Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September

Pizza cheese (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper keep close, discussion should have been closed as "merge" or "no consensus", or relisted. Closing admin ignored the concerns of a large number of editors who voted "Merge" pbp 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin certainly did not ignore the concerns of those who voted "merge", but specifically addressed them in the closing rationale. And, anyway, if merging is desired it can still be discussed on the article talk page, as the admin-only deletion tool is not required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, his rationale amounted to admitting to disregarding the half of the participants who voted merge. Merge/Delete/Redirect votes and Keep votes were split right down the middle. Therefore, it should have been closed as "No consensus" or "relisted" pbp 19:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't endorse but do nothing - should've been closed as NC but equally clearly there wasn't a consensus to Keep, Delete, Redirect or Merge. Therefore why on earth is this DRV here? What's the point? It's not going to be deleted so why bother launching a DRV to change Keep to NC? Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, brother, relisting. When you have a situation like this, you relist pbp 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, relisting should not be done if there has been decent participation and policy-based arguments. See WP:RELIST for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't endorse - The closing admin missed the discussion basically breaking down and debunking the additions that NA1K added, the supporting "sources" were not, in fact, about the subject of the article. The information added to the article were only links to items that contained the words "pizza" and "cheese" in them. They do not establish notability of the subject, in fact in every instance the sources are about the commercial manufacture of mozzarella, cheese analogues or processed cheese products or FDA/USDA definitions about frozen pizza. Further, reading through the responses of the editors who participated in the discussion you will see that the consensus was not to keep but to delete or merge – 6 for keep, 1 questionable for keep, and 10 for merge/delete. The basic outcome was that the majority of the contributors felt the article was not worthy of keeping, because of that we at least need a re-list. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging involves keeping both content and article history, so merge opinions can't be lumped in with deletes. The decision at AfD is whether an article and its history should be deleted or not, and the consensus was clearly against deletion. The content can still be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge are also distinct. See the comparison table at WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading the Afd, there seems to be a clear consensus not to delete. Not much of a consensus about whether it should be kept or merged. So endorse with the caveat that a merge discussion should be allowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge/redirect Wily did not even touch on the fact that many of those sources were just using the term "pizza cheese" to mean mozzarella or other cheeses that already have articles. Honestly, I find the whole tone of the close a bit tendentious with comments such as claiming the merge/redirect votes "ignore the fundamental facts of the discussion" (plainly false as several editors addressed the question of whether the sources pointed to independent notability) and generally being snarkily dismissive of the merge/redirect votes. The arguments for keeping it as an independent article were not very good at all. We also had serious canvassing issues with its listing at the ARS page and that, predictably, resulted in five ARS members jumping in to support North with keep votes. Only one of the editors voting keep was not an ARS member. Given the extent to which partisan canvassing corrupted the efforts to establish consensus, we should give the crescendo of keep votes considerably less weight than the wide variety of votes for redirecting or merging.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There were sufficient sources shown that discuss the cheese on pizzas separately from the pizzas, but collectively rather than as individual cheeses. If the ARS people found them, this shows they're doing a good job, because finding references for articles is one of the best things anyone can do here, and is the most helpful response to a challenge about notability. The only possible change would be to non-consensus, and that makes little practical difference. Overturning to merge / delete , on the other hand, is not supported by anything like consensus. There can be another AfD in a reasonable time, but I think it would fail, because the net result will be finding yet more sources. So far, I think we've just looked in English sources, but sources in any language are equally relevant to notability , and, although we found some professional sources, we haven't yet followed them up to see what others they list. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not a vote so eight redirect/merge votes to seven keep votes does not mean anything in and of itself. An overturn to redirect/merge would be perfectly within reason and justified when faced with a discussion that has been distorted by partisan canvassing or any discussion where the main position has been thoroughly refuted. They did not offer anything valuable in terms of sourcing as it was just indiscriminate source-bombing for effect, which is a time-honored tactic of some of these ARS members. If you read the discussion you would see that a number of the sources were challenged because they were not really treating pizza cheese as an independent subject such as sources using it essentially to mean a variation of mozzarella or just talking about what kind of cheese people put on pizza. Quite a few editors noted this and Wily completely ignored that and acted like those of us raising such objections weren't directly refuting the claims about sourcing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kindly assume good faith and stop insulting the ARS when you don't get your way. Your accusations are ridiculous. Reliable sources were found that provided significant coverage of the topic, thus providing it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of partisan canvassing, this discussion is being linked to from Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice about this discussion at a WikiProject where the article was previously listed. It's not canvassing, it's a communicative notification. Period. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is for articles requiring improvement, not notifying people about ongoing discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note within my comment there, "The article may be relisted at AfD, or renominated, so improvements to the article would be conducive to retention of this article about this notable topic." Please stop wikilawyering and taking posts entirely out-of-context. Simple communication on the internet is certainly not canvassing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge/redirect as there was no consensus to keep. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD isn't a count. Its based on the strength of arguments. Look at where Northamerica1000 added in the section "Comment – More sources:". Those sources clearly establish that it meets the WP:GNG. pbp then states that "Remember, passing GNG ≠ automatically keep the article." So it seems to be a case of "I don't like it". Dream Focus 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bud, but meeting GNG doesn't preclude mergers or redirects pbp 00:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to either relist or merge/delete (I could live with either one). I expressed my concerns to the closing admin here and here about the tone of his close and asking him to provide more detail about his reasons for discounting delete/merge votes. His response was fairly vague and unsatisfying, and absent some more explanatory detail, it does indeed appear to me to be something resembling a supervote of the "Well, I think the sources are fine!" variety. I also echo TDA's comment that most of the keep votes seem to have been a result of an ARS "throw a bunch of vaguely-related sources against the wall and see what sticks" push, rather than a presentation of relevant sources, and that the closer does not seem to have taken into account that many of the listed "sources" weren't applicable (as noted by other commenters in the AfD). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I actually took the opportunity to look over those 16 sources North first dumped in the AfD and found that all the ones I could read just involved instances where the term appeared, at times under completely trivial circumstances that did not treat it as an actual subject.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too looked at NA1K's dumped sources and found most to be unrelated to the article. The common factor with all of them is that they used "pizza cheese" in the title of the article. Once you got into the body of them, the term never reappeared. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided initial sources, and then after performing significant research, which takes time, posted more research articles that are very specific to the topic. In the future, I'll focus on provision of the latter, rather than the former. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Merge: Concerns about the extremely poor quality of sources provided by North were not taken into account. A tactic frequently used by this user and other ARS members is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. They dredge up a long list of completely irrelevant or extremely low quality sources found by Googling without bothering to examine them and claim that the article is well sources, dishonestly shifting the burden of sifting through the sources. There are major canvassing and vote-stacking concerns with five ARS members being among the six votes to keep. This has unfortunately become a pattern, and it is very difficult for me to assume good faith after I've seen it done time and time again. The closing administrator got bamboozled by a cheap ARS tactic, as is, unfortunately, so often the case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources I provided at the article's AfD discussion were properly evaluated prior to posting and also in the disucssion. Have you read the sources I provided in the AfD discussion, particularly the latter ones in my later comment? This doesn't appear to be the case. How are sources directly about a topic, and comprised of significant coverage about it "extremely poor quality?" I think you're absolutely incorrect in your assessment here. Furthermore, a source evaluation discussion is occurring on the article's talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fairly late in this discussion (maybe?) to comment, but XfDs are discussions, which means that quality of argument matters to some extent. While in the limit between "passing mention" and "in depth coverage", an argument that dismissed numerous newspaper articles, multi-page book discussions, numerous scholarly articles, etc. as passing mentions or not on the subject can't be taken seriously - they not subjective judgements, they're patently ridiculous statements - how can one make sense of an argument that labels [1] or [2] as trivial mentions of Pizza cheese in passing? If we held articles to this standard, every single article we have would fail WP:N - going so far away from precendent and policy that a close other than Keep would've required an explicit invocation of IAR requires a compelling case - nothing remotely like that appears that I saw. What I say was people who took a good look at the article, policy, and sources supporting "Keep", and people who were clearly unfamiliar with the sources arguing for a merge, as AGF-y as I could figure because they were sloppy and merely assumed the sources would be trivial mentions. A well thought out argument against a hastily assumed argument that doesn't jive with the facts - the former has to carry the discussion (even with only a small plurality of the numbers). WilyD 07:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to disagree with you summary of the discussion. If you really read my post in the discussion, you would have seen that I took each one of the dumped sources and dissected them to show how they were not appropriate for inclusion. I did in fact read those articles that could be read and found that all were actually just using the term pizza cheese as a synonym. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you're operating on the assumption that having sources justifies a whole article unto itself. That is clearly not the case pbp 16:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't endorse the closure but Keep the article as per a "No consensus" close. There was clear indication from the arguments that strong disagreement arose from whether or not the sources provided contained significant coverage of the article's subject. Also, past precent has shown that improving an article mid AfD that makes the earlier !votes questionable if taken out of context results in a NC (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bielby (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Morgan (2nd nomination)) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – in part per User:WilyD's convincing argument above, and also because several of the sources, particularly research sources, use the term "pizza cheese" directly, and then afterward just use the word "cheese", because it's unnecessary to use the full noun-phrase repeatedly thereafter when the specific context of pizza cheese has already been stated. A discussion about sources for the article is occurring on the article's talk page here, if anyone's interested in contributing to their evaluation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I exactly agree with Black Kite (minus the facepalm which is a bit too dismissive for my taste).—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As I worked on my post to that AfD, it was closed! (unbeknownst to me). It turns out, I was 15 minutes late and IARed posted after receiving the edit conflict notice because of the amount of time I spent on preparing my iVote.[3] That post was removed from the AfD along with another one by another editor (rightly so).[4] Although it's not needed to endorse the keep close, feel free to count this as significant new information has come to light since a deletion:

  Obviously meets WP:GNG. Manufactures are going to make cheese specifically for one of the worlds most popular foods and reliable sources are going to write about it: e.g., Glanbia forges (pounds) 30m alliance with US cheese group Plan is to expand further into lucrative EU pizza cheese market (Irish Times August 12, 2000), Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese (Australian Journal of Dairy Technology April 30, 2001), Whey proteins and pizza cheese (Dairy Industries International September 30, 2001); Formidable fortunes: This year it paid to be a butcher, a baker and a pizza cheese maker (National Post May 25, 2002); Pizza cheese to come from milked cats (Guardian November 2, 2007); Saputo has decided not to reopen its Vermont pizza cheese plant (Dairy Foods December 1, 2008); Chr Hansen and Novozymes develop enzyme for producing pizza cheese from whey (Chemical Business News March 9, 2009). I'm not sure why there is resistance to this topic.

  The closing admin did not ignored the concerns of editors who voted "Merge", mostly based on conclusory statements. Rather, the closing admin specifically address the merge position and concluded that they can't be construed to carry much weight. I think the close was very professional and respectful. It's not a stretch to realize that industry is going to manufacture a product specifically to get some of the billions of dollars available for such a product and they are going to pay scientists to ensure that their product stands above others. And where there is big money, you know reliable sources are going to write about the topic. I still don't see basis for resisting this topic or the article. It's not excessively promotional of a particular business, it doesn't have serious stability problems. In any event, endorse the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except no one questioned whether it met WP:GNG, but whether the subject was independently notable of other subjects that already have articles. In the instances you provide that I can actually review in detail, "pizza cheese" is being used to describe mozzarella. This is the very argument noted in the AfD that Wily did not address.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I found a reason for some resistance to the topic. One inventor suggested that, at least in 2002, U.S. standards didn't allow the use of bulk fluid milk, such as milk protein concentrates (MPCs), in any product called mozzarella cheese. Apparently, this may have "led many processors to circumvent these standards of identity and labeling requirements [e.g., producing "pizza cheese" (for which no specific standard of identity exists] instead of mozzarella cheese)."[5] That doesn't mean we should not have an article on the topic. Rather, that means there is additional information for the Wikipedia article. In any event, the guy was wrong as the U.S. Department of Agriculture has had a pizza cheese standard out since at least 1993.[6] Likely, other governments regulate what can be ideitified as pizza cheese and that information can be added to the pizza cheese article as well.
  If the merge positions put in a little effort, they would have suggested merging into pasta filata, the technique commonly used to make pizza cheese, rather than into pizza. Mozzarella would have even been a better choice than the pizza merge suggestion. If an editor doesn't put much effort behind their iVote, why should that editor expect the closer to give weight to that iVote beyond the effort put into it?
  A search of journalofdairyscience.org for "pizza cheese" and come up with some sources. A search of Google Patents,[7] shows that many inventors feel the topic is a valid topic and, due to these patents citing reliable sources, leads to additional reliable sources for the topic:

• Breene, W.M. (November 1964). "Mozzarella and Pizza cheese". Journal of Dairy Science. 47 (11). Elsevier Inc: 1173–1180. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(64)88877-9. ISSN 0022-0302. OCLC 1800266.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• Ernstrom, C. A. (1965). "Mechanized Pizza Cheese Making". Manufactured Milk Products Journal. 57 (7). Miller Publishing Company: 7–8. OCLC 1756660.
• The following seems to be a popular reference: Kindstedt, Paul S. (1999). "Manufacture of Pizza Cheese Without Starter". Cheese: Chemistry, Physics & Microbiology. 2: Major Cheese groups (second ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology: 337–341. Retrieved 29 September 2012.

