Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October

Ape is a Punished Man (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request for deletion review of the article on grounds given below. It's title may suitably be changed, review would keep the article undeleted.

i) Time for improvement of Article has not been provided: Posting date of Article “Ape is a punished Man” is 26-10-2013, whereas nomination (with removal of its Chromosomal discussion based on scientific research derived from free source, duly linked), for deletion date is 27-10-2013. Surprisingly, the Article deleted on 29-10-2013.

ii) Article is not an original theory rather it is a collection of facts already available on social and print media. Article shows its sources properly. Watching this information on WP would make it a tool in an encyclopedic nutshell. Therefore, it shall not harm to WP, instead this will establish neutrality of WP.

iii) So for the subject of man’s punishment and its transformation to an ape has route concept as Darwin also gave similar example in his book “the Origin of Species” describing that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales. Ref. P.184, Ist Ed. Harvard University Press, 1964. Hence, the observation made by deletion nominator, that Wikipedia is a reference work and not a place for proposals of theory, should be set aside.

iv) This article reflects view points of Creationist as well as religious community

v) There is no material in the article which is contrary to any commonly known religions. Whereas the evolutionist view with respect to delivery of man by ape is still at conceiving stage since its inception. Therefore view point of Evolutionist on WP and negation to creationists is not justifiable.

THANKS Nannadeem (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's have a temporary undeletion of this content so we can evaluate Nannadeem's claims here, please.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. WJBscribe (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Fundamental WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SOAPBOX issues, the last of which is crystallized by the above arguments for undeletion, that there is a Creationist agenda to balance a perceived Evolutionist bias on Wikipedia. Reasons for deletion were adequately covered at AfD [1]. The inappropriateness of such an article was explained again to Nannadeem after closing [2], [3]. Troubling is a developing pattern of such entries [4] and the user's willful ignorance of basic policy in favor of crafting opinion pieces. JNW (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{A little while ago I accidentally rolled back another user's comment, and immediately reverted my revert. Notwithstanding my rather strong antipathy to a piece that insists on a logical rationale for an ape's existence as God's punishment of humans (alternatively, I thought consigning one's self to editing on Wikipedia was a sort of divinely-devised purgatory), I was mortified to have reverted a good faith comment. My apologies; such are the dangers of checking in by iPhone. JNW (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

• Endorse The article doesn't actually make sense. It appears entirely WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If we should have an article about an idea that Apes are punished men it would not suffice since it does not actually appear to be the detail of an existing idea laid out clearly. It seems more like a collection of notions from a variety of sources thrown together with the hope that something will make sense. I've read it a couple of times now and it doesn't.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 11:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In fairness, I think it does make sense. It contains a couple of grave misunderstandings of the underlying science, but if we accept those misunderstandings, it appears to be a novel and genuine attempt to reconcile the similarity of apes and man with the creationist denial that man is descended from apes. I find myself admiring the creativity involved. Nannadeem, I'd suggest that you publish this on your own website. I'm afraid it's definitely not for Wikipedia, because it breaches a substantial number of our core policies.

  We do have a policy on neutral point of view that requires us to be balanced. But there are things that doesn't mean. If a scientist publishes a paper proving that 2+2=4, and the Pope replies with a bull explaining with associated theological reasoning that 2+2=5, we don't compromise on four and a half. Wikipedia does not offer equal time for creationism or the religious point of view on evolution. You may be looking for Conservapedia.

  I also want to point out that contrary to the subject article, evolution does mean that man is descended from apes. It's true that we share a common ancestor with modern apes, but the point you're missing is that that common ancestor was itself an ape.

  Contrary to the subject article, the reason apes can't speak is not due to differences in their vocal cords. This was established in attempts to teach speech to chimps and gorillas like Washoe and Koko in the 1960s and 70s: apes can learn sign language, but not the way humans can. They can get a restricted vocabulary and no real grammar at all (except "cry hurt food"). Apes' inability to speak is fundamentally down to a difference in brain anatomy (see Broca's area, Wernicke's area which humans have and apes lack).

  Contrary to the subject article, there is fossil evidence (and DNA evidence) that plainly shows evolution from ancestral ape to modern man.

  But the reason that Wikipedia won't publish this article is not because it's false. We have articles about plenty of false things, such as alien abduction and the moon landing conspiracy theories; although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, dispelling misinformation is an important part of our role. False though the article is, the reason we won't publish it is because we don't host original research, which is what this is.

