Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December

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

I believe that this speedy deletion was much too hasty. It was not even two minutes after I had created the article that I was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant...", and just five minutes after that the article was summarily deleted by User:RHaworth. I believe that this is a wrong interpretation of A7, as I had stated in the article itself that "DERP is the name for a hacker group famous for having hacked multiple high traffic websites" (my bolding as to point out where the credible claim of importance is, which meets A7). I have attempted to resolve the situation with the administrator responsible for the deletion (link), but my appeal was met with a retort that I should have used my userspace to write the article instead of introducing it to mainspace. This rebuttal did not adequately address the central question how or why A7 would apply in this case, and merely appeared in a slightly condescending way to ask me to use another place to write the article. If I was someone new to Wikipedia and not a seasoned editor, I would have left the project long ago. 10 minutes is not enough time for a new editor to read the CSD tag, read the relevant policies and guidelines at WP:CSD and WP:Undelete, to write up a summary at the talkpage explaining and contesting the speedy deletion, to figure out how to use the {{cite web}} template properly, to find an appropriate citation from the relevant news article (link) to back up the claim, all before deletion, and still stay to protest it directly on the administrator's talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just treat this as a WP:REFUND request and immediately restore it. Hasty deletion of an article which does not clearly fail A7 helps nobody. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What a ridiculous lot of fuss. TeleComNasSprVen could have recreated the article ten times in the time he has taken moaning here and on my user talk page. Restored to User:TeleComNasSprVen/Sandbox5. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