This patent, while not a Wikipedia reliable source (no publication of corrections of fact procedure), gives some great information on features to look for when evaluating pizza cheese: turn brown when heated? whiteness color? chewiness when young and after, e.g. 30 minutes? amount of ‘oiling off’ when heated? level of homogeneous? amount of flow? amount of blisters when heated? length of shreds and quantity of Fines when shredded? These are features that are unique to pizza cheese and shows that this topic is distinguishable from pasta filata, pizza, mozzarella, and other topics. It defies logic to look at the significant amount of reliable source material specifically addressing "pizza cheese", agree that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article under WP:GNG, but still question whether reliable sources establish that the topic has independent notability of other topic that already have Wikipedia articles. That is why I posted above that the close's response to arguments like this was very professional and respectful. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The resistance is based on all of this information being easily included elsewhere. Instances where pizza cheese means "low moisture mozzarella" would obviously fit on the mozzarella article. Instances where it is referring to "analogue pizza cheese" it can be easily fitted onto the cheese analogue article. Instances such as those above where it focuses on how cheese can be best designed for pizza fits easily onto the pizza article. All of the articles I mentioned could do with some considerable expansion and reworking that would ultimately leave any article on pizza cheese as nothing other than a reproduction of content on other articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Uzma Gamal that the arguments here defy logic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. If even a "no consensus" would have probably reflected more accurately the numbers of the afd, a "no consensus" outcome results in keeping the article, so I don't see a great problem here. Cavarrone (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally it's accepted that NC closes allow for a shorter period between renominations than keep closures, but yes, that is an odd thing to go to DRV over. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing I concur with Black Kite. MBisanz ^talk 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge- I agree with Dominus Vobisdu about the general crappiness of the sources. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a keep outcome at AfD is not a preclusion to a merger discussion, but since a "merge" !vote at AfD is not a delete !vote, and isn't as opposed to a keep !vote as one, so reading a mix of keep and merge !votes as keep is appropriate unless the merge's are numerically overwhelming. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Endorse  As the closer said, there are comments that "seem to ignore the fundamental facts of the discussion."  However, the closer could have done more to explicitly address some specific issues.  The first of these deficiencies was to not reflect on the statement, "Nomination is completely invalid, the lack of sourcing since December 2009 has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable."  The second is that the !vote that stated "Delete and merge" should have been specifically linked in the closing to WP:MAD.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome, though I would have closed as no consenus myself. No consensus means keep by default and some admins close that way from time to time. But editors suggesting there was a consensus to redirect or merge? HAHAHA.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not a vote, though the tendency to treat it as such is why canvassing by groups such as the ARS is a problem. It is about looking at the quality of arguments and in this case, the argument for an independent article was not compelling enough when contrasted with the argument for a merge/redirect. The problem is Wily does not appear to have adequately evaluated the evidence, relying mostly on the presence of sources and flippantly dismissing the arguments for why those sources were not sufficient to justify an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully concur with DA, the sources added were problematic as very few were about the subject. As I have pointed out, I looked at them and found the majority were not about the subject of the article and in some case they only link was the term was used in the title. I posted this out in the discussion with a point to point rebuttal and it was completely ignored by the closing admin. Additionally, the canvassing by the ARS really was inappropriate and those votes tilted the discussion unfairly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you guys love me, because you so slavishly feel a need to respond. If you couldn't convince Tarc to vote delete, you should turn in your badges. If you don't like the close, became admins yourselves and fix the world.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except I wasn't trying to convince anyone to vote delete, seeing as I was pushing for a merge or redirect. Your battleground interpretation is not a valid reason for dismissing such an argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you cannot dismiss my mega-stature so easily, my ego will not allow it. The overwhelming majority of the time, I prefer to delete things, but not only delete but grind into the dirt the very idea of what's being deleted; youtube tartlets, news-of-the-wierd, TMZ sensations, etc... So when an Evil Deletionist actually calls to keep something, not too toot my own horn too much, but its probably is worth keeping. See also the DGG Corollary; if he calls to delete, it's usually a good idea. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was a choice of merge/redirect or keep and you are talking about deletion. That right there demonstrates why your opinion has little meaning here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save your WP:DICK shtick for someone who will actually be impressed by it. Dude. There was no support for a merge, redirect, or delete. Only keep. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no support for a merge, redirect, or delete". Um, more than half the participants in the discussion voted for merge, redirect or delete. So, Tarc, there kinda was support for merge, redirect, or delete pbp 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, those votes were based on claims that the sourcing was insufficient, claims that were then shown to be unsubstantiated by those who went out and properly sourced the article. So in effect, those votes were discarded. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's inaccurate, because even a sourced article can be merged, and plus, you shouldn't have called Devil's Advocate a dick pbp 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't inaccurate. If an article satisfies the project's notability guidelines...while being mindful of other policies on BLPs, coatracks, forks, and such...then there's no valid reason that can be given to merge. And I didn't call anyone a dick; I described someone's behavior that could be reasonably construed as dick-like. There's a difference. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, there are a whole lot of reasons for merging/redirecting an article to another. Being able to find sources is meaningless if the article is just rehashing another subject that already has an article with plenty of room for expansion. Not a single editor pushing for keep explained how this information would be handled better in an independent article than in the article on pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as being within administrative discretion (and a helpful closing rationale). The AfD nomination was on grounds of a long-term lack of referencing and, as so often happens, this got converted into a non-notability argument in an attempt to provide a guideline-based reason for deletion. Sufficient references were then artificially added to meet WP:GNG requirements which merely provide a proxy for real-world notability. These references countered the specious non-notability claims but did nothing to calm the discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admin doesn't have the right/the discretion to ignore >50% of the participants, which is what he did pbp 13:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't ignore them. He considered counter-factual arguments that no references supported notability "can't be construed to carry much weight". He also might have been bearing mind that a close of "keep" does not in any way cut across the views of those seeking "merge". Thincat (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Not round 2 of the AfD (it's about time that gets made into an essay). Tarc (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote fails to address the concerns of the DRV pbp 13:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd have to actually have/make valid concerns first, I'm afraid. It is a product that exists as supported by sources. Not a single merge/redirect/delete vote Tarc (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a product that exists is not an authoritative argument, especially when the exact product being described as "pizza cheese" varies from a low-moisture form of mozzarella, to a cheese analogue, to just any cheese that you could conceivably put on pizza. Again, this was all noted in the AfD and went completely unaddressed by the closing admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge/redirect I was wondering about this too; there were quite a few merge !votes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse I'd say "no consensus" was a better close, but keep isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I didn't understand then or now why editors were getting so excited by this and so didn't bother to join the discussion. Anyway, the close certainly did address the merge !votes and found them wanting. And I'm now wanting digital cheese on my pizza not analogue... Warden (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sources satisfy WP:GNG. Cheese is the most important ingredient in a notable food. Those wanting to delete are exhibiting close-minded lactose intolerance. CallawayRox (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge is not the same as a delete and WP:GNG does not apply to a merge consideration. It is all about demonstrating that there is significant sourcing treating it as a subject distinct from others to the point that it is best handled in an independent article. Numerous editors pointed out how the sources provided were not satisfactory for the purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pizza cheese" meets WP:GNG = Pizza cheese gets an article. CallawayRox (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with DA. That ain't what GNG means; something passing GNG can still be merged pbp 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Okay, I think we're going round in circles now. Let's all assume there really isn't any consensus (which certainly seems to be the case here), in which case the de facto action is to keep. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the goal of this DRV was only to get the decision changed to "Merge" (and more than likely, Merge + Redirect), then this is an invalid use of DRV; the proper channel would have been to start a merge discussion. I do agree on the sentiment that pizza cheese as a standalone article just meets the threshold of notability, and would be better placed in something like the mozzarella article, but it is also a searchable term and we would not likely delete the current article before creating the redirect. That said, I do think the close probably considered the de facto aspect of a decidedly mixed consensus of keeping the article, and because DRV is not AFD#2, reviewing that factor is not appropriate. The only thing I would comment on from the closer's POV is to insert "no prejudice for a merge discussion" in the comment, as merge discussions do not require admin actions. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not an invalid use of DRV if the closing decision was due to poor judgment. Wily claimed the sources provided at the AfD established sufficient independent notability to justify a separate article, but flippantly dismissed the arguments that those sources did nothing of the sort.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by the overturns and do not endorses, not to mention the "no consensus may have been better"s, this DRV is valid. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk it out somewhere else There was no consensus to delete and, while there may not have been a consensus to keep, dragging the matter here when you want either a no consensus or a merge is a waste of editor resources. A merge or redirect can be hashed out on the article's talk page. ThemFromSpace 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except an admin rejecting the merge arguments in the close makes that a tad difficult.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No it doesn't. It just means that you need to make your case in a collegiate manner outside the battlegrounds of AFD and DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus or "keep without prejudice against a merge discussion". Since the closing statement explicitly discounts the merge recommendations, I read it as keep separate. I skimmed the sources and found the research papers to be satisfactory. Merging is acceptable to consider at AfD (WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, January–February 2011), and the sources weren't outstanding enough to invalidate the merges outright. There is a consensus against deletion – the nomination and single straight delete preceded the sources – but no consensus between keep and merge. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was an AfD discussion, a merge result from an AfD is not binding.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is not final, but it's not completely worthless. I hope that no one will ignore the keep (or keep separate) result and attempt a WP:BOLD/WP:BRD redirection in the face of clear opposition. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. For a merge discussion, this is the wrong forum. A proposed merger should be discussed on the destination page's talk page, and can be proposed regardless of the close.  The Steve  04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge is just a way to delete something in cases like this, since little if any information would be merged. If it was a merge discussion on a talk page, and you couldn't even get half the people participating to agree it should be merged, then it wouldn't be. In the AFD if instead of saying "merge" they just used the word "delete", then it would've closed as no consensus to delete default to keep. Dream Focus 00:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Manga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm filing this on behalf of Super-staff (talk · contribs), due to this discussion on my user talk page. Super-staff pointed out that one of the Clone Manga webcomics has won a bronze medal at the 5th International Manga Awards, and I realised that this hadn't been discussed in the deletion discussion. Information about the award was added to the article on the 16th September, but this came after all the !votes in the discussion, and I didn't take the IMA into account in my close. Because I closed the discussion without fully being aware of the facts of the matter, I think there is a legitimate case to bring for deletion review.

Super-staff and I disagree on the implications for notability that this award has, however. On one hand, Super-staff thinks that it provides a good case for notability of Clone Manga. On the other hand, I don't think that this case is so strong that a new deletion debate would be necessary. The English page for the awards is here, and the manga in question is titled NNN. I would like the community to help us in determining whether a new deletion debate is necessary or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I'm Super-staff (talk · contribs). I had found out about the award last night and thought that, perhaps, it might meet the notability guidelines. I don't believe that the guidelines state that an award must be gold (or silver) to meet notability, therefore being a bronze (or third place) shouldn't negate its worth. With this award and the two Shuester Awards, and maybe a few other things to pad out the references section might be enough (in my opinion) to bring the article back. Please, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. ^{Super-Staff (talk · contribs)} 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general matter, (without necessarily applying to this particular article, for it's a field where I cannot judge the importance of the works or the awards) I would be prepared to consider third place as significant for really important awards. But this is not third place: from the page on the awards given above, there is 1 gold award, 3 silver, and 10 bronze. So at best it's 5th place, or somewhere between 5th & 14th. I would not consider that significant for most awards, DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The rationales of many of the delete votes was that there were no reliable sources on it, therefore failing WP: GNG and WP: WEB. I'd love to try to re-write it, but I can't find any reliable source on it. Electric Catfish (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per lack of rationale to overturn the AfD, as well as for failing GNG and WP:WEB. For what it's worth, the International Manga Awards are pretty non-notable (the most major manga awards are the Kodansha Manga Award, if anyone is curious)--and besides, Clone Manga is just the hosting site and wouldn't generally inherit notability even if the award or comic were notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The original close was blatantly defective. The closer stated clearly that there was no consensus about the significance of the Joe Shuster award. Per WP:DGFA and our customary practise, a lack of consensus means that you don't delete the article. Defaulting to delete is quite unacceptable and the new evidence further confirms that the decision was too hasty and improper. Warden (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Warden. ^{Super-Staff (talk · contribs)} 11:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creeping fascism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I wasn't following the discussion at the time, and having reviewed the discussion I certainly don't support the arguments that the page should be deleted. Creeping fascism is definitely notable in it's own right, contrary to bobraynor's statement, it labels the evolution toward Nazi Germany and labels what is happening in the West right now. A point was made that this is a neologism, which is arguable but perhaps a rationale criticism, however it appears from this that it was deleted as G3 Vandalism, which is ridiculous.

I would like the opportunity to re-edit the page to ensure that it meets the standard required for inclusion. At a minimum, I would appreciate having it restored as User:Degrey1/Creeping fascism so that I can review and re-edit it. Degrey1 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. "I disagree with the result" is not a reason to overturn it, and there is no way the AfD could have closed any other way. Having said that, I do not oppose userfication. The re-edited article would have to overcome the problems that got it deleted the first time; namely, that it conflates fascism and authoritarianism, and that things aren't automatically a source just because they contain the words "fascism" and "creeping" somewhere in the text. Reyk _YO! 22:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, can it be restored/userfied to User:Degrey1/Creeping fascism? Degrey1 (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page has been deleted based on an archived discussion PriyankaLewis (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

Hello, The page Kumar Parakala has been deleted under criterion A8 following an archived discussion. The page was previously deleted following a discussion on 23rd May 2011. We created another page complying with all the rules of wikipedia, citing proper references but the page has again been deleted by The Rambling Man. Can you please look in to it and undelete the page soon.PriyankaLewis (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

Please take care when you write here, you haven't linked the page correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned is G4 criteria for deletion but i can assure you that the previous article was written by somebody else and bears no resemblance to the present article. The page that has been deleted is completely based on an archived discussion of a previous article and should be restored/undeleted. Please let me know if there are any issues that you would need clarification on. PriyankaLewis (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

• Simple question of fact here. G4 requires that the page was substantially identical. If it was, then the deletion should be endorsed, and if it wasn't, then it should be overturned, with a side of trout. If there's any element of doubt then could someone who can see the deleted material paste a side-by-side comparison to this DRV?—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a biography of Living person and there are facts which would be similar in both the cases such as education or career outline. Now, that is something which we cannot change. However in the latest article, i can assure that all the citations and references have been properly included. The article has been written with a neutral point of view and there is not an element of promotion in there. The article did not even have a discussion or consensus before deletion. I would request Batard0 and The Rambling Man to provide the side by side comparison if they can. Regards PriyankaLewis (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

• The actual text of the article itself had been rewritten. However the concern raised at the AfD was lack of notability per WP:GNG. Almost all the sources cited in the article clearly don't meet these requirements - they were written by the subject or the organisation he works for, are obviously unreliable material such as YouTube, or contain only brief quotes from the subject (which don't constitute significant coverage). The only sources which might by any stretch of the imagination satisfy the GNG are [8] and [9]. The first of these was in the article deleted at AfD, and the second smells like a press release. From Googling the username of the person who created the article I think the article was created as some sort of promotion for the subject. Hut 8.5 10:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• After some further investigation I'm persuaded that this article was created as a promotional exercise for the subject. Someone called Priyanka Lewis has left comments praising Kumar Parakala on various social media websites: [10][11][12][13]. Here they left a comment praising a company called Webenza, a PR company which does, amongst other things, reputation management on social media. The nomination of this article at DRV says that "we created another page", suggesting they represent an organisation. Advertising is not a valid route to a Wikipedia article. Endorse. Hut 8.5 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to the fact mentioned above but my point is that the article was not created for promotional exercise. The article has a neutral point of view and complies with all the wikipedia rules and regulation. There is not an element in the whole article that advertises or promotes Kumar Parakala. Also when you mention significant coverage, not all the reference can be significant wide coverages. I have added references to prove his columnist career and others which include the facts mentioned. My request is that if you can please bring back the article I can add some more sources to it such as http://www.cxotoday.com/story/cios-need-to-be-more-assertive/ and work with wikipedia admins to make it better. Hut 8.5 Please advise. IPriyankaLewis (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

• Speedy overturn with trout. G4 is absolutely crystal clear. A lack of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Poor sourcing is not a speedy deletion criterion. Administrators are not authorised to invent their own speedy deletion criteria, or to go outside the speedy deletion criteria the community has set for them. BLP policy says "remove unsourced negative information about living people". It doesn't say "delete articles about living people that are poorly-sourced". Our role here at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it hasn't been; there's no justification for keeping this open for seven days.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Trout yourself. Reason given for deletion was not G4. It was A8. Which isn't valid. This is like battleships. I'll happily undo the deletion right now. More power to people writing articles about people at their behest!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note, the nominator here claims "the previous article was written by somebody else and bears no resemblance to the present article", so:
    • "here he worked in management roles within healthcare, professional services, manufacturing and the public sectors" deleted.
    • "where he worked under management roles within healthcare, professional services, manufacturing and the public sector" current.
  • and...
    • "Prior to his current role, Kumar Parakala was the Global Chief Operating Officer for the Global IT Advisory practice for four years at KPMG." deleted.
    • "Prior to his current role, Kumar Parakala was the Global Chief Operating Officer for the Global IT Advisory practice for four years at KPMG." current.
  • and...
    • "Kumar has also been a columnist for the “The Australian” and the “Times of India”, leading newspapers of Australia and India. [9]" deleted.
    • "Kumar is also a columnist for the “The Australian” and the “Times of India”, leading newspapers of Australia and India, respectively." current.
  • ... do we really believe that the article has been written by someone different and is completey different to the original which was deleted at the AFD linked above? Do we really? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above sentences are picked up from the references that have been linked to it. They have the exact same sentences and it was used only because of it. the third one was used because these were the two countries that he has been columnist in. You can look at the citations please. These are facts and it seemed fine to use the sentences as they were mentioned. I request you to please help me out with it. I respect wikipedia as a community and would request a little more support from the admins here. If you can please help me make the article better i would be grateful to you. Please lets just help each other out. PriyankaLewis (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

Then if you're using text from those references, it's a copyright violation which would qualify for deletion under G12. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that would require an alert message for partial infringement and not deletion. I have mentioned it before and i will mention it again, i am relatively new to wikipedia and if there is a way that you can help me make the article better by reviewing it and letting me edit it with what the problem is, i will gladly do it. Please all i ask for is assistance. I hope you will be considerate.PriyankaLewis (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

• It's right that copyright violations are deleted on sight. There would be an "alert message", but it would tell you that the material had already been deleted. However, using single phrases from the sources does not necessarily comprise a copyright violation.

