Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June

Julia (programming language) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

contested deletion by [user:Anih] on talk:Julia (programming_language) BO | Talk 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and speedy close There was a clear consensus for the deletion of the article, and the DRV nominator doesn't give any reason, why this should be revised. (A deletion after an AfD can't be contested on the talk page.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment 1: The consensus was too narrow - and the case should be relisted - since there are at least two additional voices now to keep.

  Comment 2: If a user does not know about DRV his voice should still be heard per Wikipedia:NOTABUREAUCRACY.

  Comment 3: Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL was not relevant in the original AfD proposal - also it was not applyied normatively. Compare and contrast with many articles about future events (e.g. Casino openings; Movie Releases) which are never censured for violation of this precept.

  Request 1: Your signature's length is in excess of the permitted length WP:SIGN— please be so kind and reduce it prior to responding here again. FYI it seems suggestive of violence and aggression - WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND BO | Talk 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (C1) No the consensus was not too narrow. Most AfD discussions don't get more input than this. (Also AfD's don't need to have x !votes to be valid.)

  (C2) If a user doesn't know how DRV works, than xe should read WP:DRV

  (C3) Maybe linking to Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL wasn't fortunate, but in these instance it means speculation, that the topic of the article will someday becomes notable.

  (R1) No the signature is under the 255 character limit. (Otherwise it wouldn't fit in my preferences.) The second part of your request is simply stupid. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my reference to WP:CRYSTALBALL in the nomination was (and I'm astonished this wasn't obvious) referred to speculation about future sources coming into existence. We don't keep articles because we think the subjects might become notable someday. Perhaps I should have cited WP:TOOSOON. Also, if anyone is unhappy with another editor's signature, an AfD is probably not the place to pursue it. Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The now-deleted Talk page held the following content which is, I believe, the basis for this nomination.

  Why was this page deleted? It is a perfectly valid description of the programming language.
  UPDATED: Found this in the Deletion Logs:
  "Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)"
  It is a programming language, the only reliable source is primary, i.e. the people who make it. As an example if Microsoft says that Windows has some feature X, should that not appear on Wikipedia because Microsoft is the primary and only source?
  It is a new programming language and there is not a great wealth of information on it on the web, although Googling it will show many discussion about it on mail-lists etc. As a non-affiliated individual with the project, I can confirm he description on the deleted page of its features is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Without commenting on the merits of the original deletion, the speedy-deletion of the Talk page was clearly in error. Yes, the talk page was technically "a page dependent on a deleted page". But the Talk page is exactly where we tell users to discuss the merits of a potential new article or to ask questions like the above. New users should not be sanctioned merely because they do not know our archane rules about where and how to contest a deletion. In particular, I note that the Talk page was summarily deleted without even an attempt to explain things on the new user's Talk page. Don't bite the newcomers! Rossami (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but before it was deleted, I did post an answer on that talk page suggesting that anyone who objected to the outcome at AfD could request WP:Userfication or WP:Deletion review. It seems likely someone read my answer and that's why we're here. Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you did and very civilly. Unfortunately, another user speedy-deleted the talk page barely an hour later - far too soon for any reasonable expectation that the original editor would have found your comment. Rossami (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request 2: Please resotre the talk page as well. according to WP:AGF I suggest that it was deleted despite accidently despite its CSD having been contested. BO | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There really was a consensus that this material was not notable. I think that although there was nothing wrong with BWilkins' close in this instance, the debate itself was defective because per WP:ATD the participants should have considered alternatives to deletion. Nobody did. (For example, a redirect to List of object-oriented programming languages is one obvious alternative that should have been considered.) It's not strictly necessary to relist the debate in order to consider the alternatives—we could do that here at DRV—but I would prefer a relist in this case.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines discourage adding redlinks to lists such as List of object-oriented programming languages unless an article is likely. From WP:LSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." This is why I think the best alternative is WP:Userfication until better sources can be found (or come into existence.) Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In context, that's an example of a common selection criterion. It's not a Thou Shalt Not. In this case it obviously wouldn't apply anyway: the entry would be plain text since there's no purpose in a redlink. (That list consists only of wikilinks at the moment but there's no reason not to add plain text.)—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's easy to fix that to make it a list of WP:N languages, just like List of programming languages, exactly as I imagine most of us who've contributed to that page have intended. (Note the numerous previous deletions of entries corresponding to deleted articles.) Msnicki (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this conversation counts as "considering alternatives to deletion"; I know next to nothing about programming languages and Msnicki isn't coming up with alternatives but trying to exclude them. My relist stands.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it my job to come up with alternatives? You're the one who thinks that's a good idea. I'm arguing that I have thought about it and I don't think there are any good alternatives beyond WP:Userfication; why isn't that alternative good enough? Msnicki (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD outcome was properly supported by the discussion and a clear consensus. No reliable independent secondary sources establishing notability were found. As observed by pbp, the only arguments in favor of keeping the page (and by only a single editor) were "a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CRYSTAL." Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. For the reasons outlined by Misnicki. The consensus was clear and based on appropriate policy-based reasons. Ubelowme (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• talk page temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Possibly every AfD nomination where it might be a reasonable option ought to say whether merge or redirect is suitable, and if not, say why it is not. And then every close should consider it. It would be difficult to make a rule on it, because more than half the time it is not a reasonable option, In some cases, I sometimes try to do this. But there is another way to look at it, that a redirect can still be made unless the closer says otherwise (the difference is that such a redirect won't have the article history). And no AfD can affect content of another article, at least not unless it's discussed in the close. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've posted {{subst:DRVNote|Julia (programming language)}} notices to the talk pages of all the editors who contributed to the AfD and to the original author of the article. Msnicki (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: 'cuz of what that PBP guy said about it at the AfD pbp 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Someone left me a message. I had forgotten about this. It made me realize I made the right decision not to be Wiki-active any more. All this talk about an obscure, practically-dead, quite useless, waste of time language... way to go. Within Wikiproject computing 80% of articles are pure junk and Julia is worse than the rest, and yet all this talk, talk about a deletion. The user contesting is probably doing so out of love for Julia not due to a deep knowledge of computer science, and there may well be COI (who knows) but we will AGF on it. Wikiproject computing is never going to work with current policies that eat time and produce nothing. I am so glad I gave up on it.... History2007 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- because consensus at the AfD was clear, and because no reason for undeleting it have been presented. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD debate reached the unanimous conclusion that this language is not notable (yet). We have a long history of not merging or redirecting non-notable programming language into e.g. List of x programming languages (for good reasons). Is anyone seriously disputing this deletion or are you all just arguing for the sake of arguing? —Ruud 06:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI - if you look again at the AfD discussion you will notice that it was not unanimous. BO | Talk 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was less of a hyperbole than "the consensus being too narrow", though. —Ruud 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - close accurately reflected consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the idea that for any deletion discussion someone has to drag up alternatives to deletion no matter how poor, or put some boilerplate "I considered alternatives but found none" is mindless bureaucracy at it's best. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm not seeing sources needed to meet WP:N. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing new; if someone were to present sources that would be another matter. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(DRV request wasn't completed by the nominator: I've compied this statement from the closing admin's page, as was apparently intended. Full disclosure: I'm the editor who originally nominated the article for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It is obvious that the proposers of the deletion that has occurred are not familiar with the article of the Warriors series and its subarticles. The Warriors series has been on The New York Times Best Sellers lists for the various volumes for years having sold many tens of millions of copies. It reaches its original intended audience of children but has crossed over and is read by a great many adults as well. The related subarticles and lists are highly relevant and pertinent to the subject. The most relevant phenomenon with a similar background is the Harry Potter series, let alone the Redwald series. In reviewing the articles in greater detail, it appears that they were created, were necessary, and appropriately done per Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Splitting. The various clans are essential like the school houses in Harry Potter, substantially more so and relevant to the mythology in the Warriors series. I have looked at Chris Cunningham's mention of the Wikia:warriors site. Totally commercial, poor, irrelevant to the context of Wikipedia, and inappropriate. I have reviewed Colapeninsula's statement and disagree; the series is of major pop-culture importance. Both Hamlet and The Simpsons have much less in the character realm but substantially more material in detail than in the Warriors series here. Third party sources are lacking but a quick review using the web indicates that the New York Times info proves the popularity, as well as other newspaper sources. If it is deleted then 90% of Wikipedia should also be deleted. The articles are a work in progress and much better than many articles on Wikipedia. If this is deleted then all the subpages related to Harry Potter, Tolkien's works, Charles Dicken's works, Shakespeare's works, items related to King Arthur, etc. should be deleted to be consistent with the style and even handedness of the deleters. I seriously do not trust the competence of the deleters; they just seem too new to me and lack the proper judgement. Could they not have tried to be more constructive and input more sourcing or ask for it? If we permit their deletion to be sustained then we have reached a major impasse in Wikipedia and substantial reduction of content in Wikipedia is necessary to be consistent with policy, otherwise the policy itself needs to be reviewed and revised. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV is not AFD round 2. The AFD was even run for an extra week and still nobody came up with reliable sources or a convincing reason to keep it. Procedure correctly followed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, exactly per Starblind, and that isn't something I say very often. The idea that ThunderClan Cats deserve to be treated in the same way as great literature such as Dickens, Shakespeare, Mallory, or Tolkein is self-evidently ludicrous (although I definitely wouldn't mind trimming our Harry Potter-related coverage a bit). If large amounts of serious literary criticism of ThunderClan Cats emerges in the future, then there will be a case for subpages of it, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To write an article, you have to start with some third party sources. If you can find some independent discussion in reliable sources, then someone will surely userfy the deleted article for you. You can also ask for it to be emailed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin' comment: If TD would like, I can restore the article to his userspace for him to find and add those sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist. DRV was not fully completed as time is supposed to be given per item #1 in the DRV list to the administrator to reconsider. I am already aware that DRV is not round 2.
  In this particular case I just do not stomach easily editors' literal thousands of hours of work that is apparent to me just vaporizing into thin air. What a ghastly message to send to contributors. The pages and material involved seem appropriate to a series of literature involving more than 30 volumes, far more than the previous literature items I have mentioned (and even they have more pages). Judging by the editing I think another relist would be appropriate as most of the editors on this series seem to take vacations during the summer. My "overturn" reaction stands based on article(s) size per policy and good encyclopedic editing. Brambleclawx should be the person to userfy to per their request in the original AfD (and all other related articles if or when they arise). Thor Dockweiler (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is implicit in the nomination. While it is entirely appropriate for a nominator to continue to participate in the discussion, please do not use the bolded "endorse/overturn" prefixes in subsequent comments. It creates confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion and may give the impression that you are trying to 'stuff the ballot box'. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
• While I'm sympathetic to the amount of work invested, that still doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. Is there, perhaps, a fan-Wiki to which this could be transwiki'ed? Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in the AfD nom (you did read it, right?), there is a wikia:warriors which an editor has asserted has already imported this content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and rename Purely as an AfD2 thing (and yes, I know exactly how much that matters here). This is a rather large series and having a "list of characters" (which is what this article was) is extremely reasonable as breakout articles go. Anyone have a count of redirects that go to this article? I'm guessing it's massive. Hobit (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you go. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage provided in AfD or DRV. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process errors in the discussion or the closure interpretation. The volume of content was raised during the discussion but does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. The nomination and overturn opinions offered here so far present no new arguments that lead me to believe the decision would have been any different. The fundamental problem of independent sourcing was unaddressed and remains unaddressed here. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Consensus at the AfD was clear. The DRV nominator presents no actual reasons to dispute the close, focusing mainly on WP:ILIKEIT and waxing lyrical about how we have to delete the entire encyclopedia if we delete his baby. Reyk _YO! 02:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - List of ThunderClan cats was an example of what happens to article length when the content added is unchecked against reliable source material. The list article did not stay focused on the main topic (probably because none with any usable limits was listed) and went into unnecessary detail. I would have preferred to see more discussion on how this list met or did not meet one or more of purposes of lists at the AfD, but consensus to delete at the AfD was clear. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - It's fairly notable, and many list articles don't have great sources anyway. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big difference between "doesn't have great sources", which is admittedly true for many list articles, and "no non-primary sources exist", which is why this one was deleted. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for the original AFD nominator. List of ThunderClan cats was a split from List of Warriors characters and I've noticed that you have now nominated all the rest of the sublists for deletion. Why didn't you do this from jumpstreet, why was List of ThunderClan cats first nominated by itself? Another option might have been to start a discussion about upmerging the notable characters back to the parent list. This might have been suggested by some if the whole shebang was nominated together. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boojum tree ucr botanical garden.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Copyright is held by me, and was licensed under GPL and CC BY; the copyright claimed in the deletion review is for Apache::Gallery, which is the gallery software used in my gallery. Dondelelcaro (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn-Looking at the PUF discussion that led to the files deletion has led me to this page, the image source cited in the PUF. Looking at the source, it appears that the copyright does, in fact, pertain to the software, not the image. The deletion was based on a flawed premise, and thus should be reversed.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is licenced under the GPL and CC-BY-SA, then doesn't it belong on Wikimedia Commons rather than here?—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was uploaded to wikipedia before wikimedia commons, iirc.Dondelelcaro (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The external website provides absolutely no evidence that the image is licensed as GPL+CC-BY. No licence listed at all apart from a copyright notice at the bottom and the website contains absolutely no evidence that the website is operated by User:Dondelelcaro. If an image appears outside Wikipedia before it appears on Wikipedia, you need to provide some evidence of ownership, either through OTRS or by adding a statement to the web site confirming that the Wikipedia upload was legit. If no evidence of permission is provided, then this is just to be treated as a standard case where insufficient information has been provided, making the file deletable per WP:CSD#F11, see Commons:COM:CB#Internet images. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was uploaded before OTRS, but I have no problem stating that I am the copyright holder of the image. Secondly, my user page references http://www.donarmstrong.com, so there's little question that I am at least affiliated with my own server. Finally, I've added notice to the bottom of the page referencing the license state of the images in the gallery. Dondelelcaro (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not doubt for a moment what you say but anyone with a Wikipedia account can claim to be you and say that they control your server. As Stefan2 says, you need to place a suitable free licence on your gallery or state on your server that you have made the claims on your user page (or use OTRS). Forgive me if you have done this and I have missed it. Thincat (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but they'd be hard pressed to claim that one domain in 2006 in preparation for a question about copyright in late 2011. That said, it'd be trivial for anyone who questioned whether I was in control of that domain to e-mail me and ask.Dondelelcaro (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The PUF discussion (such as it was) was not well informed but the source does not seem to provide any evidence of permission so speedy deletion was appropriate. The file has already been transferred to Commons (twice?) and deleted there for the same reason.[1] Properly licensed images can be hosted either here or on Commons but files tend to get moved to and fro. My own guess is that here will be a better ultimate location but I fear in our chaotic system there may turn out to be a strange attractor. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not appear possible to substantiate ownership when the image is speedily deleted; that said, I have no problem following OTRS to demonstrate ownership. Dondelelcaro (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Dondelelcaro needs to better substantiate his claim as others say above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully substantiated. Dondelelcaro (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This page now has a statement telling that all images on the web site are available as {{GPL}}. This statement looks enough to me, although a software licence looks strange for a photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This whole thing continues to raise questions. If you in fact took the photo, how tough would it be to upload it to Wikimedia commons and slap a Creative Commons licenses on it? Instead, you choose to get editors to spend seven days arguing the point at DRV? Then, instead of changing the license for the photo in question, you change a copyright license for your entire website.[2] And there, instead of an image license, you change your website to make images available under a free software license, rather than a license for photographic work. What are we supposed to do with that? Are you saying that because you used Apache::Gallery software to manipulate someone else's copyrighted work you then can change the license for the derivative work? Your website http://www.donarmstrong.com/ says nothing about you taking photos. Instead, it talks about literature minining[3] and working on a large study dataset,[4] both indications that appear to say you take other's content and create and manipulate datasets. There was no indication of where the original photo came from, which apparently was here. That's the link that should be used in your Wikipedia upload of the image. You have no problem stating that you are the copyright holder of the image, but are having problems proving it. Did you take the photo yourself? Did someone take the photo and email you a digital copy? How did this photo get creates and how did it end up in your possession? As for the image in question,[5] the photo is of poor quality (with all those people in the background) and I don't see it being used in a Wikipedia article even if the license issue is resolved. Also, we have plenty of Boojum.[6] I don't see what the end purpose of this DRV request is if it is not to use the photo in a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It is understanding that reuploading the same image when it has already been subject to a deletion is acting in bad faith. 2) I'm using GPLv2+ because I am a free software developer, am intricately familiar with it, know it can be applied to any digital work, and am not particularly enthralled with the CC's licensing process. But I'm not sure why that matters. 3) Why does what I have to do have to do with whether or not I take photographs? As you can probably figure out from my resume, I work at UCR, so I have access to the botanical gardens, and regularly see the multiple Boojum trees there. 4) The photo was originally used in the wikipedia article as there was no other good photographs of boojum at the time I edited it. Finally, I would appreciate if you would avoid attacking me by claiming that I am acting in bad faith.Dondelelcaro (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are mistaken about the nature of the GPL, though it's commonly used for computer software, the license itself does contemplate other works. The GPL V3 preamble is "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works" (my emphasis), the V2 and V3 licenses define the term program to be broad and define source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", rather than taking the meaning of source code in purely software terms.

  The galley software is (AFAIK) a perl module for apache which dynamically prepares html galleries of images[7], exactly as it's being used and adds that message to the bottom of it's generated galleries. I do not see how you can infer from use of that software anything about the image being someone else's copyright or being "manipulated" in some way. Nor do I believe that his can be used as evidence of difficulty proving ownership. Nor can I see how you expect to prove he does, if he took it himself, beyond him saying "I took this myself" what evidence are you expecting?