  I wish you the best of luck in finding an audience elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with S Marshall, in that I think that this article does make sense. If this argument had been published by a reliable source, then I would fully support there being a Wikipedia article on the topic. However, while the article does cite reliable sources for the individual facts behind the argument, it does note cite reliable sources for the argument as a whole. Given that Wikipedia's place is not to publish novel arguments, but rather to re-publish arguments that have already been discussed elsewhere, I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for this article. That being said, I do wish the author well in finding another location to host it - the arguement certainly challenges several of the precepts behind popular science texts on human evolution. Bluap (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the interest of fairness, I should note that the version of the page that you are most likely looking at (the final version before deletion) is missing a significant chunk of material that was there earlier. You can find the material here; I deleted it for WP:COPYVIO reasons, but that doesn't mean that the material could not be referenced or summarized in a revived article in a non-copyright violating way. I don't think it will change the outcome, because the article does not directly address apes being evolved from humans or being humans in a punished form, but others may see it differently. I will not !vote here myself (I was the person who AFD'd it in the first place.) Allow me to commend user Nannadeem for bringing an enthusiasm to his editing and for facing the conflict over the material with grace. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Refer Nannadeem (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This content is clearly not suited for Wikipedia and the closing admin was correct to delete. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you supported the closing admin on bias without giving consideration to my protest based on essence of logic. See comments of Respected S Marshall and Reverenced (for me) --Nat Gertler. Instead you all admins should give me change to modify the article, the closing admin used his trick to stop it atonce. Sorry for being hard, but me also a humanbeing.Nannadeem (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Nannadeem (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was clear, and an article this bad would bring ridicule to Wikipedia, so getting rid of it fast was a good thing. Suggest the author read WP:FRINGE for some reasoning why Wikipedia doesn't accept material like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia is a summarizer of information, not an originator of information. The page is original research as brought out in the AfD, so it's not the type of article Wikipedia maintains. Nannadeem, have your essay published in a reliable source, and it then may be fair game for others to cite in Wikipedia. If you want time to try to revise the article to where it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you can request userification to work on a draft of the article in your user space. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not think we should offer to userfy, it would do Nannadeem no service. This is irredeemably WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to userfy it would only mean that he would waste time rewriting it and going a third time round the loop AfD - REFUND - Appeal to closing admin - DRV. He has already been advised to seek an alternative outlet, and that is the best advice for him. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, unencyclopedic religious essay. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Irredeemable OR and SYNTH. Userfying is a bad idea, no way this ever will result in an acceptable WP article. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have moved to the proper day's log (Nov 5} a new DRV entry for a separate article Elf or Jinn by the same author, which was posted here. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Wong (pianist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New information regarding this deletion has emerged indicating David Wong has become a notable pianist. In addition, David Wong is touring a lot more now and has released 2 albums on Amazon.com. Genb2004 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share that new information i.e. the third party reliable sources covering the subject directly and in detail. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per lack of any new reasoning with which to overturn the AFD consensus. Nom claims that he "has become a notable pianist" but does not specify how, or demonstrate that he in any way passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. With apologies to the above two users, I'm afraid that the closer of that debate, Madchester, had !voted "delete" and participated in the discussion recommending deletion before he closed it as "delete". This was an absolutely fatal procedural error and I don't think we have any choice but to overturn. Once this is done the article should then be immediately renominated at AfD so we can have a proper discussion and, in due course, delete it correctly.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This was not procedural error at the time of the close, see my comment below about the policy as it applied at the time. WJBscribe (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, but current rules apply to old decisions. When Wikipedia updates a rule, it's applied retrospectively. As an analogous example, if we came across an article that's unsourced and was last worked on in 2003, we either source it or delete it----the fact that it was written before sources were necessary doesn't exempt it from sourcing now. In the same way, this close would not have been seen as an error at the time it was made, but this is 2013 and our standards are higher.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that can be right otherwise we'd have to reverse a lot of XfD results that complied with the policy at the time. I believe we'd also have to desysop some admins whose RfAs were closed by bureaucrats who participated in the discussion. Just because we apply current content policies to current articles doesn't to my mind mean they work retrospectively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia has quite a good page on the slippery slope argument. With all due respect, I don't see how overturning this discussion means we have to desysop anyone. DRV is concerned with the deletion process, in the context of deletion discussions that a user has complained about. My position is that it's normal practice to make deletion decisions according to the standards that prevail now, not the standards that prevailed then, and this should be no exception.—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per S Marshall although I am surprised to see that if you have participated in an AFD you are not absolutely forbidden from closing it.[5] In this case the closer's involvement was not merely one of wise guidance. By current standards, the AFD looks rotten but it took place in October 2005 when the very concept of a requirement for notability was being debated and there was strong disagreement as to what role (if any) the concept should have in deciding whether an article should exist.[6] Thincat (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  8 years ago the rule was a little different: "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it." (i.e. it warned against nominators - not participants - closing discussions). WJBscribe (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. But consensus can change. I see no reason to overturn a deletion discussion that occured 8 years ago. A delete result at AfD does not preclude a new article being created that is properly sourced. If the subject is now notable and there are sufficient sources upon which to base an article, please go ahead and write it. WJBscribe (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there's nothing really worth overturning, but the AfD shouldn't be taken as prohibiting the creation of a new article. Any new article not eligible for A7 deletion wouldn't be eligible for G4, either, so I'd suggest Genb2004 peruse Wikipedia:Your first article and go from there. WilyD 12:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original AFD closure as being technical valid (per guidelines at the time) but allow recreation if an editor wants to make a good-faith attempt to recreate an article deleted that long ago. An AFD closed that way now would likely be dragged here almost right away because we've moved on and have different guidelines. I have an appreciation for S. Marshall's technical argument but as WilyD suggests, there's really not much worth overturning. Just encourage the nom to create a new article through the normal processes. Stalwart111 05:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation and, if challenged, have a new discussion. 8 years is a long time in an evolving career, and the place to decide if he is now notable is at a new AfD . We fortunately can decide this in a useful way, and are not limited to saying whether or not we endorse the original deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation per DGG, and make the old content available if there's anything of use there. Obviously a new AfD could be opened if there are concerns about notability now. The old AfD is now 8 years old and, and I don't think it's useful to determine if it was is? a procedurally correct close. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warky T. Chocobo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