  I also want to draw attention to my talk page where there's been relevant discussion.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're missing the point that the text is pretty much identical to that which was deleted at the AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what I understood from what Hut 8.5 posted. Can we have a side-by-side comparison please.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection I think I might have made a mistake when I posted that. This is the version deleted by AfD, and this is the recreation. The lead section is completely different and the sources aren't the same, but the material in the "Early life" and "Career" sections, though they have been reorganised, are substantially identical. Hut 8.5 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That, and the examples of verbatim copies I posted above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, without trout, toned down from above based on what Hut 8.5 says. I really don't think that's "substantially identical". But I can see how reasonable people might disagree.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason we have G4 is to ensure deletion discussions are actually binding and that if the community decides to delete something then it can't be overridden by a single editor's opinion. The key issue in the AfD was sources. If a recreation of a deleted article has some great new source which clearly demonstrates notability then the recreation could not possibly be speedied under G4. Nothing like that has happened here - the sources aren't very impressive. If, hypothetically, an article on a non-notable subject was endlessly recreated again and again with the same sources but completely different text each time, then I imagine the recreations would be speedied under G4. Certainly we wouldn't have another AfD every time. Hut 8.5 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New sources clearly indicate the need for a new AfD.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, so someone please AFD it again, and please consider the issues presented by the fact this is a clear COI, any undue weight should be removed, any copyvios should be removed and then we may have a stubbish article that really enriches us all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New sources that aren't clearly worthless are enough to trigger a new AfD in most cases. And COI isn't a reason to delete in general. I'd prefer listing at AfD here. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and allow any editor to renominate for AfD once restored. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that was done some time ago, and AFDed again. Perhaps someone can now close this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RussianPassport.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted without discussion in Nov 2011, my objection raised at that time was left unanswered by nominator, and ignored by the closing admin, who has now suggested me to "considering the span of time, just upload new, as if the original photo never existed" -- which doesn't make any sense, the original photo had existed since 2007, and it had existed for much longer than it had been deleted. My another account (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn, without prejudice to a fresh PUF discussion at editorial discretion, and with a {{trout}} for the closer. If he can't be bothered to re-read the two-comment, 27-word discussion (which the nominator even helpfully reproduced on his talk page!), examine the image, and figure out why he deleted it, we ought not to be required to spend a week debating it either. T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: I concur with T. Canens. If the closer can't come up with a defence of his own close, then as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn - The issue of "Which logo is copyrighted?" noted at the PUF was never resolved and user "my another account" identified CC-BY-SA-2.0 as the logo license. The unused issue noted at PUF could have been resolved by moving the image to commons or by taking no action. There was no basis in the discussion to delete the image. It would be easier to restore the image using admin tools then to locate an old copy of the image and upload it. Admins are given tools to use, not merely hang on their belt for show. I don't think we need to pile on the comments, so speedy overturn and then close this DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer seeks review of a CFD whose consensus contradicted a directly-related RFC.
There was 2:1 support at the CfD discussion for merging Category:Terms to Category:Terminology, even though that contradicted a recent RFC on the same topic.
I saw no overwhelming arguments either way, so closed it as "merge". The CFD had more participants than the RFC, but could still be viewed as WP:FORUMSHOPping. Should the forum-shopping aspect have led to a different closure? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting one. To me, the question seems to be: where an RFC and a XfD reach different conclusions, which consensus should be applied? If, as in this case, they're both recent discussions, I think that the RFC should trump the XfD.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the CfD - The RFC[14] was from 20 May 2012 to 27 June 2012 and the CfD[15] was from 24 August 2012 to 22 September 2012. The RfC was more about "you editors should do this" whereas the CfD was about "this is what is going to be done." RFC can provide consensus to change a guidline or policy, or even help some editors come to an agreement on how to go forward via cooperation for example, but Wikipedian's can make any argument they want at an XfD and that consensus controls per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am here to appeal the speedy deletion of page Bianca Jade which was deleted for the 3rd time on September 11, 2012 after it was nominated for speedy deletion. The page was recommended for speedy deletion under G4 criteria as “recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.” Under this criterion, any page can be speedily deleted if it is a “sufficiently identical and unimproved copy.” However, G4 excludes “pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version.” I have also previously discussed this with the deleting administrator and have also notified them of this current discussion.

I am here because I disagree that the revision that I submitted to the main space was substantially similar and therefore request undeletion of the page. I want to point out that I am not attempting to SPAM an article into Wikipedia as I feel that articles that do not meet notability guidelines should be deleted. The issue here is that I created a substantially “different” article than the 2nd one that was deleted after the discussion found here: [16]. I feel that the 2nd article was a victim of poor writing and sourcing and deserved to be deleted; however, I do not feel that the version that I submitted should be punished because of the 2nd version that was deleted. I would ask that you consider my comments below and undelete the page and return it to the main space or allow it to go through a 3rd deletion discussion on the merits of the 3rd draft that was submitted.

First, I have no connection to the second article. I do not know when it was created or who created it. I do know that it was deleted after the deletion discussion found here [17]. I want to point out that the second article contained way too much promotional information about her website “MizzFIT.” As it was a BLP, it should contain information about her and not the website she endorses (with the exception of minor details showing what she does or if it attaches to notability). The article clearly promoted her website and therefore I would agree with the deletion comments that it was too promotional. The article also contained poor sourcing. Some sources were broken links, some were passing mentions, while others pointed to websites that had nothing to do with her (obvious notability masking). The article was recommended for deletion and ultimately deleted based on these two major issues.

Now, the article that I submitted (which can currently be viewed in my sandbox here [18]), is substantially different than the 2nd article that was deleted. When writing the article, I started from scratch and made sure to keep out the promotional information. The article has the fluff from the 2nd article removed (which the deleting administrator also agreed that “fluff as well as the false references [were] edited/removed [19]) and also I went through and found each and every reference that is on the 3rd article. There are some minor references that I included that would not necessarily establish notability on their own; however, they support the content and the other references and actually link to REAL REFERENCES as opposed to the other version which was deleted. There may be some duplicate references from the 2nd article that I placed in the 3rd article, but that is because they are true references that support the content (not links that go all over the internet to anywhere but content about her).

Based on the information above, I would request that the article be re-listed as it did not meet the G4 criteria that it was deleted under.

Now, I would like to make a case to have it overturned completely as I feel the information that I have in the 3rd submission establishes notability for the article. I am including the exact wording as discussed with the deleting administrator.

Thank you again. I appreciate you being polite throughout this ordeal and also thank you for taking the time to look at the article again. I also understand not commenting in the other forums. I was told I was in the wrong forum for the last request so I need to take the matter to DRV. However, to follow guidelines, I need to make sure I "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."[20]. With that in mind, I only wish to point out some of the independent and reliable sources that fit the example of what you state above; and, request that you also keep in mind that the Advert part of the article (deleted pursuant to the 2nd nomination) was removed and the article re-written from NPOV (again, IMO). Naturally Fit St. Louis She was featured as one of 5 sexy role models (the article is not solely about her, but neither would be an article talking about 5 people who won a noble prize this year; The Today Show The link is to the video clip (give it time to load as it looks like a dead link but it is not); Bliss Bliss is a great reference about her as they followed her throughout an entire day of her work (includes photos and everything); Junonia They are one of the largest active wear retailers in the U.S.; Time Out New York Time Out New York is one of the sites from the Time Out Company (see their Wiki article for additional info) and the article is about her; Rate Your Burn Yes this is a blog, but in the fitness world, it is regarded as one of the best (you would need to ask around as it is difficult to know without being part of the fitness world - not saying your not in shape, but saying that you probably do not get into reading about it that much); US Weekly Again, this is not about her personally but IMO the article would fall within guidelines as it is one of the largest magazines (not just a fitness magazine so it would definitely be independent) and they bring her in as the expert on fitness and use her as the expert.

Although some of the sources are not 100% about her, they are references where she was brought on and interviewed for being an expert (such as US Weekly) in the field. I understand that notability is not inherent, but the citations still support the claim of notability (IMO). WP:SELFPUB allows her contributions on Fox Latino to be used as well (although they are not 100% about her, it is still allowable under the criteria as long as it is not self-serving - which I believe that it is not, again IMO). BLP states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." (I believe that this would apply to the entries that you state are blogs or possible do not carry as much weight as the other sources." BLP also provides that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." So, I used some of the sources that may or may not be considered heavy weight to those viewing the article, but they are at least used to support the content within the article (and used as inline citations so they are pointing at the correct content).

Finally, I am not sure which reference is a dead link (you may have looked at the old article) as each reference that I used I personally researched (and also just went through them all again and they all work). Any citation that is duplicate from the last article was used ONLY AFTER I researched it. Also, please keep in mind that although some references are from less known sources, they can still be used as a combination as a single source to establish notability. I am hoping that you do not take my ranting on and on about this article or citing of Wiki guidelines as disrespect as I know that you are an experienced Admin and already know the policies. I just want to show you how I am viewing the article as I wrote it and that I am not trying to spam an article or re-introduce an poorly written article (which the userspace article will not be restored at this time as I am hoping that you either restore it as is or restore it to RfD). Please let me know your final thoughts (I guess that is how to phrase it) so I know if I need to go to RfD to comment on the article or go to DRV with the request). Again, thank you for your time and for being nice throughout the process. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information above, I would request at minimal that the article be undeleted and relisted. However, I would request based on my comments about the notability of the article that it be overturned and that the article be returned to the main space as an article that was a “keep” vote after a deletion discussion. Again, please do not judge the 3rd revision that I submitted based on the quality of the 2nd article. Thank you in advance and I appreciate anything that can be done here. HappyTwoBEE (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU note: I strongly suspect that this editor is a paid editor (SPI). I have no opinion on topic or article, but would recommend to check notability claims and review article with regards to POV. Amalthea 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE (see note below): This is completely inappropriate. If there is a concern about my editing, then take it up in the proper location. I have already requested above that others give the article a close look. Unfortunately, your accusation here has tainted the discussion as many people are voting because of the accusation. Let’s see….Black Kite refers to me as an SPI and BrownHairedGirl says I am trying to keep a client. Can’t believe the hatred for trying to introduce a NEW and IMPROVED version of an article.

Keep deleted Even the new version looks like a huge mash-up of passing mentions, fleeting appearances and unreliable sources. I can't see anything in there which looks like she is the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. Not to mention that the SPI suggests it should not exist anyway per G5. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: If you look at the comments I left in the original request for undeletion above, you will see that I mentioned numerous sources that are independent and notable. She has extensive coverage in these resources: The Today Show, Bliss, Time Out New York, Rate Your Burn, Junonia,, US Weekly.

• keep deleted (and delete the version in userspace). It is a more sophisticated job of public relations, with a greater effort to conform to our guidelines. But the references are still almost exclusive listings for her interviews of other people for her website or elsewhere--and this would inevitably be the case for any article at this point. If we permitted restoration, it would almost certainly be quickly deleted by the community. Regardless of whether G4 is technically justified, it certainly falls within its purpose--which is to reduce the need to consider again articles which remain totally unlikely to meet the criteria for inclusion. I would have used it also. I would not want to see re-creation unless there were new and better substantial reliable sources about her. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: I am not a PR person and I wrote this article from what I felt was a neutral point of view. If there is something that is not considered neutral, then reword it or remove it. However, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The subject is notable. I agree that the article (the 2nd article) should not be re-created without new and better substantial reliable sources about her. That is why I created the 3rd article which I don’t believe that people have looked at closely enough based on everyone’s comments.

• Comment: As background, it is worth reading the comments on the earlier version at WP:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination). I have temp-undeleted that version here so that non-admins can see and compare it. HappyTwoBEE's G4-deleted version, the subject of this appeal, is here after being userfied. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per prior editor's reasons and the multiple AfDs. This reeks of promotion on the part of a WP:SPA desperate to keep a client. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: I was unaware that Wikipedia should delete an improved article simple because of prior multiple AfDs of a bad article. The article I wrote was greatly improved. Also, I believe that you are the one who nominated the article. I am unsure how you knew that the article I wrote was not different than the 2nd one since the 2nd one had already been deleted. Not sure how you compared them before recommending speedy deletion???? Also, I was unaware that it was wrong to create an account to edit a single article. Does this mean that I have to edit multiple articles or spend my life on Wikipedia before my edits will not be deleted? If this reeks of promotion, please tell me which parts do as it took me a long time to write this article and it was based solely on the facts within the references.

• Endorse deletion and SALT per Ecclesiates 1:2. Clearly previous closes did not go far enough. Wikipedia must defend itself aggressively against this kind of exploitation. Reyk _YO! 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: It is clear that you did not read the article. The previous “close” was from a different article on the same subject. The issue is that the old article was so bad that it could be difficult for you to see the notability in the current one. Aggressively??? I have read the guidelines so I am not sure how creating an article and then requesting that it be undeleted is aggressive. If anything, there are people here who aggressively want to delete the article without taking an unbiased look at the article I wrote.

• Overturn and send to AfD again and really, guys, the hostility here is inappropriate. She's marginally notable, and probably a Kardashianesque self-promoter, but G4 doesn't apply. Efforts to improve compliance, and these are actually pretty reasonable improvements, even if I don't think they're necessarily adequate, should not be met with summary dismissal. The editors of the piece have earned the right to be actually heard in a subsequent deletion discussion, so send it there. And salting a self-promoter is never going to be appropriate, because her coverage will keep increasing. We can't--and shouldn't--move the goalposts for people who are trying to become notable, but that's another topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: Thank you for being the only other person other than myself to point out the hostility. I am just trying to follow the rules by going through the process of trying to get the article undeleted. It appears that by following the steps as outlined by Wikipedia I am just inviting people to make accusations and jump all over me.