  I think we are making far too much of this. If that site wasn't there and he uploaded it, then we wouldn't question his right to license it (absent some reasonable evidence that it wasn't his to license). In this case the site is there, and he's demonstrated that he is reasonably in control of it, we should accept that at face value. Frankly if I were the uploader, and knew I owned the image, then at this point I'd, frankly, be thinking well bollocks to the lot of you. This is of course not withstanding the issue as to if it's a worthwhile image for wikipedia. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore [8] now has the proper license note. GPL is good enough for us AFAIK. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore I voted endorse above. The deletion was appropriate at the time but a suitable licence has now been placed on the source gallery. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Might be a good idea to strike the !vote above just to be clear... Hobit (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I wondered about striking my "endorse" but I had not changed my mind about endorsing. To avoid any appearance of double-voting I have now struck my bolded "restore". I now think the image can be restored. Thank you for the suggestion. Thincat (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GloZell Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly. The discussion clearly suggests that there was no consensus to delete the article. There were independent reliable sources in the article which were pointed out by three (yes three) independent editors, and the admin kept on seeming to ignore this per the discussion on his talk page. Sure, some keep votes were not guideline-based as with many debates, but so were many of the deletion ones, some of which were just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, may I point out that one of the first things WP:People states is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I along with other editors noted in the discussion that she satisfied this criteria, again they were ignored by the administrator. Till 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; is incubation an option? It was a tough call, but I agree with the closing administrator in how he interpreted the discussion and the Wikipedia policies brought up—including the interpretation of the student newspapers as not being "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:SOURCES. That said, it may be worth userfying or otherwise incubating the article to see if more sources can be located in the professional media. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His direct words: "I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided". Only one editor cited those guidelines, whereas three editors noted the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines which were completely ignored. She satisfies significant coverage in reliable sources which the admin completely did not take into account. This IMO clearly proves that the closure was faulty. There are also some sources that aren't student newspapers and have WP:SIGCOV, such as these: [9] [10] Till 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but surely one cannot be deemed 'consensus' when three editors cite the same guidelines as reasons for their keep !votes. IMO that is a strong argument to make and should have been taken into account by the closer. Till 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When 3 editors misinterpret a policy or guideline, yes it can. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: I agree, the closure required judgement but it's not really that tough a call. The closing administrator seems to have interpreted our policies and guidelines mentioned in the discussion correctly, recognizing the weak rough consensus in the AFD. As Fred said, the student newspapers are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Kimmel was a mention, increasing her fame, not her WP:Notability. There's a difference between pop-culture fame and WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not thrilled that the closer says (explicitly) that he looked at the references and found them wanting. If he did that, then he should have voted rather than closing. Closing an AfD should be the process of assessing the debate and the policy-based arguments used. It certainly shouldn't be a process of the closer personally assessing the sources and coming to a decision. (If it was that process, then there would be no point in anyone else discussing at all, would there? At best, such a process would treat the debate as an "admin's suggestion box".)

  But in fairness to BWilkins, I do think there was a consensus to delete there, if the policy-based arguments are given their correct weight. I think that rather than restore BLP-violating content the best way to regularise this is to ask another admin to re-close it.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If part of the arguments presented are surrounding the references, the admin sure as hell better review them for WP:RS/quality as part of the groundwork for decision. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer should evaluate the discussion that was presented and then determine consensus. Calling the references very poor was unncessary and out of line. I think that even further suggested that the close was defective and contained some bias. I mean this isn't knew, I addressed that on your talk page. Till 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. BWilkins correctly ignored the editors' comments who didn't understand RS. That's his job as closing admin. From WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Arguments that contradict policy, ... are frequently discounted." BW went the extra mile in explaining that in his close. "the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude... "

It sounds like you might have some WP:IDHT going on. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop quoting that guideline? I can read. Till 02:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mere comment. The closer does need to have at least some regard for sources. If I say "delete: none of the sources even mention the subject" then it may be appropriate for the closer to look to see if in fact the sources cover the subject in detail. However, the focus should be on assessing the relevance of my comment along with those of others, rather than on assessing the source. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with BWilkins and Thincat. Deciding whether the sources are reliable is the job of AfD participants. It's not up to the closer, and in a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith, it's not necessary for the closer even to look at the sources. Sysops aren't authority figures, folks, and they don't make decisions in environments like AfD. AfD is where the community comes to a decision. It's for sysops to note the decision and do as the community tells them. Weighing the !votes is a bit of a dark art sometimes---the closer has to give due weight to the general community consensus as expressed in policy and guidelines as well as to the local consensus as expressed by debate participants---but it's important not to confuse this process of weighing the !votes before you with making a decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think to an extent the closing admin has to check the veracity of the claims being made by AfD participants, though, otherwise it is just head-counting. If someone says "keep, the sourcing is good" then one should do at least a cursory check to see if that is truthful, i.e. the "good" sourcing isn't just to PR sheets or blogs and such. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I said, "In a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith." I accept that there may be a need for the closer to review the sources if there's some reason to suspect otherwise. But in the absence of bad faith, then whether a particular source is "good" is a matter about which reasonable people can disagree. PR sheets and blogs aren't usually wonderful sources, but there are times when they can be.

  In the four years or so for which I've been a fairly heavy participant in DRV, I've come to the view that if the closer is finding themselves making decisions about source reliability, then they shouldn't be closing. What they should be doing is adding a !vote that carefully and patiently explains why the sources are poor. Then the next person who comes along to close it will have a less defective debate to close. Do you see why that's better than just supervoting?—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion It was closed correctly, on the correct basis that the bar for YouTube celebrities should be quite high, and this is best handled by interpreting our policies of reliable sources rather strictly. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While I generally agree with DGG, the various college paper sources are exactly the sort of RS'es one should look for in an artist who appeals to a younger generation than I am. At the end of the day, I count coverage in three independent RS'es (UF, Dartmouth, Kansas college papers), which means she's not just some local sensation. Sure, the article could be cleaned up a bit, but Till's original statement is the most on-point policy-based argument made in the discussion: "meets notability guidelines through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources." The BLP aspect actually argues for retaining the article on Ms. Green: for an Internet personality, being denied a Wikipedia article summarizing her works when she meets the GNG is an avoidable harm. Notability is not meant to be an indicator that the person depicted has already arrived, but merely that there's a good reason various people would be coming to Wikipedia to look for information on the subject, and that we have sources as a base on which to say relevant things about the topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a dangerous principle to accept the concept that we are harming an individual by not accepting a WP article on them. Just as we go by verifiability than finding the ultimate truth, we go by including what fits our ideas of what makes an encyclopedia , not doing justice into people in proportion to their true importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we fail to follow our own rules, because we don't like YouTube celebrities, holding them to a higher bar than traditional entertainers in excess of the GNG, and we impair the spread of their popularity, what is that but impairing their potential livelihood? Granted, 2-300 page views per day are not particularly compelling, but that's far more than our baseline mirror activity. At any rate, we as a community seem entirely willing to suppress articles for the potential of harm of inappropriate allegations, which is good, but I do not see us looking after the potential harm of an inappropriate deletion of a public figure BLP with near that level of care. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The decision is based not upon whether we like YouTube celebrities, but on their overcoverage. . The decision is based upon the frank recognition of cultural bias; just as we compensate for negative bias by being flexible in accepting less than ideal sourcing for subjects whose conventional sourcing is difficult because of the limits of our culture, so we compensate for cculturally-based overcoverage by requiring proper sources on a more rigorous basis.It's the principle that supports not tabloid, and supports the relatively cautious coverage of internet celebrities. the sources for this article are borderline at best, and any true YouTube celebrity of any real notability should be able to show much better. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are three separate college newspapers not multiple, independent, RS coverage? Even if we discount her alma mater as possibly non-independent, I'm still seeing the GNG being met. I'm not debating that many other YouTube professionals are better documented, but I just don't see a good justification for saying that she doesn't meet the GNG, nor am I really sure why "relatively cautious" should be the standard.

(2) That people are dependent for Wikipedia coverage of their activities for their livelihood is a sad indication of the extent of our use for promotionalism, the opposite of NPOV. The responsibility we bear to our subjects is that they not be written about unfairly. Your argument would lead to the concept that if we deleted an article, the subject could sue either the people who advocated & carried out the deletion for our negligence, & the foundation for letting it happen, like they could presumably sue PR agent for not carrying our successfully his publicity, or an advertising-supported publication for misprinting their advertisements The only principle that will hold us safe is that we are a source of neutral information, decided without reference to the wishes of the subjects, whose purpose is not the promotion of the activities of the subject, and that nobody can or should think they have the right to expect it of us. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made that argument, not anyone else, but let's discuss NPOV: It's POV to delete a BLP article from the encyclopedia because they're trying to make a name for themselves, just like it's POV to include an article for the same reason. Notability attempts to make that an objective judgment, so we can focus on making articles on notable celebtrities actually conform to our content standards. And no, I don't think anyone has cause to sue us, but I think Wikipedia's own rules should be fairly applied to all, even to YouTube personalities... because unfair application of inclusion criteria diminishes all of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this was probably within admin discretion, but I disagree with the notion that the sources aren't reliable enough for us. This is about an entertainer. Does anyone have any factual issues with any of the information in the source articles? Many College papers are quite reliable and well done. I'd (for example) be inclined to trust information from The State News, Michigan State's newspaper over the Lansing State Journal (newspaper of the capital of the state of Michigan) if the two disagreed on nearly any topic. If I were to close this I'd have gone with NC or even keep. But when it comes to BLPs we give the admins a lot of discretion. So while I (rather vehemently) disagree with the foundation of the deletion arguments, I can't argue to overturn here. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretion? I think it's the other way around. BLP debates should always be closed with careful judgement, especially when there's both challenging delete/keep arguments like this one. Till 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore (updating comment above). As noted above the close was likely within admin discretion, though I disagree (strongly) with the deletion arguments in the AfD. That said, new sources and information found by Ssilvers & Uzma Gamal means this _easily_ passes the GNG. So restore. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - "I disagree" isn't a valid DRV rationale. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said anything about "I disagree". Till 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly is precisely a "I disagree" call. You don't get to substitute your own judgement for that of the closing admin. DRV should be ffor clear and fundamental errors in applying Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions: "Deletion Review is to be used if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". So you have no argument. Kthanksbye. Till 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Incorrectly" meaning they erred in application of policy. All you're doing is disagreeing with the final verdict, and the only argument I need is to point this out. You don't get to sub in your judgement call for someone elses. Look at the DRV below for Shawn Welling. Looking over that AfD now, I would have preferred a finding of delete based on the weakness of some of the keep votes, but IMO that's not a valid reason to overturn an admin's decision, as they have discretion to judge the consensus of the debate. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you actually bothered to read the whole statement, not just the opening sentence, you would have noticed that I linked to notability guidelines that are based on significant coverage in WP:RS which the closer failed to take into account. So don't give me a lecture about 'disagreeing' with him. Till 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your assumptions that a) I didn't read it all and b) the closing admin didn't consider that source coverage is quite a one-two punch of bad-faith assumptions. You're on quite a roll here. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with S Marshall that in the usual case closers should close an AfD based on the discussion and not on their own evaluation of the sources. That said, in some cases it may be appropriate for the closer to disregard obviously wrong comments (e.g., a "delete" that states "the subject is not even mentioned in any of the sources" when a source has detailed coverage of the subject). But evaluating the sources' value under our various notability guidelines is too much, and were this not a BLP I would have !voted overturn and reclose, because there's at least a reasonable probability that a different closer would have reached a different conclusion (i.e., no consensus), and so the error cannot be said to be harmless. Nonetheless, this is a BLP, and the special considerations for BLPs, in my view, mean that the closer has discretion to conduct a more in-depth examination of the sources in BLPs than what would be normally appropriate for non-BLPs. I cannot say that Bwilkins exceeded that discretion here, so endorse. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- This is one was a close call, and both 'delete' and 'no consensus' were available to the closing admin. Either one would have been within BWilkins's discretion and, even though I don't like the dismissive attitude on his talk page, he's right that you need to show why the close went against policy. As far as I can see, it didn't. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to no consensus). There were sources, supported in the AfD, meeting the GNG. I think the many delete !votes were influenced by the understandable bias of the subject being a youtube sensation. Being a youtube sensation is normally a pretty strong indicator that you will not meet WP:BIO. However, with independent secondary sources noting that she is a youtube sensation, this may be an unusual case. Any reason for for jumpin gto "delete" is that there is an excess of promotional external links. It looks like promotion. It looks like it was written by an enthusiastic fan. This is not OK, but it can be fixed without deletion. The deletion rationale cites WP:BLP. However, this is not a private person, but a performer, and BLP does not urge to err on the side of deletion for non-private people. The close cites WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, but having independent coverage trumps these SNGs. "No consensus" because the AfD participants didn't generally see it this way, and neither was there agreement that the notability-demonstrating sources were of sufficient quality (as Jclemens and DGG disagree above). I think this one would do well to be renominated in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is some material, potentially of interest (sources etc.), at Talk:GloZell Green. Not sure it adds anything, but I thought it should be linked to in the DRV. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: If you look at all the sources now shown at Talk:GloZell Green, I think there is enough information there to reinstate the article. In addition, Green is a major YouTube entertainer, with over 200 million views on her main YouTube channel (she has other popular YouTube channels). I think she certainly passes WP:ENT. The admin did not have all the information available when making the decision. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is available now (and appears to have been at the time of XfD). Dislike the idea of making YouTube celebrities a special category of content that has to meet a higher bar than the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. Statυs (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Permit recreation - With the source material already in the very well written Wikipedia article plus the following significant new information has come to light since the deletion, seems like we got a winner:

• "Here's Your Guide To The Zora Neale Hurston Festival". Orlando Sentinel. January 30, 1998. p. 6. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Elizabeth Maupin (May 27, 1999). "Fresh Reflections On Pride And Pain: The Orlando Black Theatre Often Gets To The Heart Of This Production About African-American Girls And Women". Orlando Sentinel. p. E1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Elizabeth Maupin (December 12, 1999). "Theater's New Voices: African-American Theater Groups Are Making Their Presence Felt In Central Florida's Growing Creative Community". Orlando Sentinel. p. F1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• "The Public Record: Marriage Licenses Orange County". Orlando Sentinel. July 27, 2000. p. K1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Eugene Tong (May 24, 2007). "A Blogger Shares Life In The Leno Line". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
• "For The Record". Los Angeles Daily News. May 16, 2007. p. N4. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• "'The cinnamon challenge': Just say no". Boston Globe. March 31, 2012. p. 8. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• "USPTO Issues Trademark: Glozell". US Federal News. November 26, 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
• "Public record - Dissolutions of marriage". Orlando Sentinel. April 11, 1993. p. K9. Retrieved 30 June 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reposting here what Ssilvers posted to the article talk page on 27 June 2012:

GloZell has gotten a lot of press that was, unfortunately, not cited in the last version of the article. After reviewing the last version and the information below, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 24.
Glozell's main YouTube channel Glozell1 has received over 200 million views. Another of her YouTube channels, GloZellGreen has received over 12 million views.
She was nominated for a 2012 Shorty Award. See this.
She holds a B.F.A. in Musical Theatre from the University of Florida (1997)
She was recently in the news after her video about taking the Cinnamon Challenge received over 17 million views:
*http://www.ctvnews.ca/cinnamon-challenge-is-risky-say-doctors-1.781893#axzz1z1Aev9hE
*http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/youtube-viewers-flock-to-watch-quinn-take-cinnamon-challenge/
*http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57406495-10391704/popular-cinnamon-challenge-has-potential-to-be-deadly/
She has written a popular blog since 2006 at http://glozelllovesjayleno.blogspot.com/
She is currently featured in the webshow Dr. Fubalous, starring Flava Flav.
She has performed her comedy act at The Comedy Store, The Improv, The Laugh Factory, Showtime at the Apollo, Steve Harvey Talent Show, among others, and has appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Good Morning America.
She was featured in the The University Daily Kansan here.
And The Daily Free Press here.
She was also featured in
*The Dartmouth: here and here; and
*The Independent Florida Alligator here and here
She was featured by Josh Skinner on his webshow: http://www.withjosh.com/2010/04/23/glozell-youtubes-super-star/
Here is her IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3941817/
I hope others will add further research here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: As the author of this incarnation of the page, I looked long and hard for reliable sources, and I assumed that the college newspapers were sufficient in order to pass WP:GNG. I do not think there was any sort of consensus to delete, as (at least from a headcount) it was 5 to 4 in favor of deletion, with one of those delete !votes not based on any sort of policy (although one keep !vote was also poor as well). Ssilvers and Uzma Gamal have found plenty of new information that I regret not finding when I first wrote the article months ago, which if I may admit was in response to the fact that Aziz Shavershian is allowed a Wikipedia article despite being solely mentioned in reliable sources because of his untimely death. If Mr. Shavershian who became widely known because he died and the "cult" following he gained as a result is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, then Ms. Green who is alive, well, appearing on TV and in other people's projects, and consistently getting millions of views on her hundreds of videos, and already mentioned elsewhere on the project as a notable YouTuber, should probably receive some decent level of coverage as well.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharur (mythological weapon) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<Hello! I am the original creator of the Sharur (mythological weapon) article, which was rapidly deleted without much discussion by User:GrecoGeko earlier this week. I feel that this article has sufficient notable and reliable sources to be qualifited for inclusion upon Wikipedia and that granting more time rather than just a deletion will only lead to further improvements. Thank you for considering my undeletion request for this article.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 June 2012‎

• Close This article was earlier tagged for speedy deletion[11] which was correctly declined.[12] A highly out-of-process AfD notification[13] and file creation[14] took place and this request file has been tagged for speedy deletion.[15] Meanwhile the article was converted to a redirect claiming AfD authority for deletion[16] and this has been reverted. The article was never deleted and should never have been but I can understand the confusion that has been caused by all this. At any AfD I would suggest the article should be kept. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the closing administrator misinterpreted the consensus in the deletion discussion. Of the three keep !votes on the discussion, one was an extensive well reasoned proposition, one was a "me too" and one was an "it's interesting" so the focus should be on the merits of the well reasoned proposition. The line of argument in that proposition was shown to heavily rely on sources which were previously believed to be reliable, but then discovered to be closely related through a financial connection to the subject of the article making them WP:SELFPUB. The editor who had made the primary keep proposition acknowledged the issues with the sources cited here [17]. Several editors looked hard for reliable independent sources to either confirm the notability of some awards which had their notability questioned in the discussion or to find evidence of the subject being "world class," but were unsuccessful, suggesting it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted. I wrote to the closing admin requesting clarification as it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow for a closing admin here [18] and received a rather snarky reply here [19] which did not answer the inquiry. I tried once again to gain an understanding from that same closing admin by following up here [20], and received another unhelpful reply here [21]. So I have now brought it here for delrev to have the consensus re-examined and clarified. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, and we can certainly return the article to AFD in a few months. Despite the "points" made by CV above, AFD is not-a-vote and DRV is not AFD-Part 2. Unless its being asserted that he performed his close out-of-process, I can presume that admin User:Bwilkins gave the entire discussion consideration before making his decision. A no-consensus default-to-keep is not out of policy and a "deletion" or "keep" or even a "no-consensus" does not have to have 100% support in either direction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close: No consensus is no consensus that was what was there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not attempting to get AFD-Part 2. It is a procedural question. Per WP:NRVE, notability requires verifiable evidence. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...was not a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." In this case notability has been challenged, and the only keep argument is asserting that unspecified sources may exist even after many editors couldn't find them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfect 100% consenss is not expected nor demanded. In closing discussions, WP:GTD tells us "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus.