appears to have been speedily deleted, is linked from ~55 pages (discussion with deleting admin) —rybec 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial reaction is that if it's only gathered 55 links during the 7 years it's been deleted, then it obviously isn't that confusing to use the project space links. Having looked though at about a dozen or so of those links, they all predate the deletion, and others not looked at I would have a pretty good guess are likewise. I don't really see the problem you are trying to solve here. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also have the impression that most of the links predate the deletion. As I explained in my discussion with the deleting administrator, if the page is restored, those links will work again. That is my motivation. —rybec 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I very much doubt that many of those will be read and many not relevant from 7+ years ago - we've moved on. If they are read then title used is pretty self explanatory as to what it would have been about. Is it really needed that we have such a link (esp given that the destination would of course have been edited many times then, so beyond the basic context linking doesn't tell you what the original author was actually linking to). Sorry but this sounds like a waste of time, in the grand scheme of the project to build an online encyclopedia, this has to be pretty near the bottom of the list for anyone to be worrying about. If it really bothers you do the few edits to fix the existing ones to point to the current destination, you would easily have been able to complete that by now. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the only content this page has ever had is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I'm not sure what value is to be had by restoring the page; if it's still linked to on any active page wouldn't it be better to simply fix the link? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I gathered that it had been a redirect, as described. Is it really simpler or preferable to refactor comments than to have a redirect? Presumably the reason that discussions are sometimes archived rather than being deleted is because someone may still want to read them. Breaking links in them diminishes their readability. —rybec 01:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation. The speedy deletion was blatantly incorrect, as WP:ASR is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, and WP:CSD#R2 explicitly excludes article space to Wikipedia: space redirects. I don't see the value in procedurally overturning a deletion from 7.5 years ago though, so I recommend that recreation be permitted without prejudice to an RfD discussion if anybody wants one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment editors might find it useful to see the version of CSD in place at the time of the deletion. [1]. Also the version of ASR in place at the time of deletion is at [2]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those page versions permitted the speedy deletion of this redirect any more than the current ones do. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt Spartaz was trying to draw a conclusion as to if the pages did or didn't permit speedy deletion, more putting links there so those interested could look without everyone individually digging back into the history. Regardless were the speedy criteria by the letter met isn't the only question to answer (Unless of course you follow the non-prescriptive "rules" in a prescriptive manner). One such question might be was the encyclopedia improved by the action? Similarly has there been a detriment to the encyclopedia in the intervening 7 years as a result of it? Would the encyclopedia be improved by restoring it now (rather than simply fixing the broken links, or recreating it)? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Admins deleting any page for any reason other than (a) that page meeting the letter and spirit of one or more criteria for speedy deletion, or (b) there being an explicit consensus to delete the page always harms the encyclopaedia - if it didn't then there would be no need for deletion discussions or speedy deletion criteria as any admin could delete any page for any reason they felt like. In this specific case the harm is not great and so, as I noted above, the best way to improve the encyclopaedia is to accept, but not endorse, the deletion and permit recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yesm what '86 said. The deletion was 7 years ago and policy has moved on. A convience link to what policy sait at the time might be considered useful to some and, if I close this, I would probably need to look at previous as well as current policy to judge the consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "always harms the encyclopaedia" in your view perhaps, but not in the view of policies like WP:NOTBUREAU, which form part of the core policies of wikipedia and has a broad consensus, merely asserting your disagreement doesn't make it reality. However, if the prevailing view at the time was that such redirects were not to be used and that deletion of them wasn't questioned, that is a consensus to speedy delete them. This is the whole descriptive, not prescriptive nature of things, policy documents what we do and sometimes lags that, for some things policy documentation never catches up (since the underlying issue is resolved and not recurring there is no real need to actually document it). In this case I can see a whole raft of these deleted in a similar time frame, that this is the case suggests that there was no issue with the deletion of these (or that they were challenged and upheld, haven't checked). For example: What is Wikipedia, What is an article, What Wikipedia Is Not, Wanted photos, Vanity article, User subpage and many more. That really suggests to me that the prevailing opinion was that removing these was not controversial. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List at RfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List at RFD while it true that some cross space redirects can be speedy deleted this is not one of them. The criteria R2 covering what cross space redirects can be deleted states Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Since the target page was part of Wikipedia space it was not a valid deletion and I see no harm in a full discussion.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List at RfD per the above reasoning. No harm will come of having a full discussion about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation - which allows for listing at RfD. The passage of so much time without challenge to the 11 August 2006 speedy deletion[3] provides consensus for the original deletion. Reason #6 for deleting a redirect listed at WP:RFD#DELETE lists a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace, so it is not likely that such a redirect will be kept. However, Rybec's request to address the 55 pages that link to Don't bite the newbies[4] is reasonable. Permit recreation. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Remain deleted -- I'm generally wary of WP:XNRs and this one wasn't used nearly enough for me to consider it a strong exception, despite the age. Nobody's said a word about it since 2006 (meaning it is not a problem), and I'm not inclined to allow the creation of what would constitute a brand new cross-namespace redirect from article-space to project-space, as these are normally not allowed. Alternatively, I'd settle for an RfD listing, but I have confidence the consensus would arrive to the same conclusion (as it usually does in cases like this) and don't think the full weight of an RfD is needed for such an apparently simple matter. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Game (novel) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Release date confirmed, cover art confirmed, more news coverage from a number of sources exists including aint it cool news, sffworld, sarah's reviews, has amazon and barnes and noble listings for preorder, arched doorway has covereage and so does tor.com. time to actually create this article instead of letting bad admins hold the page hostage 76.31.208.150 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WY IS THIS NOT SHOWING UP ON THE PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.150 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy close since this was not deleted but redirected, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel) and that solely on the lack of reliable sources, the redir can now be undone as a normal editing action. No admin action is needed, and no one is holding the page hostage. I don't see a discussion her as being required at all. DES ^(talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listings from Amazon and B&N don't go far to help it pass wp:NBOOKS - they count as promotional material and frankly nothing that's been reverted shows notability yet (see wp:CRYSTAL). But this doesn't seem to be a deletion review issue so concur with the speedy close. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome, allow recreation. I don't think TOOSOON applies at this point, with publication date set, cover art used in promotion, etc. Assuming publisher announcement rather than retailer pages can be cited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A non-admin closure, the arguments presented that claimed it met our guidelines for sourcing. It still doesn't, and the closure should have reflected this. Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability. This article lacks both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse within the possible range of valid closures, th generally for a divided afd it should be an admin who closes. It was argued that some of the many sources were sufficiently independent to meet the requirements, and the question of whether or not they are is a matter of judgment. (I personally have no opinion on notability, but the overall tone seems a little promotional.) And, after all, it can be renominated in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will not !vote here (although obviously I stand with my closure), but would like to note that all participants in the AfD !voted "keep", with the nom being the lone dissenting voice. If that is a divided AfD, then only AfD's without any delete !vote where the nom withdraws the nomination can be closed by a non-admin. The tone of the article is, of course, not something for AfD to correct. In any case, with 5 editors !voting "keep" and only the nom arguing for "delete", I don't see how this AfD could have been closed differently. --Randykitty (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is more that the closure does not take into effect relevant policies on verifiability (as it lacks reliable sources about the topic) nor guidelines on notability (as it could, in theory, be speedily deleted as an A7 due to no real assertions of notability). Should it have been closed delete? Maybe, probably not. But given the sitewide guidelines, where's the actual consensus that we keep articles like this? If the guidelines don't matter, why have the discussions? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it looks to me like Randykitty validly interpreted consensus. As DGG pointed out, the application of guidelines is a judgement call, and the consensus at the AfD, seemed to be that it should have been kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, looks like a valid interpretation of the consensus here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse The people posting in the discussion thought the sources were adequate, and that is a judgement call. Close was clearly proper based on the discussion. Moreover, the nom says "Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability." This is not true. WP:V requires verifiability, not verification. Except in the case of BLPs, sources need not be present for a valid article, although of course it is better if they are. Here sources were clearly present, and reliable ones, the question was how much of their discussion was bout the group itself. That is not a bright-line issue, judgement is needed, and DRV is not AfD round two. DES ^(talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Literally no one concurred with the nominator. Consensus as clear as I've ever seen it. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Please read the top of the page specifically, "Deletion Review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". If it were only the closer disagreeing with your application of the guidelines it would be one thing but no one did. You are targeting the entire discussion and not bringing forth any new information. The close was correct and consensus was met in all practices of WP:CONSENSUS. Mkdw^talk 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The expressed consensus was evident, and the nom does not argue that the content in any way breaches policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, all we have is the nom disagreeing with everyone else who participated in the discussion as to whether sources existed to establish notability, and those participants are almost all well-established editors with reasonable comments rather than SPAs pushing an obvious agenda. So there's no question that the consensus was to keep, and it would have been improper to close it any other way. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Samoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was previously deleted three times because it was created by unexperienced user who didn't added references and copied text from somewhere. I'm an auto-confirmed user, let me create this article with proper format. UBS talk 10:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, no undelete - Version 1 was deleted (by me) for "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81720251726#" - comparing at the subsequent versions, there is still very similar text. I don't think we can undelete, but no objections to removing the wp:salt protection.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G12 deletion Copyright violations should not be undeleted. Note that the article also has been deleted a couple of times under the title Ayaz samoo, including deletion as G12. No opinion on whether the person is notable. If a new article is suitable, then creating new content instead of undeleting old content seems better. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Subject is notable. Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ayaz Samoo and make a decision that it should be re-created or not. UBS talk 03:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you have it at AfC - this discussion has less importance - if approved at AfC, the reviewer will sort of the page move to Ayaz Samoo for you. Protecting a page against creation is only done to stop repeated creations of unsuitable pages.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G12 deletion No exception can be made to the copyvio policies. No problem with recreation if notability shown. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The article under AfC looks notable. G12 is a good reason to delete, and persistent recreation a good reason to salt however. On the other hand it's been two years since the page was salted (for good reason) so it's probably served its purpose by now. The AfC looks decent, so either wash away the salt or create through AfC. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted via G5, despite my objecting to such on its talk page, having previously edited the article. Deleting admin declines to recreate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to note I declined to restore it, I had already said it could be recreated by another user if required. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pigsonthewing objected on the talk page based on whether the article was notable. It was tagged for speedy deletion not for notability but under G5 because the article was created by a banned user. He's welcome to recreate the article. The article will probably have a deletion discussion at some point if he does recreate for 2 reasons- That aviation accidents in Russia are so common that all of them aren't notable and secondly that cargo plane accidents are also very common and usually not considered not notable. Of course an AFD would let editors argue it out whether what I wrote above is true....William 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Arelder created the 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash article at 19:47, 26 December 2013, the article was G5 deleted at 13:58, 27 December 2013 and User:Arelder was blocked 6 minutes later at 14:04, 27 December 2013.[5]. If you want to recreate an article on the topic, the five references used in the article were: [6][7][8][9][10] -- Jreferee (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't; I want the article, which I had edited, and which should not have been speedily deleted in the light of that and in the face of objection, to be undeleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThis editor is being disingenuous. He was provided with a copy of the article a day ago and informed he could get the entire contents of the last edit box just by asking the closing administrator. He's failed to do so. In fact, the above comment is written well after that offer was made. So why does he continue to complain he wants the article? Because he wants the article created by a banned editor posted? Why enforce the ban then? It probably goes back to failure the grasp that deleting an article under G5 has nothing to do with notability. His first edits after the CSD tag was put on the article were about notability....William 13:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not for you to impugn my motives; it is for you and MilborneOne to justify the speedy deletion, which was made out of process and with disregard for the wording of the criteria used. You have each failed to do this. (And, as noted, below, the copy you sent was devoid of templates and other wiki markup) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see what is so offensive about the User:Arelder account that we can't acquiesce to Pigsonthewing's request. Yes, it is preferred that the article be re-created based on the reference list, meaning that the blocked account is unattributed, but if Pigsonthewing insists, it is better to have content than not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of the speedy deletion. Letthecommunity decide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Would the parties involved be amicable to a userfy to Pigsonthewing? What's the issue with re-creating the article? You're essentially taking responsibility for it in either regard in terms of campaigning for it to be kept when its been questioned in terms of lasting notability. Mkdw^talk 02:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If userfied, and if any writing by User:Arelder is used, even for reference only, User:Arelder must be given attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or userfy – the "offer" that the article can be recreated is disingenuous – it had been edited and while there are cached versions at some search engines, they only show the rendered web page and none of the parameters which populated the article's infobox; the version of that cached page is also uncertain. Attribution will not be a problem as the article's full history will also be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person who started this DRV was provided with a copy of the article if they wished to recreate it. As of now, they haven't. As for the article being edited, the only edits were copyedits to fix the usual mistakes Ryan kirkpatrick makes. No substantial edits were made....William 13:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, this request is for undeletion, not recreation (and the copy you provided was devoid of templates and other wiki markup). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. @WilliamJE:, how would Andy re-create the article with the existing content and not break attribution? Even banned users retain attribution rights. Your suggestion doesn't make sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a valid concern. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, Bare references, allows rewriting from the refs. Flatscan (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• For all those who support undeleting The article was created by a banned editor and has been confirmed[11] as such. If the article is restored, then do you support unbanning Ryan kirkpatrick? Since his ban he has created over 100 CONFIRMED sockpuppet accounts. By restoring his work, you're allowing him to edit here again....William 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Slippery slope comment is irrelevant here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note apparent canvassing at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5d article at deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The reason we have G5 is that we balance the value of enforcing site bans against the damage of losing (possibly) good encyclopedic content. Once an editor in good-standing makes contributions to such an article, the value of the loss increases and will reach a point where it outweighs the value of enforcing site bans. That is the reason why we have the exception "and which have no substantial edits by others". The moment there exists some debate about whether such edits are "substantial", then a speedy deletion becomes inappropriate. I should not have to remind admins that "These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion." The best course of action here was to take the article to AfD. In addition the suggestion from MilborneOne "to raise it at Wikipedia:Deletion review" was equally sub-optimal: the purpose of deletion review is to examine whether the process was carried out correctly; a far better suggestion would have been to make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, which could have reached a satisfactory outcome without sacrificing so many innocent electrons. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quotation from WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#Introduction to criteria applies to only the noncontroversial subset that "may be used to delete pages that have survived deletion discussions", not including G5. The header of WP:Requests for undeletion is clear that speedy deletions (except G6 and G13) should be challenged first with the deleting admin and then at DRV. Flatscan (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Further to WilliamJE's accusation that I am "being disingenuous", perhaps he could explain why his assertion that my "first [my emphasis] edits after the CSD tag was put on the article were about notability" does not reflect the facts? What actually happened is that, after he tagged the article, I removed the tag, in accordance with CSD procedures ("If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice"; my emphasis), and he reverted me. Only then did I post my objection to the talk page.
  Furthermore, his description of these events, on his user page is also misleading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - G5 requires that the banned editor be the only significant editor to the article. If POTW regards themselves as a significant editor to the article, G5 should not be applied. WilyD 08:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't check a procedural G5 without being able to see the history of the page. Can it be temporarily undeleted so we can see what actually happened rather than comparing two conflicting hearsay accounts? Neonchameleon (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have restored the history for the purposes of this DRV. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I note from that (I didn't see it at the time) that Michael Bednarek wrote "Before anyone answers with WP:DENY: that's an essay which, in its own convoluted language, applies to vandalism which this article is not", and yet WilliamJE (who also replied to Michael, so must have seen it), subsequently wrote on my talk page "You couldn't be bothered to read [...] WP:DENY... It is by the authority of the wikipedia community that Ryan kirkpatrick was banned from editing. As a banned editor, WP:DENY comes into effect". (The various allegations he makes about me in that edit are all false.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Inappropriate use of G5; it may be time to defang G5 to prevent these sorts of incidents. As is clear from the talk page the deletion was contested by multiple users. Andy had made useful edits and clearly intended to make more. It's inconceivable that AfD would delete this article. The canvassing by WilliamJE on the CSD talk page is inappropriate, and suggests to recreate from the top revision would break attribution. Procedurally this is a mess from beginning to end. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Mr. Mabbett's edits consisted of replacing "bored" with "board", replacing a comma with a decimal point, and adding a UTC equivalent to mentions of the local time. While these were useful edits, they are not substantive. With Rk's almost 200 sock accounts, why it it such a bad thing for an editor of good standing to start again? Rk has said on several occasions that he will keep socking as long as his work is kept. It appears to me that re-creation by someone else is a good outcome; the article doesn't have to use the same format, refs or even the same name. YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If the speedy is contested by other editors, it must go to AfD. The community sometimes decides to delete in these cases and sometimes not. I understand why we have G5; I suspect it is often futile. Deleting their work may discourage some, but it has been shown a many times that it will not discourage others, who will continue to try to evade the ban despite it If it does not discourage someone, it is not protecting the encyclopedia, and so the deletion becomes punitive. Perhaps the entire concept needs a community discussion. In the meantime, we retain the right to make exceptions DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clearly trivial edits by Pigsonthewing do not qualify as "substantial", and there's no reason that the article can't be recreated from scratch by any interested editor. It did qualify for speedy deletion, and it would be impossible for Pigsonthewing to "fix" its tainted origin, so his protests on the talk page were correctly ignored.—Kww(talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and Undelete as per Mackensen and others above. Frankly I don't really approve of G5 at any time, nor of the philosophy behind it. But in any case the policy is clear that if another user (in good standing) is willing to take responsibility for any edits by a banned user, that user may reinstate the edits. That is the policy that should apply here. Preferably this should have been taken to WP:REFUND and there automatically restored. I am tempted to simply restore it myself, but since it is being discussed here i will follow procedure. DES ^(talk) 04:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion once on the 26th of December as it had been created by a banned user. This was entirely in line with policy. The Speedy Deletion was then removed by Pigsonthewing - again entirely in line with the practices of Speedy Deletion. At this point it became a contested speedy deletion. As such, unless there was a reasonable reason to suppose that Pigsonthewing was a sockpuppet (may all socks put such work over the course of 10 years into Wikipedia!) the speedy deletion notification should not have been replaced - for one thing it Pigsonthewing was claiming part ownership of the article and for another it was effectively edit warring - for all practical purposes a revert of a revert. After the Speedy had been disputed (and demonstrably not by the article creator) it should have been taken to AfD. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, WilliamJE was wrong to have reverted Pigsonthewing's removal of the G5 tag, but he did it and the article was subsequently deleted. So here we are, arguing about whether we should argue about keeping the article at an AfD. Again I ask: what is so bad about a User of good standing re-creating an article with this crash as the subject instead of reinstating a serial sockpuppeteer's work? If someone wants to nominate for deletion based on notability concerns after that, well and good, and we can discuss whether it is a wikinotable subject. YSSYguy (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While the replacement of the speedy tag may not have been proper, what's done is done, and the fact of the matter is that this article was created by a sockpuppet of a community banned editor who has used at least one hundred and sixty-four named accounts. He has been informed on many occasions about the standard offer, and informed several times that continued sockpuppetry would be disruption indistinguishable from vandalism and treated as such. The fact that he continues unabatedly to sockpuppet indicates that he is nothing more, and nothing less, than a troll. As such recognition must be denied. Yes, this is a notable and noteworthy accident. But there is no deadline, and it's better for Wikipedia that an editor in good standing recreate the article, instead of feeding the troll. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? DENY is an essay, not a policy, and there's nothing in the deletion policy that says a G5 trumps all. You do realize that by counting all his accounts, and treating his contributions as something special, you're granting him the very recognition you say we should deny him? Getting back on track, speedy deletions may be contested. G5 is no different. This one was contested. Do you have any views on that? Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have views on that. Andy's "contest" of the G5 did not address any of the issues that form the basis of a G5 deletion, so it is irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three reasons why the article should not have been speedied. Firstly, the CSD procedures say ("If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice" (my emphasis). I did so; there was no requirement for me to make a justification in that regard. Secondly, I had made edits to the article; the deleting admins should not have discounted these; there was no requirement for me to make a justification in that regard either. Finally, I made a substantive objection on the talk page; the deleting admin should not have discounted that, even if it the objection was on a different point to the speedy deletion proposal. Any one of these should have been reason enough for the deleting admin to reverse his own improper action. Had I not been misdirected here by that admin, then the article would already have been undeleted by REFUND. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the article did meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so your first reason didn't apply. It's impossible for you to fix the fact that it was created by a sockpuppet, so the second reason didn't apply. Categorizing your edits as "substantial" is simply false: that you keep repeating it casts your own honesty in doubt. Your removal of the tag was both unjustifiable and improper.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Using a difference of opinion to call my honesty into doubt is, as you should be aware, unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Describing this as "substantial" isn't an opinion, it's a falsehood. Repeating it after its falsity has been pointed out to you is dishonest.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • "as you should be aware, unacceptable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's nothing unacceptable in pointing out your misbehaviour, Andy. While editors here have a disagreement about the merits of applying G5 to the article and what constitutes an acceptable challenge to a G5, I don't think that anyone can make a good-faith claim that your edits were "substantial", and that includes you. The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and you are clearly arguing in bad faith.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were substantial edits by other users, yes? I don't see how this could be a G5. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've started a new version of the article, not based on the banned editor's work. However, someone has objected to my rewriting, at User_talk:Rybec#Irkutsk_Antonov_crash. —rybec 05:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object too; not least as consensus seems to be forming here, to overturn the contested speedy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rybec, I didn't object to your rewriting, I merely pointed out that by doing so you made this entire discussion moot; and in the process you also invalidated your (since removed) !vote to endorse deletion of the article. YSSYguy (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn didn't meet the G5 criteria IMO as there were substantial edits by other editors. That doesn't mean we can't delete it, but it does mean the right way to do so is via AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oyi, missed the fact that a lot of the edits came after it was undeleted for DRV. That should probably be a fishwack and we might consider protecting articles that are so undeleted for DRV in the future (yes, improving articles is good, but in this case I think it hurt more than helped). I think this likely met the criteria for G5 when it was deleted. Endorse and move Rybec's (the main contributor to the current article) new version into its place. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a real mess. Trouting is easy, but how to unscramble this egg? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move the new copy to Rybec's user space, with no prior edit history. Undelete the original. If Rybec then wants to amend or overwrite the original, his changes (including what would then be seen as deletions of content) can be reviewed on their merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have stubed it down to the template and locked the page. You can compare pages in the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the edit history together, in case anyone would like to check Rybec's version against the speedied one for independence. WP:Revision deletion is a possibility, but the only relevant criterion is the catch-all 5. Flatscan (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G5 deletion that met both requirements of the criterion, as explained by Kww. There is a convention that a user in good standing can challenge a G5 by taking responsibility for the banned user's edits, but I don't know how widely it is supported or if it is documented. In general, valid speedy challenges are more selective than just any reason – that would be WP:Proposed deletion – and the G4 of Last Res0rt, which clearly met the criterion, was not overturned at WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15. Flatscan (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstating and taking responsibility for a banned user's edits is covered by WP:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, as referenced above by DESiegel. I overlooked it because I was coming from the CSD G5 side. Flatscan (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and restore Rybec's edits only. The article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, slightly copyedited by Pigsonthewing, and then speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G5. After Pigsonthewing contested the deletion, the article's history was restored for this process, and Rybec wrote a new version of the article, since again replaced with the deletion review notice. My view is this: The suppression of the article as written by a banned editor was correct according to the terms of WP:CSD#G5, because the subsequent edits by Pigsonthewing were not substantial. The deletion must therefore be endorsed. But the later content independently written by Rybec meets no speedy deletion criteria. Consequently, only the versions of the article prior to the speedy deletion should be restored.  Sandstein  10:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's liver (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Contested merge (request overturn to delete). I feel rather strongly that this close was incorrect. "Delete" has far more support than "Merge", and the article creator all but admitted he created it as a WP:POINT violation. Looking at the article on Ludwig van Beethoven, I see no section where it fits, and more importantly, no section where it would be considered a meaningful addition rather than trivia. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete Even for someone as famous at Beethoven ,this is unnecessary content. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge, to Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, unless the article is determined to be a hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a clever subtle hoax, isn't it? And User:Coren has had nothing to do with the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. This is a case of a closer not closely reading the debate, I feel. The final "merge" vote is clearly not a valid, policy based vote; the voter concedes that the article is essentially a mild breaching experiment. The closer may have been influenced also by a merge vote coming from a particularly well-respected editor, Newyorkbrad, but that should hardly outweigh the four delete votes backed up by policy. Not a great close. I would also overturn to delete on the merits per DGG; a joke made two hundred years after someone dies doesn't belong in their article, so there's really nothing to merge here. Chick Bowen 02:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect to Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, and mention the embalmed liver briefly there (or in the main article if really necessary). The discussion does not yield consensus for either merge or delete, but it does yield consensus (as the closer should have noticed) for this not to remain a separate article. Under these circumstances, a redirection to an appropriate article is the outcome that best implements such a consensus, because it allows later editorial merging of any content still deemed necessary.  Sandstein  09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - Conclusions are not strength of argument. There was no reasoning provided behind the merge positions. Death of Ludwig van Beethoven already covers Beethoven's severely cirrhotic and shrunken liver. The stronger argument was delete, which was clear in that the topic did not meet WP:N and the article represented what Wikipedia is not. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Closer misinterpreted the consensus that the article should not exist. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am not seeing too much reasoning behind the delete positions, except for the "utterly unencyclopedic" opinion. Lack of notability is in itself not a reason for deletion. The nominations at AFD and DRV failed to consider the most likely merge target, Death of Ludwig van Beethoven. In the AFD and DRV it is suggested that if there is no content worth moving a merge is unacceptable. However see Wikipedia:Merge#Reasons for merger "You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. ... If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there ..." The arguments for delete and against merge (sadly repeated here at DRV) are therefore weak. The closing admin is to be congratulated on her perception. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ATD is still policy, although as our last few inclusionists give up and throw in the towel I'm sure it'll be marked as historical soon enough. At the moment it's valid, so the alternatives to deletion should have been exhausted. "Beethoven's liver" is a plausible search term and the discussion failed to think about the possibility of a redirect. Relist the defective discussion with instructions to consider the alternatives properly.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching for Beethoven's liver returns Death of Ludwig van Beethoven with relevant bolding in the summary text. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's true but it's not really the point. If we make it a redlink then there's a risk that an inexperienced user will create an article in that space, thus leading to a further unnecessary discussion. If we make it a redirect, then our inexperienced user is more likely to edit the parent article instead.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I do not find the merge arguments in that debate to bring forth any valid policy based arguments. They were: notable fact, instructions to merge, and the author doesn't really address WP:N. The clear topic of the discussion was hoax and SIGCOV in which there wasn't any abundantly to be found, and to address Thincat, failing to meeting WP:RS and WP:N are grounds for deletion. As the nominator pointed out, notability is not inherent and must be established. Frankly I think the subject field of his liver is so isolated that people would be much more inclined to search for the person or his death. I also haven't seen any new evidence to suggest this is even a legitimate piece of information. Mkdw^talk 01:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Beethoven's liver is a notable parenchymal viscus[1] that lived with Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827)." -what, they were roommates? In response to Thincat, above, being a non notable is indeed a reason to delete an article. No reason was advanced for why the content should be merged, but reasons were advanced for why the article should not exist. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete, weak arguments for merging. If delete recommendations must explicitly rebut merge possibilities to be considered valid, I think that requiring merge arguments to specify the content to merge (WP:Merge what?, essay) is consistent. User:Kitfoxxe recommended merging "the single notable fact", but both the source – I assume Madden, not Coren – and destination are unclear. None of Medical Council on Alcohol, Alcohol and Alcoholism, or John Spencer Madden has a Wikipedia article, although User:SimonTrew calls Madden "a respected pathologist". (The only other mention of Madden I found with a quick search was a link to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/medicine-obituaries/9161426/Dr-John-Spencer-Madden.htm placed by User:Gaythorn at the end of Moston, Cheshire West and Chester.) I think that an argument can be made for mentioning Madden's report at Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, perhaps by generalizing Lead poisoning overdose to cover all analyses long after Beethoven's death, but that it would best be rewritten from the source, as permitted by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, Bare references. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - Regardless of whether you take a pure number count, or if you weigh each vote up carefully, there is no consensus to merge. Instead, the consensus was clearly to delete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge or redirect, change target We've got reliable sources covering parts of this, there was certainly a scholarly article on the topic and a better-known parody of that article. I don't see the harm in a redirect or (very minor) merge, but Death of Ludwig van Beethoven should be the target and anything merged needs cites which clearly support the claims. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this belongs to the "how many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a light bulb" category. I'm waiting for articles on Beethoven's pancreas [12], Beethoven's kidneys and so forth [13] to linger forever in Wikipedia's brilliance zone. Clearly sources exist, thus these must all have separate articles per WP:RANDY. 86.121.18.250 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The redirect discussion is at Wikipe-tan → Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. (-- Jreferee (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Traffic statistics is at [14] Theemathas (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be redirected to WP:Wikipe-tan. Quoted rom WP:Cross-namespace redirects: "One purpose of WP is to explain obscure references." This is quite an obscure reference. Also, I couldn't find a proper deletion discussion of this page anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemathas (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Mainspace-to-ProjectSpace redirects are undesirable. Instead, go to your preferences, search tab, and enable "Search in all namespaces". Or do an external search, such as this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If the content is not worthy of mainspace, it is not worthy of mainspace, even as a redirect. The case being made by the non is a more obvious method to search beyond mainspace. Perhaps the option for advanced search should be more prominent when a mainspace search fails to generate hits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It was given a none too satisfactory discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006#Wikipe-tan_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Thincat (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - the redirect was speedily deleted as G7, so there's no reason someone shouldn't be allowed to create the redirect anew. Opposition to cross-namespace redirects is pure circle-jerking, and should not be given serious consideration. WilyD 12:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very offensive way to put an unexpected policy assertion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess, but one's a bit stuck when describing offensive behaviour. Barring some evidence that the subject is notable, (which I'm doubtful exists), the best we can do for a reader wanting to read about the subject is send them to the project page. Presenting the reader with the best possible outcome must be the only consideration; editors wanting to please themselves over rule fetishisation must be ignored. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not having a circle jerk. WilyD 14:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm positive that you could have expressed your frustration without resorting to such a crude and offensive description. Please don't do it again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• My word choice is nuanced and accurate. If you're offended, be offended at the activity, and not the reflection of it. I shan't lie about or mischaracterise activities merely so people can pretend they're not taking place. WilyD 08:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is not a notable subject, the we should not be promoting it for non-Wikipedian readers. Mainspace is our product, and it should not contain non notable inside stories. Any external link to mainspace should be a link to mainspace. We should alter our search results page to make it easier to explicitly choose to search the back rooms, and should not make these unexpected holes. How wanting to preserve mainspace for mainspace purposes equates to circle jerking I don't see. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea the having a redirect is promotion is laughable beyond belief. The only people who will ever find the redirect will already be searching for the subject. Our choices are either to fetishise mainspace to mainspace redirects only for no encyclopaedic purpose, but merely for pleasing ourselves, or sending the reader to what they're already looking for, and putting the reader's outcome before our own non-encyclopaedic enjoyment. For anyone here to write an encyclopaedia, there's latter is the only possible choice. For people who don't count that among their priorities, perhaps not, but they must be disregarded. WilyD 08:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you support all dictionary words, not associated with an article, being redirected to wiktionary? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a template for this purpose, although I think it's not as in favour as it once one. In many cases, redlinking to encourage article creation is probably wiser. If it's truly hopeless, then sure. What else? Flip readers the bird? I'd rather not. WilyD 11:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of redirect. Restoring the redirect is just the wrong way to go. If it's a plausible enough search term, ie an "obscure reference" turning up enough outside of WP-internal or pendent discussions, a mainspace article would be appropriate. If not, then the redirect fails basic standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the July 2006 redirects for discussion. Reasons for redirect deletion guideline WP:R#DELETE #6 states "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." As for whether to permit another Wikipe-tan → Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan redirects for discussion by allowing recreation of the redirect, do you have and basis in WP:R#KEEP (or more arguments from Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects), for example, that would be reason to discuss the issue again? The edit history of the deleted page is small, but the deleted page still does receive traffic.[15] Also, there did seem to be a significant interest in recreating the redirect after it was deleted in 2006,[16] and there still is interest (per this DRV request and WillyD's position above). Reason #6 for not deleting a redirect is someone finds them useful. In short, in view of the none too satisfactory RfD discussion noted by Thincat, the multiple speedy deletions thereafter, and the other reasons I noted above, I'm on the fence regarding whether to allow recreation. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As SmokeyJoe has said, I already changed that preference. However, I once attempted to search for that page before changing the preference (that was a long time ago), causing quite some annoyance. I gave up searching and switched to google that time. I believe there are many people who use default settings for searching too.Theme (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Gross (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The documentation of what is essentially a secret society is difficult at best, but I am working on updating the page and references as much as possible. I direct you to the pages of Gloria Brame and Viola Johnson as well as the Kink Aware Professionals page where you will see her name. Links were also removed from SouthEast LeatherFest of which Ms. Gross is the Producer.