• Endorse with prejuduce towards future recreation/DRVs and salt per the above. The insistence on publishing this vanity article needs to stop, its publication would be an abuse of our mission to be a neutral, reliable encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 06:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: Not sure if you actually read the 3rd article either. Compare them both and you will see the difference. I absolutely agree that the 2nd article was bad (no offense to whoever wrote it – but extremely bad notability masking with links that led to nowhere). I am not trying to reintroduce the 2nd article but instead have created a 3rd version without all of the promotion and with independent and reliable sources that support the topic.

• Endorse deletion, and salt. Enough already. A pile of Wikipuffery, bombardment and masking the lack of notability was rightly identified at AFD, and the revised article is little better. The article is the product of two SPAs who are giving a very good impression of being interested in promoting a client. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: What was identified in AFD WAS REMOVED!!! The article is the product of one SPA (me). Please do not lump me with the 2nd article as I in no way want credit for that piece. I understand why people do not want to see the article recreated, but the topic is notable and should be undeleted (the version that I wrote). Also, please point out the wikipuffery, bombardment, and masking the lack of notability. Specifically the masking is what I would like to know as I went through each and every reference that I used. I found them on my own without the use of the 2nd article. Some of them are the same as they are reliable and support the content. The ones from the 2nd article that were unreliable or pointed to nowhere were not used. ………Also, she is not a client. I work in software and she does not appear to need my services as what I make could not benefit her. Thanks for jumping in with Amalthea and tainting the discussion, though.

• Endorse deletion (and delete the sandbox version). We don't have any better inclusion test than the WP:GNG, but in this sort of field where someone in a business that involves self-publicity is able to get mentions in minor publications by giving interviews it is too easy to achieve this sort of WP:Bombardment, and there is a real risk of Wikipedia filling up with self-promotional fluff. All we can do is be tough-minded about the words significant and independent in the GNG.

Also salt. That is not a permanent prohibition on an article, it can be lifted by any admin who is shown a valid draft, but it will save the waste of time involved in going round this repost - G4 - REFUND - DRV loop again in a few weeks when her supporters find another couple of interviews to add.

I agree that there is unnecessary hostility here - as long as we project the "anyone can edit" message without adding "who wants to help build a neutral encyclopedia, not to promote something", it is hard to blame people who see Wikipedia as a free platform for boosting themselves and their clients. They have to be shown the door, but courteously. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from HappyTwoBEE: By salting you are leaving it in the hands of a single admin and not to the community for a consensus. At this point, any discussion including another AFD would be difficult thanks to Amalthea. My point with this article is not to promote. Why do people write articles on Wikipedia? To Promote? To Have Fun? What? I wrote about her as I am familiar with the topic and like her work. I saw the last article go to a deletion discussion and then took the time to re-write the article as I thought she was more than deserving of an article. Unfortunately, her second article was poorly written and poorly sourced which has now made her the victim. You can see from your and everyone else’s comments that no matter the references are (I could introduce featured articles about her in People magazine or others) that the 2nd article has cause some type of animosity against her having a valid notable article.

• Note about HappyTwoBEE's replies: HappyTwoBEE has been caught by a rangeblock imposed by Amalthea as a result of the SPI referred to above, see User talk:HappyTwoBEE#Problem. I offered to copy across any comments s/he wanted to make here, and have interpolated above a number which I received by email. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, as the administrator who speedy deleted this recent incarnation of the article. I explained my reasoning to HappyTwoBEE in an extensive discussion at User talk:CactusWriter#Bianca Jade. The article is essentially the same as previous versions -- and suffers from the same criteria given at the AFD and first DRV -- lack of notability because of insubstantial coverage by independent reliable sources. I recreated the article in HappyTwoBee's userspace with the understanding the article could not be reintroduced by them until solid and substantial RS were cited. My position has not changed. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt - I endorsed the AfD deletion at DRV on 4 August 2012.[21] In my endorsement, I did note source material for "Bianca Jade's," and indicated that at least one, if not more, Bianca Jade topics would meet WP:GNG, but it was not clear that MizzFIT, an American blogger and fitness trend expert, was one of the WP:GNG Bianca Jades that meet WP:GNG. After that DRV, the procedure was to present a user space draft to DRV and request that it be moved to userspace. Recreating the article so shortly after the AfDs and DRV with a "mash-up of passing mentions, fleeting appearances and unreliable sources" as noted by Black Kite and then combatively challenging participants views in this DRV shows contempt for other Wikipeidan's views and a clear effor to deceive other Wikipedians in an effort to make it difficult for them to know what is being done. Salt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Vienna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin responds to my request on their talk page "75% is consensus enough for me." In the closing no argument at all is given for the decision to close this way. This article was nmominated for a second AfD only 3 weeks following its first nomination, which ended with no consensus. In my view very little has changed in the discussion in the meantime. Also the fact that making a second nomination that closely following the first nom, although permissible, is usually highly inadvisable. __meco (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting the closer's response before adding any words in bold, but I can see several aspects of this which are of concern. Please would the closer explain (a) the reasons why Gun Powder Ma's sources were found to be inadequate or insufficient, and (b) whether the comments and arguments in the first AfD were taken into account in closing the second (and if not why not).—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this particular AfD - with the consensus at 8/3 including the nominator, and all but one of the Keep !votes being "it's notable", I don't see what else the closer could have done. The first one was the same - it had more "it's really notable" !votes but none of them went into any depth. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Black Kite, this is a good interpretation on consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- based on the clear consensus at that AfD, no other close was possible. Reyk _YO! 23:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really agree with the above three commenters. "Not a vote" also applies to people who aren't in the ARS, guys.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. I think a swift re-nomination after a non consensus close isn't a lot different to a relist. So imagine the first AfD had been relisted, and that the opinions thereafter had come in 9-3 in favour of deletion (or 6-2 if you take away duplicate votes between the two AfDs). Even you would not be able to argue for a non-consensus close in that situation. As for "not a vote", I think that's an inaccurate accusation. There was only one two keep votes that attempted to find sources, a half-sentence name drop in the first AfD, and a better attempt by Gun Powder Ma in the second, but which was convincingly shown to be inadequate by AbstractIllusions. The rest of the keep !votes were just "it's notable" and "there are sources out there somewhere". So if you consider the second AfD on its own, the consensus is delete. If you consider both together, the consensus is delete. If you consider the strength of arguments and sourced provided, the consensus is delete. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd be a valid point if all the Delete comments were simply "this is not notable", but there's some well reasoned ones and a few per those. I think my point still stands. (And where did ARS come into it? I don't see any of the usual suspects in that AfD.) Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't really agree. I didn't find AbstractIllusions at all convincing; he was the character who was trying to dismiss the New York Times and the Journal of the Shi'a Islamic Studies as "blogs" or "passing mentions". Doesn't accord with my reading of those sources at all, and I don't think snout-counting is the right approach here. Still, I seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness...—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of an 8-3 majority of the discussion, which was that a set of passing mentions did not pass the notability tests. Evidence was cited in support of this policy-based argument, and there was no strong argunment against the validity of either the evidence or the policy interpretation. The closer had no discretion to close the debate any other way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The process on this stinks all way round.

  First, the article was renominated less than three weeks after the first AfD - with a fairly high participation - ended in no consensus. We don't have a hard and fast rule on the wait time before renominations, and no consensus closes can indeed be renominated sooner compared to keeps, but less than three weeks is still way too short. The closer failed to adequately consider or even acknowledge this serious procedural anomaly.

  Second, and more importantly, the debate itself is defective for another reason: it failed to adequately consider Gun Powder Ma's sources, which were not present in the article before they were added to the AfD. The earlier "delete" !voters therefore had no opportunity to consider these sources. After these sources were added, we had one keep and one delete, signifying that the sources are not clearly insufficient. Under these circumstances, the closer's failure to either attach significantly lesser weight to the earlier comments, or relist the debate for a fuller discussion of GPM's sources, is error. T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• relist sources came in late and look reasonable on their face. One person seemed to feel they were fine, the other expected articles where this was the subject of the coverage. Seems like a good time for a relist as no consensus would seem to exist about the sources found. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD. - Looks like the blog has been around since January 12, 2003,[22] so it's possible that the topic meets WP:GNG. I'm guessing that name of the blog is in reference to when "a Mongol army reached the gates of Vienna in 1241, the future of western Christendom looked doubtful."[23][24][25] Neither goes towards meeting WP:GNG, but the article itself lacks context and merely picks and chooses promotional information to post in Wikipedia, which I think it a main oppostion to the controversial topic. I think there is enough reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. Some in-title relevance to the topic include:

• Mark Townsend (July 31, 2011). "How the far right's web of influence created a killer: Anders Behring Breivik found succour for his extreme views on a host of hardline websites. But these opinions are part of a wider political and cultural shift as anti-Islamic and xenophobic groupings take root across Europe". The Observer. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• "The Interior Dept. is blocking all blogs with a new filter,...". Washington Internet Daily[26]. October 13, 2006. p. 20. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help); External link in |newspaper= (help)

There about 50-80 other news articles that mention Gates of Vienna blog/website, so I think the topic meets WP:GNG, although consensus at the AfD said otherwise. Give that the controversial topic is going to bring some opposition, the best way to combat that is to use only material from Wikipedia reliable sources and write the article in a neutral way that reflects those source materials. That will get a good number of Wikipedians to support the article. However, if you write a skimpy and promotional article on a controversial topic, you won't get many people coming out to support the article. As such, rather than another AfD, the best way to go from here is to write a user space draft and present that to DRV to have it moved to article space. (Regarding OP's "article was nmominated for a second AfD only 3 weeks following its first nomination" comment, the first nomination close with no consensus, so it is OK to immediately list the article at AfD again or wait three weeks to do so). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enedina-arellano-felix.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because Enedina Arellano Félix is a high-profile criminal, and the image has been used as a mug shot in the media to identify her. [27] I am not aware that there are any free images of her, let alone another image of her besides this one. In addition, the picture belongs to an international illegal militant organization (Tijuana Cartel), and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it may not need fair use. In that case, it may have no copyright.

Anyways, I made sure to add a mugshot template and a fair use rationale plus the copyright template to add the image. I am aware that there was a previous image of Enedina that was uploaded to Commons when it shouldn't have. I don't know who did it but I was unaware that it infringed copyright materials.

Pardon my horrible English. ComputerJA (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a speedy criteria in use here? (I'm assuming there was a fair-use rational.) While she is a living person, there are reasonable arguments to be made for fair use and being irreplaceable here. So I'd tend to prefer a "list at FfD" outcome, but I'm willing to be shown it is speediable. Hobit (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The speedy criterion used was "unambiguous copyvio" (and RHaworth gave the original file address). I agree that an alternative image is going to be hard to come by in this case, but the nominator's claims are going to be difficult to substantiate as well: I think before the file can be restored it'll be necessary to show either (a) that the file does belong to an illegal militant organisation AND (b) that illegal organisations forfeit their copyright in the US, OR (c) that the file is not copyrighted.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with not restoring during the discussion, but I think FfD is a better venue than this. Further, I don't think that an image with a fair use statement is speedible in this situation (but I'm no image-policy guy and I can't confirm such a statement was provided). Just seems like the wrong process was used AND there is a real chance this meets our rules for using copyrighted images. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What copyright permissions can I use to re-add the picture? I've been using the same rationale in other images and did not have any problems (see 50px, for example). The admin said that he/she deleted the image "...because of its pathetic quality." Is this a reasonable move? ComputerJA (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at FfD. The claimed justification for the deletion is patently invalid. Neither G12 ("Text pages that contain copyrighted material...", emphasis mine) nor its file counterpart, F9 ("Obviously non-free images ... that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use", emphasis mine) apply, nor is the fair use rationale so obviously invalid as to justify immediate deletion under F7, the only colorable argument for a speedy. It is debatable, however, whether the file passes NFCC, and that's a question that should have been decided by FfD. T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a moment—is that correct? There's no speedy deletion criterion for an image that's an unambiguous copyvio, if the uploader makes a claim of fair use? That seems to me to be a lacuna in our rules because it means, technically speaking, that we must restore a known copyright violation for the duration of the discussion (something that DRV's rules say we should never do).—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By definition fair use images are "copyvios". When a claim of fair use is made, F9 no longer applies and the speedy deletion of such images are instead governed by criteria F5 (orphaned non-free images), F6 (missing FUR) and F7 (invalid FUR). I suspect that most of the problematic fair-use uploads are deleted under F7, either immediately in cases of plainly invalid FURs, or after two days as replaceable. T. Canens (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose that we update DRV's guidance notes to reflect this.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm loath to see things speedied where judgement is called for. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous deletions. And by definition if judgement is called for it's not unambiguous. There really is no legal worry unless there is a takedown notice provided (at least under current law, though IMNAL). I don't think 7 days is normally an issue... Hobit (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've temporarily undeleted the description page only. Any deleted fair use image temporarily restored for DRV would likely be orphaned, and thus technically deletable after 7 days. In any event, I don't think being able to view the image itself is essential to informed discussion in this DRV. When and if this is listed at FfD, the image should be restored then. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list now that Tim has clarified there was a FUR. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but what does that mean in English? xD Do I have to do anything else? ComputerJA (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, good question. What will happen is that we'll have a discussion for about 7 days. At the end of that some admin will read the discussion and figure out what to do. My guess at the moment is that they will restore the file but start another 7 day discussion about if we _should_ have the file. I'm not sure what the outcome of that discussion will be. So it will be a couple of weeks (I'd guess) before this gets settled for good. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but rarely fast! Hobit (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, List this one. This is how I work; anything that's uploaded without a fair-use tag (i.e. "own work") which is obviously copyrighted gets whacked with the F9 stick - unless there's a possibility that the uploader's just confused and there's a chance they may be a valid non-free (rare). Meanwhile, anything uploaded that is obviously and unambiguously always going to fail NFCC (i.e. a copyrighted picture of a living public person) gets whacked with the F7 stick regardless of whether there's a FUR. Everything else - goes to FFD. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List because there is ambiguity. By the way, fair use (if it really is fair use) is not an infringement of copyright.[28][29] Also, so far as I know, it is WP policy, and not the law, that requires a fair use rationale.Thincat (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • De facto, Wikipedia refers to files as "copyright violations" if they are unfree files listed as free images. I know that this isn't the legal definition of a copyright violation, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I nominated this for speedy and in retrospect I can see this nomination was a poor decision although in my defence I should say that I was fixated with the image being removed as a copyvio so I would vote to list this at FFD. That said, I strongly believe that this image will fail to pass NFCC as a free image is potentially possible. I should also say that the sourcing on the FUR was incorrect as the image is clearly derived from the TIME cover [30] and this should be listed as the source, not some other source that is using as a derivative image after it has been flickr washed. [31]. Clearly when we come to consider the FUR under the FCC the true nature of the image will be an issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at WP:FFD The deletion was obviously controversial, so it is better to handle it through a deletion discussion. It is better to do this at WP:FFD than doing it here since more people working with the file namespace will see the discussion if listed there. Also, as Special:PermanentLink/512826030 shows, the file was uploaded with a fair use claim, so the deletion rationale was wrong since neither F9 nor G12 applies to images with fair use claims. Images with fair use claims are handled by F4, F5, F6, F7, WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enedinafelix.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please Delete - File appears to be cropped from this image viewable in Google's hosted LIFE magazine archives, copyright TIME Inc. Also seen here with LIFE mark on it. Note: The restoring Admin was likely unaware of this, and is now retired. Kiwipat (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This hasn't been restored, its being hosted at the worlds largest collection of copyvios. You need to ask the admins at Commons to delete this as EN has no locus there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed it at Commons for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help. Kiwipat (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Enamait (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had the article imported from de:Ross Enamait, so I wasn't aware of its deletion history. Todays deletion was made because the article had been deleted earlier per deletion discussion (which I do not know). Former deletions were made due to "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)" and "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