  WP:DRV tells us "'This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome' for reasons previously presented (at WP:DRV) but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." You offer no "new" information.

  Also per WP:GTD, "closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal."

  Your arguments above repeatedly turn to the points of the discussion that the closer already told you on his talk page that he read and considered. With respects to you, if you wish to re-hash the deletion discussion, rather than the Admin's interpretation or close, and with my own expecting of this topic to return to AFD in a few months, I wish to re-interate... a no consensus does not require 100% consensus and DRV is not AFD-Part2.

  We really should await the closer visiting this dicsussion, as neither of us can see inside his head. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And an additional thought: WP:COI (brought up repeatedly at the AFD) is about Wikipedia editor's personal conflicts when contributing to article topics here which are too-closely-connected to themselves. It does not, and is not intended to, address real-world reporters or film critics writing about things about which they may themselves have a personal knowledge or interest. As Nick Nicholson is not owner of the media which carried his reports as a journalist, WP:SELFPUB is not exactly applicable as he is not writing in his own personal media. And while unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, personal knowledge is not verboten for real-world writers. But even it were somehow determined that Nicholson was owner of the questioned reliable sources, WP:SPS instructs that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But a problem with WP:SPS is that we are not considering Nicholson's personal blog, but instead his reports in otherwise reliable sources about a topic in which it is felt by an editor or two here that HE may have too much personal knowledge or affiliation. While his real-world editors might question or not his neutrality as a reporter, Nicholson's personal knowledge being reflected in his writings in reliable sources is not contrary to our policies or guidelines. While the journalist may not himself have been independent of the topic after 2010, I found no evidence that the sources themselves were not independent of the topic. Perhaps the closer considered this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll keep quiet on if to endorse or not as I was involved in the discussion. But the only people who have said to keep have come by to say they endorsed the proposal. Just let some people not involved give their opinion. Michael, could you please drop it for now. You already made it personal before. There is no need to continue to battle. Just drop it and move on. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle? Not from me. Said my long-winded bit only in defense of the close. Out for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close I looked at the discussions, checked on WorldFest's policies (~20% winners, ~800 out of 4500), and read the Houston Chronicle and Fort Bend Star articles. I agree with the No Consensus result.  The Steve  09:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I was previously uninvolved, and I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion. Whether or not a particular source is reliable is something about which reasonable people can disagree. At the individual source level, source reliability is evaluated either (1) at AfD discussions or (2) at WP:RS/N. The AfD evaluation has not reached a clear conclusion so it's fully in accordance with Wikipedia's rules that the material in question has not been deleted.

  The discussion with the closing admin bears examination. This post is advertised in the nomination as a "request for clarification", but it's clearly nothing of the kind. It's a very thinly-disguised demand to self-overturn. In the nomination, the nominator says: "it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow" (which I interpret as: BWilkins has closed it wrong so he must have misunderstood it). He's got on BWilkins' nerves, which I think is understandable. But still, there's no excuse for this, and BWilkins is duly trouted for replying to the user's first approach with a conflict-escalating reply. BWilkins ought to know better.

  But on the facts BWilkins explains that MichaelQSchmidt's policy-based arguments deserve extra weight and this appears to be both correct and sufficient, even if poorly phrased. If the nominator remains concerned about source reliability, he is advised to pursue this at WP:RS/N.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey whoa there for a moment. I escalated nothing, and the editor certainly did not "get on my nerves". They stated there was one argument. As a fellow Canadian to the OP, I replied that their math was wrong ... no insults, no escalation. I focused them onto the actual arguments placed, as opposed to !votes overall. My response was quite clear, friendly, and informative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own closure there was no consensus to delete by any count, or by any analysis of the arguments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one is asked, "Can you clarify your logic please?" and replies "Already did...maybe you missed it?" one should not be surprised that people take offense at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I had mistakenly believed that it was one of the closes where I had been far more verbose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I can discern no clear error in the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If he was a musician with similar multiple minor awards and nominations, he would pass WP:MUSICBIO. As-is, I'm surprised we don't explicitly state that multiple minor awards can convey notability in the filmmakers SNG, but it certainly seems like the logical extension of our other notability policies. Even so: those arguing for deletion are focusing too much on the technical minutae of notability and not so much on the common-sense question: should a general-purpose encyclopedia have an entry on this gentleman? Sure it should--he's won awards 6 times in 6 years, for 5 different film projects at 2 film festivals per IMDb. Absent any reason to doubt those, he's clearly a working professional generating a body of work. A-lister? Not by a longshot. But he's far from just some dude in a basement churning out self-published movies. I'm disappointed that that was not obvious to more people in the deletion debate. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - There is no consensus in that discussion; Bwilkins made the correct call. LadyofShalott 13:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse when there are no clear judgments about the reliability of the sourcing on which the notability depends, a non-consensus close is appropriate. (my own view would have been delete on the basis that even the sourced information does not make for notability , but this is not AfD 2.) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - IMO the keeps were rather week ,so a bold finding for deletion could've been made here. But this is the whole "admin discretion" thing, and a NC finding is acceptable here as well. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Overturning a no consensus to a delete is very tough when we err on the side of keeping articles. Give it a break for a couple of months and come back a look again. If you still think it should be deleted, review the reasons people weren't convinced this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page deleted due to lack of Notability. Tried to discuss with responsible Editor. Request restore: Misha B it is abundantly clear that Misha Bryan has moved beyond X factor with 3 highly regarded music releases since that show, her 'F64', 'Hello World Mix Tape' and her debut single 'Home Run' is getting extremely positive reviews internationally and is on the radio 1 playlist. Half the population of the UK know who Misha is, what she looks like and what she sounds like, google her name and you will find 100's music pages taking big notice of her. If you don't restore now, I believe you will desire to do so in less than a month. Zoeblackmore (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we follow the suggestion of the appealing editor and permit restoration if some time in the future she actually does become notable by the normal standards. Personally, I consider the existing section as excessive coverage, but here's not the place to discuss it DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD close - Actually, if the information about Misha B was not in List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8), you would have better chance in getting a stand alone article on Misha Bryan (singer). With Misha B profiled in the List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) article, you not only need to meet WP:GNG but also need to justify a Misha Bryan (singer) stand alone article under Wikipedia:Summary style. I suggest listing List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) for deletion. I don't think a lot of reliable sources are writing about The eight 2011 X Factor finalists as a group, so you might be able to get that list deleted. To an admin Please consider deleting the history of Misha B and leave a link to the AfD in the edit summary. It took me a while to figure out that there was an AfD (which I updated this DRV with). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear AfD demonstrating consensus that she is not sufficiently notable. As the person is not sufficiently notable for thier own biography, the section at the redirect should not host a biography, it should only contain what is immediately relevant to the article it is in. Things like "her mother could not take care of her. Her father is unknown" are going into too much personal detail in describing the contestants in a TV show.

  The subject may yet become notable, but from looking at the google hits, she does not appear to meet the threshold given at WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, open and shut AFD, clearly the community is of the view that there is as yet insufficient notability for this person. This may of course change in the future, but we can deal with that when that arises. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. This could not have been closed in any other way. T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erling O. Kruse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I'm proud to call Erilng Ove Kruse my uncle! Who would be more qualified to write about him? Probably onely his sons and sisters. I wisited him a couple of months ago, and he told about Svalbard and the war. How he met with Shetlands Larsen and giving support to the smallbouts getting people out of Norway. Shame on you for this delition!! Erling will be 90 this summer! Shame for deliting my mother too! I'm very proud to call late Bjørn G. Andersen and Astrid E. Kruse Andersen my parents. I will not speak for them here because theis lifes speak for them selves! Why is more then one entry from the same family problematic? I can't understand that this is a criteria for delition. Someone don't want to have "Kruse" at Wiki. Shame on you! Why?? Knuand (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The rational for delection was. "Many comments below cite the WP:BLP1E policy as a reason to delete. Some comments suggest that she was already notable before the "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" panel, however the text in the Wikipedia article does not support that argument, nor is there sufficient evidence provided here in the comments." However, months after the event, she continues to be in national media. See, CNN: Why this election is so personal and LA Times: Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election. If we are to truly judge her notablity by amount and time of media coverage, then surely this should be reviewed at this point. Casprings (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse result as a non-participating observer to the event, after it was brought to ANI. This wasn't an easy one for many reasons, from SPAs to the sheer volume of attention it attracted. Simply counting the votes won't lead to the same conclusion, but weighing the strength and consistency of the voting seems to support the conclusion of the closing admin. It ended up becoming a redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy which makes sense, as it would appear anyone who did search for her name would be looking for the information found in that article. It took 2 1/2 months to get here at DRV, which should indicate how little controversy there is in the closing. As to the sources provided in this discussion, the CNN article was written by Sandra Fluke, so is primary in nature and the LA Times article is titled "Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election", which reinforce why it was deleted and redirects there. Nothing much has changed since the closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the point that she was published by CNN indicate that she still has notability? In other words, the fact that she is a CNN "special contributor” adds to the argument that is still in the media and notable. It has been several months since this happened. A Google news search will reveal many national outlets that still have coverage of her. Casprings (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What follows is three national news outlets that covered her over the past week.

1CNN: Fluke: Why this election is so personal

2 ABC News: Sandra Fluke endorses Obama

3Politico: Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama

I would argue, that this is to be judged by duration and level of coverage, then she needs a page. Here endorsement of the President is still news and at this point, that is beyond one event. Casprings (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - With numerous reliable sources rushing to write about Fluke's life in response to Rush Limbaugh's comment while Fluke testified before the U.S. Congress on national television, the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met WP:GNG then and meets it more so now, given the significant new information that has come to light since the 9 March 2012 deletion. It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV, and then the DRV is brough by an WP:SPA. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a Wikipedia:Summary style biography article on Sandra Fluke from the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article mentioned by the AfD closer. It would be good to get a somewhat stable Sandra Fluke biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the United States presidential election, 2012 heats up. The controversy has died down and Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc., so I wouldn't have a problem with an established editor posting a biography article on Sandra Fluke or reviewing a user space draft article for posting to article space from relatively new users or SPAs editors with a niche interest/preferred focus here at DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: (1) the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met WP:GNG then and meets it more so now: This looks to me a lot more like an argument to restore/create an article than like one to keep it deleted. (2) It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV, and then the DRV is brough by an WP:SPA. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a Wikipedia:Summary style biography article on Sandra Fluke from the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article mentioned by the AfD closer. No it does not. It merely indicates that no established editor has brought the matter to DRV; it says nothing about the reasoning. (The particular established editor I see daily in my shaving mirror hasn't done so because he considered that he had spent more than enough energy on Fluke during the last argument.) (3) It would be good to get a somewhat stable Sandra Fluke biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the United States presidential election, 2012 heats up. If others created it, I'd help. I'd then keep an eye on it and help protect it from any nitwits. (4) Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc. This sounds like an accusation of attention-seeking (although it may not have been so intended). Let's stay polite about the subject of the article that may or may not arise from this new discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Above, I lazily assume that the characterization of Casprings as a SPA is a fair one. It is not. (See below.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, no. It wasn't an accusation of attention-seeking by Fluke. The article was deleted under WP:BLP1E - Subjects notable only for one event. Thrusting herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor creates additional events that would attract the attention of reliable sources to write about her life, which helps overcome the WP:BLP1E reason for deletion and goes to support my position above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments: I don't like being refered to as a WP:SPA. I have made edits on other things. I might not be as active or have been around long, but I don't think my arguments are non-rational. It seems a rather Ad hominem attack to dismiss me.Casprings (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, your edit history makes it clear that you are not an SPA. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No Worries Casprings (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You edit history showed a 2009 purpose of editing related to Anthony Woods and a 2012 purpose of editing related to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. They are single separated by a lot of time. However, I didn't then look to see whether there was "editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus." Editor with a niche interest/preferred focus may be more like it. I struck and edited part of my post above.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I did a few edits on Jinnah and poverty in India. I think I did some on a few other interests. You are right, these two articles got my interest. However, that doesn't mean I am here for a single purpose. It simply means that I am not yet as active as some. Perhaps other editors started slow and became interested. I don't know.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your uncreated, redlinked userpage is typical of a non-normal editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So non-normal is now a bad thing? I am not that interested in Wikipedia to create a user page. Nor am I interested enough at this point to really edit a ton of articles. In other words, they have to get my interest. Wikipedia:Assume good faith [User:Casprings|Casprings]] (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• restore If the old version of the article (deleted March 9) isn't acceptable for some reason (and the AfD didn't seem it was problematic other than BLP1E), then userfy (perhaps to Hoary?) until it has no BLP violations. Sustained coverage clearly exists, no longer a BLP1E, so original deletion reason not valid. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This (sorry, admins only) is the latest version of the article. Nothing within it smells to me of "BLP violation". On the other hand it does go on a bit about Limbaugh, and the Limbaugh angle has its own, screenfuls-long article. So stuff probably should be removed from it, as well as newer stuff added. I'd be happy to let balanced people tinker with it in my userspace, and to tinker with it myself; but (i) I shan't have much time in the next couple of weeks, (ii) I'd sprotect it, (iii) I'll simply revert what I consider unwelcome edits, and not discuss them. (Hey, it's my userspace, after all.) If anticipatory sprotection (not to mention ownership) is considered a bad thing (even in userspace), or if somebody else would like to host the article during the re-incubation process, then that somebody is welcome to host it. (Incidentally, I was not one of the main authors of the article: my memory tells me that all I did was tinker with it, improve its references, and defend it in AfD -- though anyone is welcome to dig through histories and correct this memory of mine.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Hoary, I didn't figure there was a problem, but because I couldn't see it, I thought I'd be conservative. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus", restore article. The discussion clearly did not achieve consensus. The community remains divided over the application of BLP1E in situations like this. While BLP1E is policy language, it is not policy which calls for a particular result, but sets forth criteria for the community to use in evaluating individual cases. So long as the arguments on each side reflect reasonable applications/interpretations of those criteria, they should not be discounted. A closer who, as here, decides to apply one view or the other of the policy is casting a supervote, whether they intend to or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re-creation s suggested by Hoary. The intended purpose of BLP1E is to avoid the effect of tabloid-style hyped coverage of things of no true importance--it's a recognition of the failure of the GNG to be sufficiently discriminating in this area, where the extent of coverage can be way disproportional to the encyclopedic value. Its application to things of encyclopedic value, such as national politics, is an error. I'm not sure whether we could get an agreed wording for it that would express the intent, so we need to rely on the case-by-case judgment of the community. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One argument that I don't understand is the statement that it took 3 1/2 months to get here. First, isn't the point that she is in the news and covered after 3 1/2 months? Second, the page instructs the user to wait for evidence. I would say national coverage after 3 1/2 months is decent evidence. That said, I think the easiest thing to do is restore the page. Some of the work on her bio is already done. Casprings (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original but allow recreation- The original was closed within admin discretion per WP:BLP1E. But circumstances have changed in the following months, so an article is entirely reasonable now. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A smattering of "where are they now?" and similar name-droppings is unimpressive if trying to build a case for notability. The original AfD finding was correct, and nothing has really changed since then. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a NYT article [22] that calls her a feminist superstar? Hobit (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, no. Her "fame" is just tied to the Limbaugh event, which the interview opens with. I don't generally like articles about people when the reason we talk about the at all is a single incident in time. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Please see WP:BLP1E. This says: We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met [of which the second condition is that] that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Fluke's profile is moderately high, and certainly higher than that of swathes of people who seem to be systematically biographed for Wikipedia. BLP1E is a page written with people such as the bullied bus monitor in mind, not Fluke. ¶ I too don't like many kinds of articles, so I have some sympathy for your dislike of this kind; but please see Wikipedia:I just don't like it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am well aware of what the BLP criteria is and do not need it quoted, and "I don't like it" has zero applicability here. It it in place so the project isn't cluttered with overnight media sensations. Fluke, the JetBlue guy, the big-breasted woman fired from her job, etc...are all in the same classification. I put next to no weight on the "seeking attention" aspect as I find it rarely has any meaning. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • My question for Tarc is what is the objective standard for duration and amount of coverage? In other words, if this doesn't get it, what does? Casprings (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or allow recreation per the reasoning given by Umbralcorax. It's clear by now that Fluke has received sustained coverage for several different things (the Limbaugh incident, her Congressional testimony, her Presidential endorsement, etc.), and so is not at this point a one-hit wonder. We also do make exceptions to BLP1E where that "one event" has resulted in extreme notability, and even if Fluke hadn't been the subject of ongoing curiosity, her notability just for the Limbaugh incident was far greater than most political "person of the day" types. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close. Bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when a BLP is involved, I can't say that the close here is clearly erroneous. No opinion on recreation, yet. T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow an article on her to be created. The article needn't, and indeed shouldn't, be as concerned as the previous one was with what one person said about her. As evidence for her continuing salience, how about: "Becoming a woman of distinction" (HuffPo, 8 June, wherein SF is a "woman of distinction", and one of "six amazing women"); Fluke's "Why this election is so personal" (CNN, 14 June; suggesting that CNN thinks that her opinions are of some consequence); MSNBC's little interview with her about this (suggesting ditto); Lifenews.com's "Pro-abortion activist Sandra Fluke endorses Obama" (suggesting ditto); and "Our lady of contraception: Sandra Fluke's rocky path to feminist superstardom" (NYT, 22 June). -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that you would simply have a summery of the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and make the rest on her. However, her bio is already done in the pervious article. If you added some on her events after the Limbaugh controversy (Endorsements, CNN Special contributions, etc) , I would think you would have a decent article. Casprings (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One last comment on this one. I took a look at a google news source for the last week. Still a significant amount of coverage, including national media. If this decision is endorsed, after month of coverage, I would ask for some guidance for what notability looks like.Casprings (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erling O. Kruse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I`m impressed! You delete a Norwegian Warhero - congratulations! (... Yes I know, he is norwegian, but ...) Let`s see (to compere): Jørun Drevland (born 15 March 1944) is a Norwegian politician for the Socialist Left Party. She served as a deputy representative to the Norwegian Parliament from Nordland during the term 1993–1997. Agree, she is notable, and she is the mother of the norwegian Rock Star Sivert Høyem (and sister in-laws with the Mayor of Bergen, Norway Trude Drevland), but compared to Erling Kruse she is (sorry) a dwarf! Well - this is not my problem, but sorry to say so, but you make fools og Wikipedia by showing this sort of ignorance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuand (talk • contribs)