A comment was posted about the awards she received being "minor" but the person who commented says they do not know the origin of the awards. Awards Ms. Gross has received are nationally recognized awards in the leather community, and in no way are considered minor at all.

You can see Ms. Gross listed on the Leather Archives & Museum site as a Board member http://www.leatherarchives.org/contact/contact.htm Additionally, a book edited by Peter Tupper to be published in 2015 discussing the "firsts" in the leather community specifically names Ms. Gross http://petertupper.com/2013/02/23/editing-the-history-of-consensual-master-slave-relationships/.

I would also like to refer you to the folllwing page https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southeast_Leatherfest_(2nd_nomination)where you will see comments pertaining to the difficulty in finding sources due to the privacy and secrecy of the community. While some aspects of the community are beginning to open, it is still a huge challenge to find the supporting documentation.

If it is not possible to restore the page, I respectfully request a copy of the page. Thank you. Mike Shore (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse due to the recent unambiguous AfD discussion. This topic does not look close to being ready. A userspace draft may help. Mike, do you have any experience with Wikipedia? It is very difficult for newcomers to succeed with difficult to source topics like this. Encourage emailing the content to Mike, if he enables email on his account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The outcome of the AFD discussion is undisputable. Nothing in the discussion curtails the ability of an editor to create an appropriately sourced BLP for the subject, if notability can be established and reliable sources provided. Requestor should review WP:RS and WP:BLP and then consider moving forward carefully at AFC. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new to Wikipedia, but willing to learn. I've activated my email on here and have been reading the information on the various help topics. Mike Shore (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nothing improper about the AFD decision. Mike, now that the page has been restored, just go to the article's history, where you can find older versions of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Clear consensus for delete even after a relisting and no new evidence to suggest the decision was incorrect. Mkdw^talk 02:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse which doesn't mean that the page can't be recreated with more evidence of notability. I'd recommend Mike Shore ignores the pre-deletion version of the page and starts over from scratch due to that version of the page being almost pure promotion. But yes it's a challenging subject to create pages on. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 United Tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2014 United Tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• It was 4-2 advantage for keep. No reasonable arguments for deletion were shown. Argument for keep were not analyzed. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media, not only in sports media, for example see [17] [18] [19] (congratulations from President of Ukraine) etc (many links in the articles). Best clubs of the leagues took part in it. Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [20]. NickSt (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Possibly the closing admin, Secret, hasn't been contacted over this which is a pity because maybe some things could have been sorted out. The AFD was closed "no consensus for parent article delete seasons",[21] and later changed by an IP to "Keep, the result for the season pages was Delete".[22] Also, the edit comment on the "main" article when the AFD tag was removed was "no consensus".[23] Although the 2013 and 2014 articles were added right after the main article was nominated, no one seems to have mentioned more than an unspecified single article and the nomination doesn't distinguish between them. The references given in the AFD seem to refer to the 2013 match. So, I can't see how the closer decided to delete some and keep (by no consensus) another. All round a very confusing discussion. Thincat (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have undeleted the 2013 article for discussion. If there is any need to undelete the others, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - there was definitely no consensus for deleting anything there. I don't see a single shred of justification based on the discussion to say that there was a consensus towards justifying the seasons. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Agree with closer. A productive way forward here is to add sourced content to United Tournament before filling annual sub-articles with data. We want coverage, not just data. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately per Stifle. There was not a consensus to delete here, and most of the discussion centered around the tournament. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2011 Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2012 Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2013 Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• It was 5-4 advantage for keep. No reasonable arguments for deletion were shown. Argument for keep were not analyzed. Notable famous tournament with coverage in media [24] [25] [26] [27] NickSt (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have undeleted the 2013 article for discussion. If there is any need to undelete the others, let me know DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we have the Match World Cup page undeleted please? It's the parent article and the one most likely to have the sources that according to the closer weren't produced. Without it I'm flying blind. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, just because you disagree with the opposing arguments is no reason to state, "no reasonable arguments for deletion were shown." In point of fact, stating that there were no links to coverage in reliable sources is an eminently reasonable justification for deletion. Mischaracterizing AfD discussions is a poor argument for overturning. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody said anything like "no links to coverage in reliable sources". The questions raised were whether coverage was "significant" or "enough". The views expressed on both sides were subjective. However, I agree that the arguments for deletion do not seem self-evidently unreasonable.Thincat (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD nominator said these tournaments were, "not significantly covered in reliable sources". That is a reasonable, policy-based argument for deletion. Ignoring that does both the process and the nominator a disservice I thought ought to be mentioned. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and it was deleted according to procedure. C679 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good call by the closer. Note that it was a weak decision to delete, with the closer noting that advocates for keeping the article failed to bring forward more significant sourcing. I am sure the closer will engage reasonably with any editor who now can bring forward more sources, or maybe even work on a userfied copy. I don't see any attempts at discussion so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Given that the closing admin specifically mentions the keep !votes in closing remarks, the claim that they were not analysed does not hold up. Deleted !votes were policy based, while several (though not all) of the keep !votes failed to provide any particular reason for keeping. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Larner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin should base the outcome on the discussion presented and the quality of arguments according to our guidelines. User:Bearian has improperly interjected his own non-guidelines based opinion into the close and should have either deleted the page in accordance with WP:GNG, relisted the debate or weighed in with his own !vote.
WP:HEY is an essay, not a guideline and speaks to situations where significant improvement has been made to an article since the nomination was made, suggesting that early delete votes should carry less weight. But no such improvement was made. In between the time of my nomination and the time of the close, the only changes were to add a mention of a non-notable "Best Young Journalist" (note the redlink) industry award 4 days into the AfD (questioned by 2 of us before the first relisting) and two WP:PRIMARY links to the subject's own writings.
Bearian also cites "heretofore unlikely sources" (which he linked to WP:RS) as a reason to keep. If he means we can reliably report what the subject writes in her own column, then, yes, those sources exist and lots of those links have been provided. But the only reliable independent secondary sources ever produced were reports of this non-notable industry award and a blog entry remarking on her blog commenting on someone else's Facebook rant, which I find to be pretty thin gruel as support for a WP:BLP.
Finally, I call attention to the fact that the only new !votes added since the last relisting expressed non-guidelines based reasons.
Closing admin has refused my request to reconsider. Requesting relisting or deletion overturn to no consensus. Msnicki (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominated for pretty obvious notability and COI issues. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think it's a justifiable article, though it still needs some improvements. We don;t delete articles for that, so it was a reasonable close DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For the reasons I debated in the AfD, I remain unconvinced that the reliable sources are numerous enough and agree with the points raised by Msnicki regarding the closure. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree with DGG. This is a borderline notability case, not a clearcut one. I based my recommendation to keep based on my judgment that the sources taken as a whole are adequate to meet the general notability guideline, but understand that others may disagree. The closing administrator judged consensus correctly. Let's move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Diff in question claimed to be worth wp:HEY. What do we have? Best young journalist of the year: VinItaly, two articles she wrote, and a book. VinItaly is, of course, a redlink in the article so I have problems seeing an argument that uses that (let alone a book with no established notability) as coming close to wp:HEY. On the other hand the very most deletionist result I can see is No Consensus. And that's something that defaults to keep - so effectively the right outcome for the wrong reason? (Now the COI issues are an entirely different story). Neonchameleon (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree with Neonchameleon that, at best, the discussion was heading towards a No Consensus that would have defaulted to Keep. Several points were made about the article's passing of notability criteria according to WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and subpolicies like WP:AUTHOR and while Msnicki may not personally agree with those points or the application of those policies and guidelines there certainly wasn't any consensus pointing towards delete. Again, at most we could have an argument for a No Consensus close but the outcome would still be the same. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Indeed at best a "no consensus", but the "keep" !votes seem to have had the stronger arguments. Correct closure. Article needs some cleanup and COI may be an issue, but neither are valid reasons for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per DGG, Cullen 328 and Agne27. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I found two more sources: [28], [29] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm surprised by the discussion. The point of a DRV is to review a close, not to reargue the discussion itself. There seems to pretty nearly unanimous agreement that the closing admin was wrong to assert WP:HEY based on the facts. The addition of a non-notable "best young journalist" award by a non-notable organization and another primary source did not add up to WP:HEY. Moreover, the reasoning behind WP:HEY is that the early delete !voters may never have considered these sources. But the other two delete !voters almost instantly chimed in to indicate they're completely aware of these sources and they still hold the same positions. The assertion of WP:HEY was simply wrong and apparently almost everyone agrees.
  The other striking unanimity here is that it was wrong to close as keep, because there really wasn't a consensus (which is true, it 4:3 split) but that doesn't matter because that would still default to keeping the article.
  So here have a situation where there seems to be a consensus that the closing admin was wrong on both his stated reasoning and on calling it keep instead of no consensus. I think there is a difference between keep and no consensus and that's we have them both. Calling the outcome of the discussion a consensus to keep when there was in fact clearly no consensus seems to roll right over the minority. You didn't win so you don't count. Our dissent should be noted, not ignored.
  Please note that I have edited my request to ask that the outcome be registered as no consensus. Msnicki (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What difference does it make whether the outcome is classified as "keep" or "no consensus," in this context? (I don't mean as sarcasm or a belittling of your opinion, but quite literally, why does it matter whether this change is made or not, to justify spending more of the community's limited time on this question?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it obviously makes no difference to you, but you weren't part of the 4:3 minority being told there was a consensus when there wasn't one and for reasons that no one believes. We should at least have our considered dissent noted. It matters to us. The close should reflect what actually happened. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A difference between no consensus and keep is that no consensus allows immediate listing at AfD again and keep imports a three month or so delay in listing at AfD again. That's about it. The article change during the AfD is shown here, which I would not call vastly improved, but I can't say Bearian interpreted the consensus incorrectly. DRV also looks at significant new information that has come to light. Agne27 has expanded the article.[30] At this point, I don't see the article being deleted at AfD if listed again. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Larner's notability is established even if the only thing she ever did was to expose the Fulvio Bressan affair. Arguing about whether the closing admin properly followed the Heymann standard strikes me as dithering on process over product. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being a member of Forbes editorial staff, but a contributor, is that Forbes article reliable? Samwalton9 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines are replacing editorial staff with "contributors" throughout the industry. If you look at the sidebar on that article, you see that the author of this article has the same job as when he was the Lifestyle Editor at Forbes, but has to pay for his own salary. So I don't think it turns Forbes into a non-RS. If anyone else does, then Agence France-Presse confirms the essential foundation of the story. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:HEY aside, this was a difficult discussion to assess but ultimately the delete camp's argument was not strong enough and the keep camp had made some very valid arguments. While you could argue 'no consensus' it was closer to a keep. Mkdw^talk 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable call. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not sure what is the whole point of this discussion. If it's to intimidate sysops into not closing deletion discussionsas as "keep", and instead to allow for longer-termed discussions, I think it might be working. I've been told that my bathroom needs mopping more than WP. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a sudden deletion discussion (14 December – 16 December), then User:postdlf deleted the page, and then I gave a further (more detailed) Keep argument which was not anymore accepted and informed this admin at User talk:Postdlf#At least one week deletion discussion, please. I assumed mathematical editors recognize that every quadratic irrational number has and can be exactly specified by its unique periodic continued fraction expansion. The article Periodic continued fraction (deleted page contains a link to it) informs about that. Maybe this lacking awareness caused the sudden deletion impulse? Please allow at least one week for regular deletion discussions. Thank you. MathLine (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse (as original nominator) a perfectly good WP:SNOW close, based on the unanimous support for delete based on policy. Even if MathLine had participated and voted keep their one !vote set against the eight delete !votes would not have changed the outcome, and made it still likely to be Snow closed, especially as their arguments address none of the reasons for deletion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Unanimous consensus, based on sound reasoning. There is no possible way it could have been closed differently. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Advise MathLine (talk · contribs) to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no defect in deletion process. Suggest User:MathLine takes the article to a more specialist site (and I will be happy to provide the content of the deleted article for this purpose). Stifle (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - 7 deletes, original research, and a wp:SNOW. No question here at all. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnBlackburne  personally  noticed this further—more detailed—Keep argument  (see  [31] )  of me and undid it. Mathematician leaders here have probably stressful university seats, so that they could tend to wave away all that which looks uncommon seen from their special working branch. In such a job I would probably also simply dismiss a Nova fractal article in bad times if its pictures were only slightly less colorful. Having the greatness to accept such an article requires a look into the depths of its pro arguments. Such a deeper look would unveil in this case, that the  with WP:OR associated WP:CALC  makes the way totally free for this Wikipedia. If all the own calculations and computations in Nova fractal, Exact trigonometric constants and Arithmetic functions for providing these further high-quality views into the nature (/consistence/rules) of the numbers, why then no simple further mentioning and listing of periodic continued fractions which are ordered firstly by the sum of all for their notation necessary terms, then lexicographically and then by the begin position of the period from left to right? Why this inequality??

This is just a clarifying immediate conclusion of the statements about the connection between quadratic irrational numbers and Periodic continued fractions, mentioned in this article!

Note that by writing e.g. film content summaries you also have to perform immediate linguistic conclusions to make it an own text. You cannot forbid in a mathematical context what you allow in a narrative context. Why this unequal treatment?