As an author of four books (see article) and contributor to several others, quoted by several Google Scholar hits and producing 137,000 google hits, he should be important enough for WP, I think. --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is that a deletion discussion in 2007 determined that Mr. Enamait was not notable, and the article you wrote didn't include anything new that wasn't in the version of the article deleted in 2007. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am very reluctant to delete an article on a subject with a deWP article, for their standards of notability are usually higher than ours. But, checking the current de:WP article, he has written 4 books--Worldcat shows 5, none of which are in more than two US libraries. His books on physical fitness are not the sort of books libraries often buy, but I'd have expected at least a few dozen. And then I saw why--they are all self-published. So This would be a valid speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deWP standards of notability are high, that is true. But it is also said that all named standards are sufficient but not necessary criteria of WP notability. Enamait's four books are completed by several google, google scholar and google books hits, see above. Would keeping the article do any harm, compared to loosing information by deleting? --Antiachtundsechziger (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a great many of those hits are from his own publications ot other sites associated with him. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Rather than simply importing I think you'll have more luck if you write the article and dig out new sources yourself. If he's done anything notable since 2007 there's a possibility that an AfD would find that he's gained sufficient notability since. If you can't write it such that it makes a claim to importance and is substantially changed from the version that was deleted during the prior discussion then it isn't going to survive speedy deletion while if you can and there is still a controversy the next AfD for that article, not DRV, is the place to argue notability.--Talain (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There's no evidence that his notability has improved since the 2007 AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris Gethard Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted because of a lack of outside sources. Please consider the following:

“The Rise of the Anti-Talk Show” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/arts/television/the-rise-of-the-anti-talk-show.html?pagewanted=all

"Scouring the City for a Laugh" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305843684193256.html

"Chris Gethard On IFC: 'Adopt-A-Comic' Program Bringing Comedian And Author To Cable Channel" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/chris-gethard-coming-to-ifc_n_1811575.html

"Have you watched the Chris Gethard Show yet?" http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/09/have-you-watched-the-chris-gethard-show-yet

"The Carson of Cable Access: Comedian Chris Gethard throws a party on the public airwaves." http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/chris-gethard-2012-4/

"Watch Ted Leo Play A Really Awesome Chris Gethard Show" http://stereogum.com/961721/watch-ted-leo-play-a-really-awesome-chris-gethard-show/video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanink (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"IFC Developing Series Based on Comedian Chris Gethard's 'Bad Idea' Book" http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ifc-developing-series-based-comedian-364021

"Last Night, Tina Fey, Seth Meyers, And Others Surprised One Of Their Biggest Fans On Public Television" http://www.mediaite.com/tv/last-night-tina-fey-seth-meyers-and-others-surprised-one-of-their-biggest-fans-on-public-television/

"Why I Love The Chris Gethard Show (and you should, too)" http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-02-11-15-12-why-i-love-the-chris-gethard-show-and-you-should-too/

"The Chris Gethard Show" http://www.timeout.com/newyork/comedy/the-chris-gethard-show

"No Cool Kids": Inside the Insane, Unpredictable World of The Chris Gethard Show http://splitsider.com/2011/10/no-cool-kids-inside-the-insane-unpredictable-world-of-the-chris-gethard-show/

"The Chris Gethard Show Is The Best Cable Access TV You’re Not Watching" http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/the-chris-gethard-show-is-the-best-cable-access-tv-youre-not-watching/#ZEOPJHTXFTFL6QlA.99

Peter Hanink 05:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Its arguable that source 1 is in depth, source 2 is OK, source 3 is about the person rather than the show, source 4 had a silly splash screen and I couldn't be bothered to click through it and source 4 is a press release and doesn't count. I'm personally not seeing enough here for a standalone article about the show and a separate for Getherd himself. I think one article covering both is fine for the moment so I endorse the close and suggest the nominator edits in the sources and material in Gethers's bio which is otherwise looking a bit thin on sourcing. The usual thing on wikipedia is for material to sit in one combined location so readers don't need to go look at two pages for closely related stuff. The time to consider splitting off the material to a separate page is when the article becomes bloated and overlong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD which was closed as "redirect". The consensus was clearly of the "merge and redirect" variety, rather than "delete and redirect" and perhaps in retrospect the closing statement should have been explicit. Anyway, the article seems never to have been deleted and the redirect was not protected. My understanding is that in such cases the redirect may be reverted (and re-reverted) without recourse to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV but with appropriate talk page discussion bearing in mind the third paragraph under WP:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. I do not think the two discussions at User talk:Dennis Brown led to the right result though they were conducted in a very collegial spirit. Editorially I agree with Spartaz in favouring at this stage a single article covering the individual and his show. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There are enough good sources for an article--the NYT has substantial coverage of the show, is an unquestionable RS, and the content of the article speaks specifically about actual notability. There is no requirement that the article be only about the subject as long as it covers the subject substantially. That's enough to change the balance. Whether there is any point in having a separate article in a case like this, where the content could be easily presented in the main article on the performer, is another matter. The deletion criteria are irrelevant to this, and we have no adequate way of handling disputed merges--we could discuss them in AfD, but if it is possible by the reasonable application of the rules to make an article, there is no basis in policy or guidelines for making a decision either way-- nor for that matter is there any basis for making a decision at the talk page except the general feeling of what would be the best presentation. Personally, I think it would be best in a single article, but it does not really matter to me, and there is no requirement that it be done that way if anyone wants to go to the trouble (My reason is that at this point, it's the most important individual show related to the performer,) I note that the merge has never been performed, and it would have been much simpler to perform it than to come here and argue. To that extent I agree with Spartaz. However, both his criterion for when there should be a separate article and the criterion I gave are just reasonable preferences and our own private views. If someone has an opposite opinion, how do we decide? AfD and Del Rev decisions are only rational because there are actual criteria to go by.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• The technical outcome must be that the AfD is endorsed, but then, nobody's challenging it. The question here is whether it's appropriate to create an article in place of the redirect on the basis of the new sources found; and the answer has got to be "yes" because of WP:NOTBURO. Where there are genuinely new sources that weren't previously considered, good faith editors can turn redirects into articles on the basis of their own judgment. DRV has no role.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: see also arguments presented at WP:REFUND#The Chris Gethard Show. To avoid splitting the discussion, I have directed that user here. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper close. Nothing to overturn even if things do change. Reviewing, I think the articles should be merged. Possibly the other way. This should be an article talk page discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I am the user that JohnCD directed here. Regardless of whether the added sources are valid enough, I think the page should return. The sources can be improved later. What matters now is that it is a relevant page. Conan O'Brien has hosted three variety shows. Two of them are finished and one is ongoing. There are seperate pages still in existence for all three. Chris Gethard hosts one variety show that is still ongoing and very separate from his other work and personal life. The show, while on a public access network, itunes and streaming on his site instead of a major network, is still a significant entity in its own right. It has a large cast of characters and 62 episodes so far. It needs its own page. Dr Clocktopus (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original but create new now The decision was the right decision at the time, but now that a number of quality sources have come up, it is worth converting back to an article. I think I caused some confusion when recommending the wrong venue, but since it had closed at AFD as redirect, and when I revert it back into a redirect, none of these solid sources existed in the article. Regardless, changing the outcome of a relatively recent AFD shouldn't be unilateral and instead be done by the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per SMarshall, above. New sources == new article, then new AfD discussion if someone disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Actresses by nationality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Swedish Actresses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:British actresses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:American Actresses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:American actresses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I dunno if 6 years is a record for a DRV, but I looked at this closure because the deletion of these categories was cited as a precedent at a recent related CfD. I ask that a new CFD discussion be opened to consider these categories again, both to to reassess consensus after 6 years, and because the October 2006 CFDs were flawed.

Note that I have not attempted to discuss this with the closing admin, because after 6 years I think that it would be inappropriate for an admin to unilaterally overturn their own decision in an oft-cited case such as this.

I found 3 problems here: 1) lack of reference to a directly-relevant Wikipedia guideline; 2) fragmented discussion; 3) closure did not reflect discussion.

The first thing that struck me was that in most cases there was no assessment of the category against of the relevant guideline, viz. WP:Cat gender (here is the version at the time of the CFD). At that time, that guideline said:

"You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external source" permalink

This guidance has remained stable since then. The current version uses very similar wording.

In one of the discussions, the nominator linked to it in hir rationale as "per policy against gendered categories". As pointed out by one editor, "this is a misapplication of the gender policy at best".

That assertion was not contested, but because it was down at the bottom of the page, it may not have been seen by participants in the 4 others discussions.

Guidelines are not prescriptive, but they are intended to describe an existing consensus. A discussion may decide to reject that wider consensus, or to create a limited exception to it, but a discussion which does not even consider that wider consensus is flawed. These discussions made completely inadequate reference to the guidelines at the time, and the nominations all wrongly implied that it was a blanket ban.

The next thing that struck me was that on this page, 5 separate discussions considered a set of similar categories. Exactly the same rationale was applied in each case, to categories which raised no separate issues: they should have discussed together. The talk page guidelines at the time did not include the current WP:MULTI, but in hindsight it is clear that fragmentation of discussion here was unhelpful. In any case, the practice of grouping related CFDs was already in use at that time: on the same page there is a group nomination of 3 Big Brother categories.

Thirdly, the closures are perverse in several respects. No explanation was provided for any of the 5 closures, so there is no evidence that the closer noticed the misrepresentation of the relevant guidelines. The closer does not appear to have considered the problems caused by the fragmentation of discussion, and does not even appear to have weighed the fragmented discussions accurately.For example, in the section on Actresses by nationality, the point was made that "gender is a significant distinction in acting", and that argument was not contested. So the closure was flawed it was weighing arguments ... and if it was (wrongly) counting votes, then it was wrong too, because the tally in that section was 5 deletes (including nominator) and 4 "keeps". 5-4 is not a supermajority. I believe that the correct close of this group of discussions would have been either "keep" or "no consensus".

Finally, on the substantive point. We have long had the guidance quoted above. If editors really believe that this is not a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic" or that it is not possible to write "a substantial and encyclopedic head article" on the topic of actresses (as distinct from male actors), then that case needs to be finally made and discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications. I have the closer of the previous discussions, and also the CfD which prompted me to open this review. (see notifications). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and delete Category:Actresses. I think that after six years, the principles of deletion review probably shouldn't apply any more; the categories can just be recreated and then the case for deletion can be re-established. Nonetheless, this is a fine forum to discuss BHG's well crafted argument. I still come down on the side I was on six years ago, that there's no reason to split Category:Actors by gender. The presence of women in acting is not rare, nor is there anything special about a female style of acting. I also do not think Category:Singers should be split by gender, or any other category where the presence of women is not extremely rare (Category:Female American football players, for example). But here's the rub: A look at Category:Women by occupation shows an explosion of categories in which women are defined by occupation. So my case is extremely shaky. What I have is a preference, but it is not in any way supported by what we have now. In either case, a lot of work will need to be done to either delete a lot of gender-based categories or split a lot of actor categories. We certainly need to have this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One side note: I'm not sure I buy the logic that a close might be invalid because the closer didn't address specific points. There's no burden on a closer to provide a rationale. It's advisable in case something like this comes up, but the absence of such rationales doesn't make a close subject to question, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike, we are on opposite sides about the virtues of this sort of category, but our views on the merits or otherwise of these categories are not the issue at DRV. Those arguments are a matter for a relisted CFD, if it happens.
      I agree with your point that while a rationale is desirable in some cases, it is not required. In any case, there was no rationale for these closures. So on what basis do you endorse the closer's asessment of the debate which took actually took place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the basis that it represented the consensus at the time. There were six nominations: four were unanimous for merging, one had one objection, and one had several objections. The totally of the discussion would have made me close all of them as a merge, just like the closer did. But as I said at the top, time has rendered whatever consensus or lack of consensus occurred irrelevant. It's time to start the discussion again, and see where we end up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mike, that's a really terrible way to analyse them. These discussions all covered the same territory: they had identical rationales, viz. a claimed policy objection to categorising actresses. None of the comments suggested any reason to treat then separately.
          The discussion at the top of the list unsurprisingly got the most participants, and participation declines as we go down the page. However, there was only one comment lower down from an editor who had not participated in the first discussion. So the fact that 4 were unaninmous for merging is due solely to lower participation in the repeated discussions ... and by looking at 4 unanimous low-particpation discussions as overriding the first one, you give effactively give the repeated voices multiple votes :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me, BHG. I've said that I think the discussion should be reopened because of time reasons. Maybe you could accept that and move on?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that jazz trumpet players are much rarer than jazz saxophonists, but it doesn't change that they're different things. Personally I think in singing and acting gender kind of does make a difference. Sure Cate Blanchett, Linda Hunt, and others have played men but generally I think gender affects the roles one gets. And it's extremely rare for a woman to sing like Paul Robeson or a man to sound like Minnie Riperton. I think if being part of a group is an influence that's also seen as relevant.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per nom. That's more than enough to justify revisiting a brief 2006 discussion. No criticism of the closer. Alternatively, this may be calling for an RFC on the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I think I could see a validity for this category more as a parent category. Acting awards tend to be gendered so I could see dividing Category:Actors by award into Category:Actors by award and Category:Actresses by award. Than have the actresses in this one as a parent. (Or maybe I'm just arguing for a creation of Category:Actresses by award instead) However I don't think I have much to say on the validity of the initial deletion, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. The vast consensus was to close as I did. Cat:American Actresses was unanimous. As for the guideline, it specifically states (then and now): separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed I didn't see in any of the discussions anything that would call for an exception to apply. --Kbdank71 15:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very misleading quote, because you omit the first two words in the sentence: "For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" ... and then you use it to create a circular justification. The guidelines list this as an example of a specific category that shouldn't exist, without providing any explanation of why it is a special case rather than example of the general principles ... but you interpret that as a lock which CFD can't override. However, if CFD upholds it, then the guidelines will continue to reflect the CFD result. Result=lockdown.

  When the specific example in the guideline is being discussed, why not test the category against the general principles set out in the guideline rather than using the existence of an example to prevent any change?