• Note: Deletion review formatting has been appropriately fixed. I also note that the user recreated the article right after posting this deletion review and making a comment on the AFD after its closure ([23]). I have speedy deleted the recreation per WP:CSD#G4, but if admin wants to temporarily restore for purposes of this DRV, I certainly will not stand in the way of that. --MuZemike 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's comment: AfD closed with unanimous consensus to delete. Based on the evicence Kruse fails to meet either the relevant notability essay (WP:SOLDIER) or the WP:GNG. WP:WAX argument fails as Drevland meets guideline WP:POLITICIAN. Page temporarily restored for the discussion. Note also that the page in question is Erling O. Kruse, not Jusst Kruse, so I have corrected the above appropriately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-No indication that process wasn't followed. DRV is not AfD round two.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above comments. Unanimous vote to delete by several uninvolved editors, which was properly handled by the deleting admin. This was not an abuse of process. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What exactly is a "deputy representative" to the parliament? DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norwegian Parliament#Members. Dricherby (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I can't see how that could have closed without deletion. What we need are some reliable independant sources and they appear lacking. I also see that the article has been translated from the Norwegian bokmal wikipedia so if this does get overturned we need to see about attributing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My impression is that someone is trying to put the Kruse genealogy in English Wikipedia via an article on Erling Ove Kruse (born 10 August 1922 in Oslo; a decorated Norwegian Colonel) and his ancestors and descendants:
  

• Anine Kruse Skatrud (a redirect)
• Benedikte Kruse (a redirect)
• Bjørn Kruse
• Jannike Kruse Jåtog (which now is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannike Kruse Jåtog)
• Philip Kruse
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid E. Kruse Andersen (Husband is Bjørn G. Andersen)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Anders Grothaug Kruse
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erling O. Kruse (now at this DRV)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Kruse

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - he article's creator says here that Astrid E. Kruse Andersen is his/her own mother. That makes Erling O. Kruse his uncle, and this article's deletion was after the book. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Procedure was applied correctly, the nominator has a familial conflict of interest and no new evidence of notability has been presented. A note on the medals. The English version of the article and some Norwegian versions before the current one claimed that Kruse had won the Forsvarets fortjenestemedalje (Armed Forces Medal of Merit) in addition to the five campaign and service medals. However, the citation to the Norwegian Who's Who only mentions the campaign and service medals, and not the Medal of Merit. Thus, the medals for which sources exist show nothing more than that he was a soldier. Dricherby (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nomination basically disputes the underlying notability standards, not the discussion or its inevitable close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm proud to call Erilng Ove Kruse my uncle! Who would be more qualified to write about him? Probably onely his sons and sisters. I wisited him a couple of months ago, and he told about Svalbard and the war. How he met with Shetlands Larsen and giving support to the smallbouts getting people out of Norway. Shame on you for this delition!! Erling will be 90 this summer! Shame for deliting my mother too! I'm very proud to call late Bjørn G. Andersen and Astrid E. Kruse Andersen my parents. I will not speak for them here because theis lifes speak for them selves! Why is more then one entry from the same family problematic? I can't understand that this is a criteria for delition. Obviously it is so and some of the partisipants here don't want to have "Kruse" at Wiki. Shame on you! Why?? Knuand (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your sentimentality for your family, but you have failed to give a rational argument grounded in Wikipedia policy. Your contribution history shows a long pattern of recreating these articles after they're repeatedly deleted with overwhelming consensus. Some things don't belong in an encyclopedia. Your persistence is admirable, but sometimes if you keep on trying it just makes you look worse. Specs112 t c 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from what Specs said, please assume good faith, and consider the no original research policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources, not on personal knowledge. Obviously, your family is important to you but what matters on Wikipedia is whether a subject is important to the world at large. Because Wikipedia is not based on personal knowledge but on published sources, you are no more qualified than anyone else. If you can give reliable sources about your uncle (or anyone or anything else) then go ahead and do so: but, without such sources, there can be no article on Wikipedia. Please understand that this is not a vendetta and it is not personal. It is not an insult to not have a Wikipedia article. The reaction would be exactly the same if you wrote articles about my family without providing sources to show that they're notable. As has been said several times, there is no problem with having more than one article about members of a family, provided all are individually notable. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jackson family is another good example. Both parents and all nine children have individual articles, in addition to the one on the family itself. But each and every one of them is separately established to meet the project's notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• question2, following up my earlier question: has she as a deputy representative actually taken a place in parliamentary deliberations and voting? If so, she's notable--using an analogy of the same standards as we use for athletes, that the people nominally on a team actually have to play in a regular season game, not just be there in reserve. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is the right arena for that discussion, but yes she has taken place and this has now been added. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do appriciate your concern, and this is (hopefully) not onely my advocacy for family! Hopefully you will se that this is not just a personal vendetta. There are allways a possibility that mistakes have been done. There have been people "out there" trying to erase the "Kruse"-family, and I think this is a good reason for a new revision ... Knuand (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no cabal, and please assume good faith. This is about ensuring that Wikipedia articles meet policy; not about trying to "erase" your family. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then, how come, all my entries about the Kruse-family are marked for deletion: Bjørn Kruse and Philip Kruse, are nominated for deletion Jannike Kruse and Even Kruse Skatrud, are redirected: Anine Kruse Skatrud and Benedikte Kruse, or are deleted: Erling O. Kruse, Astrid E. Kruse Andersen and Just Kruse?! Knuand (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because all articles on Wikipedia must obey Wikipedia's policies and people feel that the articles you listed do not. The articles about members of your family are by no means the only articles currently nominated for deletion: hundreds are proposed every week. Dricherby (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• May be I'm slow, but how come, an internationally recognized composer, author and Professor of Composition at the Norwegian Academy of Music, Oslo Bjørn Kruse, are considered to be unfit for an article on Wiki. How come, an entry about the internationally recognized musician and arranger, Assistant Professor at the University of Oslo Even Kruse Skatrud are nominated for delition? Go to the entrys and make up your own mind about these entries - to me it is incomprehensible!! Knuand (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, just stop. Stop. Read this page: WP:GNG. That will tell you exactly what is required for a subject to be classed as notable and, therefore, suitable for a wikipedia page.Dricherby (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd encourage that you read this essay. The notability of other people has no bearing whatsoever on this particular discussion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In point of fact, neither of the two articles mentioned by Knuand above has been nominated for deletion. Dricherby (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I do appriciate your concern, and I do have red the "WP:GNG" and the essey "Other stuff exists"! I'm on line with this. What I'm adressing is the practice: Too many people are too concerned with deliting other peoples work. I think there has evolved a culture of "outing" others, or taking other contributors down, and especially new ones, like mee. This is a problem you should be more aware of! I don't want to be a "pain in the ass", my agenda is to adress a problem ... Knuand (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the need for someone to do the "clean up" job, and delete none current stuff. But, there might be need for conciderations about how this is carried out! Knuand (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, the AFD was closed correctly, there is a clear consensus that this gentleman is not notable, within the meaning of that word on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that he did not serve honourably and professionally, but thousands do, and more is required for an encyclopedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Michael David Crawford (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like this to be restored to User:Ryan Vesey/Michael David Crawford so that I can review the information and see if more sources exist so that it can be created. This is in response to User talk:MichaelCrawford#Who Do I Have To Blow Around Here To Be Considered Notable Enough For A Wikipedia Article? (Not exactly excited about the section heading). I will come back to Deletion review prior to moving the material to article space.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Illinois (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Clearly erroneous NAC close where the closer acknowledged they messed up the close This should be reclosed as merge or delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this was an inappropriate closure for non-admin, than what are we doing there? According to WP:NACD: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the request. Spartaz doesn't have admin rights at the moment. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• indeed I am not an admin and we need an admin to reclose this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Every time I see you signature, I think you're an admin. Maybe time to request the bit back?. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should Time in Illinois be treated any differently from, say, Time in Alabama? What we ought to be doing is considering all of the articles called "Time in (State)". Spartaz is clearly right to say that this needs to be overturned, but we should be going further than that. Relist and co-nominate all the other such articles so that all are treated in a consistent way.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ahah G5 time perhaps?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Speedy done, as suggested. I don't like deleting unequivocally good material via G5, but this is not in that category. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in the British Isles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An extended closing statement is now available, as demanded by numerous participants. I request the closer of this DRV to give a suitable extension to allow editor's time to respond to the new information. SpinningSpark 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very lengthy and contentious debate, but the closer's rationale is notable for its lack of any explanation of why zie weighed the debate as "keep". The closer dismisses one point raised, but shows no evidence of having considered the most significant argument: that this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A succinct explanation of this was posted in the XfD, and the closer rejected my request to explain why this evidence was not reflected in his closure.
POV forking is something which Wikipedia strives hard to avoid, and it is perverse that an XfD should be closed as "keep" in the face of clear evidence of POV forking which was supported by several contributors to the discussion. The result should have been "merge" or "delete".
The closer says that he "made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement", but his userpage includes a "proud to be British" userbox. The closer would have been better advised to leave the closure to someone from an uninvolved nation, rather than making an unexplained closure which reflects the position taken in the debate by British editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this debate was previously closed early as "delete", and that closure was discussed at DRV May 30, as a result of which the AFD was relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure The whole point of the DRV is that BrownHairedGirl disagrees with a closure that isn't ending in delete. It has little to nothing to do with the actual arguments presented in the AfD itself. The arguments in the AfD were essentially at a standstill, with each side saying British Isles meant one thing and the other side saying it meant another thing. And there was no way to properly rectify the arguments. But, more people voting in the AfD seemed to feel that the article should be kept and that the one side's argument was stronger. This seems pretty obvious and fully supports Spinningspark's closure. I already know that this DRV is just going to become AfD part 2. It's too contentious a subject to not become as such. Silverseren^C 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Like the closer, you are ignoring the evidence presented that the article is a POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And you are ignoring the fact that I and others already argued against it being a fork in the AfD itself, which the closer would have taken into account. Furthermore, calling it a POV fork is insinuating that the creator made the article in a manner violating NPOV. Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you going to call out the term British Isles, which has already been refuted as an argument? Silverseren^C 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And how do you rectify the POV fork accusation with the fact that the content of the article in question was copied wholesale over to the Ireland-UK relations article in an attempt to further the deletion of this article? If the content is a POV fork, then isn't it always a POV fork, including the information copied over to the other article? Silverseren^C 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear not to understand what a POV fork is. The material was copied over because it covered the same topic. The problem with a POV fork is that different POVs should be covered in the same article, so the appropriate editorial solution is to merge the POV fork back into the main article and develop the material there. Once the two are merged, the fork ceases to exist.

  The question of whether the creating editor intended to create a POV fork is a user conduct issue, but the issue here is content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that whether the relations article is the "same topic" is exactly the nature of the disagreement in the AfD. It was exactly that that was being argued and the AfD consensus clearly shows that Politics in the British Isles is not the same topic as Ireland-UK relations. You may disagree with this consensus, sure, but disagreeing with the consensus opinion is no reason to start a DRV. Silverseren^C 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather than baldly asserting "consensus shows", please can you link to the policy-based arguments which use referenced reliable sources to refute the evidence presented by RA in the XfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This really is AfD part 2 for you, isn't it? Arguing the consistencies on whether the Crown Dependencies are or are not a de facto part of the UK or if they are only so de jure or any of the other arguments that were made in the AfD aren't going to get us anywhere. We'd just go in circles again of yes they are and no they aren't. For example, here's your sources, but i'm quite sure there's sources that will say the opposite. That's not what we're here for though, to rehash these arguments. Silverseren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this isn't AFD part 2. This is about the failure of the closer to weigh the arguments made in the CFD, and the closer's failure to note the evidence that relations between Ireland and the UK includes relations between Ireland and the dependencies of the UK.

  The link you provide actually reinforces the point that the UK has responsibility for the International relations of the Crown Dependencies, and the Crown Dependencies act internationally only under the delegated authority of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not even going to bother at this point. Everyone can see that you made this DRV because you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but not because the consensus is actually wrong. Silverseren^C 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, seriously? This series of edits? You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried...though I guess you are trying, in a sense. Silverseren^C 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, what's your point? The consensus at AFD was that it was a POV fork, and I have been editing the article to note some of the details of the POV and other problems in it, as set out on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's your opinion, not consensus. The uninvolved admin did not agree, and the article was proposed to be kept.--KarlB (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean that a declared proud-to-be-British admin supported the view of British editors, and failed WP:ADMINACCT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Do note that BrownHairedGirl is now going around making edits like this. That alone is clearly showing that this is a personal opinion issue on the topic for the nominator and not an inappropriate close for the AfD at all. Silverseren^C 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please try to clam down. The edit summary of that edit is "remove "main article" link to an article which is not about political movements". If you examine the edit, you will see that is what the edit did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  One would think politics of the region would include the political movements interconnecting parts of the region. Are you disagreeing with this? Silverseren^C 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever "one would think", one should check rather than assuming. The reality is that the article which purports to be about the "politics of the region" is actually a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations, rather than about political movements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete - First off, we have an entire page Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log dedicated to using the term "British Isles" in Wikipedia. The closer noted, "It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative." There is no widely recognized neutral alternative because, as the deletes pointed out, this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the relevant literature in this area predominately utilizes Ireland-United Kingdom relations rather than Politics in the British Isles. Also, the closer noted that "I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV." The delete argument related to being a POV fork relative to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article, not POV relative to itself. The deletes also pointed out that the article is a synthesis of disparate topics created to construct within Wikipedia the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles. If you only look for source material referencing Politics in the British Isles rather than Ireland-United Kingdom relations, you will get only viewpoints brought out by the disputed British Isles term and be able to avoid viewpoints in the relevant Ireland-United Kingdom relations literature. The delete arguments were collective and not overcome by the keep arguments. Overturn to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. The closer did not address the issues raised in the deletion nomination and instead provided a paragraph of barely intelligible rambling. Note that I am not impartial. Although I missed the debate, I feel the article is an unnecessary redundant content fork of other articles and that the concept of "Politics in the British Isles" (not the content of the article) is original research (WP:SYNTH). Neither of these points, which were expounded by others in the debate, was addressed in the closing. —  AjaxSmack  05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither you, nor Uzma above, have addressed the consensus as a whole for the discussion, just stated your opinion on the article. At most, the discussion would go toward no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the discussion. Silverseren^C 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close was not made on the basis of no consensus. The close doesn't seem to have any coherent basis at all. —  AjaxSmack  06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you still aren't addressing the AfD. Do you really think the consensus of everyone in the AfD is to Delete? Silverseren^C 06:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Consensus...does not mean unanimity...[but] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." —  AjaxSmack  06:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, and? The main arguments boiled down to what is actually covered by the Ireland-UK relations article. And both arguments were really just as good as each other, it's pretty much an intractable disagreement. That would make it no consensus. With the higher amount of people deciding that Keep was the way to go over the opposing arguments, that would make it no consensus leaning toward keep. Nothing in there would be a delete. Silverseren^C 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete Can't fathom the reasoning behind the closure, this article is clearly a content fork and as such should have been deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your opinion. However, DRV is not meant to be an extension of an AfD. Therefore, your opinion on what should be done with the article is irrelevant to the discussion. Voters are meant to be discussing the close and neutrally observing what the consensus was in the AfD, without applying any personal opinions about the article subject. Silverseren^C 19:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer. In my defence, I would point out that I spent nearly 24 hours examining the arguments. I trailed the idea that the close would be brief well in advance of actually closing specifically to test for objections. I note that BHG was very active during that period, making in excess of 250 edits, but chose not to challenge that principle until after the discussion went against her. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I considered all major threads of the arguments, including the argument that this article is a POV fork. I found no unarguable policy violation here, and without that, given the split in opinions in the debate, it was never going to be closed delete. The decision was between keep and no consensus. While that was a tough call, there is no difference for any practical purpose between "no consensus" and "keep without prejudice" to major reworking. SpinningSpark 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer's comments about me are bizarre. He appears to be suggesting that it is somehow my fault that he provided an unexplained closure, or at least that I should have stopped him from botching a job he had appointed himself to. That is weird logic :(
    I had not commented in the discussion since 29 May (9 days before it was relisted, 17 days before it was closed), and in the last few days I was busy recategorising unrelated material rather than watching an AFD which had already been open for 3 weeks. I had not seen that the closer gave 8 hours notice of his intention to be brief, and was not aware of any intention to close the XfD until after it had been done. In any case the giving of notice does not justify the lack of a rationale for the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is bizarre that the closer would try to pawn responsibility on to others for his/her own actions.
    • With regard to, "The decision was between keep and no consensus." So, you didn't consider delete or alternatives to deletion at all? Despite there being (in bare numerical terms) more delete !votes than keeps and there being numerous suggestions for alternatives? Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between the community reaching a decision to "keep without prejudice" and the community not reaching a decision at all (i.e. no consensus). --RA (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've become rather involved in this now and probably shouldn't contribute a word in bold, but I have several points that I'd respectfully ask the closer to take into account.