(Of course the mathematical profession also needs advertisement with great pictures. How convincing is it, that http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CurlicueFractal.html 's with quadratic irrational numbers as the angle defining variable s show a special regular pattern, specially dependent on their periodic continued fraction properties, and hence with great potential for fractal pictures: a certain apparently unique shape for every certain continued fraction period, which repeats unrotated and at every repetition with increasing size and some of them develop only within certain angles?) --MathLine (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and directed you here, which is the proper place to dispute a close. The rest of your post is irrelevant as it does not address the reasons for deletion, or closure, in any meaningful way. I would though suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which covers how relevant other articles are to this discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this same "Wiki:" site there's also the section WP:PERNOMINATOR which advises not to give simple further amounts of votes with identical content of prior votes and advises to state your true position in your own words to assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position, and the section WP:SUPPORT which also emphasize the importance of argument quality over quantity. — I clearly mentioned these other articles to clarify the meaning of WP:CALC, a section which allows immediate conclusions additionally also in calculation contexts. WP:OTHERSTUFF (which mainly tells that other articles of the same topic never exclusively justify article notabilities) of course doesn't forbid such a mentioning. It is actually very mean and scornful to ignore my important WP:CALC-argument. I also already argumented with WP:CALC in this detailed statement which you deleted at the original AfD page. The topic is not any invention of "some" people in this world, it is basic math and routine teaching matter in literally every country of the world and for millions of people around the world. So why do you nonetheless ignore my argumentation with WP:CALC, JohnBlackburne ? --MathLine (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's irrelevant. You haven't even tried to address the concerns, that it was original research, i.e. all your own work, and unsourced. No-one !voted 'per nom', everyone gave reasons. No-one said 'I don't like it'. Yes 'quality over quantity' is important: as in concise and precise reasoning, not paragraphs that veer badly off-topic. Really this has the similar snowball's chance in hell of going your way as the original AfD, but you might at least read the arguments given in the AfD and here. You seem to be describing an entirely different discussion to the AfD in question.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:SNOW closures should be avoided if there's reasonable cause to believe that more time or additional scrutiny might alter the debate, but it doesn't seem likely that would have happened in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the point being made by this article is that the quadratic irrationals are denumerable, a point that can usefully be illustrated by demonstration, similar to how most of us learned that (for example) the rationals are denumerable. It might be helpful for the article creator to explain that and then find some sources pointing to the methodology he has identified for illustrating the point. This article is not ready for mainspace but perhaps some work on it in userspace or off-wiki could improve things. On the other hand, my attendance at HCSSiM was in 1978 and 1979, so if I've missed the boat here I'm sure some of our more mathematically capable editors will say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course even the entire algebraic irrationals are denumerable while as roots of certain polynoms they can all be exactly specified by the finite coefficients and a further ordinal number of the root of these polynoms (Main article: Countable set). Less trivial is, that it seems to be just literally infinitely complicated to arrange a bijection between the naturals and the entire algebraic irrationals. And a bijection between naturals and quadratic irrationals is topic of this list. So with your constructive estimation it seems now possible to

• undelete the list,
• add the templates {{construction}} (or {{newsite}}) and {{algebra-stub}},
• write (for covering firstly the whole article name's meaning) at the article begin: "A list of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order is a bijection between natural numbers and quadratic irrational numbers. For example this list sets all quadratic irrational numbers between 0 and 1 ...", and
• copy source [3] from Periodic continued fraction into this article to source the claimed association with quadratic irrationals? --MathLine (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse do not see anything that suggests the consensus was leaning any other way. Mkdw^talk 01:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SUPPORT, WP:MAJORITY ← all links to one long page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) which severely calls for discussion contributions with quality and independent arguing. --MathLine (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read those, probably more than you have, and frankly if you read WP:CONSENSUS you will see that there is as much validity to evidence as a lack of evidence when determining consensus. There was a clear community consensus for delete. I would also like to remind you that the DRV mainly a place to discuss the process in which I am stating no errors in judgement were made in terms of the closing. There were some questionable delete !votes but nothing to remotely indicate a wrongful closure. I would also like to point out that you have incorrectly attempted to apply WP:ATA in the vast majority of times you have cited it and that numerous editors have pointed this out to you already. I also believe you are under the impression that in disqualifying other editor's opinions at the AFD, you will dodge the fact that your own argument did not address the concerns of the nominator and other editors that reviewed your keep rationale. Mostly because that argument was not based upon the understanding and designed intentions of those policies and guidelines. Wikilawyering every comment with policies links is also ironically discouraged. I understand your frustration in this process as it is admittedly very complicated. That said, I mean this very sincerely that informing some very well read editors above of some basic policies that you are fundamentally applying incorrectly will not advance your argument very far. I would suggest looking at a number of first article guides to help you understand how to better improve the subjects your are interested in than battling it out to save this one list. Mkdw^talk 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – MathLine - Wikipedia does have List of numbers and math articles are maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. While the list of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order might not be original research per WP:CALC, I think what editors are saying is that such a list of numbers is not the type Wikipedia usually keeps. You can get a better idea about what list of numbers articles Wikipedia maintains by looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime numbers and through some of:

-- Jreferee (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Least-valued currency unit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed as merge, but it seems outside the scope of the target page, and other editors agree. Five people wanted it kept, three including the nominator wanted it deleted and one wanted it merged or deleted, so the closure seems like a supervote. I have now found a probably reliable source for Least-valued currency unit, and possible unreliable source for the highest. The closing admin said that there were no consensus-based keep arguments, but WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR are two policies refuting that argument. A discussion can be found on the closing admin's talk page history. Dark Sun (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can link the discussion with the admin and the discussion about the merge material to save other users having to search for them before commenting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions include Talk:List of circulating currencies#Stop. Edit. Warring! and User talk:Black Kite/Archive 49#AfD closure inquiry. WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Highest-valued currency unit and WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 28#Highest-valued currency unit seem to be less useful. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion discussions ultimately can end in one of two outcomes, delete or not-delete. This was the latter. Post-closure variations to which particular flavour of not-delete is being used can be discussed on the article talk page or applied using WP:BB. Endorse. ✄ (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as far as I can see the AFD found there were major problems with the original article in terms of original research which the keep side failed to understand (the fallacy that if I can find a source for each piece of information I'm free to munge it together to form an article, which is actually a big part of what the policy is saying you can't do). This always meant the ability to merge content would be restricted to the material which wasn't WP:OR. As I read the target page the objection seems to be those wanting to just indiscriminately merge the content without removing or resolving such issues. Only other option I can see here is an overturn to delete and just be done with it. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I wrote at Black Kite's talk page, participants should be aware of WP:Copying within Wikipedia, but I think that it can be worked around. User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect has some discussion of how much merging an AfD merge outcome compels. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Generally, the Keep arguments ignored WP:N. "Verifiable information" is not sufficient. The Delete arguments didn't speak against merging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It rather frequently happens in a notability AFD that it is concluded that the topic doesn't warrant an article to itself but at least some of the information deserves retention somehow (or at least does not require deletion). It should be very much left up to editors' discretion how this is handled and the AFD should be regarded as influential guidance rather than a categorical instruction. I can see that we now have an editorial problem about how (or even whether) this material can be hosted and I am sorry that DRV will not be able to provide a solution. Thincat (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Mozambique, London (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to formally complain about the deletion of one of my articles, namely 'High Commission of Mozambique, London.' This is a page for the Mozambican embassy in the UK and I added it as part of project I am currently doing to add all the embassies that are in Britain to Wikipedia (note: High Commission is a synonym for embassy used by Commonwealth countries). This is something that has been done for the embassies in the USA for example, and to a degree for other major world powers such as Russia, and I thought it would be a nice idea to do this for the UK.

About 3-4 weeks ago however I noticed that the page for the Mozambican HC had been proposed for deletion by a user by the name of Stuartyeates. I posted a paragraph on the page's talk page detailing my reasons for keeping the page, which roughly were as follows:

1. There are lots of other countries with their own individual embassy page on Wikipedia which are virtually identical to the Mozambican HC in London one, several of which indeed I myself have recently added. None of these had also been proposed for deletion, so why exactly was Mozambique singled out in this way?

2. One of Stuartyeates points was that the article was not notable enough. Again, to refer to the above point, why is Mozambique any less important than a similar low-to-middle-ranking country such as Tanzania, Cyprus or Yemen, all of which have their own UK embassy page on Wikipedia and none of which have been proposed for deletion? I pointed out that as soon as you start attempting to specify which countries are 'notable' enough to warrant their own embassy page you enter very dangerous waters. What countries exactly count as notable? Those with a large population, a UN Security Council seat or a large economy? What about a small, poor country such as Jamaica which is highly influential in the realms of sports and music - is that enough to warrant the status of being 'notable'? And what about, let's say, Tajikistan, a country which I think it would be fair to say is fairly obscure and unknown in the Western world. Just because the country rarely gets mentioned on NBC does that mean that it therefore isn't notable enough to warrant it's own embassy page? I think it is obvious that this is a highly subjective, not to mention controversial and possibly even offensive undertaking, in which the clearest logical response is to have no individual embassy pages at all or to alternatively have one for each sovereign state. This is in line with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and avoiding bias, not to mention that other great thing about Wikipedia - its coverage of subjects and topics that are often overlooked or downplayed by other more traditional or mainstream encyclopedias (African histories, politics and cultures, incidentally, being a classic example).

3. He raised the point that article was short - basically a stub - with little extra information. I agree, but again, as pointed out above, many other embassy pages are of a similar nature, none of which have been proposed for deletion. The Mozambican HC in London page in that regard is no different from - to pick but two example at random - the page for the Embassy of Albania in Washington, DC (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Embassy_of_Albania,_Washington,_D.C.) or the Embassy of Finland in Moscow (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Embassy_of_Finland_in_Moscow). And surely the whole point of stub articles is that they are there to be added to over time by other users with a more indepth knowledge of the topic? Deleting articles on this basis is thus a ridiculous and self-defeating policy.

Due to my unfamiliarity with the deletion process I was unable to contribute to the deletion discussion and my article was deleted. On purely democratic grounds I would have thought that nothing would be done until the article's creator had had a chance to speak, but we'll let that one go. Sdrawkcab (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

The above summariy is correct on essential points. The article as I have seen it has insufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG. I'm happy for an article with appropriate sources to be created. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Mozambique, London. I have had a look at some of the other high commissions in London and PRODd a few without evidence of in depth coverage in independent non-routine sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that deletion notices have been placed on another six other Embassy pages I created, based on a 'mandate' from a discussion I didn't even take part in and despite the fact that I hadn't yet responded to the above points. Regardless, I shall respond to your reply:

• No claim of notability. - again, to repeat for what must be the 6th time, how are you choosing which country's embassy's are notable? Are you going by GDP per capita, Google hit count or what here? Or are you, as I suspect, picking countries at random? (though all these happen to be Third World states, a fact which I sincerely hope is a coincidence). This is an approach so ridiculous (not to mention discriminatory) that I'm at a loss as to how to respond. In the world of international relations all states are legally treated as equals, from Russia and America right down to places like Tuvalu and Suriname and it this is the approach that should be used on Wikipedia (and indeed is one of its great strength in comparison to traditional printed encyclopedias where smaller countries were given traditionally little space). Can you imagine the furore if someone started deleting articles on Surinamese or Burundian towns or districts on the the principal that they weren't notable enough? Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, and equal treatment for all countries is the only way to fulfill this policy.
• No independent references in with depth coverage. I have gone through all the pages and ensured that each one is referenced with the Official UK Government embassy list, and have used more references where possible also.

As to 'in depth coverage', I quote from the Wikipedia Stub page: "Once you create and save the [stub]article, other editors will also be able to enhance it" (my italics) The whole point of stub articles is that they are kept, despite their small size, so that others can then go on to improve and expand the article - the short-sightedness of your approach again staggers me. And again, there are vast numbers of similarly short stub articles which are kept based on the category to which they belong being deemed important enough. An obvious example here are villages and small towns - Wikipedia has a policy of 'one town, one page', so that are thousands of stub pages for all those small villages in England or Canada or wherever it might be, despite the fact that, realistically, for some countries these will unlikely to ever be expanded upon much. This same principle should apply to the pages for the embassy of one state to another.

• Nothing obvious in google with in depth coverage. The vast majority of embassy pages could be expanded to quite a reasonable length given the right editor. There's the history of the building, the institution, list and details of past ambassadors, the role of the embassy in inter-state relations, protests outside the embassy, notable incidents, departments and administrative structure etc. Details on these will quite often be hard to find on the internet and, let's be blunt, will require someone really interested in the embassy at hand to research it more thoroughly. I'm afraid I have neither the time nor inclination to go through every single embassy website copying over it's internal structure onto Wikipedia. However there will be others who do, and deleting the pages will prevent this from happening. Sdrawkcab (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

The primary policy here is the WP:GNG which talks about "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All of these articles are lacking evidence of such coverage and I'm not seeing any in google. Whether they deserve a page is an entirely different matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request is out of scope of DRV, per items 3 and 5 of the "deletion review should not be used" principles. ✄ (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, many of the embassy websites contain considerably more information about internal structures, embassy history etc. I simply don't have time to go through every single one copying over this sort of information - this will require someone with a genuine interest in each country/embassy. Plus the Google argument is rather ridiculous. There will be much more information in books, newspapers, periodicals etc. For instance specific buildings will often be discussed in local history books - the kind of out-of-print material that doesn't get put on Google. To take but one example, I just happened across an old newspaper article about the occupation of the Greek embassy by Kurdish protesters in 1999 the other day, and duly added it the Greek embassy page. If one was to conduct a serious search for things like this no doubt you would come up with many more instances of major protests, controversies etc. Again, though it may not seem like it, I do have a life and do not wish to spend it trawling through internet pages for all the 200+ countries and territories in the world just to avoid one of my articles being deleted which should have been left alone in the first place. Sdrawkcab (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

  I'm not sure what that response is meant to have to do with my point that DRV is not for drawing attention to other articles that should be deleted, nor for re-arguing points that were or should have been raised at the AFD. ✄ (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the standard is WP:GNG non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The websites of the embassy themselves are not independent coverage. Offline sources may well exist, but it's not the job of everyone else to do the impossible and prove a negative (that no such coverage does exist), it's for those wishing to retain the article to demonstrate the coverage does exist. Also care needs to be taken about what the subject of such offline sources are, there are going to be sources where the location is more or less just a fact of the matter of genuine notablity/interest. However this is not AFD round 2. If someone (whoever that may be) does decide they want to put in enough research to create a stub (or a full article) with sufficient references to demonstrate that such notability exists, they are free to do so without bringing it here. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Failure to apply the correct rule, which is that WP has some of the functions of a almanac, etc. and that includes the listing of embassies in a least the most important countries. (almost the only traditional function of an almanac that I think we do not include is detailed astronomical & numerical data) The GNG applies only when it makes sense to apply it. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And how does the current redirect target List of diplomatic missions of Mozambique not fulfil that? GNG is appropriate for a standalone article. No one is saying these can't be included in a list either as a standalone article or as a piece of a bigger article. And frankly that seems to be an AFD vote. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse wp:OTHER is a bad argument. Yes, that High Commission is probably no less notable than the others you mention. But for whatever reason it's the only one that made it to deletion review. Out of curiosity, why are you trying to give each embassy in Britain its own Wikipedia page? To me that sounds like a wp:List and I'm almost certain that no one would even suggest deleting a list of all the embassies in Britain - or object even slightly to the embassy pages in Britain being made redirects to that list. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The deleted article, which probably should have been named something like Mozambique High Commission to Great Britain in London, was not clear as to whether the article was about a group of people or the embassy building housing the group. The topic does have some source information - I did not see enough to meet WP:GNG, but I don't think the approach of adding stubs of all the embassies that are in Britain to Wikipedia will lead to an article on the Mozambique High Commission to Great Britain having enough source material to support a stand alone article on the topic. Stubs need to meet WP:GNG like all articles and other editors will also be able to enhance a stub only of there is enough source material from which to summarize into the article. The AfD close was straight forward and interpreted consensus correctly. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Holland (composer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was about the Person Anthony Holland of Skidmore university. He was already known for his music and everyone was fine with that When his biopage got Royal Rife taged to it the page was deleted with in weeks. The Royal Rife page here is full of inconsistences and bad bias due to editors babysitting articles making sure that said articles never refelct information they oppose. Some of that same mob was there to destroy the Anthony Holland article for his efforts and scientific research. One admin even flat out stated on the talk page that the only reason they wanted the whole article deleted was because of the scientific experiment section.

Anthony Holland was of some notiblity for his music long before he began his scientific medical investigational experimentation. A particular mob obbsessed with shutting down that which they disagree with has removed a valuable article that only promised to get more interesting with age and additional content. 1zeroate (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed that I might want to provide links of notiblity. http://www.skidmore.edu/news/2013/111213-tedxskidmorecollege.php

TED speaker, http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/450/so-crazy-it-just-might-work this american life guest on NPR,

http://www.dramonline.org/albums/music-of-anthony-g-holland/notes started composing music at the age of ten, Played Carnigee Hall.

Further he has been on a few more TV shows regarding his science experiments and the guy pumps out music. It is his first passion. I can fill the page with music links to his compisitions.

All this is to say nothing of the fact that he is an associate professor of music, director of the College s electronic music facilities, and conductor of the Skidmore orchestra.