  You also say that you saw nothing to call for an exception. Did you not see T. Anthony's comment that "Acting, unlike most of these, actually tends to separate by gender. Oscars are given to "Best Actor" and "Best Actresses" as are Emmies, etc"? Or do you think that T. Anthony's assertion was incorrect?

  I'm also disappointed by Kbdank71's assertion that "American Actresses was unanimous". It seem disingenuous to comment only on that one discussion. Only 2 participants, and nothing to differentiate it from the other similar categories discussed around it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's an example of a very specific category that shouldn't exist. The very category we're discussing. So how is the quote misleading? I can't imagine for the life of me how the author of that example really meant to say "For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed. But that's just an example. If you really want to, have at it." No, if you're going to use a category as an example of something that shouldn't be created, but you think that specific category could be created, use a different example.

  Yes, I saw his quote. I didn't think his one comment, which had no other participants agreeing with, called for an exception to the guideline.

  I made that assertion because it was true. The others weren't unanimous, but the consensus on the others (as I said above) was to close the discussions as I did. --Kbdank71 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh dear. You say of T. Anthony's comment that it "had no other participants agreeing with [it]". That is not true; two others made exactly the same point, and a third explicitly supported T. Anthony:

  1. JW (User:Jay-W) noted that "Gender is a significant distinction in acting because it has a major effect on the types of roles actors can play. As noted above, it is also the basis for eligibility for major awards"
  2. User:Valley2city wrote "We have gendered categories for many different things, why not this? If Oscars, Emmys, and Tonys distinguish women from men in awarding them by category (best actor vs. best actress (or "female actor"), then why should we not have this distinction in category here?"
  3. Anthony (User:FutureNJGov) said: "Keep as per JW and T. Anthony. Although certain categories have no need for gender splits, this one does, and should be kept for conformity"

  None of those points were challenged by the other participants. Did you actually read the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. When someone says "Keep it as is. Here's some more reasoning. Well, you know what, actually a rename would be better." They're not exactly being clear on what they want. Especially when he seems to be arguing for "female actor", not "actress". His argument got less weight because we were not discussing Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners or any of the awards categories.

  My bad, I clicked on your link, which was to his diff. I did indeed read the entire discussion when closing them, and when writing my original endorse here.

  Question: is there any reason you just didn't relist this? --Kbdank71 21:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's shoddy reasoning, Kb. He supported keeping it, and also suggested that it could be renamed; yet because he mentioned a possible renaming, you reduce the weight of the keep. And the point repeatedly made was that gendered nature of the awards illustrated the gendered nature of acting as a whole. If you look at the "delete" arguments in the same section, there is very little meat to any of them, yet you seem to have given those unreasoned !votes much more weight.

  Why didn't I just relist this? Because I didn't think that it was acceptable to just relist a CFD which had closed as "delete". Since G4 doesn't have an explicit expiry clause, I assumed (maybe wrongly) that recreating one of these categories as a test case would lead to its G4 speedy deletion without discussion.

  There seems to be an emerging consensus here that after this much time, a relisting is acceptable on WP:CCC grounds, regardless of the merits of the original discussion. If that is the case, and someone wants to close this DRV on that basis, then I'll be happy to proceed to a new CFD. Are you OK with a relisting on that WP:CCC basis, possibly involving DGG's suggestion of creating a sample category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need to get permission from DRV to start a new CfD discussion on the basis of new information or new arguments, even if the previous weren't old. If such a CfD were speedy closed, I'm quite confident that several voices at DRV other than mine would be strongly disapproving. An RfC should always be a welcomed excalation if a respected editor (such as yourself) wants to argue that a previous process discussion was flawed. As your question is quite broad, I think you should start an RfC. nb. I am personally undecided on the matter --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Smokey.

  I have no interest in reviewing an old discussion for its own sake. I only did it because I thought it was the only way to reopen the issue, and I now see that I was mistaken on that point.

  I would start the new CFD discussion now, except that doing so while the DRV is still open seems like forum-shopping. So'll wait until this closes. If someone will close it early as "relist, cos the original discussion is moot", that'd be fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV was one way to reopen, and not an invalid way. One problem with going straight back to CfD is that CfD needs more diverse participants - the regulars there have an appearance to bias to a certain rigid line of thinking. Whether to readily divide categories on gender is such a broad question, I think it needs to be an RfC, not just a CfD, and even should be listd at WP:CENT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. To enforce this very ancient discussion in the face of good faith objections would be a direct denial of WP:CCC. At some point, old XfD discussions simply expire. (I express no opinion about old RFCs, etc.) DRV has never decided how old a discussion needs to be before it can be relisted, and it probably varies according to the specific discussion in question, but whatever that number might be, six years is clearly way past it.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist – 'separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed' lacks a 'because' clause. Oculi (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and discuss the merits there, though it will probably take an RfC also. My own opinion is that gender and national categories are a good thing, and I think that the present general consensus at WP will support them. I suggest or at least hope that we will probably end by reversing a great many decisions to the contrary. Because of the work involved which would be wasted if it turns out consensus has not yet changed, I would not suggest just going ahead and creating the categories before discussion--at least not generally. I ask BHG, though, if she would be prepared to do one as a sample, in the hope it will clarify the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is consensus to relist, then I'm happy to stop reviewing a 6-yo CFD, and proceed to the more productive phase of making a decision on what to do for the future. :)

  Yes, I'd be quite prepared to create and populate a sample category. I suggest that it would be best to create one of the categories which would actually be populated, rather a {{container category}} such as Category:Actresses by nationality. To minimise work and disruption, I suggest doing it for a small by-country category, e.g. Category:Portuguese actresses as a subcat of Category:Portuguese actors, with Category:Actresses and Category:Actresses by nationality also created as containers, to illustrate the category hierarchy. Does that sound like what you intended?

  I agree that an RFC will probably also be needed. If there is a consensus to keep, the the naming of the categories may need discussion (actress/woman actor/female actor?). There would also be a bigger decision on whether to create a parallel category for male actors. WP:Cat gender says that in gendered sports such as golf, there should be both Category:Male golfers and Category:Female golfers, and the same logic could be applied here. (Though note that in the example, Male golfers is redlink, and appears to have never existed).

  If there was consensus to create parallel male categories, then there would a further question of whether to allow ghettoisation by gender in this case, e.g. by splitting Category:Portuguese film actors into categs for men and women. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure there's consensus that a new debate, unfettered by precedent from the original close, would be welcome. I have no idea what result would come from it, but I'm sure it's warranted. I'm also sure it's not necessary to overanalyze the original close, or anyone who agreed or disagreed with it, to get there. We're all in the "that was a long time ago" camp, as far as I can tell.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Should we ask at WP:AN/RFC for someone to close this DRV now? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look around; there is no need to close this yet. --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Category:Actors may be sufficient enough for transvestites, like Alexis Arquette. However, I guess there's no harm on changing guidelines and relisting old discussions, like female-only categories. --George Ho (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn decision (that renamed the original category Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history to the new name of Category:Jews and Judaism in the Roman Empire) because of 1 Insufficient WP:CONSENSUS to change this key parent category. 2 The original nomination was hasty with little input from WP:EXPERT editors and displayed a very poor grasp of the total scope of the WP:Category tree in place here, their structure and their purpose: 3 We are dealing with different super parent categories. Thus Category:Jewish history (that deals not just with "Jews and Judaism" but with many other events) is not the same as Category:Jews and Judaism (that deals almost exclusively with the Jews and their religion Judaism). 4 The long-standing parent category for the category in question was and remains Category:Ancient Jewish history with the main sub-categories being Category:Ancient Jewish Egyptian history‎; Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history‎; Category:Ancient Jewish Persian history‎, and Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history should be here, and not be renamed to something it was not meant to be. 5 The category contains many sub-categories and articles that are legitimately part of Jewish history but are not part of "Jews" per se and have nothing to do with "Judaism", such as Category:Roman governors of Syria‎ and most of Category:Jesus and history. 6 The current name makes errors about historical facts essentially transgressing WP:VERIFY, such as: 7 The contact between Rome and the Jews in history was not just related to the period of the Roman Empire (see article:) "The Roman Empire = 27 BC - 476 AD" -- whereas the Jews of ancient Judea were interacting with ancient Rome centuries earlier -- and that is covered by the correct name Ancient Rome ("a thriving civilization that began growing on the Italian Peninsula as early as the 8th century BC" ! So the nominator confused things by coming up with the title of only one period of Ancient Rome's history. 8 There were three CfDs above the one here, all by the same nominator to rename topics, that dealt with relatively minor topics that were not renamed, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Jews of Roman Alexandria; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Roman-era Alexandrians; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Roman era Jews, that were mercifully spared, but unfortunately, the most important one of all in the 4 he nominated was changed. 9 Not just that, but it was decided by a tiny group of 3 votes while the rest of the Judaic editors had no chance to be informed of this vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Categories. 10 No notification was posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism that would have drawn in more expert editors but it's obvious that the WP pieces of good advice such as WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EXPERT were not in display. Finally The closing admin was previously contacted, see User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 16#CfD closure RE: Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history, and informed about this DRV [32]. I have also informed the original nominator of this DRV [33]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)IZAK (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• List at CfD to reverse the rename. Nothing improper was done. There is no deletion to undo. Speedy close as out of scope of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In support of the "speedy close", the nominator makes many valid points, but each speaks a reason for a "relist", and none, even collectively, would justify a straight "overturn" from DRV. Therefore, it may as well go straight back to CfD now. To debate the nomination points here would be to duplicate what should be said at CfD. Yes, DRV reviews the CfD process, but looking at the discussion and close I see no great fault of process. Perhaps more notification should be done. ie. Notify, or it gets relisted on protest? Well, someone here complains, so let's relist. Please be sure that sufficient notification is made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi SmokeyJoe, thanks for your observations, but hope you realize that the original CfD that I am bringing here to DRV took place over a year ago in July 2011, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Ancient Jewish Roman history. There were only three users involved in the discussion then. Do you propose we contact them? The nominator User Chesdovi (talk · contribs) also had a somewhat scatter-shot approach the way he went about things on WP, and while I have let him know about this DRV, he is presently on a self-imposed Wikibreak due to hurt feelings about the way he's been treated on WP all around. At any rate, I am requesting this DRV based on the fact that the decision was wrong in that it breaks the WP categorization in this instance, needed more discussion and input from those who have worked on this set of categories, and it was hasty, misinformed and unhelpful. I am not asking for merely a rename (that's already happened and caused the problem I am trying to fix, and what would be the point of asking to "rename" a category that was wrongly renamed?) I am asking that the rename decision be overturned, i.e. for review and overturning of the decision to rename in the first place and to restore the original name of this category, all fully explained in my nomination above. Thanks for your interest. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

1. The decision made at an XfD is within scope here, whatever it is, and CfD process includes disputed renaming. The DRV process is one of the few WP processes that provides a single, reasonable, and swift appeals mechanism without undue bureaucracy, and we should not try to limit it in this manner.
2. I agree the CfD process lends itself to over-rapid and unrepresentative decisions. Too few people can pay attention to it. It works best as a consultative not contentious process, and this benefits from wider participation.
3. We have too many WP processes, and we should try to combine as many as possible. But that is a more general problem.
4. Notification on all deletion processes is inadequate, and biases things towards deletion by not notifying all likely interested editors, or in the other XfDs, limits things to a small circle. But this too is a more general problem.
5. Izak asked me to comment. I support a change from the previous title. The terminology used before was entirely artificial, and, quite frankly, I would not have known what was intended. The new one is better, but imprecise, and it should be possible to improve it further. I agree with him that the relevant history begins in the Roman Republic; I think the first significant interaction was in the second century BCE when the Romans opposed Antiochus. Perhaps: Jews and Judaism in ancient Rome & the Roman Empire. or the Jews & Judaism in Roman history. I'd make similar changes in the others also, e.g. to Jews and Judaism in ancient Greece. So I suppose the place to discuss this is a second CfD. Here's not the place to decide the actual issues. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So the first question is "is this in scope for DRV"? The fact it wasn't deleted is irrelevant ("if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly" doesn't require deletion). However, because it's really hard to argue the closer misinterpreted a unanimous discussion, DRV's purview is pretty limited. That said, DRV has asked for things to be relisted because of flaws in the discussion. In this case we've got what seems like a huge change in scope of the category (from "Rome" to "Roman Empire") with out the discussion indicating this was intended. We've also got the running problem that awareness of a CfD often doesn't reach involved parties to the extent one would like. It may well be that his rename is the right thing to do and wider discussion may end up supporting that, but I think relist is the way to go for now given the identified flaws in the rename discussion and I'd personally lean toward undoing the rename during the relist. Hobit (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hobit, as it stands, right now, the Rosh Hashanah Jewish new year celebrations are about to start (eve of 16th September to Tuesday night 18 September, 2012) and then the other Jewish holidays come in close pursuit, so the closing admin can either wait to advise how to move on, or just wait for another week, and we'll take it from there. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as closer. Others above have already covered the process side of things and I think many of the points made fall under the scope of "significant arguments not deployed at the time" and consideration of them is beyond the scope of DRV but they'd be best handled in a fresh CFD discussion. Regarding notification there is no actual requirement for notifications of particular users or projects in discussions and recent proposals to make this mandatory for CFD discussions have come been rejected. However there is a good automatic system of alerts that lists all the discussions for articles within particular projects and makes for easy tracking of them. (It also uses good neutral wording; not that that's an issue here.) Unfortunately the category talkpage in question hasn't been tagged with any WikiProject banners but instead with an unusual category tree template that doesn't appear to link in with the alerts system. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original closure. There was no procedural error, and the nominator correctly weighed the (very limited) discussion which took place. Many discussions XfD have very poor participation and do not cover a lot of the relevant issues, but that does not invalidate them.
  However, there is clearly a lot of further info which could be presented at a new CFD, so any editors want to present that new evidence should simply open a CFD discussion on a proposal to reverse the move. A DRV decision is not needed to achieve that, so this DRV review is a pointless diversion.
  On a sidenote, if the arguments at DRV are similar to the points made in this quest for review, I hope that they will not be set out as one big wall of text. Wiki markup makes it very easy to lay out the case in a legible fashion, and doing so makes for better discussion of any points raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2919_East_29th_Avenue_plaque.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

FOP in Canada covers 3D work (this plaque should qualify (I hope that it is similar to other photos from this account), as even coins are counted as 3D objects), Fastily retired, so (s)he was not notified. Bulwersator (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn-While I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to render an opinion on the issues here, it does appear complex enough to warrant a full discussion rather than the summary deletion it received.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This file was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#F1 in the course of the discussion at WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_May_13#File:2919_East_29th_Avenue_plaque.JPG on the supposed grounds that it was redundant to File:2104 East 19th Avenue plaque.JPG which is currently up for discussion at WP:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_September_9#File:2104_East_19th_Avenue_plaque.JPG on the grounds that the copy made to Commons by the present nominator has been nominated for deletion on Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BC Electric Building plaque.JPG because it is claimed it is two dimensional. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Commons has accepted that the images are not free and they were deleted here on that basis. Bulswersator's comment there was "So my assumption was wrong and the images should go. Bulwersator (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)" so I'm rather confused by why we have been asked to discuss this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't undelete Canadian FOP only covers artistic works, but the text on the plaque is a literary work. Therefore, it isn't covered by Canadian FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Andrew's Wesley Church plaque.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