New information regarding this deletion not previously brought to the attention of the AFD was recently found. The original nominator "DasGreggo" has publicly admitted that the nomination was a personal attack against Mr. Nunez/Warky Chocobo which can be seen here. The closing administrator also went against a consensus to Speedy Keep the article. Mr. Nunez is a notable entertainer in an industry where entertainers of his type are not necessarily given credit or notoriety that they deserve or have earned, unlike mainstream entertainment. The deletion of this article is playing into a competitors hand to remove traces to Mr. Nunez's public image off the internet. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I wish to clarify the action I wish for this review to take due to conversation that has taken place here. Since proper deletion procedure was NOT applied here, and no actual rational argument was provided by the original moderator, User:DasGreggo for the deletion of this article, simply nominating it as "cruft" which according to WP:NOCRUFT is not a rational argument for deletion, I kindly ask that the article be restored and then any involved editor or non-involved editor can renominate the article under proper rational arguments which may or may not include that the subject meets WP:N requirements and allow editors to either improve the article or allow for it to be deleted properly. The simple fact of the matter here is that the article was nominated by an editor who had a conflict of interest and did not offer a rational argument for deletion which should at the very least allow the article to be restored and resubmitted at AfD or RfC. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 04:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Personal attacks against the nominator, both here and at the original AfD, are not reason to keep the article or to overturn the close. The sources were reviewed at the AfD and found to be insufficient, and the closing administrator was right to close as delete. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The number of votes does not count as consensus. The closing admin was correct in using policy and judgement over the number of keeps which could have easily been from meat puppets. Reyk has summed up the problems of the article quite well. Lack of reliable sourcing or notable roles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per nominator. Claim of not "given credit or notoriety that they deserve or have earned" sounds like a roundabout way of admitting that there isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources and isn't likely to be any anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The initial deletion proposal fails because the original nominator AFD was based on the premise that the article is fancruft. According to WP:NOCRUFT, "declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion..." and furthermore goes on to state multiple things that have already evidenced themselves in this deletion process including the " justification for a delete !vote in an Article for Deletion discussion" and the fact that "Cruftcruft covers editorial and policy issues including the following, though anything corresponding to relevant Wikipedia policy is traditionally ignored" which includes WP:NPOV and WP:CONFLICT, which has been mentioned by myself both in the original AFD and this subsequent DRV. The nominator is an entertainer with notability and interest on the same level as Mr. Nunez, and as I stated before, this was an attack and an attempt by a competing entertainer to remove Mr. Nunez's entry. At no point in time was the basis of WP:CRUFT applied here and no editor or administrator turned attention to the fact that the article may be improved as it may be out of date. I encourage a non-involved administrator to fully review the facts as they have been presented, including the fact that the original nominator holds a conflict of interest. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm always a bit uncomfortable about allegations of a conflict of interest. COI article creation is seen as a problem on Wikipedia; therefore COI nomination for deletion must also be seen as a problem. Deleting someone's Wikipedia article is an easy form of hazing or griefing (and a particularly easy one now, in 2013, when we've lurched sharply to the deletionist side; content writers are becoming so rare that we're removing less-than-perfect content because it's no longer foreseeable that anyone competent will ever come along to fix it. Ironically, Wikipedia's increasingly deletionist attitude is part of what's driving away the fledgling content writers.) And this certainly does look like a COI deletion nom to me.—S Marshall T/C 08:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted I agree the COI issues are important, but that's not enough to overcome the deletion--the nominator could be removed and deletion would still be the right outcome given the discussion. There seems to be consensus that the sources just weren't enough. If you can provide sources that you think meet WP:N, _that_ might be a basis to claim a flawed discussion given the COI. But without it you aren't going to get anywhere. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Outing of and personal attacks on the afd nominator are not reasons to keep an article. Lies about the afd nominators rational is not a reason to keep an article. The nominator did not say the article was cruft so the strawman based on that false claim is irrelevant. When asking to look at DasGreggo's COI did LTC b2412 consider his own COI? There was no consensus for speedy keep here, no such thing. Speedy Keep only applies when an AfD meets certain criteria. At the close of the AfD it was obvious that none applied. The moment another person recommends deletion reasons 1 to 3 no longer apply. 4 does not apply as the page is not a policy or guideline. 5 does not apply as the article was not linked from the main page. No more reasons exist. Speedy Keep was not an option for the closer. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have my COI disclosed on my user page, and I do not actively involve myself in pages, articles, or discussions that may affect me financially or personally. The group I maintain is entirely non-profit as opposed to these 2 individuals who are engaged as entertainers in for-profit capacities. Furthermore, to further clarify my COI on the matter, these individuals work in a separate geographical part of the country that my organization has only once performed in, this year, as a part of a special event which only will occur once at that venue and part of the country. I am geographically separated from these individuals enough that I do not stand to benefit either way from the outcome of this discussion. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 22:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I found one reference for Warky The Chocobo.[7] Here's another one, but Steven Nunez is only referred to as Chocobo.[8] Another reference mentions "voice actor Steve "Warky" Nunez," without reference to Chocobo. An initial problem was calling the article "Warky T. Chocobo". It should have been Steven Nunez. Another problem was WP:SYNTHESIS, with one sentence from the deleted article citing fifteen sources to support the Wikipedian's personal conclusion: "He has been interviewed by many newspapers, blogs, podcasts, and media.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]" Top that with Wikipedia:Assume good faith problems and a COI, and you create a mess. The topic probably meets WP:GNG. However, the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus correctly (I don't see it falling any other way) and there's no reason we can't wait a few months to reconsider allowing recreation of the article here at DRV. That will give time to the participants to gain more experience in participating in Wikipedia. I'm OK with an experienced content writer recreating the article using reliable sources that are independent of the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reviewed the article and its deletion debate, and I would recommend to keep deleted without prejudice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florendo Visitacion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Can you please userfy it for me and put in its history. I would like to take on this article as a subject. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the usual question: have you any independent sources about either him or his system, Vee Jitsu? And have you considered the possibility of an article on the style? DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/10/sports/florendo-m-visitacion-88-martial-arts-master-is-dead.html CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.usadojo.com/biographies/florendo-visitacion.htm CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ma-mags.com/srchmag.php?SrchFor=Florendo+Visitacion&SrchHow=all CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit rewriting Just write a new article-- the NYTtimes ref is a full obit, which is always accepted here as proof of notability . The original article is not all that useful, but I can see no possible objection to actually restoring it to your talk space , DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit rewriting - In addition to the above, the Akron Beacon Journal thought Visitacion important even four years after his death "Vee-jitsu, a martial arts style named after the late Florendo M. Visitacion, who was known throughout the world as one of this century's greatest martial artists."[9] The first New York Times obit has a lot of good biography detail that will read well in a Wikipedia article.[10] There was a second, paid for death notice published in the New York Times,[11] so that may have been behind the AfD statement "it turns out to have been written by his organization's successor." This reference might be relevant (noting Bajra learned Vee Jitsu Arnis in New York in the 1990s.). -- Jreferee (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Concern, User talk:Orangemike did a speedy delete of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, yet the page I saw before it was deleted, and it might have changed, did not seem to be advertising or spam? The award is the equivalent to the Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award for government senior executives in the U.S., and you wouldn't delete that from Wikipedia would you? Do you want to reconsider your action? It might be the user was a newbie who was well-intentioned but needed refining the article, to including articles other than just American University itself but not a speedy deletion? Notable winners include Richard A. Clarke and Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.... perhaps further discussion is needed on this topic? WashD101 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further thought, per [Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion:G11] Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. ...could you find anything that was not neutral in the article? The page I saw before it was deleted appeared to be just the facts? It was also the same Wikipedia style of Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award... It also appears that not only did User talk:Orangemike do a speedy delete, he also banned the user from making edits, even though the user didn't do any edits beyond Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership and definitely did not appear to be ill-intended or malicious in their activities? Apparently this also happened before: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:Orangemike#Deletion_of_Dustin_V._S..27s_article with the same editor, which might be a trend of jumping the gun instead of issuing an AfD or PROD? WashD101 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Jreferee, it might have been that the editor needed to make sure to source edits other than American University, however the content that I saw... and I caveat that it might have changed between when I saw it and when it was speedy deleted... was of the same type as Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award... OrangeMike cites G11 but I personally would have said the problems were single source materials and that additional sources were needed... perhaps giving it 30 days to be rectified before pulling the ban hammer? Have left a message with OrangeMike and hope to hear back. Can't contact the user who contributed to identify their thinking given the ban... I appreciate your help and thank you. WashD101 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see two problems here:

1) OrangeMike's prejudice against obviously-named role accounts. He's been counseled by multiple admins and ArbCom members for this in the past, but has continued to use the block button as his first communication with perceived violators. In this case, he speedied the article himself, without obvious consultation--he didn't tag it, her just deleted it, and no collaboration or consultation with other editors is captured in the logs that I saw.

2) There's something fishy with the requestor's response here. A CU examination between the requestor and the content creation account (now blocked) shows a  Possible connection. Both appear to be SPAs, but it's hard to say that there's a definite behavioral overlap given the limited contribution history of each.

In reading the deleted article, I am not convinced G11 was the best way to handle the deletion, but looking at Google news archive suggests that the person for whom the award is named (who appears redlinked in United States Civil Service Commission) is more worthy of an article than the award itself. There are definitely mentions of the award in recipients' bios, but I would be hard pressed to say my investigation to date suggests that the award it notable. Nevertheless, it is real, legitimate, and the article as drafted appears supported by the RS'es in my evaluation to date.

TL;DR? Overturn and send to AfD as it might be something workable, despite the puffery and potentially problematic behavior involved. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

response - I blocked not because of the name, but because of the fulsome "His service was distinguished by his ability to lead change based on the belief that government can mobilize human talents to accomplish goals" and the reference to the winners as "distinguished". The sources are mostly press releases, what substantial coverage there is, is of Jones himself rather than the award. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am hoping OrangeMike can respond as he's making other contributions? I found this sound clip: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October&sq=Envato&lang=en&file=File:NTWW_34-1.ogg similar to the situation we have here, starting at the 2 minute 50 seconds mark in the audio clip... WashD101 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OrangeMike for the insight, couldn't that line have been struck instead? The MacArthur Fellowship opens with the phrase "Genius Grant" and "exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work" as well? Awards are meant to have some element of fulsomeness. The second, the word distinguished does have meaning in the world of public service, namely the Distinguished Presidential Rank Awards https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Presidential_Rank_Awards#Distinguished_Executive in which even Wikipedia has a subsection on Distinguished Executives? Maybe a better part of valor would have been an AfB or PROD instead? I do agree that the user may have poorly chosen their username associated with the article, but at least they weren't being covert about their identity which they could have done instead? Assume good faith and not so savvy Wikipedia skills instead? WashD101 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: WashD101, can you PLEASE stop copying your replies to other pages. Discussions MUST be kept in one place - you're pasting the same comment on at least one other talkpage. Please stop ES&L 13:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay EatsShootsAndLeaves, I was asked to have discussed with OrangeMike before raising this ticket so I did and after a few hours no response, so I did a Help Desk ticket, which then asked for me to raise it here, and OrangeMike left multiple replies too... so I apologize if I'm confused... WashD101 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest these articles for attention Two feds win prestigious American University prize in which the Wash Post uses the fulsome word prestigious and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501861.html (search for the term Roger W. Jones in the second one)... WashD101 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are to be consistent, Wikipedia has a page like this Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award with most of its links from Columbia University and the phrase Dedicated to upholding the highest journalism standards, the duPont awards inform the public about the contributions news organizations and journalists make to their communities, support journalism education and innovation, and cultivate a collective spirit for the profession which I hope OrangeMike doesn't immediately decide the block the user that wrote that? What happened to either deleting sentences or assuming good faith?... or this Edward R. Murrow Award (Washington State University) which also has most of its links from Washington State University and the phrase commitment to excellence that exemplifies the career of Edward R. Murrow which again hopefully doesn't immediately result in a ban because it is seen as potential puffery?... how then is this any different, and did OrangeMike ever unblock the original contributor to this article? Amusingly, even the Russians referenced an American winning a Roger W. Jones award, probably because he was with Ballistic Missle Defense?... http://lenta.ru/lib/14178004/full.htm (search for reference [6] in the English footnotes)...