  First, it's hard to separate this article from the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" (which means "Irish nationalists get butthurt about the naming conventions for geographical features"). There is a substantial contingent of Irish nationalists on Wikipedia who are trying to pretend that the name of the British Isles is controversial. This is not true anywhere outside Ireland, and attempts to further the Irish nationalist cause by interfering with Wikipedia articles are not something that we should condone. It's true that we Brits have treated the Irish very badly, historically speaking, and the Irish have excellent reasons to hate us—but Wikipedia is not a good place to further the dispute. Please could the DRV closer follow SpinningSpark's wise course in separating the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" from the substantive issues here.

  Second, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink. Those who opine "overturn to delete", above, have simply not finished thinking this through. There are excellent reasons to remove this content, but a user might well search for "Politics in the British Isles". They should at minimum find a disambiguation page between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. My own view has always been that this content should be deleted and then an immediate disambiguation page created. If this DRV decides on "overturn to delete", then please could the closer specifically say whether the disambiguation page would be appropriate, because I would like to create it in this space and I don't want to be accused of doing an end-run around the DRV when I do so.

  Third, although I have always been in favour of deleting this article and replacing it with a disambiguation page, and I still am, I also think that the correct reading of the debate was neither "keep" nor "delete". We failed to reach a consensus and an accurate close would have said so.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for a start if you're going to close a debate of that length and complexity then you need to provide an explanation of your reasoning in a closing statement. That people might complain about a closing statement is not a reason not to provide one. What closing statement was provided did not mention the main arguments for deletion, as noted by Uzma Gamal above. I cannot therefore see any evidence that the nominator has weighted the arguments correctly. The question of whether the title should have a disambiguation page is simply irrelevant, since such an action would not be precluded by a Delete closure and does not require the history of the page to do. Hut 8.5 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete (Note: Strike out is not an endorsement) Despite a very lengthy discussion involving much argument, the closer chose not provide an explanation for their decision. Instead, he or she apparently decided that it was in the better interest of the discussion to restate a straw man argument made by one side rather than address the substantive arguments of WP:POVFORK, concerns around WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT, WP:MERGE, the suitability of the article as a subject for an encyclopedia, or the suitability of the article as a means to address the subject. All of which were raised during the discussion. Also, if he or she did not have the confidence to make decision, explain it and stand over it then he or she should not have made one. Another administrator willing to provide a rationale based on the discussion and with reference to policies and guidelines could have been found.
  The closer failed to address WP:CONSENSUS, which is not merely a head count but requires an assessment of the points and arguments raised. A fundamental problem I encountered throughout this discussion was the strident participation of editors who evidently knew little or nothing about the topic — but still felt compelled to "save the wiki" from some supposed censorship. Worse, keep voters cited references whilst very evidently having not read, or even seen, the books they were citing or even knowing for sure what they were about. Instead, they were clearly and evidently citing them, having found them on Google, based merely on their title. On several occasions, even, keep !voters cited books for which even a full reading of the title would show that they were not relevant to the subject! Instead, they cited only part of the title and left off the part of the title that showed the reference wasn't relevant! Keep !voters too engaged in strident defense of their position while evidently not even knowing the states involved or being able to fully distinguish them from each other. In one ludicrous moment, I had to cite three dictionaries and a UK government website to one who didn't know that "Britain" was a another name for the "UK". His/her response was to come back with a travel guide as evidence that we need an article politics. And these people were making arguments based on the finer points of UK constitutional law!? The same participant is still commenting above and still appears unable to distinguish the states involved.
  Additionally, in an AfD involving POVs over British and/or Irish politics, a British or Irish administrator should have the good sense to recuse themselves as being WP:INVOLVED (whether they are conscious of it or not). This is an international project. There are plenty of administrators of other nationalities that can resolve the issue with a neutral eye.
  Finally, Karl.bs' creation of a series of contentious "XXX of the British Isles" articles and category — including his creating of this one during the the CfD of a category of the same name, and despite having been asked not to — and Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log needs to be considered. These points points were also raised during the AfD.
  Very finally, the question of what do we do now wasn't addressed. It's easy for the keep !voters (including the closer) to now simply walk away. For those of us who edit regularly in this area, we are now left with a mess of an article, that is a fork of another, and an editors who can say, well, if there was an issue it wouldn't have passed AfD. It's a train wreck! WP:TNT and userification (or Wikipedia:Article Incubator) were raised during the AfD. Those would have been more sensible decisions that would have enabled a consensus to develop. However, it appears the closer only considered keep or delete and not alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD), even those that were raised during the discussion. --RA (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good Lord. Did you really just say that no British administrator could possibly be neutral on this subject?—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No. I said that in XfDs involving POVs on British and Irish politics, British and Irish admins should acknowledge WP:INVOLVED. That doesn't mean that no British administrator can be neutral on such a topic (a converse would be to say that no Irish editor can be neutrally on such a topic, which is equally ludicrous). However, to quote WP:INVOLVED, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." (My emphasis.) In fairness SpinningSpark acknowledged this to some part when he wrote, "I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement."

  Now, I'm not going to say whether he/she did or can act neutrally — or whether, given years of schooling and emersion in societal POVs on our respective politics, any of us can — what I am saying is that there are many other administrators of uninvolved nationality who could have closed the discussion with a neutral eye. Equally, I'm sure, others would raise an eyebrow if an administrator with the tricolor on their page closed the discussion with "delete". It is not unreasonable to raise one when an administrator with a Union Jack on their user page closes it with "keep" (particularly when accompanied by further no explanation for their decision save for a defense of the term British Isles).

  It is not the substantive point that I am making but it would have been better IMO if someone of a nationality other than British or Irish had closed the discussion. --RA (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's acceptable for our respected Irish contingent to try to control who can and cannot close debates related to this dispute. If there's an issue with a specific administrator then this of course can be raised, but I find it totally unreasonable for you to try to exclude a whole nationality on the basis that they're all collectively "involved".—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So far as I am concerned, it would have been equally inappropriate for an Irish editor to have closed this discussion. Per WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and I support that broad construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just bizarre, and it helps illustrate exactly how extreme the anti-British sentiment gets among Irish nationalist wikipedians. "Involved" in this context means "performing an administrative action having participated in this dispute or similar disputes before doing so". It doesn't mean "being of the wrong nationality", for goodness' sake!—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall, I didn't express any "anti-British sentiment" never mind "extreme" anti-British sentiment (nor am I so taken with categorizationed as a "Irish nationalist wikipedian"). I explained what I meant in greater detail through the comment above at 13:24. You are misreprsenting my comments as an attack on British people — and as an expression of a desire to exercise control over the outcome of the discussions — that is wholly a mischaracterisation. --RA (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have replied on my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some editors here are on the verge of becoming disruptive. While some, to a greater or lesser extent, are attempting to improve the article as it stands, some others apparently won't take no for an answer and this whole thing is becoming like an Irish referendum. You know, keep voting till you get the desired result. Those attempting to work with the current article are being distracted by this disruption and are in danger of having a lot of good work simply thrown away. It is especially disappointing that two of the editors who seem to be most heavily involved are admins. If this conduct continues, where is the best place that that whole thing can be reported? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As one of those attempting to work with the current article by starting to note some of the many ways in which it is misleading and POV-pushing (see Talk:Politics in the British Isles#POV_sections), I am not clear what disruption you see. Can you explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Who initiated this SECOND attempt (or the third debate) to have the article deleted? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, now I see what you mean. You reckon that seeking a deletion review of an unexplained XFD closure is disruptive. That's an angle I hadn't considered.

  In making that assessment, you are apparently undeterred by the fact that 5 out of the 6 !voters so far recommend overturning the closure.

  You wondered whether this can be reported, and I suggest that the best option would be for you to open an WP:MFD on the whole DRV process. That will provide an opportunity for you to explain more about your novel view that reviewing problematic closues is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  BHG, you need to decide which side you're on. If you want the article deleted (or blown up and bulldozed as you put it), fine, comment here. If you want to improve the article, then focus on improving it, and not putting a tag on every single section or sentence which needs improvement. It looks to me a lot more like you're trying to cripple the article, covering it with tags, so that any editors who wander into this DRV will lean towards delete. It's a petty ploy, unbecoming an administrator. --KarlB (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You BHG, and to a somewhat lesser extent RA, are being disruptive because as time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that you'll stop at nothing to get this article deleted. I just looked at MFD and it's not appropriate. I'm more interested in somewhere to report your conduct. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @KarlB and @NA. I want the wretched article deleted, because it is a pile of POV-pushing, and the purpose of this DRV is to review whether the deletion discussion should have led to that outcome.

  If the article is to stay, despite being a POV fork and a synthesis, then it needs a major rewrite to remove the blatant POV-pushing and synthesis in which KarlB has engaged to promote his postnationalist perspective. (See for example the section on Scholarship), which is nothing more than an exposition of one particular perspective.)

  Please feel free to go ahead and report my conduct if you want to. If tackling POV-pushing is unacceptable conduct, then take me to the gallows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The closer correctly read that there was no consensus to delete this article. The focus of the discussion seemed to be whether the Crown dependencies relations with other countries should be considered part of Ireland-UK relations. Unfortunately, in spite of all of the ink spilled on this topic, it's a red herring; the article is not just about international relations, but also about comparative politics, e.g. looking at domestic politics and domestic political structures and domestic political movements. So even if you establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Isle of Man is being managed by the UK when it deals with Ireland or Scotland or Jersey (and thus far, no evidence has been provided to support that), the parts of the article which look at comparative politics of the region would still fall outside that scope, because everyone agrees that where domestic politics is concerned, the Isle of Man is *not* part of the UK.--KarlB (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome. The closer's failure to provide a rationale was poorly advised, although their expectation of extended, nonproductive followup debate was accurate. There's no consensus to be found here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you believe that "there's no consensus to be found here", why endorse a closure which says that there was a consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I said "endorse outcome," ie, nondeletion, rather than simply endorse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I'm in agreement with HW here. Although I think a No Consensus close would have been better, I certainly don't think there was a consensus to delete the article, so the closer more or less read it correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer gave an unbiased account of the debate. It is obvious there's no consensus for deletion. Northern Arrow (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ??? The closer gave no account of the debate, bias or unbiased. Explicitly so. That's one of the main reasons for this DRV. To quote the closer: "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. ... I have just made the decision not to give any such assessment in this case..." --RA (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  He did. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995

  and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=497852995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern Arrow (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Though in fairness, virtually all of the discussion there is around reasoning why he/she didn't give an account of the debate. There are some tantalizingly cryptic clues. For example, the decision "was absolutely not based on a headcount" and "was entirely based on arguments and policy" and was his/her "assessment of the consensus." But there's no actual explanation as to what the reasoning was or, as you wrote, an "account of the debate".

  On a head count, by the way, 11 participants !voted to delete and 10 !voted to keep. An assessment of "no consensus" would require little explanation in that context. But an assessment of "keep" does provoke a question or two. --RA (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because the close and the closer's statement were within administrative discretion. Personally, I would have favoured a "no consensus" decision. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a correct close, giving due weight to the arguments. I would not have closed without an extended comment, but the comment here does as well. I consider the delete arguments clear examples of non-reason among otherwise very good editors, but I've said why at the AfD and I am not going to repeat them. I suggest thatthose who considerthis a POV fork work instead on improving the article content. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How can be a POV fork be fixed without removing the fork? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 from closer. It seems a pretty universal consensus that I was ill-advised not to give an extended closing statement. At least, I should not have declared it in advance and merely restricted myself to keeping it brief without comment. I will take that one on the chin and undertake that if the closer of this debate requires it, I will provide such a statement. Note that I will not take mere criticism of my failure as such a request, I will only do this if the closer explicitly concludes that there is some benefit to the encyclopedia in retrospectively providing such a statement. Fair warning, the statement, if provided, is likely to be very long. SpinningSpark 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly speaking, if you close a difficult debate and you don't provide a statement then it is absolutely incumbent on you to provide one as soon as the close is challenged. Failure to properly explain your reasoning could easily tip a discussion like this from an endorse to an overturn. Its obvious that you need to provide further detail and you should do it now while the reasoning is still fresh in your mind. Its actually, and I rarely say this, quite dismissive to say that you will only provide a statement after this debate has ended. I'm minded to vote to overturn on that basis alone. Please do the needful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept the force of your comment, and that many others feel the same way, and will comply. It will take some time to draft. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for promising to do doing that. It is a great pity that the explanation will be available only some time after the deletion review opened, and after a significant number of editors have already made their contributions.
        I am also troubled by the closer's comments that the closing statement will "take some time to draft", when before closing you said that you had written "It is my normal practice on closing controversial debates to give details of my reasoning and assessment of the arguments. I have been keeping copious notes for that purpose". If you do indeed have those copious notes of your reasoning and assessment, it seems odd that you expect the drafting to be so time-consuming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a completley unjustified insuation you are hinting at there. I am tempted to post five pages of indecipherable hand-written notes in response to that and call it my review, but I will restrain myself and do as promised. SpinningSpark 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll second this. I don't think poor faith accusations are helpful or deserved. God knows, it must have been painful enough to read through all of that without someone now implying you didn't. --RA (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Spinningspark, while at one level I want to give you credit for taking time to read through the discussion (it's a piece of work I would not envy undertaking), I think you made a number of mis-judgements here (as, to be honest, have I in putting so much of myself into this discussion). I don't think these mis-judgemetns are anything that would undermine your credibility or anyone's good faith in you — but they are things that undermine the decision. And people need to have confidence in the decision.
        First, I appreciate your offer to now explain your rationale, but in fairness you were asked for some reasoning on your user page and your answers were vague and made little reference to the discussion. Writing up a rationale now, I think, may look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made.
        Secondly (and I really do mean "secondly"), while at least one other editor believes this to be anti-British sentiment, I don't think it is wise for either a British or Irish editor to close a discussion like this that involves accusations of British vs. Irish POV. As you acknowledged yourself, that can attract suspicion of bias (including unintentional bias). I'd say the same if an Irish editor had closed this discussion with "delete" — and I would have said it stronger again if they had done so while refusing to give a reason. (To be clear, this isn't an accusation of poor faith on your part.)
        I dread a re-listing of this AfD, but I think it would be better to have a run-through, take in a few more comments and have another admin (preferably one from outside of the archipelago) close the discussion with a rationale for their decision showing they listened to the discussion, balanced the views and arrived at a decision in the interest of the community. That might draw a wall of text, like you said — but that's not a good enough reason not to give a rationale when closing such a lengthy and detailed debate like this. --RA (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I disagree with the secondly. An admin is selected based on their ability to neutrally apply wp policies. We have admins who are police officers, musicians, Russians, and fans of death metal. None of these things should hold back an admin from closing a discussion about those topics, provided they have not been involved in the previous discussions. I will also add that BHGs insinuation above is in bad faith. Spinningspark took on a difficult decision, spent time, and made a call. We should be respectful of that.--KarlB (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Spinngspark made a call, but without providing an explanation of that call either in the closure or when asked for such an explanation after the closure. This is really basic stuff of admin policy: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I am not respectful of the failure to perform one of the basic duties of an admin.
              I welcome Spinningspark's belated acknowledgement of his error, but I share RA's concern that writing a rationale now may "look like retrofitting a rationale to a decision that you already made" ... and it may also look like writing a rationale to off head issues identified at DRV. Maybe this is being done in good faith, but there are enough question-marks over the whole thing now that it would be better for the community and better for Spinngspark if this closure did not stand. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it would stand more chance of being accepted if it was closed properly, by an admin who accepted WP:ADMINACCT without having to be dragged there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Karl, admins are also expected to exercise judgement for when to let someone else close a discussion. Spinningspark, to his credit, acknowledged that it was something he had not initially considered but recognised later as being a potential problem. That sort of honesty and willingness to reflect on a decision is something that I actually admire about Spinningspark's conduct in this affair.
              The point however is a secondary one, like I stressed, though a complicating factor. --RA (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand that is the POV of you and BHG. It is not mine, and I agree with S. Marshall on this. In any case, enough has been said about SpinningSpark's nationality.--KarlB (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some minor quibbles with Spinngspark's extended close, but otherwise I am happy that it is within discretion. --RA (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add one comment though, which persists to bother me. The closer remarked:

  I found that the delete viewpoint, while it must still be taken into consideration, had no basis in policy or guidelines. To be sure, plenty of policy arguments were advanced against the creation of POV forks, but no policy arguments why, in the context of this article a POV fork existed. That is, no policy, guideline or essay was named which indicates international relations are to be taken as synonymous with politics, or that a region of only two nations may not have an article on its politics. Because of this, the argument was given proportionately less weight.

  This places an unreasonable burden on policy. In essence it means, you can cite a policy or guidelines (in this case WP:POVFORK) but unless that policy or guidelines explicitly states that it applies in the class of article you are applying it to then it doesn't count. Many of our policies and guidelines are broad principles. It is the principle that is applied.