FOP in Canada covers 3D work (this plaque should qualify (I hope that it is similar to other photos from this account), as even coins are counted as 3D objects), Fastily retired, so (s)he was not notified. Bulwersator (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment in the section above. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Moncrief (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Raleigh Moncrief is an American musician. An administrator speedy deleted the page because of WP:CSD#A7 ("no indication of importance"). And after requesting undeletion of the article at WP:UNDELETE#Raleigh Moncrief, I was navigated here. As quoted before, A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." Please take a look at the cache of the deleted page, especially the references. There are already "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" WP:BAND. -- 122.18.254.172 15:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the A7, which did not apply, and then immediately list at AfD so that we can delete it again in the orderly and correct fashion.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a disputed WP:CSD#A7. We don't need to linger at this step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the article cited three references which are definitely enough to warrant further review through PROD or AFD. The deleting admin's justification is that WP:MUSIC is not satisfied, which is irrelevant as A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability. Hut 8.5 10:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'overturn clearly not an A7. I'd urge the deleting admin to immediately restore and list as desired. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - From the deleted article, "He has collaborated with Zach Hill and Marnie Stern" would seem to meet the A7 importance requirement. For the AfD, there's a write up on Moncrief in Sacramento Bee April 27, 2012. Other info [34], [35]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, point taken. I will restore the article. It would not, I think, be appropriate for me to make an AfD nomination, as it might give the impression that I had an axe to grind, which I do not.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multnomahblues (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All apologies if I used the template above incorrectly and/or if any necessary information is missing. I would like to nominate this page for review. I created it a few weeks ago and it was quickly tagged with a "speedy delete" by another editor because, unbeknownst to me, it was a recreation of a page published in the spring of 2011. Since the original page was deleted, the subject ("cortandfatboy," a podcast based in Portland, OR) has appeared in additional sources/citations that warrant review. I think, with the addition of these sources, there are now enough quality citations to justify an article on Wikipedia. Despite this, the page was deleted by an admin with the username " Amatulic." I've discussed the issue with him and he suggested taking the matter to the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." I did so last week, received no replies and my entry was removed. Another editor suggested that I seek out a deletion review. Multnomahblues (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We've actually discussed this quite a number of times. The first deletion review was here, followed by an AfD here and a further deletion review here. Multnomahblues, please list these new sources you have found so that we can assess them.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a disputed WP:CSD#G4. Someone wants a discussion. We don't need to linger at this step, and DRV is not the place to have an AfD discussion. Also because the deletion log (that shown when you click on the title redlink) doesn't show or point to any AfD discussion to which the G4 refers. Also, why is there no previous log entry? Could speedy deleters please link to the specific relevant XfD when applying G4, and the previous article title if not the same? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, I encourage to Multnomahblues (talk · contribs) to request userfication, and adding sources to overcome the previously noted reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to list the newer citations here, S Marshall, but SmokeyJoe is suggesting that this might not be the direction to head with this. You guys tell me the next step and I'll follow it. Also: SmokeyJoe, I added sources from June 2011 - August 2012 to my version of the article but it was quickly nixed, regardless. The admin didn't seem to care much about them. Everyone involved was laser-focused on the "you re-created a deleted page" thing and didn't pay much, if any, attention to my efforts to create a stronger/better article than the original. Multnomahblues (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we please Userfy for User:Multnomahblues so that we can see what we're talking about here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Mckinley is a notable composer in the world of contemporary classical music. He has received multiple awards and commissions, has had his music played in multiple respected venues worldwide by noteworthy ensembles (including the Martinů_Quartet, the Minnesota_Orchestra, and the Warsaw_Philharmonic), and is also the son of a notable composer as well (William_Thomas_McKinley) The deleting editor (talk) redirected me to here upon my request for undeletion.

Some references:

http://composers.com/elliott-miles-mckinley http://www.allmusic.com/album/elliott-miles-mckinley-string-quartets-mw0002177674 http://www.allmusic.com/album/elliott-miles-mckinley-string-quartets-mw0001553691 http://www.iue.edu/people/bio/bio.php?bio=elmmckin http://www.elliottmilesmckinley.com/Elliott_Miles_McKinley_-_Composer/Home.html http://archive.org/details/iuma-elliott_miles_mckinley http://www.earwormimprov.com/earWorm/Members.html http://www.composersforum.org/members/directory/elliott-miles-mckinley http://iacmusic.com/artist.aspx?id=33701 http://www.amc.net/ElliottMilesMcKinley http://music.wvu.edu/faculty_staff/george_willis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.160.13.240 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 149.160.13.240 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(as soon as I saved this it was immediately reverted by a different member.[36] Unsure why, I have reverted it back)

• Allow re-creation, given the weakness if the deletion discussion. Allow any user to list at AfD. I think the IP should register and request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article nominated for lack of notability. After discussion, there appeared to be two sources with some level of significant coverage, a magazine that reviewed the game (with unknown reliability) and a reliable Australian magazine that that included a demo and some coverage of a early version of the game. Although the Keeps outweigh the deletes (which was the user's reason that closed the AfD when I discussed it with him) many of the keeps have been based upon poor reasoning. I think it's reasonable to say that there isn't a clear consensus yet. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer, if the community believed that I have acted poorly or closed improperly, I will voluntarily step down from my position.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have no more of that kind of talk. Anything worth doing has a learning curve and nothing would get done unless editors roll up their sleeves and do so. What's 'right' is subjective. Someoneanother 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the "keep" (and I would have slightly raised an eyebrow at "no consensus"). It seems to me the discussion was well-attended and far more thoughtful than most AfDs. I do not see poor reasoning although there were quite a lot of rather hasty comments that were later withdrawn. The article is pretty well written and referenced so, since people on the whole seem to think it probably establishes notability, I do not see any benefit at all in deleting it or even reopening the AfD. I have no worry over the close or the closer's remarks. Thincat (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant by that, I'll attempt to clarify. It seemed like reasoning included the 'other stuff exists' argument. An early keep's argument was based on "at least six" independent sources, where most of the sources failed to provide significant coverage or were demonstratably reliable. Another keep referred to three sources, two of which were the same, and another was a fansite. Another keep used the argument that it had been featured on an official website and had a certain number of downloads in a month. These appeared to be his reasons tipping him to "weak keep". These were demonstrably untrue though. That's not including the leaning keep that began to back down, or the weak keep comment that based on there being three reliable sources (one of the those didn't have significant coverage, the other hasn't yet been shown to be reliable). Considering those arguments (flawed in logic or fact), I don't think there's cause supporting an eyebrow raise if that was considered "no consensus". 31.220.203.74 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just pointing out that from what I can see in the AfD (I can't speak for comments that were withdrawn), the "other stuff exists" argument that was used was not used in a way that suggested that the article should be kept because the subject is as notable as a similar article, but rather was arguing that similar content on Wikipedia (freeware/RPG Maker games) has a similar level of coverage, and that the article should be kept to maintain consistency. I did not once see a "this game is more famous than x so it should stay" comment (though please correct me if I missed one) and these arguments simply appeared to be along the lines of "x should be kept because [similar content] has a similar level of coverage" - if you check the 'other stuff exists' page, this is deemed a perfectly valid point to raise, as Wikipedia should strive for consistency with regards to similar content/subject matter. 128.184.132.38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article creator commented on the similar sources are present in other articles, and that's why they created this article. However, many of the sources being discussed were unreliable and / or lacked significant coverage. Another user pointed out that that could mean those other games have problems with notability, "then that's not a reason to keep this one, it's a reason to nominate them for deletion, too." I understand your point of promoting consistency across pages, but I don't think it's "perfectly valid" to do so in this case, when the problem was the quality of sources being used to establish notability. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Endorse I am not familiar with the sources cited in the other articles that were mentioned but, given that Wikipedia does not have specific guidelines for RPG Maker/fangames to refer to (as these types of games are considered quite a different animal in gaming journalism and are more akin to mods than actual games), using similar articles as a guideline, as well as the user pointing out that other articles on similar types of games citing similar types of sources is not prohibited, whether or not each of the other articles is notable. If it is deemed that several of them are notable with similar sources then, for consistency, this article must be as well. Likewise, if those other articles fail to establish notability, consistency would also deem this one to be non-notable. Taking your comments in good faith, and seeing as how you have responded directly to most participants of the AfD, I believe that you care strongly about the outcome of this debate, but I personally don't think that what you are proposing will change anything when the arguments in the AfD already addressed all angles of the nomination and was deemed good enough to allow the article to remain on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, and I wish you better luck with your next nomination. Later edit: Echoing the sentiments of others commenting below me, I also felt that this article is well written and, for what it is, informative and of interest to some people (those who are in the indie game/fangame community) and it would be a shame to delete it. 139.168.1.162 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
          • That logic, as you've put it, is fine. I completely agree with that. I care that there is an appropriate, logical, and fair outcome, more than what the outcome is. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The article seems well written, there does also seem to be quite a bit of coverage concerning the game (though admittedly not all of the sources areverified as reliable) however Googling the game does show that it appears to be pretty popular and not just some no-name RPG Maker game, with lots of external coverage outside of the RPG Maker websites and the author's blog posts. The AfD for the most part was well discussed and argued better than most. Some of the "Keep" posts did make a few hasty comments or irrelevant arguments, but these seem to have been withdrawn later, and pretty much all angles were commented on and discussed. To me, it looks like there was a slight consensus leaning towards Keep (or at least a considerable opposition to "Delete", suggesting that deleting this page could be controversial), so that's good enough for me, and I support the closing user's rationale. Subject of the article could get even more coverage in the future what with the author supposedly developing a sequel (which, according to posts on his Facebook and Twitter may be for commercial release), so why not wait and see what happens? In either case, I don't see any benefit in deleting it. 128.184.132.38
• Endorse. By convention, DRV will not overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" because it makes no difference in practice, so WP:NOTBURO is deemed to apply.—S Marshall T/C 06:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the keep - the AfD discussion addresses all of the main concerns of the nominee (lack of notability and coverage) and effective arguments were made that reference Wiki policy. The article is well-constructed and cited well for the most part and it looks to establish notability to me. It's perhaps the bare minimum to establish notability, but there are certainly enough independent sources to do so. Keep it up and adopt a "wait and see" attitude. Later Edit: the article was also very informative to me in particular. I blog sometimes about free PC games and this one has been suggested to me more than a few times, and it was interesting to read about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.151.143 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse overturning a keep to a no-consensus is pointless. No objection to relisting after awhile to see if consensus has changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - There were two well-argued "delete" stances, and two of the "Keeps" were "weak keep" type stances. Considering it was never relisted before, I feel like it should be relisted in order to find a clearer consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing user's decision. There were good arguments all around, I feel that both the delete and keep votes were for the most part fair and well-argued, both sides made good reference to Wikipedia policy and although there does seem to be a few hasty comments from BOTH sides, looks like they were withdrawn or later addressed by other participants in the AfD. I'm happy with the closer's decision and wouldn't say there was "no consensus" - it seemed slightly biased towards "Keep" (even counting the weak keep votes) and I'm happy to wait and see what happens with the article. If similar issues arise in the future, it can easily be nominated again. In the meantime, particularly if there is a sequel coming, there might be additional coverage released so I don't see any benefit of overruling the decision or even reopening the AfD. ADDENDUM: Just commenting on some of the issues raised in the AfD (which is off-topic here anyway) but I'm a regular PC Powerplay reader, and the coverage mentioned is fairly significant, though none of the participants in the AfD mentioned that the magazine also followed up a year or two later and ran a small article on the completed game, as well. 101.160.5.179 14:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/03SadOnions/Archive - 2 of the 'keep' !voters are IP sockpuppets of the article creator, their votes have not been struck and have been counted towards the final tally it seems, not tallies should carry much weight anyway. The amount of IPs weighing in on the AFD of an obscure game should have rang warning bells, TBH. Rather than making this AFD round 2 perhaps editors here can appraise the sources for themselves in a reopened AFD. Someoneanother 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, that may not be the case, considering they all mention having access to an Australian PC magazine, implying that they are Australian, and certain Aussie service providers actually use a pool of IPs that they share among all of their customers. For example, all of Telstra's broadband customers are given one of three or four different IPs each time they connect to the network, so people on that service are often using the same IP as somebody else. ie. If you and I both connected to the network at the same time, there's a very high chance we would be using the same IP address. In terms of so many comments on an "obscure game" raising eye-brows, that comment holds no weight, as the game is very famous within the RPG Maker community and the creator has many fans (it has somewhat of a cult following among many RPG Maker websites - the author publicly responds to fanmail, suggestions, gets sent fanart and music compositions, the game regularly gets featured on the front page of sites such as www.rpgrevolution.com, http:rpgmaker.net and even www.rpgmakerweb.com etc - which may in itself be an indicator of notability). You would be insulting the tens of thousands of fans with that comment. Keep in mind that the author also (until a few weeks ago) linked briefly to the Wikipedia article from his website, so it's very possible that some of his fans noticed it was up for deletion and weighed in. That's how I'm here, for example - I'm not from Wikipedia, but as a fan of this game, I wanted to express my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.88.239 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrators who deal with sockpuppet investigations are aware of the ins and outs, if you are not convinced that the result is correct then please take it up with the admin. who closed the report. As it stands two of the participants are blocked as sockpuppets of 03SadOnions, who in turn has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. Those !votes should have been struck to prevent exactly what has happened. The game itself may be well known within the RPGMaker community but said community represents a fraction of the video gaming populace. If you prefer 'non-mainstream' then fair enough, but how that assertion translates into a slight against the game or anyone who enjoys it/has a hand in it is beyond me. We're discussing the validity of this AFD, so don't start with this 'insulting the fans' business please, this isn't a battle and I'm not against anyone. Whenever an AFD discussion on something which isn't mainstream happens there is a chance that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry may be involved so caution is needed when weighing consensus. It wasn't this time, the result is a weak AFD which can and probably will be challenged. Better to have a broader discussion and settle it now. Someoneanother 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Shouldn't the sockpuppet issue have been raised in the AfD discussion then, so that participants and the closing editor were aware of it? If these votes should have been removed from the weighting, then the onus was on whoever closed the sockpuppet investigation to bring the relevant information to the AfD. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this should have been made plain at the AFD. No, it doesn't mean we should ignore it. The process was subverted by a sock-puppeteer, therefore it should be re-opened and the offending !votes discounted. This is not something that will go away with hand-waving. Someoneanother 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying it should, I was just merely curious as to why it wasn't mentioned. Without knowledge of the sockpuppetry, the AfD looks like a perfectly normal, well-attended discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkRe (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was just a mistake, by the look of it. Someoneanother 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse even not counting the sock-puppets (although, as the editor above me notes, there may be other explanations for those IPs, and those explanations are valid) there were still some well-argued "keep" stances that addressed the concerns of the "delete" votes. The "keep" stances seemed more thoughtful than the "delete" votes and, in any case, I think it's safe to say that there's considerable resistance to deleting the article. Overruling a "keep" to a "no-consensus" closure is pointless anyway, as they're effectively the same thing. Regarding the notability, there is considerable evidence that the game has quite a following, at least in its specialty RPG Maker community (which is in no way the same thing as the greater community), and having an established cult-following is sometimes an indicator of notability, according to the General Notability Guideline. Closing user made the right decision, no need to re-open the AfD, let's all move on to other things. ArkRe 7:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is off topic, but could I please have the Single Purpose Account tag removed from my comment? I am active in editing many RPG Maker related pages and I am confident to participate in these discussions because I have often edited as an IP in the past. Considering there are allegations of sockpuppetry relating to this article, I understand the reasoning behind it, but as a new user, I kind of find this insulting. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. CtP (t • c) 19:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The onus is on the community to make a case that the article should be deleted. If some reasoning is poor, that reasoning needs to be refuted in the deletion discussion. We can't have articles being repeatedly renominated until achieving success by chance. Allow re-nomination at AfD, but not until after six months from the last close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly understand your point of AfDs becoming excessive after a certain point, but I wouldn't necessarily say that a second nomination would have this effect (I admit that after a failed second nomination, it would be about time to give up). I don't agree with not allowing renomination for six months, at least not now. If a second nomination failed to get the article deleted, then yes, some sort of limit ought to be imposed to prevent repeated renominations in hopes of succeeding by chance. CtP (t • c) 20:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD resulted in "Keep", sockpuppetry and poor arguments not withstanding. It was a very weak nomination and didn't address existing sourcing. The nomination here at DRV is alo weak. I read only a complaint, not a rationale for why a wrong decision should be overturned. Given such weaknesses, I would be very unimpressed to discover a poorly participated, weak nomination, second AfD result in the opposite decision, unless it comprehensively reviewed the last AfD and all prior participants were advised. Given this DRV, I don't expect to see a comprehensive review of the last AfD in a quick renomination. A renomination in a month, or even two, would tell me that insufficient consdieration has been given to the nomination being a mistaken view, or to the possibility of a merger. For a quick renomination, I'd want to see a serious discussion having occured on the talk page. I think six months is a proper delay for renominating a straight "Keep". In the meantime, it is doing no harm, and you are certainly welcome to commence a "merge and redirect" subject to talk page and target page opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree with this rationale. While I think that the nominating IP (who opened both the AfD and this DRV) expressed their arguments later on which elaborated on the nom, perhaps a merge and redirect is possible. In this case, it would be difficult, as the article is fairly large and has a lot of separate sections, but I could easily see it being cut down and merged into, say, the general RPG Maker article or something. 124.180.9.143 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Someoneanother. (Full disclosure: I !voted to get the page deleted at AfD.) Admittedly, the concept of overturning a "keep" to a "no consensus" makes no sense at first, but if that "no consensus" results in relisting which will in turn result in more discussion from uninvolved editors, then there could be real purpose in it. CtP (t • c) 19:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (weak?) Endorse per SmokeyJoe. If there were issues with the AfD, such as sockpuppetry as pointed out by Someoneanother, it was up to the editors involved to make reference to this in the AfD so that the closing editor was aware of these issues. To me, there seemed to be no evidence in the AfD that this issue was raised. Based on that, and the fact that the article seems to have the bare minimum of reliable sources to pass the GNG (in fact, if it was in PCPowerplay, then that would lend it quite a lot of credibility, as that magazine is the most respected in Australia and New Zealand), I'm going to endorse. Perhaps allow it to be re-nominated later, but allow a month or two to pass in case new information comes to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.205.1 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bass-ackward. Confirmed sockpuppetry is about as substantial a process failure as we ever see at DRV, especially when the issue wasn't raised in the AFD itself, nor evaluated by an administrator. Relist semiprotected with explicit mention of the sockpuppetry in the first afd in the procedural nom, to minimize the influence of the first afd's false consensus of one person talking at himself. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Obvious sockpuppetry. It wasn't a wrong close as such, but given the issues here it probably ought to run through another AfD that's not tainted. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see in the investigation linked above, didn't the sock-puppetry only account for two of the !votes, and two badly argued ones (which used the "other things exist" argument amongst other things) at that? That still leaves a few well-argued stances from both sides that, discounting the invalid votes, still presented a well-attended discussion. I !vote to endorse the closure on the basis of the article being of obvious interest to some people, though I'm not opposed to relisting it again after a certain amount of time if nothing has changed. 124.180.9.143 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruenor Battlehammer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was nominated for deletion because though independent reliable sources appear in the article, they don't provide "significant coverage" per WP:GNG since, as I explained in my reviews of the sources in the nomination, all of them are one-sentence mentions of the character's name, clearly identified in GNG as "trivial". The issue was serious enough that it was notified years before by another user at the article talk page (without being adressed).