I want to stress that this is not my article it is just related to subject matter I maintain an interest in. That subject matter I waited to add to his bio for a long time out of fear of the Rife haters. I watched a wonderful well sourced article on royal raymond rife turn to total poorly sourced ruination. The article here on wikipedia that says it is a bio of Royal Rife is nothing but a dieatribe about the technology he pioneered and how bad for your health it is. No mention of his wives, his boats, his love of music, All that is cast asaide to playcate psudoskeptics and their desire to reject. Regardless of verifiablity. On that Rife page citations are repeated verbatum and obstinante editors still insist on more citation . Because a newpaper article with pictures needs a seperate citation of being a newspaper that took legitiment news pictures. ... Thats how bad the rife page is.

I did not want to see Anthony Hollands page go down in flames because of the fact that his research work is based of the old work of Royal Rife.

Novocure is a pad unit. Anthony Holland is working on a plasma attena broadcast method in the hopes of being able to acheive the same results as novocure only with out direct contact..

Whether or not the article is undeleted Mr Holland will continue on his path. He has his own Nonprofit medical research lab now. He named it novobiotronic in honor of Novocure who crossed the finishline of FDA legitimacy first. This is not an idle human that will only be remembered for screaming "leave brittiney alone" this is a major contributor to humanity in the grander scheme of things.

I sincerly hope to continue the editing of the man and the subjects of his life he persues. For the reprecussions of that life will hopefully improve us all. And thats something I think we should all want to help with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk

• temporarily restored for discussion here DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Seppi333s request for a pubmed number. Although I read the MDres differnlty than you do I can understand what your asking for and I could of sworn he had a pilot study somewheres that ended poorly hence no need for phase one or two testing. All I can find are preclinical studies for Holland and his current research. On a related note however, I found many references of Novocures pubmed numbers. Upon inspection of the pubmed references it is made clear that the Novocure system utilzes electromagnetic fields to acheive their "tumor treatment fields"

This is rigoursly backed up and verified. http://www.novocure.com/clinical_trials.php?ID=1 So while I remain having trouble establishing something past pre-clinical for Holland spesifically , the type of research he is doing in said field of study has been independently verified. Low energy elecromagnetic emmison curing cancer. Many artilces will need to be readjusted in light of this medical acceptence of a frequency based therapy that is "tumor treatment fields" . Hopfully Anthony Holland will be the second one out to cross the finishline of Modern medical acceptence and practise. Novocure could use the compitetion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Decision is out of scope of DRV per item 5 of "deletion review should not be used". ✄ (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV can be used to make any reasonable request--including pointing out that an argument did not get sufficient attention-- The fundamental rule is NOT BURO. Whether this particular request is reasonable or is being argued reasonably is another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 December 2013

  Please don't cite your personal extreme inclusionist view of how DRV should work as though it were actual policy. If you want DRV to work differently, feel free to make a proposal (which I will vehemently oppose) and attempt to gather a consensus. It is long established that DRV is not a venue for users to get a "second bite of the cherry" by re-stating or expanding on the arguments already rejected at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is not inclusionist--it is equally well an argument usable for deletion. It's based upon the fundamental principle of NOT BURO -- as well as the actual practice here. Any admin board can and in practice does review whatever is necessary to get the result that improves WP.(As we have been disagreeing about this for many years now. I do not expect to convince you,). DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, no evidence of any major leap in notability since, uh, 3 days ago when the AFD closed. Numerically it was 5 deletes (counting nominator) to one keep, who even specifies "(just barely) notable", so there's really no way the AFD could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of Scope - I see no new evidence in the above list. And no evidence at all that a specific argument didn't get sufficient attention. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AFD close clearly was appropriate to the discussion. I agree that a lot of this nomination may be out of scope but it is for people here to consider the situation. In my view some of the nomination is in scope because it claims "significant new information has come to light". Also, were there to be a claim that an argument didn't get sufficient attention (and I don't really see such a claim here), that would be a proper consideration because the closer is required to interpret the consensus correctly. If anyone wants to improve the article out of main space, I don't see why they should be prevented from doing so. Thincat (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish I had seen the AfD when it was active, as I'd done a little amount of work on that article before, and was lightly monitoring the talk page discussion fighting over the content of the article. But for the discussion that happened, the close is correct.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pakeman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My article about Peter Pakeman was recently deleted. Following unsuccessful discussions with the administrator (talk) to have it restored, he suggested that I submit my concerns for a deletion review.

The controversial aspect of the discussion was not strictly about providing a reliable and independent reference, but rather the specificity of the information required to confirm that the subject of the article, Peter Pakeman, played with the North York Rockets in the Canadian Soccer League. Initial comments from administrators suggested that the Canadian Soccer League was not a fully professional league, which was inaccurate, and that the reference provided File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf, a supplement to an Official Program published by the Canadian Soccer Association [File:North York Rockets Official Program (1987).pdf] was not a reliable source. I am submitting this deletion review to determine if the content of the reference and other circumstantial evidence is sufficient to reasonable conclude that Peter Pakeman appeared in a fully professional league.

In our discussions, the administrator indicated that the evidence required to prove that one played in a fully professional league boiled down to providing statistics on games played, or evidence of having played in a game(s). In my response I explained that the likelihood of older, under-funded and defunct professional leagues like the Canadian Soccer League having prepared and/or published statistics on games played is next to none. I also suggested that if this is Wiki’s standard, then it would mean that none of the players during the CLS’ 1987 augural season can claim to have played, except for those few players (e.g., top goal scorers) whose names appear in the odd publication. This would also mean that none of the players photographed in the Official Program published by the Canadian Soccer Association [File:North York Rockets Official Program (1987).pdf] can claim to have played, because having their names and photos published does not equate to having played in a game. If you review articles in the category, Canadian Soccer League (1986–1992), none of them provide references to player statistics on games played. If you review the article Ottawa Intrepid you will find statistics on games played, but no references.

Other circumstantial evidence that suggests it is reasonable to conclude that Peter Pakeman appeared in a fully professional league include the following: -For over 20 years, the subject not only retained the [File:North York Rockets Official Program (1987).pdf] and [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf], he also retained a copy of the blank player contract that was provided to him. Meaning, he kept these items because of their importance as records of this achievement. -The fact that the subject was clear about when he did and did not play. See article, where it talks about his selection to the U16 Provincial Team, and where he admits to not playing. -In response to skeptics, who might ask who would turn down a professional contract, the subject indicated that the decision was a no-brainer, because he was 27 years of age at the time and earning 5-6 times what was offered by the Rockets in a league that had an average salary of $7,500 per season [32].

The irony of this situation is that even if the subject had signed the contract and played one or more games, he would still not be able to meet the standard set by the administrator. In the end, I am hoping that the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf] is sufficient evidence to reasonable satisfy Wiki’s notability criteria for Association football (soccer), conclude that Peter Pakeman appeared in a fully professional league, and restore the deleted article.

My second concern was about the subject’s selection to the Eastern USA team to play in the ISSA Senior Soccer Bowl Classic, a forum where top college soccer players could compete in an all-star game and where professional soccer scouts could come to see America's best players. I contended that this individual award at he national level award merits consideration for meeting Wiki’s notability criteria for Amateur sports persons- College athletes. I explained to the administrator that both the NCCA and the ISAA have longstanding roots in sports; however, unlike the NCAA, which has its roots in rowing and football, the ISSA was founded in 1926 and created for and supported soccer, only. I further explained that in comparison, the first NCCA All-American award was presented in 1973, a year after the first ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic game was played. Finally, I indicated that while the NCAA All-American award may be more widely recognized, individuals selected to play in the ISAA the Senior Soccer Bowl Classic were also being recognized at the national level. Your opinion on this matter is also requested. Xave2000 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse based on the information given. That he was keeping a program is (a) not wp:verifiable and (b) not strong evidence. And it's wp:Verifiable as much as wp:GNG where your claims are falling down. I can't check your files (there are copyright issues that lead to File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf being deleted) and as such I see nothing at all verifiable. If we can't verify any claims we can't use them. And we can't host things on Wikipedia that are copyrighted without a good Fair Use rationale (which apparently was failed). So ultimately I literally can't see any evidence supporting his notability or even that he existed. (I'm not remotely saying he didn't exist, merely that I've yet to see any evidence that he did other than that you say he did). That's a long way from passing WP:GNG Neonchameleon (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion Even for subjects of this sort in that time period there are normally sources showing their participation in the games--newspapers of the cities where the team has its home are a likely source,. They may or may not be available online, but it's worth a try in either case. I've sometimes had to give up when the people are from regions of the world where I cannot find sources of any sort, but for the US and Canada, there should be no great difficult. So find them, and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Soprano (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reviewed the version that was just deleted. A7 probably wasn't the best reason as the recreated article was a gross BLP violation and whatever the result of this discussion these revisions must not be undeleted. The reason? Unsourced birth and married name for the subject in an article describing her as a sex worker. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Oh and looking through the history this problem is thread through the whole article history. With over 500 revisions deleted it will be a nightmare trying to work any revs that are safe for undeletion. If we don't endorse deletion we are much better starting from scratch then trying to save this content. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was marked for speedy deletion first for invalid reasons. Then it was speedy deleted (with no discussion even though the page survived deletion discussions before) at the request of the subject, which isn't a valid reason according to the guidelines. Is subject requests really a valid reason to delete a page with no discussion? Hondo77 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, firstly, this was previously deleted per subject's request: OTRS #2010092610000961. So at some level the needs to be a discussion prior to recreation. I protected it so it could not be recreated w/o that discussion taking place, out of consideration for the subject's wishes. I wrote in the protection log that it had beed deleted at the subject's request. I will review the article (I did not delete it to see if I think it meets relevant CSD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should notify Malik Shabazz as he was last to delete. Dlohcierekim 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have informed Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. Dlohcierekim 01:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was most recently deleted per WP:CSD#A7. I probably would have searched for sourcing or awaited further developments. Dlohcierekim 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified the deleting admins about this discussion here and here. However, PeterSymonds has not edited since April. Dlohcierekim 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The version I speedily deleted on December 12 made no assertion that Soprano was important or significant. Clean case of A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It might be a case of A7 but it certainly isn't a clean case of A7. On 2 October 2010 the article was deleted at the subject's request.[33] Had there been discussion or office action? However the delete log refers to an AFD and the one I see was 11-16 December 2008.[34] which was "no consensus" but of course the subject's request was not material. Regarding A7, the policies are difficult to reconcile. Notability attaches to topics but A7 attaches to articles. Can an article on a topic that has survived AFD then be deleted as A7? Does an intervening (out-of-precess?) speedy deletion make any difference? I hope this can be sorted out without temporary undeletion. Thincat (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an Office decision. It was the result of an OTRS ticket. Apparently, the subject or her representative contacted the Foundation and requested deletion. Such deletions concern sensitive issues and ramifications for the Foundation. I would not reverse such a decision w/o an OTRS volunteer or the Foundation saying that it could be done. Please see Wikipedia:OTRS#Disagreeing_with_a_team-related_edit. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen such cases in the past, however, they were handled differently: instead of outright deletion as seems to have happened here, such articles were taken to AFD (often by the OTRS volunteer who would generally !vote "neutral"). If the subject was only borderline notable, the AFDs tended to take the subjects' wishes into account. But if they were clearly notable, the articles were invariably kept, OTRS or not. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list at AfD In general, I would say that an article kept (even as no consensus) at an AfD shgould not be subject to an A7 speedy deletion as there clearly was NOT consensus to delete, and speedy deletion is only consensus in advance. However, looking at the last version before deletion, I would have tagged it for A7. But looking at the version of 24 September 2010, at 17:08, I would not have tagged that version, and probably would have opined "keep" at an AfD on that version -- significant information, about the subject';s appearances on multiple television programs, and her comments thereon, sourced to a newspaper story, was removed from the article between the two versions. (On looking further these details were apparently lost in the OTRS deletion on 2 October 2010. I haven't checked the source, but that version makes the subject look notable to me, although not highly notable. I will also say that I can see why the subject would prefer this to be deleted. Had the deleting admin looked in the history (as one is supposed to do, but many do not take the time) I think this would not, at any rate should not, have A7 deleted. There is a clear claim of significance in the older version (which should probably be reverted to before the AfD). It might not survive at AfD, particularly given the subject's stated wishes, but I think a full community discussion is warrented by people who can see the article. This is just not in A7 zone, and should not be delted without discussion, unless the OTRS ticket warrants an Office action, which i cannot judge. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious the OTRS ticket generated office action. The procedure for reversing an OTRS action is also pretty plain. Still waiting for OTRS or PeterSymonds to respond. Dlohcierekim 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This particular deletion was a result of a request by a third party reporting that the article contained private identifiable information that could harm the subject. The general course of action is as stated by User:Randykitty. The unsourced content would have been better deleted/oversighted from the article, rather than the article itself deleted outright. It is not our position to delete articles about the subject by request of either the subject or a third party. Not sure why the process failed here. (It may be possible that the process was different in 2010 than it is now.) At this point, since it is clear that PeterSymonds is unavailable, I would recommend restoring the content (oversight identifiable unsourced content), then relisting at AFD. Note that an action resulting from an OTRS ticket is different from an office action. Cindy(talk) 04:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cindamuse, for clearing this matter up. Dlohcierekim 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the whole article like this is unusual for OTRS and without the full story its kinda hard to know what to do for the best. I have emailed Daniel an OTRS admin and requested some OTRS input into this discussion. 08:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment above is offered in response to a request for OTRS input. Without divulging specific names, you have the full story. Let me know if you have specific questions which have not already been addressed. Cindy(talk) 11:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the WP:CSD#A7. (I commented above). In this case it was reasonable to only consider versions after the OTRS-related deletion and to disregard the 2008 AFD. I'll wait to see what transpires before commenting on what should happen next but I see no urgency to undelete anything at this stage. Thincat (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cindamuse:So it's ok to restore the version deleted in 2010, which is a separate issue from the 2013 deletion? Dlohcierekim 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if someone is able/willing to go through every revision to hide the ones that provide a purported real name for the subject. That's a lot of work for one paragraph of text and starting afresh would be a much better plan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a prior version then an admin could do a copy and paste move and then also copy and paste to the talk page the list of contributors. I've seen this being regarded as CC-acceptable though I don't have a reference. An advantage over fresh creation might be that it would provide something that could be protected right from the start. Thincat (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dlohcierekim: Sorry about the ambiguity, please allow me to clarify. My comment above was in regards to concerns over the OTRS deletion. When it comes to restoration, we should be discussing the most recent deletion. I've added my recommendation below. Cindy(talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why it was deleted-- a total BLP nightmare.