  In this case, the argument was that in a region consisting of only two states, an article on the politics of the region is effectively the same as an article on the relations of those two states. You can disagree with that, but demanding that there be a specific policy or guidelines stating how to interpret WP:POVFORK in every circumstance in which it may apply is an unreasonable demand on policy. --RA (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I "endorsed" above). I have returned here because of the suggestion that people commenting earlier might have developed a different view had they been able to refer to a full closing rationale. The closer's extended statement is thoughtful, careful and, for me, helpful—I had not personally bothered to investigate the relevance of the book The Politics of the British Isles nor had I probed into whether the creation of this article might have been "pointy". I still absolutely accept the AFD close and thank SpinningSpark for doing all this work. Thincat (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (do not delete). There was not a consensus to delete. Forking and OR issues are not well resolved by deletion. It's hard. Do not renominate for at least 6 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse now that there is a closing statement (and a long and well-written one at that). I think no consensus was the better close as there was no consensus there. But keep may be within admin discretion. I'd have no objection to an "overturn to NC" outcome of this DRV. As a note I didn't read the whole AfD--just too long--so I admit I could be missing something, but reading the closing notes and this DRV, I don't think I am. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus (Having stuck my earlier !vote) There wasn't one, and there is a significant difference (even if the outcome for the article is the same) between consensus to "keep" and "no consensus" at all. --RA (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus Having read the extended closing statement, I agree it was within the discretion of the closing admin to weigh the arguments according to his viewpoints. As much as I might disagree with whatever weighting he assigned to the various points put forward, his closing statement doesn't provide a clear rationale on why the Keep argument was so much stronge. I believe the correct closing should have been "no consensus". --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It appears that the article was deleted because the consensus among the admins involved seemed to be that the discipline is "bogus." However, I can attest that it is not bogus, as I attended a free trial class at a local studio. I don't know whether the history they attribute to their discipline is accurate, but the discipline itself is very real and merits a page. I came to Wikipedia to research the discipline to find out more about its history, any controversies, etc. but found only a deleted page. The school in Boston (Brookline, actually) is very real. I've been there and spoken with a teacher. The teacher (Ben Kelley, who has exchanged emails with me and is not pestering me or trying the hard sell or anything) said they have schools in Boston, Norway, South America, etc. He said that when Tibet was invaded, the practitioners scattered around the world. He didn't convince me of the history, to be honest. But the class was good, the teacher seemed professional, and it didn't appear to me to be a scam, a cult, or anything like that. I did wonder how they afforded the rent on that space with just running classes, so I assumed that they had a passionate angel investor or something. The waiting room smelled a bit too strongly of the handmade soap one of the students had talked them into putting out, but other than that it was a generally pleasant experience. I'm happy to research the topic and write a page. The history--which seems to me to be the only controversial component--can then be debated in real time in wonderful Wikipedia style. Thanks for listening...
Links:
http://bostonboabom.com/
http://www.boabom.org/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation/dp/1585425214
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75700 (this one shows some of the controversy that could be worked out via Wikipedia... isn't that one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia?) Heykerriann (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - What matters is whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Boabom for a stand-alone article. See WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be and the AfD brought that out. The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation (the art's only known documentation) and bostonboabom.com are not independent of the Boabom topic, so those don't count. bullshido.net/forums isn't a Wikipedia reliable source, so that doesn't count. But, your way ahead of the game with this article on Boabom. A few more write ups on Boabom, a Wikipedia article that limits its content to what those reliable sources say, and you might get passed AfD next time around. If there are schools in other locations, then local newspapers there may have write ups as well. "Boabom's half-dozen schools worldwide teach cycles handed down from a Chilean man named Asanaro." Is Asanaro a John Asanaro who lived in New Jersey at one time? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one distinction is that they don't refer to themselves as a martial art. They're much more strongly related to yoga. So they don't compete, etc. The admins cited the http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:MANOTE page, but I don't think that page applies. That said, I don't feel strongly about this, but the class was really interesting, it seems to be great for kids, and I'd imagine that people who Google it will count on Wikipedia to have an entry on it, even if it is only in Boston in the US. I'm not going to fight for the article, but if it's decided it should be written, then I'm happy to write it. Is that wishy-washy enough? :) Heykerriann (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't delete topic's per se, so the deletion is not a we can never ever have coverage of this topic, it's a deletion of the article covering a topic at this point in time. The issue here is that as said the article needs coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the facts need to be verifiable (so the idea that you might use Wikipedia to resolve disputes is actually missing the point quite a lot, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the sole source of information (WP:NOR, WP:V etc.) if it isn't already published elsewhere, then it can't be here. So if you want to attempt to write an article, then you are free to do so in your own user space (Say User:Heykerriann/Boabom, if you can find the references required to sustain it en you can bring it back here to see if it can be moved to main space. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse without prejudice for future recreation if more third-party sources turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think no other close was possible. Real does not = notable; as others have said, no prejudice against re-creation if there are good independent sources with substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse consensus was clearly there for close, and my further searches have not turned up other references. It seems quite certain this is real (as in, there are people doing this today), but it does not yet pass WP:N (and of course, the history of Boabom seems debateable). I think the closer correctly read the discussion. I agree with no prejudice against re-creation if other sources arise. --KarlB (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The the Boston Globe article does have some good info on Boabom. We could redirect the Boabom article to a target artcle and add the info from the Boston Globe article, if we could find a good target article. Boabom was in Category:Tibetan martial arts, but it's not popular enought for a place in the martial arts article and Tibetan culture doesn't discuss martial arts. There's no Tibetan martial arts, Chilean meditation, meditative movement, or defense meditation article. East Asian martial arts is a DAB and Boabom's speculative history means it wouldn't fit in History of East Asian martial arts (a redirect to History of martial arts). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SS Vesta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I learned something else Charles Ellet, the engineer who introduced naval rams into the US arsenal was inspired by the Vesta's sinking of the much larger Arctic.

Yes, it is hardly much more information. But I think, nevertheless, it would be a good idea to promote SS Vesta from being a redirect to being a stub. For biographies we don't normally retain a BLP when the individual is only known for "one event".

I think we should refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic". In this instance the single event, the sinking, is related to three topics. It is of course related to the topic of the sinking of the SS Arctic. It is related to the topic of Charles Ellet Jr., the inventor inspired by the sinking to re-introduce naval ramming. And, we could have an article The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

In my opinion, Charles Ellet Jr. should link to SS Vesta, or Sinking of the SS Arctic by the SS Vesta. So too should The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

The status quo -- where SS Vesta is a redirection to SS Arctic#sinking -- is unsatisfactory. A good faith editor of SS Arctic could remove as off-topic information relevant to a reader who came to the article from the article on Charles Ellet Jr. or The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

FWIW I added a paragraph about how the Vesta inspired Ellet to the article on Ellet. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure by default because no argument is made why the closure misjudged consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2, i.e., this is not the place to start the discussion on the merits all over again.  Sandstein  00:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You gotta ask for something concrete that can be acted on. All I got from the DRV request is that "SS Vesta redirecting to SS Arctic#sinking is unsatisfactory." The only reply I can think of is thank you for sharing your thoughts. Do you want the redirect deleted? Do you want the deletion overturned and the article restored? Do you want permission to recreate the article using substantial new information that you've come across since the deletion? We don't have stub articles and articles, we merely have articles that meet WP:GNG. Refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic" is more of a Wikipedia:Village pump topic and any thing concluded at DRV can't affect the principle. DRV can't delete Charles Ellet Jr., create SS Vesta, and then redirect Charles Ellet Jr. to SS Vesta. That sounds more like a move or merge request, which happens elsewhere (not DRV). The SS Arctic was sunk in 1854 after colliding with the ship SS Vesta. Seems reasonable to redirect SS Vesta to SS Arctic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as redirect, per the reasoning of Uzma Gamal and Sandstein. This DRV request lacks any specific challenge to the AfD closure. The filing at DRV contains nothing we can act on. Thanks to User:Geo Swan for his improvement to Charles Ellet Jr. based on the discussion here. I don't understand Geo Swan's objection to making SS Vesta into a redirect. The web page at wrecksite.eu gives some information that might permit a more substantive article to be created on SS Vesta and I wouldn't object to anyone adding this before the DRV closes. Anyone who does that should ping me so I could change my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but it should be possible to find additional sources, and if so, it can be restored to article status. That would answer all objections DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India Programme XII on Diabetes Research (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the PROD discussion didn't reach a very clear consensus to Delete the article. I think it can be relisted with reference to WP:POTENTIAL , WP:DEADLINE and may be others of which I'm not aware of yet. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse The AfD (not Prod) discussion reached a good consensus that there was not yet material for an article, and nothing has changed in the last 2 weeks. When there is, the article can be rewritten. However, I suggest it might be better to try to write an article on India Programmes on Diabetes Research, giving some mention of the earlier programmes. It's usually better to treat such topics as a series, not individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Per DGG, if these programs are going to be mentioned on Wikipedia a better place to do that is in a broader article such as 'India programmes on diabetes research'. Not every government pronouncement deserves its own article here, when external coverage is minimal. In this case the government is only making a prediction of something it intends to do in the future, which falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In terms of whether the AfD was correctly closed, see the AfD for details, but there were four votes to Delete (counting the nominator), one Keep, and one Weak Keep. The Keep votes seemed to be hoping for something favorable to occur in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As closer, I join the suggestions above to write a broader article about these programs or India's public health policy in general. Such broader topics are much more likely to be notable.  Sandstein  00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per above. Comment - In an 18 October 2011 publication by the Government of India Department of Atomic Energy,[24] their Planning Commission Working Group on Mega Science and Global Alliances listed "India Programme XII on Diabetes Research" on page 25 as the name for a call for proposals for global alliance in diabetes research as part of a Metabolic Diseases program. I don't know how you go from atomic energy to diabetes research, but there you are. Government of India Department of Atomic Energy is a broader topic and you may be able to post information about India Programme XII on Diabetes Research in that article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment : I don't know how Department of Atomic Energy is concerned with this matter anyway. I think we can find it also somewhere under Ministry of Health. Anyways, I really agree with ideas mentioned above that the article should be conceived into an article which is broader in sense and can be enriched and expanded more with suitable data,figures and necessary citation. So, the possible remedies that are available this time are - merger or renaming. However, I shall prefer the latter idea, and if allowed would like to invite a collaborative effort towards improving articles on Public Health in India with especial emphasis to diseases like Tuberculosis, Diabetes and others. In fact, I have also started the former one. And lastly, I would like to devote my sincere thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Селена Гомез (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Селена Гомес (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are many reasons about the widespread use of the two Cyrillic names for Selena Gomez. "Селена Гомез" is used primarily in some Slavic countries in Europe while "Селена Гомес" (translit. Selena Gomes) is used primarily used in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Belarus. Kazakhstani and Mongolian websites and media will use both. I suggest the two will be restored as the Cyrillic-written websites are more popular in these countries. Daniyar Mukharbatanov (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of redirects. We seem to have been around this loop quite a few times (see WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 18) and I do not see a need to keep reviewing what seems to me to be both a policy-based and sensible decision. Personally, I wouldn't mind such transliterations in a footnote to the article (so "search" would find them) but I dare say many people would disagree. Thincat (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Disagreeing with the outcome of an xfd is not alone sufficient to sustain a DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nominator doesn't raise any issues which warrant a DRV, and we don't have redirects from foreign language titles unless the subject is related to that language or a culture which speaks that language (WP:R#DELETE). Hut 8.5 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut. There just isn't a problem here that I can see. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this is no a DRV-able issue. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Google both Селена Гомес and Селена Гомез before you read WP:R#DELETE again. Russians, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Mongolians will discontinue the Cyrillic name in some websites and use the original name in Latin to reflect the people knowing the English language in these countries. --112.210.49.199 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse the consensus at the discussion was pretty clear. --KarlB (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Erix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (DRV#1)

Significant new information has come to light since the deletion.

Hello. I would like to kindly ask community permission and help for restoring an article. I've noticed that the deletion was made a long while ago back in February 2011 and today I reached out to the closer of the deletion and I was advised to post here. The article is about a recording artist called Ian Erix and when I recently joined Wikipedia to build him a page I saw that it had once been deleted so before I went forward I wanted to make sure it was okay to write something new. I read most of the deletion comments and there is a lot of new information since this article was deleted. Ian Erix was signed to a major record label IDMG Scandinavia (Island Def Jam) and his music video is currently in the YouTube Top 100 chart for the week of June 5th. Also, his music video charted at #7 on the VEVO World Music Charts and he was play listed nationally on MTV and on radio stations in many countries + his music video has been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube so far. I think all this and the other stuff about his career should qualify him more than enough to have an article. Can you please give me the permission to write something fair and balanced without it getting deleted? Thank you Urbanturn300 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One reference is: "Brazilian city hosts world's largest New Year's Eve party". Latin American Herald Tribune. January 1, 2012. Retrieved June 13, 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure I understand that. so I'm probably being dense. The relevant part seems to be "“I come from New York. I was at parties in Asia, Europe and Oceania, but nobody organizes a New Year’s party like Rio de Janeiro,” Ian Erix, a representative of World Travel Guild, said after witnessing the gigantic fireworks display of some 22,000 individual fireworks.". Is that the same person? It seems pretty trivial and as a claim to notability, I can't see working for WTG or being at parties amounts to much. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't know that I was supposed to put references here but if you want something to prove he is notable then here are links to him in the official YouTube Top 100 Chart. His video is number #90 amongst all major label stars [[25]] Also, here is a link to his video and an exclusive interview with him that is being featured on MTV Brazil[[26]] . Also, I researched the reference article that the other user mentioned above and that article is talking about him but because the translation issues that occurred when the Portuguese media reported on this it is not as clear as it should be but Ian Erix appeared on stage in Rio De Janeiro with David Guetta on New Years Eve. There are pictures and other stories online if you type in Ian Erix reveillon. He was an official celebrity presenter and gave an award to Brazil for making the best New Years Eve Party in the World. He performed on stage that night in front of millions and one line of his speech from that night has been quoted in many articles and was used as part of a front page story on all Brazilian newspapers and many other newspapers and publications around Latin America. Here is a more clear article about it in English. [[27]] Urbanturn300 (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. After the sockflood accompanying the original AFD and DRV, the appearance of a new SPA pushing the same claptrap isn't promising. A lone news reference to somebody working in PR doesn't contribute anything to notability. There's not even anything here showing it's the same guy. I remember the hassling over the original awful article, and there's no point in wasting time going through that again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - VEVO World Music and Youtube charts? Meh, not even with spitting distance of the WP:GNG or Music Bio. This is typical with fringe musicians, a gaggle of fans come to try squeeze blood from the notability stone. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To be perfectly honest I am new to Wikipedia and I don't understand most of the abbreviations listed above and I didn't know that I had to put all kinds of links here to prove my case but I will put some now since I guess I should. It sounds to me like you guys above that said to endorse close are not being fair really because maybe you don't know Ian Erix and think he isn't notable but to young people like me and there are a LOT of us he is VERY notable and I read some of the guidelines for musicians on Wikipedia and it says that he meets a lot of the criteria to be included here without a problem. First of all, he has been play listed on major radio stations around the world. One example in the USA is 106.7 KROQ which is one of the biggest Modern Rock stations in Los Angeles. They have been playing his new song and here is a link to it on their official website[[28]] Also, his music videos have been in the Featured Playlist natioanlly at MTV. Here is a link to MTV Asia proving that: [[29]] So whether or not you know of this guy personally or like him or don't or whatever from what I read at WP:Band he does meet several of the guidelines. # 11 says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." Those links above prove that. Also, according to All Music Guide [[30]] he also meets requirement #2 that says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Plus I think it also should help that he is mentioned in hundreds of credible newspaper articles in relation to his appearance as a celebrity musical ambassador for the world travel guild in Brazil on New Years Eve(Check Google for Ian Erix Reveillon and you will see many newspapers and magazines articles about it) He is pictured here at left on the stage in front of 2.5 million people in Copacabana Beach, Brazil giving the award to the city and to Brazil's Secretary of Tourism and he is talked about in the article as well. [[31]] Also, the user above seems to make fun of the YouTube and VEVO Charts but these charts are respected in the music industry and they are national and international charts that represent the most popular videos and artists in today's pop culture. That is a true fact and I think that the fact that Ian Erix has been at the top of both the YouTube and VEVO charts, at #1 on YouTube in some countries and Top 10 worldwide, that in itself should absolutely be significant enough to be taken into consideration too. Urbanturn300 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To try and address a few of your points here. The abbreviations generally are linked to articles which explain them. Material being referenced to third party sources is essential, since that is the very essence of the encyclopedia, if we can't reference the material, then it can't be here. As such it really doesn't matter it people here don't know him, nor does it matter that you believe a lot of people think he's notable, what does matter is the third party coverage in reliable sources. The links to MTV or KROQ as far as I can see don't show him being in "rotation nationally". That would mean they are regularly playing the single several times throughout a day. KROQ as you say isn't a national station so the "nationally" part can't be met. The MTV stuff shows very low view counts (for me at least) and seems to be "MTV Sessions" for showcasing new "talent", rather than being shown in rotation on the station. I can't easily evaluate the allmusic bio, the same bio appears elsewhere so it's not that clear if it's promotional puff or has more substance. The article on the Brazilian award seems similar to the previous English link and is just a passing mention, and doesn't really amount to much. In my experience VEVO and YouTube tend not to be considered too compelling here, and number of views there aren't part of the WP:BAND guidelines. I'm not saying he doesn't meet the notability guidelines, merely that what's been presented so far isn't clearly showing that. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Urbanturn300 - I linked some of the above abbreviations so you can follow up on them. The short answer is that Wikipedia is a publication that merely conveys information in the form of text. That text merely is a summary of what others have already written outside of Wikipedia. If other's outside of Wikipedia have not written enough about Ian Erix, then there's not enough to summarize within Wikipedia. Now, the writings outside of Wikipedia that are used within Wikipedia are not from fan sites or material that has a connection to Ian Erix (his website, public relations writings, etc.). There must be enough coverage in reliable sources external to Wikipedia that are independent of Ian Erix to maintain a stand alone article within Wikipedia. See WP:GNG.
  Your initial request above is asking Wikipedia to reward Ian Erix with a Wikipedia article for:

  "signed to a major record label IDMG Scandinavia (Island Def Jam) and his music video is currently in the YouTube Top 100 chart for the week of June 5th. Also, his music video charted at #7 on the VEVO World Music Charts and he was play listed nationally on MTV and on radio stations in many countries + his music video has been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube so far."