Yet the AfD was closed on "keep". While there are indeed only keep !votes, the problem is that neither of them addressed the lack of significant coverage. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, participants are asked to "explain how the article meets/violates policy" rather than merely stating it does, and I don't see any explanation as to the "how". First comment states "despite the nominator's arguments, the sources included should be enough to pass WP:GNG" (and the reason for that is left for the reader to guess), later a "Per first comment" (username omitted), then "Appears to have appropriate independent, reliable sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG", then "The article does have multiple reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject" (does not even mention "significance"). One comment states "the nominator's claim that sources 2, 5 and 6 are primary sources is debatable" yet the following keep comment disagrees ("While I don't think the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide books are independent...").

The most disturbing comment is the last, which states "It seems to me that the nominator's reasons, if accepted, would mean that there would rarely be articles on fictional characters in fictional universes, or in game universes". Since my nomination was based on WP:GNG, does that mean that, per this comment, the GNG wouldn't apply to fiction ? Taking that into account for the close would have repercussions on GNG...

None of the "keep" comments satisfyingly adress the nomination, and though sticking to his close, the closing admin even acknowledges that these were not idea arguments[37]. Anyone looking at the article can see it only has 3 or 4 sentences that are not plot summary, I think there was ground for a "per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" close on delete. If too extreme, then I think maybe a no consensus without prejudice to merge would also have been appropriate. But in any case I think there is a need to adress the fact that the comments did not follow WP:AFDFORMAT, and since AfDs are not votes but are based on "strenght of arguments", "keep" was far from being the only possible outcome (weak arguments can be ignored). Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Afd closer One quick note, the comment of mine that Folken de Fanel links to was actually a typo on my part (I meant "ideal" but wrote "idea"). My thinking was that these were not ideal arguments, but most were acceptable. Also, I didn't address the idea of a merge (which often makes sense with articles on fictional characters) since it wasn't raised by anyone at the Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This close was fully in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, that is not what I'm saying. That there are only "keep" !votes is a fact that I acknowledged. I'm saying all these "keep" !votes are not valid in that they don't explain how/why the article would "meet the guidelines" according to them. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Not all arguments count, and my view is that arguments that should have been discounted because they're more votes than arguments, have been taken into account. I did not open this DRV to know whether there are only keep !votes in there (that's the case), but if the !votes are acceptable or not.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Mark Arsten had agreed with you that the !votes weren't "acceptable" and closed it as delete, then he would be dragged straight back here to DRV and overturned in a rare September snowstorm. If he'd done that, we'd be saying words like "supervote" quite stridently. We'd be pointing out that a sysop's job is to implement the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your scenario doesn't seem to be in line with WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. If no strength of argument is found, then a close on delete is not a supervote, AfD not being headcounts. And that's why I took this to DRV, though there are only keep votes (omission of "!" before "vote" is voluntary), I don't think they provide strong arguments and there was ground for another outcome than "keep" (not necessarily "delete", but I think a keep here is too controversial with arguments that clearly don't meet WP:AFDFORMAT).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, it appears to be your good faith view that you as nominator were right and all the other participants' contributions should receive little weight. I also see that you've replied to everyone else who's participated, individually, which indicates that you care very much about the outcome. I'm sorry, but I really don't think DRV will overturn this one for you. Nor should it. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy, and good luck with your future nominations.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Clear and obvious consensus from everyone except the nominator; there was no other possible way to close this one. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not asking whether there were only "keep" arguments (there were), the issue is on whether the keep arguments were valid or not. If they were like votes, then yes, there were other possible way to close this AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – There were no responses other than Keep, so that was the only realistic option available to the closer. It will truly be a sad day for Wikipedia when a unanimous response no longer yields a consensus. This is a textbook WP:SNOW case. BOZ (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of a nominator means there wasn't a unanimous consensus. WilyD 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I said "unanimous response". BOZ (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I only found one reliable news source,[38] and that only says, "Arvada 421-6368. Ten Towns BBS (Easthaven); sysop Bruenor Battlehammer." Google books brings up more hits,[39] but they don't seem to add up to much. It's doubtful that the topic meets WP:GNG. Per the Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The keep arguments are valid, of course, but seem weak and I think the closing admin should have discounted some of the arguments. Apparently, the closing admin thought otherwise. The closing admin's close itself carries weight at DRV and I don't think that has been overcome. Feel free to list the article at AfD on or after 29 November 2012 (3 months from the 29 August 2012 close). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - policy and numbers both carry weight in AfD - this is pretty marginal with respect to policy, and very one sided with respect to numbers. Strong policy arguments can weigh heavily against middling numbers, but that isn't the case here. WilyD 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Understandable nomination, but the solution is not deletion. I agree with there is virtually no worthy content in the article. Whatever the references, there is no secondary source material in the article. The solution is to apply the advice of WP:WAF. Then, most likely, it will be obvious that the article will need to be merged and redirected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closing against a unanimous response is possible if and only if there are clear policy violations mandating deletion, e.g. that the content in its entirety is unverifiable, or a copyvio etc. Cases where editors unanimously ignore core policies are exceedingly rare, because most endorse the core policies fully. In this case, there is a simple disagreement on whether the provided sources are sufficient to satisfy a notability guideline (not a policy). Regardless of the exact wording of the guideline, guidelines have exceptions (whether this article actually does violate the wording of the guideline is a separate matter), and so issues like that are resolved by consensus. In this case the consensus was clearly against deletion, and they made a case that at the very least has merit. I see no other way that this could be closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakireddy Bali Reddy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion review didn't take into account substantial importance given to the Reddy and his actions in international news media, books, and academic literature, as well as independent notability. Anirvan (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the article about California landlord and sex/labor trafficker Lakireddy Bali Reddy was predicated on the BLP1E policy, but (a) that's not a blanket policy to erase all people who are best known for a single incident (otherwise we'd have deleted Rodney King), and (b) Reddy is a public figure notable for other reasons.

Here are the facts that didn't come up in the AFD discussion:

• When Reddy was arrested for sex and labor trafficking, it was both a national and international news story, with coverage in India (e.g. Indian Express) and the US (e.g. Los Angeles Times), and by international news services (e.g. Agence France-Presse (AFP)). One media outlet literally ran a series of 27 newspaper articles about Reddy.
• The Lakireddy Bali Reddy case was a landmark incident in the history of American sex trafficking. You can read about this legacy in this article, "How Lakireddy Case Spurred California Sex Trafficking Laws"
• A simple Google Books search shows Reddy's name mentioned in 155 books, and at least 38 academic papers and reports.
• Reddy is a public figure, notable even outside of his reputation in sex/labor trafficking history. For example, he endowed the Lakireddy Bali Reddy College of Engineering in India, and is the chairperson of the college. Here's a quote from him in The Hindu, a major Indian newspaper, from just last month about his work at the college. Here are two more articles (1, 2) mentioning him last year.
• For what it's worth, the Wikipedia page about Reddy is also a commonly referenced source of NPOV coverage of Reddy. For example, here's an example of a news article about the 10th anniversary of the Reddy case that links to the now-deleted page.

Thanks for your input! I made sure to checked with closing admin Joe Decker, and you can read his comments here.

Comment: Indeed, I'm happy to stick by my comments there, thanks for the notification. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Decker closed the AfD correctly, of course; "endorse" is certainly the technical outcome we're looking at here. The new sources provided imply that a new article could be written that overcomes the reason for deletion, so on the face of it, it could be argued that DRV has no role. But I don't like that outcome because it means allowing creation of a BLP about a person convicted of trafficking children for sex, and I feel would be irresponsible without examining a draft article. I would like to suggest that Anirvan begins a userspace draft accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. I don't think its a WP:BLP1E. However, in the fifteen days the article was listed, only a few people cared enough to add their opinion and those that did were of clear consensus. From the AfD alone, you can tell that there isn't much interest in this topic. If the article were without BLP problems, then I doubt the AfD would have went the way it did, given the extensive amount of source material for the topic from December 8, 1999[40] through at least Sept 2009[41]. I agree with S Marshall that any editor can present a draft article to DRV and request that it be posted to article space. (As an aside, in searching the matter, I found Lakireddy Bali Reddy College Of Engineering[42].) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation As founder of the college, an article can be written. If BLP violating material is added, the atticle can be protected, but I do not think reporting the convictions would be a BLP violation, though I doubt I would use the full details of the case as the deleted article did. Arnivan is a reliable editor who has not previously worked on this article, so I assume he asks here because he wants to write an article, and he might as well write the article now as later. I would have restored it if asked--I don't think Joe recognized the significance of the college (not that it inherently makes for notability , but in practice it means there will be published material for notability, and indeed there is and always was). It's a pity this was not noticed during the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Request temporary undeletion to review. The deletion discussion was weak. BLP1E usually allows for a merge and redirect. Apart from BLP1E, were there BLP concerns with the deleted content? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer under review. DGG roughly has my feelings on this correct, including my missing the relevance of the college, which was in the refs but not in the text, and was only mentioned in passing in the refs provided. I've restored (temporarily) to [[43]] for review as requested by SmokeyJoe. It seemed clear enough to me that the criminal event was notable, and given the college relationship seems uncontroversially significant, I don't see a problem with regard to recreation/restoration. Apologies if I was overly hesitant here previously.

(Added:) When I looked for sources myself, the vast majority of what came up easily related to the criminal stuff. My general sense was that if the sourcing wasn't quite up to snuff in the article it was verifiable, I do think that can be carefully handled. What's more complex is the editorial process of giving due weight. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No criticism of the close. I recommend relisting on the basis of new sources presented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a talk page deleted by a retired admin per G8, but this page is referenced in Wikipedia:Pornography and may fall under {{G8-exempt}}. Please undelete the page and add the {{G8-exempt}} template if you feel that is appropriate. Thanks! —D'Ranged 1 ^talk 02:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and add clarifying comment - to help prevent another mistaken speedy deletion.

• The 30 Mar 2005 Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2 notes, "Vote on previous image is recorded at Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD --Audiovideo 22:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)."
• Wikipedia:Pornography notes, "An illustrative photograph associated with the Autofellatio article was removed from Wikipedia after several discussions. The record of the final discussion is at Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD."
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April) notes, "10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving.[44] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

• Rossami's 27 April 2006 comment restoring the page noted "‎Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD: restored - accidental speedy".[45]

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore possibly speedily. This is pretty clearly an invalid G8 since it expressly excludes in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere. Could well be tagged with G8-exempt. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]