feel free to review the archives. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "I have been a regular at DRV since 1996"? That has to be some kind of record ;-) Fram (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't arguing with you, I made an observation on the odd juxtapositions. (But if you want argument, in relevant particulars, "Keep" "Merge" or "Delete" are not a form of each other, they are distinct actions. In AfD, they are essentially recommendations about what to do organizationally with article content, and DRV's purpose is to ensure that in cases where consensus can be read, the consensus action has been taken, instead of what the closer would prefer. Or in cases of no consensus that no action be taken because of that AfD, except to note no consensus.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]