Dlohcierekim 07:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's going to be true of most any adult entertainer's page where the real name is not used. Sooner or later someone finds out their real name and adds it (unsourced) to the article. Then there is a follow-up removal of the name. So the name has been removed but it's still there in the history. That pattern is not unique to this page. Hondo77 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why does User:Spartaz get to have his comments in a box at the top rather than in line like everyone else? ✄ (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Spartaz was commenting in their admin role rather then contributing to the debate as a user and the recent practice at DRV is to use a notice to inform users commenting of something they need to be aware of for a particular discussion. Otherwise we will have users whose comments might be given less value in the close simply because they missed a particular facet that was important to the discussion. Don't you think its relevant to be aware of a potential BLP nightmare with undeleting the article before giving your opinion on whether we should do that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. As far as the A7, it appears as though it did not meet the criteria. There was a clear assertion of significance/importance as appearing in a regularly featured "role" on a nationally televised program. In my opinion, the deleting admin may have blurred the lines between "notability" and "significance". I recommend restoring the most recently deleted article, removing content that violates BLP, then sending to AFD.
• I must apologise for not replying here sooner to Spartaz's request for input via email surrounding the OTRS component of this, and I must also apologise that this post is going to be brief - time is short at this time of year for me, apologies. The primary issue relating to the OTRS ticket is the real name addition, which is a BLP violation and (in this situation) also unsourced/poorly-sourced not to the standards required. Reviewing the state of the article way back in 2010, I cannot fault the OTRS respondent's actions and I would have done the same. If I can recommend a course of action, I'd suggest recreating the article with a 'safe' revision, copying a plaintext version of the history to the talk page for attribution purposes. Personally, I'd like to see the article semi-protected per the BLP policy to prevent unsourced/poorly-sourced not to the standards required BLP violations surrounding the real name, but that can be a separate discussion/action to this DRV. I'd then offer the DRV nominator a couple of weeks (max) to flesh out and source the article's contents, and then any individual can re-evaluate the article in its state after that two weeks and choose to AfD or not. Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt as a poorly sourced BL nightmware. Though A7 did also apply at that point, the lack of proper sourcing makes it deletable under G10. Please see Spartaz's advisory above. OTRS has commented on the 2010 deletion. The same BLP concerns are there. Please see Daniels comment. Given the lack of reliable sourcing, the real name violation, and the desirability of the subject's real name not being bandied about with obvious need to prevent it from being re-added, the best course of action is to delete and salt so as tonot harm the subject. Dlohcierekim 12:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material in question is easily found on the web. As long as we keep the real name out (also easily found on the web btw), I don't think there is an issue of harm. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn with the guidance provided by Daniel (start article from a reasonable version and the history deleted and with contributions in talk page) followed with an AfD to follow if appropriate at that time. This wasn't a proper speedy as it sounds like it didn't meet any of the criteria if one accounts for older versions and it sounds like we have a way forward that doesn't conflict with our BLP policy. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have commented and voted already but I said I would comment again. However, I am confident this matter has continued to be handled appropriately and any further suggestions from me would be superfluous. Thincat (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grooverville Methodist Church (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted as a copyvio, but my recollection is that the text is sourced to a historical marker. What I have read on the subject suggests that this is not a copyvio. I would like to get some broader discussion on the issue, particularly as we have lots of images of historical markers that reproduce not only the text but emblems and logos. Thank you for you kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the text was taken from this marker erected by the Georgia Historical Commission, an organisation of the Georgia state government, in 1958. I can't see any reason to believe this text is in the public domain, and none has been presented. The text of a marker erected by an agency of the US federal government, if there is such a thing, would be in the public domain and we could use it, but that is not necessarily the case for agencies of a state government. Hut 8.5 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a copyright notice (and I can't see one), items published before 1978 are now public domain.[35] Thincat (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But sticking up the marker doesn't constitute publication. Publication occurs when tangible copies of the work are made available to the public with the consent of the copyright holder Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication. In other words you would need something like someone distributing copies of the text or photographs of the marker for the work to be considered published. We don't know that this has happened, and even if it has happened we would need to know when it happened and whether the published work had a copyright notice on it. Until someone can demonstrate that this is in the public domain we have to treat it as copyrighted. I don't see how we can justify having an entire article as the entire text of a copyrighted work under fair use either. Hut 8.5 20:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a WP:CSD#G12 speedy. Are you sure this was an unambiguous copyright infringement? Stephen Fishman discusses matters in The Copyright Handbook, page 386. The question might even come down to whether the marker is displaying the original work or whether it is a copy of the original work.[36] DRV (and Speedy Deletion) are absolutely not the places to be debating the finer points of copyright law. There is no unambiguous copyright infringement "with no credible assertion of public domain". The reason I have not (yet) voted "overturn" is that I have not seen the article and wonder whether it might be infringing some other copyright. Thincat (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found Fishman's The Public Domain, page 134, where it says that for a work created before 1977 it is considered published if it was put on display in a public place and no effort was made to stop the public making drawings or photos. The marker is public domain.Thincat (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC is a useful recent discussion on Commons which confirms my view. Thincat (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's correct then our guideline appears to be inaccurate, and I've stricken my endorse above. However this was nevertheless a reasonable speedy deletion. The creator made no attempt whatsoever to clarify the copyright status of this material beyond citing it to a blog, even after the article was tagged as a possible copyright violation, and it seems that you need to be familiar with "the finer points of copyright law" to see that this is not in fact a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 23:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per Thincat. Moreover, even if under copyright, the text of a historical marker should probably be available under fair use -- our use is transformitive and for educational purposes, and no commercial opportunities are being lost. DES ^(talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion under CSD G12 as the copyright infringement appears not to be unambiguous; the guideline being seemingly unclear on this specific topic, I however find no fault with the deleting admin's original decision. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (I commented above). None of the people commenting here who can see the article think it should stay deleted, and I have strong reason to think the deletion was inappropriate. I accept that the deletion was not unreasonable, but it was probably incorrect. Thincat (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapampangan Development Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

there is no clear consensus for keep. as a minimum it should be no consensus. it appears the closing admin applied a supervote in making the result keep. the closing admin has argued here that it does not matter if it is keep or no consensus as the result is the same. but for the record in closing AfDs there is a clear difference between no consensus and keep. it was also relisted on 1 December with 2 additional participants arguing delete which would sway it closer to delete rather than the opposite way to the "keep" result. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Closer: I am happy for the review. LibStar is correct that there is a difference between keep and no consensus. But as a practical matter, the article is kept in either case. So since Libstar at least agrees that "as a minimum it should be no consensus," why are we here? Now if the request here is for me to change the close to no consensus I will if that will help him. The truth is this article has two sources that provide non-trivial coverage. The sources are both regional and possibly national level newspapers. I understand some thought it should be deleted but I did not and made my judgement. I am pleased for the community to review the process. JodyB _talk 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we are here because the current official record is keep, I don't believe that reflects the discussion. if AfD rules were articles can have 2 results: keep or delete, I wouldn't question. but I believe the admin in this case is applying a supervote and her own personal opinion to turn it to a keep rather than a closure based on the arguments. If the admin thinks there is no difference between no consensus and keep, then that is quite a judgement call. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I never said there was no difference. What I said was that in practical terms, the article would remain if the decision was keep or no consensus. If that is incorrect, please say so but please do not misrepresent what I said, that's a reasonable request. JodyB _talk 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks very simple to me. Notability is an objective test: Is there significant coverage in two reliable sources? If so then the subject is notable and the article should be kept, QED. I see the two sources so the challenge fails. The "delete" side tried to keep their argument going by quibbling the definitions of "significant coverage" and "reliable sources" but there's no need to pay any attention to that.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think "keep" (as a result) was maybe just about within discretion though I would have preferred "no consensus". However, the closing rationale looks more like a "keep" !vote (and a rather well-argued one at that) than an assessment of the AFD discussion. I don't know whether it would be best to reopen the discussion or to relist afresh. (I'd !vote keep).Thincat (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- I agree with Thincat that the closing rationale seems more like a new argument than an assessment of discussion. No Consensus seems appropriate or even Delete. One thing that I look closely at are the three relistings that show that three different people came to the conclusion that there was not a consensus there before the closing admin, but after the last time the two additional !votes (with decent arguments) argued for Delete, so if there was no consensus before, I don't think that consensus had moved towards Keep. I would probably vote !keep if I had seen this AfD before, but that's not what DR is for. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from AFD closer. Please allow me to clarify something here. AFD's are closed based upon policy and consensus. The closer is expected to evaluate both.

• I have already stated that I probably could have closed as no consensus rather than keep. Since AFD is not a pure vote I would close it that way if I had to do it again.
• Two policies came into play here and both were mentioned by people in the discussion. Two people mentioned newspaper references. I considered their comments, applied WP:N which expects multiple sources and determined that in that regard, the subject met the criteria. The publication SunStar has multiple references to the organization. While this counts as 1 source, it did give some depth to their coverage.
• Another person commenting for deletion, said the article failed WP:ORG. As I was supposed to do, I examined the guideline, part of WP:N and found that the subject did in fact meet, in my judgement, a subsection of it, WP:ORGSIG. Providing over 500 surgeries for cleft lip and palate deformations plus hundred of other procedures to indigents would have a significant impact on society, thus meeting the guideline.

My point in posting this is to show that while some may disagree with the close, it was closed according to proper procedure. Everything in my close arose from comments made by participants. I tried to evaluate all items raised by disputants and reach a sound conclusion. Now, separate and apart from all of this, I expected to work on the article and improve it even more but have not because I do not want to be accused of disrupting this discussion. I hope this assists your decisions. JodyB _talk 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I would say that trying to distinguish between no consensus and keep is a pointless endeavour. And I think this isn't much of an exception. Endorse. Side comment: it should really not have gotten to this as WP:RELIST suggests 3+ relistings are inappropriate. ✄ (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there's sufficient coverage in the SunStar to pass the depth part of wp:GNG - and there's enough else for the rest of wp:GNG. I'd have gone with No Consensus, but there's little practical difference there. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. For the reasoning behind this belief, please see the discussion on the deleting editor's talk page. zazpot (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Solid policy-based decision. The keep !votes offer no evidence of acceptable sources or sound policy-based reasons, despite the wiki-lawyering by Zazpot. As one of the contributors to the AfD discussion said, the claim that WP:OSE supports keeping this article is indeed "stupefying". --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really does read like an accusation of bad faith. My argument was, in a nutshell, that SSL certificates issued by CAs recognised by mainstream browsers, are inherently at least sufficiently notable to be tabulated and compared on Wikipedia - at least as much as the items included in other comparisons I linked to in the discussion. (Let's not forget: such certificates are things that Web users use potentially every time they surf the Web - it's a very significant and extensively deployed technology! Probably far more people use such certificates, and far more often, than use many of the items in those other comparison articles I linked. And yet the latter are longstanding on Wikipedia and have therefore set a precedent.) WP:OSE says, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability[,] and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So, you see, there is nothing stupefying about my invocation of WP:OSE in defence of the article under discussion. zazpot (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really should read WP:AGF better. My comment is absolutely not an assumption of bad faith. Your tendency to wikilawyer, though, shows here, too. And I stand with "stupefying". This is absolutely the first time that I see OSE invoked as a "keep" reason. And I don't know much about certificates, nor need I: we are not here to rehash the arguments but only to see whether the close accurately reflected consensus and policy. --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say, 'This is absolutely the first time that I see OSE invoked as a "keep" reason.' That suggests a disappointingly censorious tendency has prevailed among the discussions to which you have been party. I do not say that this tendency has originated with you, nor that you have adopted it; but I do say that if you or anyone else has become conditioned, by such tendencies, to overlook that WP:OSE cuts two ways, then that is a pity not only for the chance of a balanced judgment emerging from this discussion, but for Wikipedia as a whole. As for "wikilawyering", please note that WP:WL states, 'The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations [so] those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous.' You haven't backed it up, which is why I raised WP:AGF. Finally, in regard to your last sentence: it is unclear how any person can soundly assess whether the close accurately reflected consensus and policy without a reasonable appreciation of the meaning of the arguments used in the AfD discussion, which in turn requires a reasonable understanding of the topic of the article. I don't make any claims about your knowledge: it is you yourself who said, "I don't know much about certificates"; but I disagree that you were justified to follow that with, "nor need I." zazpot (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I maintain that you are wikilawyering and if you want to take that negatively, that's not my problem. During the AfD and again here you drop huge walls of text with lots of arguments and even coming up with completely new interpretations of an essay like OSE (despite, as Jasper Deng says below, this being superseded by GNG). If that is not wikilawyering, nothing is. For heaven's sake, you even wikilawyer about what wikilawyering is. And perhaps you have been party to AfD discussions where OSE was taken differently than it was intended, but in the hundreds of AfDs that I have participated in, this has never been done (and justifiedly so). --Randykitty (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Note to readers: I feel obliged to reply to some of the foregoing remarks, but doing so takes the discussion somewhat off topic, sorry.) You say, 'if you want to take that negatively, that's not my problem.' But it plainly is your responsibility, unless there is some part of 'The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations' that is eluding you. You say, 'you drop huge walls of text with lots of arguments'. The first part is untrue (I concisely address the points made by others, as I am doing now); but I do admit to using arguments. I do so not because I am a "Wikilawyer" but because that is how rational debate proceeds and because the AfD explicitly invokes "the merits of the arguments"; so I make no apology for doing so. Whether you think my arguments meritorious is another matter, but I try to make them so. Now, my interpretation of WP:OSE may not be yours, but that is not to say it is invalid, and I doubt it is novel; there is room for disagreement here, too. This brings me to my last point. Sadly, your saying "and justifiedly so" suggests you may after all have adopted the tendency I mentioned above. That is a pity. It reminds me of the punchline (only the punchline, mind, not the topic; I am not suggesting anything whatsoever about your views on that) of this Stewart Lee piece. As that's all I have to say in reply, I hope you will take it - especially the last part! - in good humour and in the friendly spirit in which it is intended; I appreciate that despite our disagreements, we're all devoting our time here because we want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be. zazpot (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this comment will matter much, but there's no such thing as inherent notability for a list of SSL certificates (and WP:N is a policy that overrides WP:OSE - in any case, you're going against the spirit of OSE by trying to save this article with the presence of others). Notability is doled out as in WP:Notability, not by seeming popularity or the existence of other pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect, on what authority - or grounds, even - do you claim there is no such thing; or that I am going against the "spirit" of OSE? Simply stating that something is so does not make it so. zazpot (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Notability is a policy that each individual (thus ruling out any arguments based on sourcing for individual certificates, as this is a comparison) article must meet (with few exceptions, none of which cover this article), and OSE does not circumvent it in any way, shape or form, but instead is a useful shorthand for saying that an article must meet notability and other guidelines on an individual basis. Trying to say this article should be kept because another exists is against the spirit (intent) of OSE (because your comparison is not valid by policy - furthermore you never explicitly gave evidence of how OSE supposedly justifies keeping it, because it only says valid comparisons can be of assistance, not "This is a valid comparison, so OSE arguments must work here" (and frankly OSE is irrelevant when considering the notability-based arguments here, and because OSE is an essay and does not have the full force of policy)). The weakness of the keep arguments was why the AfD was closed as a delete even though the keep:delete ratio was 3:4. If you don't listen to what others tell you, it's not my problem (as per Randykitty's comment above).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for unpacking your reasoning. I hear what you are saying, and it is clear we differ in our interpretations of the guidance WP provides, in what we consider to be sufficient reasoning, in our interpretations of (whether a consensus for deletion was achieved in) the AfD, and perhaps also in our inclinations (independent of the foregoing considerations) towards keeping or deleting WP content generally. With these fundamental differences between us I agree with your remark in your "Endorse close" (below) that it is unlikely we would agree on the matter at hand. zazpot (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as original nom. I had ceased replying to Zazpot after it became clear that we could not ever agree, but that does not mean that I do not feel that his comments are as Randykitty describes above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note from closing administrator I stand by my closure and see no reason to re-hash everything here. If there is something unclear I will be happy to answer. JodyB _talk 12:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-I see no indication that the closer failed to evaluate the arguments correctly.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nom is free to disagree with the close if they wish, but there's no reason to overturn it and no reason to accuse the closer of anything. As is often said, DRV isn't AFD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons I have given above and at linked resources. I think I have said all that I have time to say at this point in defence of the article, and have also given adequate grounds for DRV. zazpot (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A reasonable reading of the consensus as expressed in the AfD. (I was not involved in the AfD, by the way.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ' temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I apologize for not doing so earlier in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus Personally I think it very clear that this article should be kept, but it seems from the discussion both at the AfD and here that there is no consensus about what standards apply to this sort of article. A list of things which are notable enough to have WP articles is a standard type of article, and this is a list with some additions. The arguments for deletion were incorrect: there is no need for third party sources for routine facts about product--we normally use the literature from the manufacturer. We couldn't use evaluation or opinion from such sources, but that's not what this article is doing. It is not a catalog--it lists the key products from those vendors important enough for an article, and is therefore discriminate--that's not as clear as if we had articles on the individual certificates, but perhaps we should. When we have standard coverage in a group of articles of a given type, that we have them establishes the guideline, and picking on one like this is a hope to gain a local consensus to overcome accepted consensus. But consensus can change, and aafd is the way to find out. But there was and is no agreement that it has changed. The closer saw consensus when there wasn't any, and is thus a supervote. The closer obviously had their own opinion, which he gives frankly as the closing rationale, and closed according to it. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I support User:DGG's reasons. While the list may look like a catalog, the criteria for inclusion are not settled at all. Note the peculiar state of CAcert.org and the youngness of Certificate Authority Security Council. Commercial CAs seem to be able to offer formal guarantees that "free" ones cannot afford. However, while commercial guarantees are a convincing argument for anti-fraud mechanisms that can secure online shopping, it is not yet well-established that security is a subject confined to the commercial world —Snowden disclosures are minimally concerned with online shopping. The value of this to-be-restored list, IMHO, is to let readers wonder at what inclusion criteria it implies, because we are not able to describe those criteria explicitely. ale (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The cosing administrator's rationale seems to me to be a fair summary of the discussion. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore this page into my user space. It was a forgotten unfinished work, but the deleting editor is extremely reluctant to restore it despite multiple requests. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

as this is an event (crash), none of the keep !voters addressed concerns or provided any real evidence of WP:PERSISTENT coverage. 2 keep !voters cited an unreleased report as evidence of persistent coverage. yet an unreleased report is not actually evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The discussion was almost entirely based on the notability guidelines and, having considered them, people are entitled to take a view of whether an article is warranted. An AfD notability discussion is not like a game of whist – comments like "WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG" do not represent guidelines or policy and neither is there a policy that "Libstar trumps other cards". There was no agreement on whether the topic meets the guidelines or on whether the article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I could have understood (even if not approved) a delrev for a keep closure, but it was clear there was no consensus in the discussion, and arguments as WP:PERSISTENT can't be properly assessed given the time frame. LibStar being very anxious to erase the encyclopedia piecemeal is not a deletion rationale either. --cyclopia^speak! 10:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your use of WP:NOTHERE is quite an accusation of an experienced editor. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Clearly no consensus in the discussion. Correct closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "no consensus" looks like it was the correct close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse although a clear keep would have been within closer discretion, given the poor quality of the pro-deletion arguments. Jclemens (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a clear keep would have been better, but no consensus is correct. There was enough international coverage, as I have read about this Swedish train accident in both Dutch and Irish news sources. The Banner talk 22:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was on the deleting side of this but it's clear that we do not have a consensus on the notability of this accident. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus and the closer appropriately reflected that view. JodyB _talk 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closure was fine, there no consensus one way or the other. Libstar argued with everyone in the first AFD early this year, then brought the article to a second AFD this month, and not getting his way that time either, comes to the deletion review to try yet again. Please stop beating a dead horse already. Dream Focus 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Earl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't feel the closing administrator properly understood the consensus here. Both votes on each side were policy-based, with the deleters believing it a BLP violation and a one event, while the keepers feeling it was a GNG pass and the fact that coverage wasn't based on a single event makes him ineligible for BLP1E. I feel at the very least this should've been a relist. Consensus to me didn't look especially clear on either side. Beerest 2 talk 20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note while it is a bluelink, the article is not restored - instead it is now a redirect to Henry Earle with the history erased. Beerest 2 talk 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The closer didn't specify BLP1E (which is what most of the delete !votes were based upon) but rather the (accurate) notion that just because a topic meets the GNG doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'd claim however that A) that argument didn't have consensus at all and B) such an IAR closing should have an especially strong consensus. (making some updates below)