  While impressive, a Wikipedia article is not a reward. If reliable sources external to Wikipedia that are independent of Ian Erix haven't written enough text about these accomplishments, then Wikipedia doesn't have enough material to work with to summarize that external text into a Wikipedia article. In other words, it's not a matter of Ian Erix's success, it's a matter of third parties not connected to Ian Erix caring enough to make the editorial decision to write about him and his life in their publication. While there are plenty of people who enjoy Ian Erix's success, no one cares enough to write about it. Wikipedia and Ian Erix have no control over what reliable sources choose to publish and that is a main reason why Wikipedia uses the WP:GNG standard "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to determine whether there should be a stand alone article on a given topic. On top of that, Ian Erix fan(s) came to Wikipedia before you and posted at the the original AFD and DRV using prohibited techniques such as sock puppetry to try to get a consensus to keep the Ian Erix article in Wikipedia. That's not a good thing as it produces reactions that are hostile to allowing an article on Ian Erix within Wikipedia. So now, not only does WP:GNG have to be met before there will be a Ian Erix article in Wikipedia, Wikipedians will need to be convinced that having an article on Ian Erix won't bring a flood of Ian Erix fans to Wikipedia to violate Wikipedia's processes. If you want, you can develop a draft article in your user space at User:Urbanturn300/Ian Erix and post another request at Wikipedia:Deletion review once the draft is complete and ask that the draft be move to article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per above. Single purpose accounts, and very dubious notability. Original decision was correct, the previous DRV discussion was correct, and I do not think that the community has made a grievous mistake twice. Wikipedia does not exist for Mr. Erix to promote himself or his work, and the sockpuppet army's time would probably be better spent elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Exit 245 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were two keep !votes in this discussion. The second, without any offense intended towards the editor, is not at all a valid !vote. it argued that because the discussion had been relisted 3 times (the third of which was by the non-admin closer, not that it really matters) it should be kept. This is an argument that a discussion should be closed, maybe, but it gives no input into whether the material should be kept or deleted.

This leaves the one other keep !vote, which stated that since a work by the musical group was included on the best of album of the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella and International Championship of High School A Cappella organizations it received inherent notability. This compilation album, however, does not infer inherent notability under the MUSIC notability guidelines, however, and I noted that the actual honor would require independent coverage if it was going to show that the subject passed the GNG. The only other !vote occurred after this discussion, a user !voting delete. Thanks for your time, everyone Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD suffered from very limited participation, as only two people other than the nominator offered comments on the merits of the nomination, and one of those !voted keep. Such debates are usually relisted, closed as "soft delete" in a similar manner to PROD, or closed as no consensus (WP:QUORUM). The relist option had been done three times and the nomination was not uncontested, so the first two options aren't appropriate. Hence I'm going to have to endorse the closure, with the caveat that the article can be renominated at any time. Hut 8.5 23:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody cares enough to delete it, so it was kept. "No consensus" was the right call in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I too would have closed as non-consensus. Just relist it in a few months. After a minimal-participation non-consensus, a month is probably enough. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse even discounting the final !vote, there does not appear to be a consensus as to whether the inclusion on the BOCA compilation confers notability or not. Since the notability of the group essentially rests on this, "no consensus" was the correct call to make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Concur with some of the above comments, I can't see a real consensus in that lot (personal view would probably have been more towards deletion), so a no consensus close would be the most reasonable. Simply relist it in a month or two and see if a stronger consensus can be reached. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (no consensus). Lugnuts !vote can't be simply rejected, his rejection of the earlier articulated delete !vote is inferable. Consider a fresh nomination after two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone came along and said "Those above with a delete opinion are wrong", then we'd expect the closer to give that little weight. That we have to infer that from Lugnuts comment should see even less still. Not that I think it matters much, without Lugnuts opinion, I still can't see a real consensus. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Lugnuts did directly rebutt the nomination and the "delete" !vote, though without rationale. If it weren't for Lugnuts, I could see it being closed as Delete. The three relistings, however, speak to a "no consensus". Presumably, each of Ron, Tom and TheSpecialUser read the discussion and failed to be persuaded either way. I'm afraid that on this occassion, Yaksar has been beaten by apathy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. There was insufficient discussion and insufficient agreement to justify a closure as "keep" or "delete". In my search for sources, I found coverage from Pitch Perfect: The Quest for Collegiate A Cappella Glory, which was not debated in the AfD. The book was written by journalist Mickey Rapkin who appears to be independent of the a cappella group and James Madison University. I think a more substantive discussion is necessary before a determination of "keep" or "delete" is made. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Insufficient discussion so no consensus correct. Not sure whether the name EXIT 245 came from the following, but the link at here notes, "The ninth illustration shows a horizontal rectangular sign with the words "VA National" on the top line, "Cemetery" on the middle line, and "EXIT 245" on the bottom line." Some other references are: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39]. These are more one or two lines of info, each, but coupled with the book Cunard found, and a little luck, the topic might meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaque Hussain Memon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ashfaque Hussain Memon has been a key figure to ending the CMCH Hospital medical workforce strikes that have persisted over the last year. He was swiftly appointed after the dismissal of previous MS to Larkana (Dr. Siyal) (Coverage by all major newspapers in Pakistan). His work interests and benefits many people in the district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbeerAfghan (talk • contribs)

• Comment from what I've seen and what you've said this sounds like someone doing their job and got appointed to a certain post during a dispute about his predecessor. I can't see how that makes this person themself notable, the dispute perhaps (though that seems more like a new story than encyclopedic entry). i.e. it's not about who was appointed, merely that someone was whoever that was would have received the same sort of coverage --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The nomination appears to be accurate, in that there really does seem to be coverage in several major Pakistani newspapers. I think this coverage is really about Chandka Medical College rather than about Ashfaque Hussain Memon, though. I have no objection to coverage of the incident being added to Chandka Medical College. Dr Memon's name should probably redirect there.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but . . . Article was speedied as promotional, and no reason is given to indicate this was inappropriate. Because this deletion did not result from the then-pending AFD, nothing prevents the creation of a properly sourced, nonpromotional article if notability standards can be satisfied. Therefore, this isn't a DRV matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Endorse  The deletion was for being "blatantly promotional".  As there is no objection here that the article was not blatantly promotional, the deletion stands uncontested.  Nominator is advised to initiate a discussion with the deleting admin before opening a discussion here.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, G11 was the right call to make for this version of the article. However, if the comments by the nominator above are accurate, that is no impediment to writing an article on this person that is not just blatant promotion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse the deletion as promotional--it would take a complete rewriting to make an acceptable article. But just go ahead and do it--it may or may not be notable, but it won't be a speedy A67 for no indication of importance. (A year or two ago, I might not have thought this so promotional as to be a speedy; but we are now getting so many articles of this sort, that I am much more likely to call a promotional article for a subject of borderline notability a speedy G11, not worth the necessary rewriting--and, judging by what happens at CSD, other admins seem pretty much agreed on this also. Our proper defense against promotionalism is to enforce higher standards.) DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porscia Yeganeh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist From looking over the deletion article I don't believe all the keep replies were answered. The same point was mentioned for deletion, but no conclusive outcome was agreed. I feel this was more of a no consensus arguement than a clear delete. I and others felt this article could be written around at least 4 articles. Personally I think the article should be rewritten around these four articles, as it would change the page dramatically before any decision on its final deletion is made. JP22Wiki (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV is not the "I don't like the decision" fallback. The calls to delete all soundly addressed Wikipedia notability guidelines, and found the sources to either be more about this person's company than the person, or to be of weak or low reliability, one noting that the best source was only a local community paper. The closing admin did not err in judging the consensus of the editors at that AfD. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The keeps were more about how important she is rather than identifying the quantity of coverage about her in reliable sources that are independent of the Porscia Yeganeh. Yeganeh is mentioned in Vancouver Fashion Week kicks off (March 27, 2009) and When women dress up and men look natty (April 10, 2010), but there's not enought there for a stand alone article. The AfD mentioned theafronews.ca and some other sources. The AfD noted that it was a highly promotional article (the editors of that article were jazzed on using sources connected to Porscia Yeganeh and in a way that promoted her), so even with four news articles mentioned in the DRV nom, it is doubtful that the promition issue and WP:GNG issue can be addressed without seeing a draft. Feel free to develop a userspace draft article and return to DRV to ask that it be moved to article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we must endorse the close and therefore the subsequent deletion. JP22Wiki says "I think the article should be rewritten" and there is no reason to stop him from doing that, so the content should be userfied or incubated on request, but for the moment there's a consensus that this material should not appear in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, article has had more than its fair share of consideration at AfD (with two relists), and the preponderance of the delete opinions was absolutely clear. No way this could have been closed differently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, good close of a difficult AFD. No violations of procedure by the closing admin that I can see, and no indication that the result would be different if it were to be relisted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus. The relatively even nature of the arguments as well as the actual votes commands a no-consensus decision, any other decision would point to an abuse of discretion and self-serving decision. Do not, relist, overturn. Lankiveil's vote above actually supports the case for overturn, citing "a difficult AfD." On a personal note, I really dislike the article and feel it should not be on the project, but admin abuse of disretion that makes a self-serving (whether deletionist or inclusionist) decision is harmful and introduces a level of subjectivity that is too great. Turqoise127 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I see no reasonable way to have closed that debate other than a "delete" decision. The weight of argument and in particular the timing of the arguments (most of the "keep" opinions early, most of the "delete" opinions being offered with the added advantage of the additional discussion) make the consensus clear. Sources were offered, were carefully evaluated (by at least most of the discussion participants) and were found wanting.
  As others have noted already, this closure does not preclude the re-creation of a biography if/when sufficient in-depth and reliable sources about her can found. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suchitra Sen photo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I posted it here Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#:File:Suchitra_Sen_photo.jpg and have been suggested to post here.
The file was nominated for deletion, since I did not write "Replacibility" but after getting the notice, I added detailed reasoning in the file. but it seems it has been ignored completely and the file has been deleted. Tito Dutta ✉ 06:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The admin who deleted it did respond to you before you posted here, so it seems disingenuous to say your reasoning had been "ignored completely" - there response was "I did read the comment you made prior to the file's deletion, but I didn't find it very convincing. Not only is another non-free file of this actress used in this article (File:Suchitra Sen as Paro in Bimpal Roy's, Devdas (1955).jpg), but the source you provided in your rationale also hints at the possibility of her reappearing in public once again should she accept the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. As such, the deleted image seems to violate point one of WP:NFCC." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's talk on the file. the alternative you have suggested File:Suchitra Sen as Paro in Bimpal Roy's, Devdas (1955).jpg the film Devdas is an old romantic tragedy, where Sen has acted a village girl, village girl like costumes with an artificial scar on head etc (was needed for the film), different make up etc. The image file can be used as Parvati (character) of the film Devdas 1955 but not very good choice as Suchitra Sen in the infobox.

There is almost no chance she will re-appear in public. The award we are talking about, Dadasaheb Phalke Award, actually it was given to her in 2005 but she rejected the award she had to appear publicly to receive the award. Recently she has also not appeared publicly to take West Bengal Government's highest civilian award "Banga Bibhushan"! There is no free alternative. --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the additional information above, I think the logical choice at this point is to allow a broader community discussion, so it should be restored and nominated at WP:FFD. This appears to be one of those borderline cases; I'm entirely sure what consensus is regarding low profile individuals as in this case. — ξ^xplicit 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nonfree image of living person. We've been through this discussion more than once, and just being a retired performer who doesn't make high-profile public appearances doesn't justify an exception to well-established policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn F7 speedy deletion - Failing Wikipedia:NFCC#1 isn't listed in WP:CSD#F7. For F7, you also need (2) a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty) and (3) where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If that was the case, then maybe the common edit summaries of WP:TW need to be revised. - Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Telegraph newspaper" January 18, 2009–

"The screen goddess who has been the most famous hermit of Calcutta for three decades has confined herself to her Ballygunge Circular Road house,"

Note, she has not made any public appearance for last three decades. And we need an image of her youth (her last film was released in 1978). I did a very detailed Google search, free image search etc etc before uploading the image. I can not think any other way to collect a free image.

I can not understand (please explain) commercial source etc, but the image was collected from Telegraph newspaper article– both reliable and commercial.--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, regular and justified NFC speedy. Even if we accepted irreplaceability as per "no longer in public", it would still be replaceable with the other non-free image that is still present in the article. The argument that that other image isn't suitable because of the role and attire shown in unconvincing – her face is shown very well. To Uzma Gamal: CSD#F7 covers not only the immediate speedies in the cases you mention, but also the delayed speedies for replaceability and other similar reasons; this was a procedurally correct delayed speedy after the prescribed 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I can't see how this could pass the NFCC criteria. The existing non-free image seems to serve the purpose of showing what she looked like and for the film (important for minimal use of non-free content NFCC#3A), that there are some make up issue can easily be explained and doesn't detriment the overall view of the subject (important for NFCC#8). The image being taken from a commercial source without any transformative usage would fail NFCC#2. For a couple of points "...but not very good choice as Suchitra Sen in the infobox" - there is no absolute requirement we have a picture in infoboxes, if we don't think it's appropriate for the infobox, then simply don't put one there. "And we need an image of her youth" - if we had a current photo (not in her youth) under a free license, then we wouldn't be able to have such an non-free image of her in her youth, the only reason we'd want a picture of her youth rather than a current photo would be to show how she looked whilst performing, which the current non-free photo appears to do. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 148 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original UFC 148 and UFC 148: Silva vs. Sonnen II pages were deleted due to lack of content, sources, etc. It was then merged and redirected to the page 2012 in UFC events. And all of the prose written on the UFC 148 section of the 2012 in UFC events article was written by me. The original UFC 148 article that was deleted had very little information. I was advised by admin user:Scottywong to write a draft of the new UFC 148 article in my userspace, and then file a request here. Here is the article I drafted: User:Gamezero05/UFC 148 sandbox. I added a lot more prose, a lot more information, and gathered a more wide-range of sources such as those from the LA Times, USA Today, ESPN, London Free Press, Las Vegas Sun, Yahoo!, etc. I am requesting to make a new stand-alone article for UFC 148. Gamezero05 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close and redirect, nothing has changed in the 20 days since the close, the event is still a routine sports event that has not happened, in fact UFC 147 is still to happen. WP is not a sports newspaper or a stats websource nor is it a place for for gossip and rumor. There will be some fights here, some winners and losers but no indication that anything of encyclopedic note will happen. So until the event actually happens, cover the event in 2012 in UFC events, once the event has happened and secondary sources (as opposed to primary news sources) exist that can establish the event does have enduring notability as per WP:NOT come back here then. Mtking ^(edits) 03:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mtking, you tried that same exact argument to get UFC 145 deleted. The closing administrator, Arbitrarily0, said, "The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus that the subject meets the notability criteria for events and the general notability guideline." So what do you think is different this time? Gamezero05 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. We have divided opinion over MMA events. What shifted the balance of this one is that it is a future event. But since the event will be held tomorrow on the 7th, discussion of it on that basis will be moot. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I may comment later, but, as MtKing just reminded me, I seem to be a month out of sync with the rest of the world; it'll be July 7. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Disagreement with the outcome, standing alone, does not justify a DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit draft move to article space - The event not happening yet AND all these reliable sources writing about it makes a stronger argument for meeting WP:GNG than the event happening with the same amount of coverage. The AfD closer noted on 11 May 2012 that "Not even one argument to keep the article is based in policy," so the addition of the reliable sources to the 8 June 2012 draft overcome that issue. WP:NOT#NEWS might apply if the reliable source coverage of the July 7, 2012 event were limited to July 7, 2012 or breaking news there near. Comment: I can't see "Gamezero05" name (please change the color of your sig color) and the gold color of "Mtking" sig is hard to see as well (please change your sig color). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very good point Uzma Gamal. One that I have not thought of before. The fact that this event has many respectable independent sources months away from the event shows that it is notable. You can't say that for routine events such as a regular season baseball or football game. Gamezero05 22:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit draft move to article space per accurate analysis by Uzma Gamal. We already have enough secondary sources to say this event is notable. Cavarrone (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation There are certainly enough non-MMA sources in the article to show notability. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse  That the draft article has WP:NOT no place in the encyclopedia is shown by the fact that it would need a major rewrite within a month.  For example, it uses the words, "upcoming event", "will feature", "setting the stage for", "most anticipated", "is now expected to face", and "will take place at".  If there was actually something encyclopedic here, it would not change or change little on July 7, and might have a title, "Preparation for UFC 148".  Instead we get newspaper-type coverage such as that Dominic Cruz has a torn rotator cuff, where this one point is the most significant material in the entire article.  An encyclopedia has little interest in announcements of possible future events, we just wait for the future.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The background information leading up to the actual event is notable in and of itself, based on the fact that there are plenty of secondary sources months out from the actual event. If it is already this notable, the notability is only going to increase. Just because the actual event has not happened yet does not mean the stuff surrounding the event also has not happened yet. Plenty of information surrounding the actual event has already happened, and it is notable based on all of the independent secondary sources. Gamezero05 17:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the color of your sig.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first sentence of the nutshell of WP:N,

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 excluded for other reasons.

Two things to note there, "over a period of time", and WP:What Wikipedia is not.  Pre-event hype is ephemeral and thus fails the requirement of attracting attention "over a period of time".  Next is that WP:N does not override WP:NOT.  Three relevant aspects of WP:NOT are: WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.  The mention that this is a "pay-per-view" future event IMO fails WP:NOT.  Listing UFC 147 as a "previousevent" cannot be WP:V sourced given that UFC 147 has yet to occur.  To be timeless, the material would need to use wording like, "As of 9 June 2012, the event was scheduled for the "MGM Grand Garden Arena.^[citation] According to a blog written on 1 June 2012 on ESPN,^[citation] "Franklin isn’t buried in the stacked UFC 148 deck. He’ll be fighting in his first main event since UFC 115".  Uhh, the "stacked UFC 148 deck"?  What happened to that analysis in the draft article?  And why does the ESPN citation not clearly mark that this is a blog?  (As per the title bar, the title is "Company man Franklin answers call again. Mixed Martial Arts Blog. ESPN".)  IMO, most or too much of this draft is newspaper-routine future-event promotion, with no timeless value, and violates WP:NOT.  IMO, in order to gain the perspective of time, this article should not be re-created before two weeks after 7 July 2012.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are completely misrepresenting WP:NOTCRYSTAL. UFC 148 does NOT fail WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The very first paragraph of WP:NOTCRYSTAL states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." In addition to that, it goes on to state: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

So there are a few points I'd like to make now knowing this information. Let's run down the list and see if UFC 148 qualifies.

1. This anticipated event IS verifiable, and the subject matter IS of sufficiently wide interest. That is evidenced not only by the massive page views of UFC event articles leading up to an event, and not only is the middleweight world championship fight and the interim bantamweight championship of the world on the UFC 148 card, but it is also one of, if not the biggest UFC event of the year. In addition to that, it has received plenty of independent coverage from sources such as USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Las Vegas Sun, ESPN, and plenty more. For an event to receive independent coverage for something over a month away clearly shows there is sufficiently wide-interest and it also shows notability.