• Comment - The above "Many thanks Jreferee" was in reply to a post I made at the Help Desk.[17] Here is a repost of some of what I posted at the Help Desk. The page, sourced to American University and named for Roger W. Jones, promoted the American University award by advertising the award and showcasing its winners. The Roger W. Jones Award page was written by the now blocked Rogerjonesaward user. The user name/account has multiple issues and it looks like Orangemike merely picked one issue to deal with. There is some source material on the award topic from the early 1980s and 1990s, and more in the 2000s and on. About half the sources are press releases. You can find much of the source material at Archives - Washington Post. Most of the source material on the award is the giving of the award to various people, but not about the award itself. The award topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think you can find two news articles whose main topic is the award itself or even two news article where the giving of the award is the main topic. I also don't see the topic meeting Wikipedia:Summary style for the American University article or a Roger W. Jones article (which meets WP:GNG and can be created). In short, redirect the article to American University and add information on the award there and, if Roger W. Jones is created, redirect to Roger W. Jones and add information on the award in the Roger W. Jones article. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed Compromise -- User:Jreferee's proposal is sound, why don't we just add this draft attempt User:WashD101/sandbox to a subsection of American University... and redirect Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership to there? WashD101 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support original deletion nothing in the article then nor presented here shows any indication that the article meets WP:GNG. The one WaPo article is merely a press release about the award ceremony, the other just mentions that it was one of the awards a dead guy had gotten. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since when is meeting the GNG a requirement to pass speedy? DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURO to take it through DRV and just because of process to just have it deleted in AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD An article does not become G11 for one sentence of promotional content. The way to handle such sentences is to rewrite them--sometimes it is enough to just remove the adjectives (alternatively, since they are generally copied from the web site, they can be turned into sourced quotations.), . I do not think the award is notable, on the basis that most of the people to whom it is given do not appear to be notable However, they work in an area where we have difficulty in finding evidence of notability, so it might be the case that the award is considered in its field so very important that it serves to show notability--and that we should therefore make articles on them. If it's the highest national award in the field, and awarded to only a small number of people a year, this might be the case. It's hard to tell without a full discussion, and AfD is the place for it.

Fulsome sentences like the one quoted are very common in articles, even ones by neutral editors intending to be non-promotional. They certainly serve as an indication that the article needs to be checked carefully, but they are no more than a warning. I think a great many of our articles about institutional topics that do not received great general public attention are written with some degree of COI--in particular most pages relating to universities and things they engage in are written by PR staff, though some are written by enthusiastic students and alumni who may do even worse than the press agents. This is true in other fields also--almost all our articles on sports teams or popular culture are written by fans, for who else would bother. But usually the fans here show fairly good judgment, and the topics are conspicuous enough that the over-enthusiastic ones get get edited.