  Clearly meets the GNG per the discussion, the closer and sources. So the question is if there is some other reason to delete.

  1. The BLP1E arguments were misguided at best in any case as is stretches the definition of event to the point of breaking to have it go over a period of decades. But if there was consensous that it should apply in that discussion we'd probably go with that. But there was no such consensus in the discussion.
  2. Arguments that the information is indiscriminate are A) not supported by the discussion in any way and B) not supported by WP:indiscriminate as none of the 4 points even come close to applying (and no one, closer or otherwise explained how they did).

  Overturn to no consensus as that discussion had none and there was no argument strong enough to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) original follow up: Hobit (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closing admin: I'm always happy to relist a debate if there is very little participation or the consensus is unclear, but in this case I felt there was sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus to warrant a close after the standard 7 days. 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - OK, obviously I am biased here, but seriously, people are getting desperate to keep what amounts to little more than an "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD" page. BLP1E is perfectly valid, when the vast majority of coverage was routine arrest reports. 15 votes for delete, 9 for keep (discounting the two extra that were clearly the same person) isn't a clear consensus, but it is definitely weighted towards delete. And topics that meet GNG but fail BLP1E are routinely deleted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm too literal, but I'm not seeing a single event here. It is a series of things spread out over decades. It's a single "claim" but so too is "baseball player" or some such. I'm not clear how this meets BLP1E but a baseball player doesn't. (I do get that this is a negative BLP and I can see why that matters, but I don't see how it makes BLP1E expand to such a broad thing, though IAR could make good sense here.) Further, the closer didn't cite BLP1E, so I don't see how that is relevant... Hobit (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, Hobit, what part of "I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG." and "I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article." isn't BLP1E being cited by the closer? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, apparently the part I didn't read. Opps. I will note that BLP1E wasn't mentioned before that, so it's unclear how that conclusion was reached (still not sure how I missed it though...). I'll still ask the question--how is this one event? Hobit (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that BLP1E is clearly mentioned twice, one of which is in the concluding sentence, I'm not sure how it could be clearer (I may be so bold to suggest that you look at it with a fresh set of eyes in a few hours after a rest, that may help). Anyway, those quibbles aside, BLP1E comes up because the only non-routine coverage is for the alleged 1000th arrest. Everything else has been a routine "he got arrested again" type piece, and it is irrelevant who carries such a piece at that point; it's still just routine, and is still just literally the same thing over and over again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Sound policy-based rationale, and within admin discretion given the numbers for and against. Andreas JN466 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy are you referring to here? I got the sense of an IAR deletion from the closing statement, but I'm willing to change if on-point policy exists supporting this. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus It doesn't seem like there is perfect consensus on what to do with the article. I think that the keeps and deleters both had strong arguments that were both based on policy. I voted keep, but I can see where the delete voters are coming from. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: The comments of the closing administrator are perfectly rationale, sensible and acceptable, I see no issue with deleting an article that passes the General Notability Guidelines, especially in the event of biographies where the notability is derived from negative coverage of embarrassing or compromising events. There are always these odd little biographies that appear, where someone passes our notability threshold by accident rather than by design and it's sensible to allow the necessary leeway to permit deletion. I suppose we could go to the trouble of trying to tweak notability policy but that adds more complexity, a sensible deletion, as was carried out in this case, backed up by a strong and well thought out rationale is the best way forward. I've no issues at all with the deletion and commend the closing administrator, 28bytes on their close. If I was into all that soppy shit, I'd give them a cookie. Nick (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the 1E was him being arrested too many times. It was a clear violation and the consensus was correct, despite all the canvassing on both sides. Secret ^account 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How are multiple arrests over several decades "one event" again? I mean, at the very least this DRV should result in the rejection of that rationale for deletion and the conceiving of a new one. We don't need to set some sort of bizarre precedent where "one event" suddenly becomes "one common thread that spans multiple events" as that effectively upends the whole basis for that part of the policy. BLP1E is about living people who are minor figures in a single event of fixed duration. People who are repeatedly covered in-depth by national media for something that keeps happening to them or something they keep doing over many years are not people for whom BLP1E is meant to apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. To dismiss this as "one event" requires an abuse of language. What happened was a series of events. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Devil's Advocate and Everyking: I think it's a mistake to take BLP1E so literally that we ignore the idea behind it, which is to protect living people who would not even begin to meet our definition of "notable" were it not for a single aspect of their lives (in this case, an arrest record for low-level infractions for trespassing and the like) that caught the media's attention. It's true that multiple arrests are by definition more than one discrete event, but we shouldn't construe BLP1E so narrowly that we require a literal "single event" and lose sight of the broader goal behind our BLP policy, of which BLP1E is a part: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. There was a strong argument among the participants of the AfD that the existence of the article violated BLP1E – if not its letter, than certainly its spirit – and that argument was not, to my reading, effectively rebutted by the (smaller number of) participants who argued the article should be kept. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Your reliance on an alleged "spirit" of BLP1E that you admit is unsupported by its language and is unsupported by any novel consensus, and is unsupported by the sources brought forward in the discussion demonstrates that your close was abusive of process. Your "editorial judgement", you have now said you sought to enact is not within your remit when acting as administrative closer. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say Earl falls under the "low-profile individual" (he made an appearance on a highly-viewed talk show to discuss his numerous arrests) so I still don't believe BLP1E applies. Basically, if he died, he would be notable? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Countless people are considered notable for a single aspect of their lives. Being a politician is generally a single aspect of a person's life, for instance. No one considers that sort of thing an event and the only reason people are behaving differently is because of some perception about this being malicious. I think this whole conversation about "protecting him" is actually a tad patronizing since it ignores the fact the guy in question has nothing really going for him in his life except his Internet fame. He is a 60-something homeless guy with an addiction problem whose spent a quarter of his life in jail for minor offenses. I am pretty sure the brightest parts of his day involve some person saying "you're that guy on the Internet!" and asking to take a picture with him or get his autograph.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop making dumb arguments eh! This isn't a politician, this isn't a major league baseball player, this is a habitual drunk guy that lives in doorways and gets arrested for it, who was exploited by a TV show for entertainment, and is exploited by newspapers as space filler. John lilburne (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is dumb is your subjective and frankly offensive assessment of major league baseball players as somehow more deserving consideration than homeless people. --cyclopia^speak! 10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Homeless people deserve attention, I've started organisations campaigning for housing for them, sued local governments for not providing accommodation, initiated self help groups. But what they don't need is the attention of some dweeb compiling a encyclopedia article that is no more than pointing the finger at 'that guy'. What you had was an article that says habitually drunk guy gets arrested for being habitually drunk, that isn't an encyclopedia article, it isn't even a wp article, what you have is a pile of steaming horseshit. Write the article that is a balanced coverage of this guy's life and why he is notable and most of the delete votes will change to keep. As is often said there is no deadline here, so go away and write the proper article we can wait. John lilburne (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, they kind of are more deserving. Being notable and worthy of public attention for one's physical and athletic achievements is something to be proud of. Being scrutinized by the media because one's life is so in shambles that one keeps committing misdemeanor after misdemeanor, crime after crime, is a tragedy. Mr. Earl needs help; Alcoholics Anonymous, job training, life counseling, whatever it is that this country's social services can offer to get this person back on his feet. He isn't a politician or an athlete or a musician, people regularly glued to throngs of paparazzi. He's a human being, Cyclopia, one that does not deserve to have his 15 minutes of fame cemented into an encyclopedia for all-time. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I didn't know that there was a hierarchy where -given the same amount/quality of sources coverage- some people deserve the (admittedly odd) honour of an article while some else do not. Maybe do we think that people living on the street are less human than people playing sports? Yes, Mr. Earl needs a lot of help. How this has to do, for better or worse, with coverage in an encyclopedia is beyond me. If anything, given that we're talking about help, the article here can make more people aware of his case and perhaps it will end up attracting the help he so sorely needs.--cyclopia^speak! 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The dumb argument is saying "one event" can mean a large number of events with a recurring theme. Everything else just stems from that initial stupidity. Also, stow the babble about "exploiting" and "humanity" since I am fairly certain you have not even bothered to figure out what the guy himself thinks of his notoriety.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The event is being arrested for being drunk and sleeping in doorways. Being arrested once, twice, or a thousand times does change the event. I drive 30 miles to work and 30 miles back each day. According to you that I've done it 6500+ times in the last 15 years has changed the event of me driving along the A45 into something notable. John lilburne (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, I think you've just made a "slippery-slope" argument which generally isn't helpful. But in any case, even going down that slope, your conclusion is mistaken. In the case of your example, it does mean that if you got ongoing coverage for that drive, we'd not consider it one event. Ongoing coverage of multiple events is not a single event. I think the SS argument is actually on the side of those that think this isn't an event. By your logic a person notable for playing baseball would be notable for "one event" (playing baseball) and we shouldn't cover them per BLP1E. It's not the best argument, but it does show that taken to an extreme your argument about events creates a nonsensical result. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Many of you have already slide down the slope into a effluent tank. If what you have is someone that has played baseball in the local park for N years then they are not notable, and such a person wouldn't have an article here. Baseball players are included here simply because they play baseball each week, they are included because they are members of notable teams, and they take part in otherwise notable games. It is a different category of notable and you are confusing logical types when you assume the notability is derived simply for participating in a game of baseball. None of these guy's arrests are individually notable. John lilburne (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The closing admin accepted the argument that the arrests, in totality, are the "event". How narrowly or how broadly to interpret policy such as WP:BLP1E is well within admin discretion. Re-arguing this point at Deletion Review will not gain traction, as "I disagree" is not a valid basis for filing a complaint here. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - Don't like the BLP1E rationale? Then see the policy of Ignore All Rules and improve the encyclopedia by snipping this unencyclopedic cruft. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is actually a good type of situation for IAR. But in general IAR shouldn't be used when there isn't consensus behind the notion that it does improve the encyclopedia. IAR isn't an excuse for not liking the consensus (or lack thereof) but rather a way to agree to follow consensus even if the rules as written say we should not. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on Closing Comment - Ignoring the above discussion on BLP1E and No Consensus/Endorse Closure, I would like to make sure if 28bytes was correct to close the debate. To first quote 28bytes from the AfD: "[...] Countering BLP1E (and WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [...]" The problem I have is that 28bytes cites Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE as the main rational. While WP:GNG, which was cited does mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE, none of the users in the discussion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their comments as a reason for the article to be deleted nor made a reference to the text of the policy. My question is, can the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as their reason to end the discussion? I ask as it is only the closer who has made the argument to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I would like to take a moment here to note that I didn't directly bring this up to 28bytes since this review was started shortly after the discussion was closed; not to mention that I just found out about the review. Thus, I would like to request time for 28bytes to respond if, and only if, the closer is not permitted to cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as the main rational.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Super Goku V: It was not my intention to use any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD. The main policies and guidelines being argued in the AfD were WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. In the case of the latter, I quoted some of the introduction to the GNG that I felt was relevant to the discussion, my point being that GNG explicitly allows that subjects may have multiple, reliable source references and still not merit a standalone article. That the quote includes a reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not mean that I closed the discussion on that basis; my close was based solely on weighing the BLP/BLP1E and GNG arguments which had been brought up by the participants. I believe the last sentence of the close makes clear which policies and guidelines I considered operative to the debate: I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @28bytes: - Alright, but I am unsure if what you are saying is what you mean due to the beginning sentence in your response just now. You are saying that you mentioned WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the closing, but did not use it when you closed the discussion, is that correct? As a second question, and somewhat unrelated to this discussion, when you said that "this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," was it an throwaway sentence or did you mean that there could be a combined article of some kind or type? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Recovered from previous revision. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Super Goku V: I'm not sure how I can be more clear: the close was based on my analysis of the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. You seem to be suggesting that closers shouldn't be allowed to quote from the policies and guidelines that the participants in the deletion discussion have brought up if the quote includes any reference to another policy. I don't think that's a reasonable restriction to put on XfD closers. 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @28bytes: "It was not my intention to 'use' any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD." I was referring to the word use in your sentence since it threw me off on what you meant, though I understand now. My problem is that I am 'still' unsure if the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion. You are implying that an admin is allowed to do so, but I remember reading that the closer must make due with what arguments that they have, not the ones they wish to have. The problem is that we never had the in-depth discussion on WP: what Wikipedia is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, nor did we have one on how far presumed goes. When you said, "this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," I am not sure if it is taken on the basis of presumed or if we are still referring to WP:BLP1E. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Super Goku V: The point is that the GNG explicitly says that multiple reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient for a topic to merit a standalone article. In other words, the GNG does not trump BLP or BLP1E, if those policies apply. The question then becomes, do they apply? Those favoring deletion argued that they do apply, those opposing argued that they do not. I found the arguments that they do apply to be more convincing, and more in line with policy, and I closed the debate accordingly. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I have already explained that it was merely part of a larger quote from the GNG and not the basis for the close. I supposed I could have redacted or elided the part where the GNG mentions it, but I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a passing reference within a quote and not the basis for the close. Are we on the same page now, at least on that point? 28bytes (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist This is a super!vote, and one that also introduced an argument not present in the discussion, as Super Goku V (talk · contribs) above correctly notices. Also: the BLP1E reading is also fatally flawed: there is no single event that the (very well sourced) material shown in the discussion would be able to be redirected/merged, in principle. Coverage was about the person. Saying that a string of similar events can be conglomerated as BLP1E is akin to saying that Mick Jagger is a BLP1E because, well, all he's known for is singing in a string of records and concerns. --cyclopia^speak! 10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The closing rationale was preposterous, and this needs to be reconsidered by people using logical arguments. Everyking (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. 28bytes' closure was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD. The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. The application of WP:BLP1E is reasonable (although not a slam-dunk), and I don't see any procedural reason to overturn 28bytes' proper closure. MastCell ^Talk 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MastCell: To make sure I understand this, as this is getting a bit confusing, the closing user can cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion in the closer, is that correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a hypothetical question? I don't see anything like that occurring in this case. Could you clarify which policy you mean? MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the closing comment, "[...] A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.}} [...]" WP:INDISCRIMINATE wasn't cited or mentioned in the AfD until 28bytes brought it up in the closer. I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, the answer is mu. The quote you mention comes verbatim from WP:GNG. The sense of the quote was clear in 28bytes' original (unexcerpted) close, and bears no resemblance to the way you've presented it here. I see that 28bytes has already explained this to you above ([37], [38]). MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • -_- I have been asking if that was allowed and wanted to make sure that it was allow, especially since they left it cited in their close. Since you said, "his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion," I was asking your thoughts since you seemed to know if it would be allowed or not and I quoted the area in the original closing as you asked for me to clarify. To add emphasis to what I said, "I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred." I would still prefer a direct answer from an uninvolved admin, if you would do so. (If you have an issue with the first question, then here is my expanded question: Is the closing user when they are ending the discussion allowed to cite or link to a policy in the way that occurred in 28bytes' closer, even if it was not a part of the discussion or mentioned until then?) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This discussion was recently reopened by the original closing administrator after I had closed under IAR. I'm further placing the article under special BLP enforcement as deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income that would cause him harm by impairing a source of income during the holiday season. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What the fuck do you think you're playing at? Not only did this DRV categorically not vote to overturn the deletion, your reasoning is ridiculous; since when was Wikipedia a platform to promote people and enable them to earn more money? Has someone representing Earl been paying you or something? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been temporarily restored for discussion by User:Jclemens and tagged by User:George Ho. Modified. Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I didn't undelete it temporarily. I just tagged it as "temporarily undeleted". --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I must of assumed you did so from the talk page edit earlier. Sorry about that. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Came here via WP:ANI) Endorse closure. Reading through the original discussion, like User:28bytes, I was persuaded by the arguments presented that WP:BLP1E applies to the article. Utterly reasonable close. StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've vacillated about this one several times. Like others here I'd be tempted to endorse it, but it's not completely clear-cut. The point that the close was not entirely based on arguments to be found in the discussion does look like a valid one. I think the perfect solution would have been if 28bytes had raised his point in the discussion, so the next sysop to come along would have had a complete debate to close.