2. I have included reported discussion and argumetns about the prospects for success of the event. "It is one of the most anticipated matches in UFC history". "The previous fight of this rematch won the fight of the year". "Ortiz/Griffin one of the most anticipated rubber matches". Etc. I can find even more and attribute them to specific people as quotes, if that would help.

3. The event is clearly notable and is almost certain to take place. I don't think it is a question as to whether or not this event will take place. Preparation is already in progress, and any speculation is well documented.

So there is really no reason that this event should not be included, as it clearly passes WP:NOTCRYSTAL. WP:NOTCRYSTAL was not really talking about future events not being notable. It was talking about WHICH future events ARE notable. And UFC 148 clearly passes based on those guidelines. Gamezero05 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all.  You're first of all responding to an argument I didn't make.  Next, WP:NOT is about what Wikipedia is not, and it does not replace WP:N for what Wikipedia is.  If we allow Wikipedia to be used for pre-event promotions, of which this draft has that appearance, we'll be distracted from our goal of creating an encyclopedia.  There is no deadline at Wikipedia, and the thing to do here is to wait until a couple of weeks after the event, and then there is no need for the current protracted discussion.  Is there a purpose to having this article on Wikipedia before the event?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I responded to the argument you made. You said that UFC 148 fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I proved that that is incorrect. UFC 148 does NOT fail WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It doesn't matter that "you don't like it" as your reasoning for not wanting this article as part of the encyclopedia. I demonstrated through policy that an article like UFC 148 is absolutely acceptable under the rules. Gamezero05 16:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble explaining how this draft should not be considered as promotion?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is not promotion. Here, let's run down WP:NOTPROMOTION, and I'll prove it. It says content on Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

2. Opinion pieces.

3. Scandal mongering.

4. Self-promotion.

5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.

So, for #1, UFC 148 has nothing to do with advocacy, propaganda or recruitment. The article is reported from an objective point of view, so it passes regardless. #2,#3, and #4 don't even apply. With #5, the article is written in an objective style from a neutral point of view. It is simply the background information for the event, much like there is background information for a video game like Call of Duty: Black Ops II, which will be released 6 months from now. There is really no reason why the biggest UFC event of the year (UFC 148) shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Gamezero05 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now its "the biggest UFC event of the year"?  I checked the draft and that point is not mentioned there.  Call of Duty: Black Ops II is an interesting example, but I know from personal knowledge that this topic has jumped into the mainstream media.  A Google news search shows hundreds of articles, many within the past week.  WP:NOTPROMOTION says, "Wikipedia is not a...vehicle for...advertising... This applies to articles..."  It also says, "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."  Arguing that "There is really no reason...<the topic> shouldn't have a stand-alone article" is misdirection, since we are not discussing here whether or not there should be a stand-alone article.  The issue is whether we should have a pre-event stand-alone article filled with newspaper-routine future-event promotion, with a scheduled obsolescence date.  There is no deadline at Wikipedia, we just need to wait three-five weeks, and this problem will be solved.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UFC 148 article is not a vehicle for advertising. It is simply stating facts about the event using secondary sources to do so. And the fact that this championship REMATCH is 2 years in the making means that there is a lot of information as to what happened in those two years. There has been a LOT written about this fight in those two years leading up to now. As I showed with games like Call of Duty: Black Ops II, it is quite common to have articles before something is available. It is not against WP policy to do so. If it is notable before it is available or before the actual event has happened, then it deserves a place in article space at that point in time. And UFC 148 is clearly already notable due to the independent secondary sources available months before the event, and articles talking about the anticipated rematch dating back to 2 years ago. Gamezero05 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit draft to move to article space This is a huge event and should be given an opportunity to have its article built up to quality status. What exactly is the cost of allowing a few weeks for editors to build the article for this event? Why does it have to be shut down before it can even be beefed up?I remember halloween (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit draft move to article space Huge event covered by many media outlets deserves its own space to not clutter up the rest of the 2012 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.196 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation. Nothing wrong with the original result, but the sources in the draft go far enough beyond the trivial WP:ROUTINE-type announcements that I basically agree with Uzma on this. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a month and see what happens - Mostly per Unscintillating above. I don't feel as if the non-MMA sources in the draft article are much more than routine coverage of an anticipated event, discussing routine things like venue changes, event changes, injuries, etc. My vote is to wait for the actual event to happen (in less than a month), and then decide what to do. Full disclosure: I was the closing admin on the original AfD, but that shouldn't make much of a difference in this case. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What is routine? The way you are describing "routine" means that hardly anything would pass your requirement. Not even the Super Bowl since the Super Bowl happens every single year and has the same "routine" coverage it always has. The things discussed are who might win, talk about their seasons, injury reports, etc. It's always the same. What you are basically saying is that only "one-time" events can pass your definition of "routine". Gamezero05 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Is your argument that UFC 148 is receiving an equivalent level of coverage to Super Bowl XLVII? -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is that based on your definition of "routine", all Super Bowls are also "routine". Gamezero05 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But having just clicked on the link for the NEXT Super Bowl, I'd say there is a lot more information about UFC 148 compared to Super Bowl XLVII. That article is basically only talking about how New Orleans was selected as the host city. UFC 148 is one of, if not the biggest UFC event of the year. The UFC Fan Expo is also taking place in Vegas for the weekend of the fight. It is a big event for MMA. Gamezero05 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Superbowl article only contains information that is actually notable. It is restricted to facts that will not become any less notable over time, like the record advertisement pricing, the fact that GM won't be advertising because of high prices, setting the record for most Superbowls in a metro area, the fact that holiday schedules are being modified to accomodate it, etc. The UFC 148 draft article only talks about routine things like schedule conflicts, who's fighting who, when the last time was that they fought and the result, who is injured and can't fight, which fights are "long-awaited", etc. This is the difference between a fancruft event announcement article and an actual encyclopedia article on a notable topic. Regardless, this is devolving into an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which isn't helpful. My opinion is that this article should remain a redirect, and that we should reevaluate the topic after the event takes place to see if anything has changed with the notability of the event. I have my opinion, you have yours. It doesn't sound like we're going to change each other's minds, so I'm probably not going to continue to try. -Scottywong| confer _ 18:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you find the Super Bowl article notable because they list 3 facts? The planned price a commercial may cost, possible changes in holiday schedule, and that New Orleans will host the Super Bowl the most times? Come on... I'm sure even you know you are reaching. So should I go try and find some mundane facts about UFC 148? Gamezero05 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when did I say the Superbowl was notable because its article lists exactly 3 facts? I'm confused. The problem is that you've already found too many mundane facts about UFC 148, because those are the only type of facts that exist about it at this point. The fact that the commercials that will be aired during the next Superbowl might be the most expensive commercials of all time is not what I would consider to be a mundane fact. The notability of an event is not determined by the quantity of facts you can say about it, but the quality of those facts. Is UFC 148 expected to break any records for anything? I'm not saying that that's a requirement, but I think that trying to compare a run-of-the-mill UFC event (the 17th such event of this year, and it's only June) to the most-watched sporting event in American history is what I would call "reaching". -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the next Super Bowl been watched yet? The answer is no. So how can you call it the most watched event? Secondly, how important is the most expensive commercial really? Plus, you said yourself that it is not a requirement to break records for something to be notable. But in fact, yes, there is talk of the headlining fight of UFC 148 being the biggest and/or most anticipated fight IN UFC HISTORY. Here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/silva-vs-sonnen-ii-most-151442087--mma.html The article states " at UFC 148, are we poised to see the greatest rivalry in UFC history finally come to a close? Mike Roberts of MMA Inc. believes this fight will definitely be one for the books. “I believe it is. I don't know if it's the biggest fight in UFC history, but I do believe it's the most anticipated fight in UFC history. The only one that I could rival to that would be the first Chuck Liddell/Tito Ortiz fight,” Roberts told MMAWeekly Radio. “I believe this one's going to surpass that by attendance and pay-per-view buys.” The stage is set for Silva vs. Sonnen II to be one of the biggest pay-per-views of the year, and there's no doubt it's one of the most hotly contested rematches in history." The fact that you don't realize how big this fight is shows to me that you are ignorant of the sport, and makes me question how you can judge if it is notable or not. P.S... this is the 7th UFC pay-per-view event of the year (their big shows). Events like UFC on Fuel TV, UFC on FOX, or UFC on FX are the more run-of-the-mill events. Gamezero05 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you not see that quotes by "Mike Roberts of MMA Inc." are the opposite of independent? What do you think Mike Roberts of MMA Inc. would say when you ask him if this event (which presumably is going to make him a lot of money) is going to be popular? Do you think he'd say, "Meh, it'll probably be pretty mediocre." And being the "most anticipated" fight is not breaking a record. There is no way to quantitatively measure anticipation. I may be ignorant of MMA (which doesn't disqualify my opinions, btw), but this discussion is going nowhere because you are clearly ignorant of the way Wikipedia works (and unwilling to listen/learn). So, I will concede to you the last word. Enjoy it. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about an independent source like the Las Vegas Sun? The writer of the article, Case Keefer, states, "Despite recent rumors to the contrary, injuries have not affected UFC 148's middleweight championship main event. The most anticipated rematch in UFC history, Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen II, is still on." http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/09/ufc-148-las-vegas-loses-title-fight-between-urijah/ Or Los Angeles Times/Bleacher Report: "At UFC 148, in one of the most anticipated fights in MMA history, Anderson Silva and Chael Sonnen will go head-to-head in a grudge match for the ages." http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1213026-ufc-148-why-you-should-support-anderson-silva Or how about a really independent and random source like Breitbart TV... writer Arlen Delgado reviews the Anderson Silva documentary "Like Water" and talks about upcoming events: "The two will face off again next month at UFC 148, hence the aptly timed documentary release date. As if this rematch were not already one of the most anticipated events in combat sport's history, "Like Water" bumps up the excitement and interest level even further." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/03/like-water-movie-review How about Sports Illustrated? They are pretty independent. Loretta Hunt states, "It's five weeks out from the biggest fight of the summer and you can almost see Chael Sonnen pacing his Oregon living room, scribbling down snarky one-liners about UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/loretta_hunt/06/05/anderson.silva/index.html#ixzz1xX5jqg19 It seems everybody is calling this the most anticipated rematch, one of the most anticipated fights, and/or biggest fights. One writer even called it one of the most anticipated events in combat sport's history... that includes boxing and everything. It appears you don't want to see it as such. And I attribute that to the fact that you are ignorant of the sport and don't try to listen/learn anything about it. If you did try to learn, you would realize that this event is certainly notable already. Gamezero05 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Gamezero is cleaning house in this argument.I remember halloween (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis of the sources posted in the previous post:
  • Our Bleacher Report article shows a criticism about the media, "I worry that good writers there just get lumped in with the bad ones…and it’s hard as a casual reader to really tell the difference.  Nedu Obi as per the red link is not recognized by Wikipedia as a wp:notable author.  The sentence quoted is the only sentence in the article about UFC 148, this is a bare mention that would allow at most one sentence to be written about UFC 148, even if the source or author is deemed reliable.  And in that case the sentence would fail WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.
  • The Las Vegas Sun article calls the event a "promotion", which provides a source to document that we have a WP:NOTPROMOTION issue.  It fosters the idea that the Las Vegas Sun will have an "anticipated" report after July 7.  The article headline draws attention to the fact that the fifth and last sentence of the lede of the draft article will never have happened, "The co-main event features a bantamweight battle between #2 ranked Ultimate Fighter: Live coach Urijah Faber, and #3 ranked contender Renan Barão for the Interim Bantamweight Championship.[2]".  And careful reading of the article explains that this is because UFC 148 is being reduced to support UFC 149 in Calgary.  Hardly a ringing endorsement for the notability of either event, the promoters they are just trying to provide entertainment, the show must go on, just like the previous sixteen this year.  This is the only article here that is more than a passing mention for UFC 148, more like three passing mentions, with some added negative attention by being slighted in favor of UFC 149, and throw in some "in depth" for the Sun tracking three otherwise unrelated card changes.  Back to the question of, is there anything in this article that is not WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and IMO the answer is no.  For example, the world at large over a period of time will not care that the Faber-Barao fight was moved two weeks, this is WP:ROUTINE news and an example of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT.
  • The www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/03/like-water-movie-review movie review is...a movie review.  Yes, it mentions UFC 148 twice.  This is borderline trivial, you can write one sentence about UFC 148 from this article.  And the sentence that you can write, "As of June 5, 2012 Silva vs. Sonnen iswas scheduled July 7 at UFC 148" fails WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.
  • Los Angeles Times. This is listed as a reference, but it isn't linked to anything.
  • Sports Illustrated. Interestingly, this author defines the issue in terms of our WP:N guideline.  Here is the only sentence in the article about UFC 148, "There's little doubt that Sonnen's relentless self-promotional antics will earn him the lion's share of attention leading up to his rematch with Silva at UFC 148 on July 7 in Las Vegas."  That which is getting the "lion's share" of attention is a fighter, not the event.  Notability is not inherited.  This UFC 148 mention itself is in passing.  Like previous articles, there is only enough wp:notability about the event to write one sentence, and the one sentence that could be written fails WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points I'd like to make.

1. I only used those sources here to show what writers are saying about UFC 148. You cannot deny that they are calling it the biggest rematch in UFC history, the most anticipated fight in UFC history, and even the biggest fight in combat sports history. That is a fact that writers have said that. I am not using those sources in the article, so it doesn't matter that those things are mentioned in passing. It was only to show you HERE that it is a notable event.

2. You are saying an article referred to the event as a "promotion", and therefore it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. I'm sorry, but this shows how ignorant you are on the sport. UFC, as in the company, is referred to as a "promotion". That is what it is called because they are in the business of making and promoting fights. In boxing, there are promotion companies like Golden Boy, Top Rank, Mayweather Promotions, etc. That has NOTHING to do with WP:NOTPROMOTION. It is ridiculous that you would event make a connection like that. Gamezero05 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  What has anyone said about UFC 148 that is worth saying before the event?  What is the parking plan?  Have they hired off-duty policemen?  Who is singing the national anthem?  What price is being paid for the Las Vegas venue?  How far are people going to drive to get there?  Who are the decision makers behind the scenes?  Was it hard to convince the fighters on the card to compete?  Are the fighters being ground into poverty by ruthless promoters, or is the fighter's union so strong that the beleaguered promoters are about to throw in the towel?

Or is this event getting the local attention like that that went to the Nevada State High School Boys and Girls Swimming and Diving Championships, "LAS VEGAS, Nevada, May 22. EIGHT state records fell during the Nevada State High School Swimming and Diving Championships, which were held May 19 in Las Vegas.ref.

The encyclopedia doesn't care about hype, it is ephemeral and fails WP:NOT.  The encyclopedia doesn't like promotion, we are volunteers after all.  This article can wait for three to five weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to reduce the significance to ridiculous proportions is one big logical fallacy. And I have already proven to you that UFC 148 passes WP:NOT. I took it sentence by sentence and made it easy for you. You can say it fails all you want, but I already proved that it does not. Gamezero05 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A quote above states, "You cannot deny that they are calling it...the biggest fight in combat sports history."  It appears that "they" in this case is not a writer, but a 27-11 UFC fighter, one with a felon conviction, a suspension for drug use, accused of false testimony by a senior sports official, and also known with "Sonnen trash talked during the build up to the fight".  Also, the current trash talk was making the point that it didn't matter that the fight was being moved from Brazil, and UFC 148 was only mentioned by date.  Ref: “We will be the biggest sporting event in the history of combat,” Sonnen said., ref.  Summary: trash talk is not a reliable source.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The "they" I was referring to was the writer from Breitbart.com, Arlen Delgado. How you got Chael Sonnen from that, I have no idea. And even though this next point is unrelated, I'll bite. You're trying to make him out as some kind of "thug" by saying he is a convicted felon, was suspended for drug use, supplying false testimony, etc. He was a real estate agent, and during the sale of a house he sent a $60,000 kickback to a homebuyer. His punishment was 2 years probation and a fine. That suspension for drug use wasn't a suspension for drug use at all. He was prescribed testosterone replacement therapy by his doctor because of low testosterone. He didn't PROPERLY disclose this information to the athletic commission and they busted him for it. He told them and made them aware that he was on TRT before the fight, but he did not file the proper paperwork. So it was a disclosure issue. That is why his suspension (which would normally be 1 year for a drug offense) was only 6 months... 6 months is basically nothing seeing as fighters normally take at least 4 months between fights. But really, all that is irrelevant. I just thought you should get your facts straight. Gamezero05 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit draft move to article space Under WP:SPORTSEVENT UFC 148 is "determining the champion of a top league" and was wrongfully deleted. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit draft move to article space Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event will determine the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' LOLOLOL this event not having it's own article. Such fail on the whole mma front from the wiki admins. Bigdottawa (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just about any source, no matter how reliable or indepth is considered "routine". The argument has lost all meaning. Portillo (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Went through the sources. They seem on the light side. That said, [40] appears to be a reliable (if darn specialized) source and some of the others are too. I'm not seeing a promotional problem here. Editorially I'd prefer we go with the list article for now and break this out after the event occurs (and we have something to actually write about). Either call is perfectly reasonable but I'd lean toward move to mainspace as it meets WP:N now and it will be a solid article in a month. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about "incubate" until seven days after the event?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed. There will be coverage and the coverage thus far (before the event) means that it _will_ have sustained coverage. I'd have preferred the article be created after the event, but I feel an article now meets our inclusion guidelines (just not how I'd handle it). So I'm okay with the outcome you suggest, but don't think the guidelines require it and so DRV/AfD really shouldn't be controlling here. It's an editorial decision where the outcome you suggest (effectively keeping it merged for now) belongs on the talk page rather than DRV. Hope that made sense. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this even still up for debate? This is way more clear cut than the AfDs that we saw for the 2012 in UFC events and that got Speedy Keeped in like 30 minutes every single time. The level of bias amongst the admins that I see is absolutely absurd.I remember halloween (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trout (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)