I don't think in cases like this the user name is enough to condemn an article. In fact, I think we should change the rules here to match the German WP, and accept openly avowed & authenticated corporate user names -- rather than requiring the roundabout method of using a personal designator and giving the affiliation--an affiliation which our rules on OUTing make us unable to authenticate. If I know who writes an article that seems promotional, I know better what advice to give. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it helps as background, as a long-time D.C. resident I recall the Roger W. Jones Award is only given to 2 career Senior Executives in the U.S. government a year and per Presidential Rank Awards, which most folks haven't heard of either, "Of the U.S. Government's 1.8 million civilian employees, only 6,800 have risen to be career Senior Executives"... thus, this award is given to the top 2 Senior Executive Service (United States) members who themselves are the top of 1.8 million civilian employees... so the award goes to the < 0.0001% in U.S. career government service... you are also right most of these are 'behind the scenes' folks so you wouldn't know a lot of what they do for various reasons, such is public service... WashD101 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-delete for egregious violation of a core policy (to whit, WP:NPOV). This content was irretrievably promotional and our sysops need to be able to delete marketing material with a minimum of bureaucracy. I have no problem with the creation of an encyclopaedically-phrased version under the same title. I have nothing to say about role accounts or blocking; DRV isn't the place for that debate.—S Marshall T/C 20:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Hanlon's razor apply here? Could it have been the user didn't know they needed to use Reliable Sources beyond their own, and wouldn't it have been appropriate to at least message them first on this instead of speedy delete and silence of them? WashD101 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But there will be reliable sources for the individual awards, which they might reasonably think shows notability. The GNG tends to be worthless in discriminating this sort of article. Too much depends upon how it's interpreted--except for the most famous awards, all independent sources will normally be about the award being given in a particular year, or to particular individuals, This can be described as either the significant coverage an award is expected to have, or insignificant mere listing. Something which can equally well be argued either way isn't a good criterion. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We're reviewing the deletion; what I endorse is the decision to delete the article, i.e. to remove it from the mainspace. We're not reviewing the block. This isn't where we do that. I agree that it would have been preferable to communicate with the creator, explain the reason for deletion and have a conversation about what could be done to write an acceptable, encyclopaedic article in that space. If it had turned out that this was a user we could work with (as appears to be the case here), they could have been referred to one of Wikipedia's newbie-helping resources such as the Teahouse. I do not think it would have been acceptable to leave that content in the mainspace "until it was fixed", because if we acted like that then we'd be creating an incentive for marketers to write promotional material and then spin out the "improvement" process for as long as possible----that would be a truly foolish way of working. Wikipedia's attractive enough to marketers and spammers without giving them open goals to aim at.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Meant to add Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award as an example of the same type of article attempted here, and it has been on Wikipedia since 2003 with 5 out of the 8 references coming from Columbia University itself? No one seems to be pushing for speedy deletion of Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award despite these similar characteristics, also where does the block get reviewed since the original editor cannot be contacted as a result of it at present? WashD101 (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and do not send to AfD. This needed/needs some tone editing, no more, and IMO was clearly not a G11 speedy. Better sourcing is also wanted but i gather will not be at all hard to achieve. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot stop someone sending it to AfD, whatever we do here. And, after all, that's where this sort of dscussion belongs. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, bu we can refrain from relisting as part of the close to indicate a consensus that the deletion was thoroughly inappropriate. If someone wants to individually nominate it for AfD, any editor may of course do so, as with any article. DES ^(talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal - since there continue to be mixed opinions here, and Wikipedia says be bold... how about redirecting Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership to Roger W. Jones as User:Jreferee recommended and work to improve the article from there? WashD101 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn It is certainly promotional, but fixing it would be trivial (there was only really one problematic sentence). That said, the article lacks reliable sources and I'm not finding a whole lot. I'd not be surprised it if meets WP:N, but I'm not finding meaningful sources. As such, listing at AfD would be a reasonable step if an editor were so inclined. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft attempt at trying to meet WP:N is here User:WashD101/sandbox... I tried to merge it with an article on Roger W. Jones himself... just created this evening, but already someone edited saying the awards needed to go in their own page... I tried to follow what Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award did, which has 5 out of 8 from Columbia University itself. This one has 11 references, only 1 from American University itself User:WashD101/sandbox... shall I go ahead and post over? WashD101 (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn with prejudice There is no possible way this could ever meet any speedy deletion criteria. The spam criteria says: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" - Removing a single promotional line is not fundamentally rewriting an article. This kind of careless deleting is extremely harmful to the project, both in destroying good content and driving away new editors, and should never be tolerated. If the deleting admin has deleted like this before, I would recommend a ban against future A11 deletions. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion. Also, it is not suitable for prod because there is controversy. If it is to be deleted or redirected, it should be via a full AfD discussion so that its notability and sourcing can be evaluated. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So where do we go from here? WashD101 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have major concerns about the decision to delete this page. Looking at the comments, there really is no consensus either way, and I don't see either the keep or delete votes as clearly stronger. I think the admin should have closed this as no consensus. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as delete - None of the "keep" votes provided persuasive arguments against policy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. (And I just checked google news to see if there's been any long-lasting coverage, and all I can find is name-dropping of the event in the discussion of politics and taxes in New Orleans, so I'm still satisfied that it fails NEVENT.) --MASEM (t) 06:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as delete as I said at the time, there are non-lethal shootings in the US every single day, this is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how many times a day does the US have incidents in which two reporters get shot? Cardamon (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. How many times a day does the US have incidents in which two women get shot? Two men? Two schoolkids? What difference that makes is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Intriguing how binary that debate was. Nearly every single comment was "keep" or "delete" (only a couple of "merge" or "redirect" opinions were given, only one of which specified a redirect target and even that wasn't appropriate one). Also interesting how little specific discussion there was of sources---there were broad-brush opinion statements about the sources, intended to dismiss the opposing point of view, but not much in the way of actual analysis. Two sides, each thinking their viewpoint stands to reason, neither communicating very effectively.

  I think the question for this review is where you draw the line between "no consensus" and "delete". Reasonable people might differ on that one.