  I'm also a bit concerned that Wikipedia's BLP1E rules are being used to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. I don't really approve of that. To protect suspected criminals seems absolutely right and reasonable, but once someone's been convicted, we're in a different place entirely: they're a criminal, their conviction is a matter of public record and it's right to disseminate information about it for the protection of those who, you know, aren't criminals.

  And finally I'm concerned that this is another point-scoring exercise by a Wikipedia Review successor-site. With closes like this one, we're allowing and encouraging people who were kicked off-Wiki to continue their various moral crusades by alternative means. I don't approve; it's hard to fail at Wikipedia (you've got to be really dumb about how things work here to do that) and those few who've managed it don't deserve a voice here.

  Overall I'm going to say that while 28bytes' close was understandable in the context of the debate, and it was within the discretion that DRV traditionally gives to sysops, there are legitimate concerns. It's not right to use the word "overturn", and it won't be productive to relist while Wikipediocracy users and sockpuppets are interested in it, so I'll go with restore.

  As a final point, please will the closer of this DRV take into account the effect of Wikipediocracy-canvassing on a biographical article. There are some views and opinions present in this debate that shouldn't be heard.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not talking about someone who regularly goes out and beats people up, stabs them, or otherwise murdering them. We're talking about someone who has a serious drinking problem, and is almost certainly homeless; one of those is clearly now a medical issue, and the other is not entirely in his control either. I simply cannot therefore agree with your stance of "He's a criminal, so he's not worth protecting" - that's just wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, specifially per MastCell: The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. — Scott • talk 10:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse On my reading of the close 28bytes didn't rely on WP:INDISCRIMINATE as his rationale. Instead he quoted language from GNG that referred (among other things) to it, in order to explain that the article meeting the GNG would not necessarily mean it should be kept and therefore that the arguments focusing on this did not rebut the BLP1E and BLP arguments. Neljack (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Claiming BPL1E applies to individuals known for multiple events is insane. A second insane argument cited by the closing admin is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Closing admins are supposed to ignore invalid arguments. 28bytes is normally pretty level-headed, but I don't see how this can possibly be construed to be a reasonable close. Let's face it: this is a clear and obvious example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Yes. You're starting to create the conditions for a database of people who have been arrested multiple times, if being arrested multiple times (and not the reason behind the arrests) is a claim to notability. As Black Kite indicates below, if you really start going down the route of providing an entry for "the most arrested man in Lexington" do we have an entry for every person who is the most arrested man in their town, or do we restrict our entries to those who have been arrested, what was it, 1000 times or more ?

It's trivia, it's the last item on the news at night, it's the And finally item, newspaper column inch filler, it's padding, and it's fundamentally not encyclopedic in nature, any more than the Yellow Pages is truly encyclopedic. Nick (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gross misinterpretation of policy. The article is prose. It doesn't come close to resembling an index. This is a classic WP:IDONTLIKE situation which is why those in favor of deletion are bending over backwards to twist policy around to mean things that they don't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy ? Nick (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close is within reasonable bounds. It's a fairly obvious BLP1E, and really - "the most arrested man in Lexington"? Please. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well within administrator discretion, given the !votes in the AfD and the particular care we apply to BLPs. Deor (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Article meets general notability guideline and is not a case of "one event" notability. The subject has been arrested more than 1000 times, and has become somewhat of a folk hero, not unlike Leatherman (vagabond). Suggest we get a picture and expand the article. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherman is long dead. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. (am I supposed to mention that I came here through the ANI thread?) I can easily understand that others in good faith don't think BLP1E applies in this case, even if I disagree. But this was a proper interpretation of consensus at the AFD, and doesn't violate policy, so there are no grounds for overturning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closing admin's rationale was well grounded in policy. This was obviously a borderline case either way, but 28bytes' rationale is sound. Resolute 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Reasonable reading of consensus. The community is allowed to make editorial decisions in borderline cases like this one, and I think the closing administrator made a reasonable judgment of the result of the community discussion. Reyk _YO! 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and (shudder) relist. I did not participate in the original AfD, but reading it now, I cannot agree that the original close, while thoughtfully argued, reflected a consensus of the participating editors. Nor can I say that Jclemens's close of the DRV, while also thoughtfully argued, represented a distillation of consensus. Both of these were opinions, joining the others expressed in the discussion. As far as I can see, there has been no consensus. On the merits, I don't think BLP1E is applicable to someone who has been the subject of repeated coverage in multiple media, including national media, over a number of years. I also share S Marshall's concerns, expressed above, about the overuse of the "BLP" mantra to attack certain types of sourced content. There may be other values at stake, but the discussion has not reflected any broad agreement over which way those values cut.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus BLP1E does not apply to this case in any way, shape, or form, and it was raised by only a handful of editors in the AfD. 28bytes also threw in his own reasons for deleting that were not mentioned at all in the discussion. No one really questioned that the article passed WP:GNG, but rather invoked some other reason for deletion and none of them invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not apply in this case anyway. So basically, 28bytes favored a small minority of editors invoking a very novel interpretation of policy and added in his own reasons for deleting the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that I "added in [my] own reasons for deleting the article" is completely false. I weighed the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments put forth by the participants, period. I've made this clear several times. It's fine if you don't agree with the close, but please do not mischaracterize it. 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where was the WP:INDISCRIMINATE vote? Also, how exactly did you weigh those arguments? Nearly every editor voting keep firmly rejected BLP1E because the coverage spanned a decade and included multiple events, which is exactly the type of situation where BLP1E is explicitly stated not to apply. The number of those rejecting BLP1E was greater than those invoking it or defending it. Of those who did not invoke BLP1E, their reasons were either undefined, not based in policy, or refuted over the course of the discussion. How you came to conclude that any consensus existed eludes me. I find it especially incredible that an admin of your standing would conclude BLP1E was the consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The close was not based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it was based on weighing the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. I've explained this repeatedly. Please read what I've already written. If you're suggesting I should have "weighed" the merits of the BLP1E argument by counting the number of people who cited it, I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you are just picking the arguments that you wish to address, like you just picked the arguments you agreed with in the AfD. That the keep votes overwhelmingly rejected BLP1E per the very reasons the policy gives for rejecting such an argument is what matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse I was not a participant in the discussion, but it seems to me that the burst of watercooler news coverage is reasonably interpreted as WP:ONEEVENT. I also have to say that the precedent of similar cases in the past of people being the subject of freak show publicity is that we don't stigmatize them just because the media and internet make a fuss over them. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not really a "burst" of coverage as there has been national coverage going back a decade.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This particular "one event" has in fact been going on for 43 years.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't really about those events. It's about the interest in him as a filler story in the media. It also has an abusive quality of treating its subject as a sideshow spectacle. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Quite frankly I'd endorse just about any argument to delete this terrible article. Under no conditions should we be hosting negative articles about borderline-notable living people. If the rules don't permit deletion for this reason they should be modified to allow it. This article adds infinitesimally to the sum total of human knowledge while disparaging a poor person who is fed on by media vultures when the news gets slow. We are better than this. ThemFromSpace 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While I fully understand and sympathize with the principle of what you are saying about the article, I think that is a bit misguided. It appears he is well-liked in the Lexington area and on the Internet largely because of his arrest record (he is also apparently a good fella), odd as that may seem to you. He also seems to like the attention it gets him from what I have read of interviews. That aspect was not really made clear in earlier versions of the article, but I think the version after my changes prior to the DRV being re-opened make create a more sympathetic image of him. More could be done to make it a sympathetic bio that accurately reflects how positively he is perceived and I think it would be good to allow that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't that violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Valid interpretation of discussion and exrcise of discretion by closing admin, giving appopriate weight to serious BLP concerns. WJBscribe (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Valid closure, based on a valid interpretation of WP:BLP policy as shown in the AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Interpreting BLP1E to apply here is a dramatic overreach of the policy and is not valid. A "single" behavior pattern carried out over more than 1000 iterations is in no way the same thing as a single event. Subject clearly meets WP:GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Closing admin claims "sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus" here, yet in closing rationale used the spectre of sockpuppetry to "instead focus on the weight of the argument." I find that change difficult to reconcile, especially after the misapplication of BLP1E. -- Norvy (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closing administrator correctly interpreted policy-backed consensus in this AFD; AFDs are not votes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn bad close by 28bytes, per A Quest for Knowledge, et al. Meets GNG, is not one event. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because WP:BLP1E does not apply to a clear years-long series of events, and so was incorrectly invoked for the close. In addition, the Internet-glomming-on makes this notable on those grounds as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, and relist. A supervote occurs when an admin replaces their discretion for that of other editors. Here, there was no consensus on how to excercize that discretion, and BLP1E, by its terms, does not mandate such a closure. Thus, the close was a supervote. The reason for no consensus was made clear by the sources such as Newsweek, which showed that the person was noted for 'songs, media, and t-shirts' made with this person as their subject. (See past examples in a similar vein: Emperor Norton and Captain Streeter). Relist to flesh out the other issues of harm and unencyclopedic material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're dead. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs· email) 03:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who? The past examples, which is why they're called past examples? And the difference that they're dead matters, how? Certainly not for making their lives "one event." Folk hero come in many different forms, and their multiple run-ins with the lawman are often part of that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - A perfectly appropriate assessment of consensus, and closure employing a sense of admin judgemnt correctly applied in the case of BLP issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn-- there was no consensus The BLP related arguments are not germain. The article as significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG.01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
• Overturn - per Beyond My Ken and others correctly noting the general notability of the article. This should not even have been nominated for deletion. BLP argument is specious, in my view. Let's make this right. Jusdafax 02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. First, {{DRV is not AFD2}}. On to the substance, I see a perfectly reasonable closure citing participants' arguments about BLP1E (and why it applies), and then further citing policy that GNG is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for an article. While, technically, it could have been closed as "no consensus", the delete was a reasonable choice, and in line with a common-sense approach that in close calls, BLP should err on the side of caution. No such user (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Most of the "overturn" votes seem to be based on AfD arguments, rather than on the correctness of the closure of the AfD. The closing seems to be an entirely legitimate appraisal of the arguments, and appropriately leans on the side of caution with a BLP. First Light (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that writing a complete biographical article on Earl is not possible and that this article should be deleted. (Arrest record of Henry Earl also feels inappropriate.) I need to study the BLP1E arguments more closely before making a bolded recommendation. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think that BLP1E is a stretch, but overall BLP, roughly along those lines, justifies deletion. A new section and shortcut for "known for one thing" is a possible way forward. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly a wide range of opinion, with Warden making cogent arguments. By contrast, I cannot make any sense out of the closing admin's train of thought. Unlike most of the deleters who made an invalid BLP1E argument, the closer says instead that having actual sources (WP:GNG) only creates a 'presumption', which he can overturn by saying that Wikipedia is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. But nowhere does he explain what is indiscriminate information - though I should assume that how the homeless are treated, the fact that the county spends much more money jailing this guy every other night than they would giving him free housing, is something that should never be covered, whereas, say, the diamond collar a celebrity buys for her dog would automatically be notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the wealthy of the world - we know that whole towns in Pakistan are rarely notable, for example. Wnt (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The same Warden who has been abusing Wikipedia for years, and whose main account has been blocked for sockpuppetry, you mean? And if it's a proper town, it WILL be notable; just because there isn't an article on it doesn't make it non-notable. Considering those two fundamental errors in your statement there, it's safe to say the rest is a load of rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Warden could be the worst wikipedian ever, or the best, and in both cases this would have nothing to do with the value of a specific point he makes.--cyclopia^speak! 10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either people's actions mean they forfeit their right to a voice in this debate, or they don't. But neither of you can have it both ways. Perhaps it's true that, by sockpuppetry or misjudgment, Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens have lost their right to be heard in this debate----in which case the Wikipediocracy people have too, haven't they? Alternatively, if we're prepared to listen to Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens, then we also have to listen to all the white knights from Wikipediocracy who're coming galloping to the rescue of the world's most-arrested man, because, yanno, it's a BLP so delete zomg!—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lexington's most arrested man. Not the world's. A rather large difference there, but don't let the facts stop you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • A rather large difference there...but an irrelevant one, since what matters is the sources' coverage, not what he is notable for.--cyclopia^speak! 12:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's entirely relevant to the bollocks that Marshall has been spouting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Complete and utter bollocks" would be putting it mildly. — Scott • talk 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty sad that a 42-year-old man is using phrases like "white knights" in a BLP discussion. Please, save that stuff for 4chan or whatever other website you picked it up from. — Scott • talk 13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a contemptible comment. White knights are not a new phrase, but even if they were, there is nothing about someone's age that should disallow them from using a common phrase. You are calling for discrimination against an editor simply because you know one seemingly innocuous biographical fact about him. Just as you are calling for discrimination against a kind of article because it is about someone poor. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's also some complain about Warden above, but I don't care what that is either. When I look at whether an article should be kept I'm looking at the article, not a bunch of dossiers. I don't care who is what age, what sex, and I don't have the Ph.D. in Astrology required to recognize suspected sockpuppets by behavioral evidence. When I read over the comments, his stood out as particularly reasonable, and so I recognize them as such. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's really a comment about my age, so much as a veiled threat or warning that the Wikipediocrats will dox me if I carry on. Which does seems likely enough; but if I was concerned about that, I wouldn't put my name and date of birth on my userpage.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a direct statement that I think you are acting childishly, which surprises me given the age you state on your user page. Hope that helps. — Scott • talk 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cute to see people like Scott Martin, who babble of ethics on- and off-wiki, resorting to insults, veiled threats and thoughtful arguments as "complete and utter bollocks". Makes you think how trustworthy they are. --cyclopia^speak! 15:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was as much a "veiled threat" as you are the Pope. Have a nice day. — Scott • talk 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appartently you have chosen to ignore WP:NPA for no reason whatsoever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing "childish" about S Marshall's responses. From the time of the Fae case, ArbCom has been misinterpreting the guidance people came up with here about outing, but the text is nonetheless quite clear and well-justified in telling people to avoid "opposition research". It is a distraction at best, and the notion that you can take some number off a piece of paper and just because you know it about somebody they start losing rights -- that is the sick core of NSAism. And let's be clear; anyone offsite looking up somebody's name in a directory and posting "dox" is indeed a mere infant pretending to be a secret agent in the shadow of the NSA building. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]