  My personal view is that I don't see why someone should be prevented from writing an article about a crossfire at a parade, if there are sources, and I regret the decision to spend so much volunteer time on deleting it. The amount of effort that went into that discussion could have produced a GA. But I must agree that the close was within discretion so I'd have to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, sadly. Along with S Marshall I regret the polarised debate where, because neither side had very persuasive arguments about the topic, apparently the strongest ploy was to rebut rather arbitrarily the other side's arguments. Perhaps towards the end there was a slight shift towards merge or keep but even so a close of "delete" was, I think, acceptable. Thincat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the article can be seen at User:Cardamon/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Endorse While the delete !votes did not seem to be able to really rebut the argument from the keep side regarding the wide availability of sources, I think ultimately the delete !voters presented a compelling case. The discussion of the tragedy of the event did not, to me seem, to be a compelling argument. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse NOT NEWS is a guideline because the results of a blind application of the GNG to current events produces peculiar results, which seems incompatible with the general idea of what should be included in an encyclopedia. This article is a good example . (personally, I think it produces equally poor results in many other areas also, and would best be used as a backup guideline when we can find nothing more closely related to the actual encyclopedic importance). DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The topic obviously meets WP:GNG, but that does not answer the WP:NOT issue. WP:NOTNEWS links to Wikipedia:Notability (events), which I think is more of a NOT issue than a notability issue. The close was clear -- "the keep opinions, as I read them, failed to show how this incident rose above typical street violence". Had those promoting Keep focused on the factors in Wikipedia:Notability (events) and modified the article accordingly instead of focusing the quantity of source information available, its possible that keep or at least a no consensus could have been the outcome. A lasting effect noted in the article was that a group called the South 7th Ward Neighbors was organized. That is not much, but their may be other lasting effects. Geographical scope (local criminals doing a local crime) and depth of coverage seemed to favor delete. Diversity of sources and duration of coverage weakly favored keep. Under the best of circumstances - a well written GA article that focuses on Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Keep arguments at AfD that are strong and unified in showing how this incident rose above typical street violence could result in a no consensus that leans towards keep. Short of that, which is where the article and the AfD fell, it may be difficult for editors to maintain this topic as a stand alone article. The closer interpereted the deletion discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, as no wrongdoing or misstep of the closing admin is being cited as a reason to overturn the finding. "I disagree" unfortunately does not get much mileage here at DRV. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or relist' Painfully bad discussion. Many of the delete !votes can be ignored. It's clearly notable and arguments that news coverage is a "primary source" is just plain mistaken. That said, the keep !votes were probably worse, mostly arguing "it's notable" which really shouldn't have been in question (if the NYTs covers it on the front page, it's probably notable...) The real issue is if "NOTNEWS" applied. Given the debate at the time, I think deletion was easily justified (though NC also would have been acceptable). However, it turns out that there has been sustained coverage. This many months later I'm still seeing coverage in Google news. 6 articles in the last 3 weeks including [18] (which rehashes the details) and [19] which indicates that the event is continuing to have an impact. I think it's enough for a pure overturn on the basis that it turned out those arguing NOTNEWS were mistaken (though reasonably--I'd have expected coverage to die out too). TL;DR: the admin closed this correctly at the time, but it needs to be overturned (or re-discussed) now. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the second article you linked barely mentions the event at all. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. The others do go into more detail (the first into a lot more detail). But the point of mentioning the second one is to show that the shooting is continuing to have a real-world impact on policy. While it was a very brief mention, it was used to justify new taxes and policy. That gives it a strong claim to having "lasting significance" which is required by WP:PERSISTENCE. Of course the first source also does that (perhaps better actually). Again, there are 6 of these in the last 3 weeks... Hobit (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could only find the following through GNews: [20] [21] (seems to imply non-notability) Could you post full links? I'm not very convinced by this coverage. OSborn ^arf_contribs.
        • [22] has about 25 hits for me and all of the first page and part of the second refer to this event. All from the month of October. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as clearly within admin discretion. The local news articles that Hobit mentions seem a rather slender basis on which to overturn the close. Neljack (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage in non-local places including the front page of the NYT. That there is significant on-going coverage is what's key, local or otherwise. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We should not be re-arguing the AfD, but rather considering whether the closer properly evaluated the discussion. I believe they did. (Although if I had participated in the discussion I might - MIGHT! - have come down on the "keep" side.) Most of the "delete" !votes cited policy and evaluated the coverage; many of the "keep" and "strong keep" !votes simply expressed their opinion or said WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence. There was even a remarkable argument that the incident's lack of substantial coverage made it notable! IMO the closing administrator made a correct evaluation of a passionate discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Realizing there is no way I'll "win" this, it is also fine for DRV to evaluate if changes since the deletion change things. I'd argue that those claiming there would be no lasting ongoing coverage were now provably wrong. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naqvi Orientation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After finding no way for restoration of Naqvi Orientation and as per advice I opt to WP:DRV on following grounds:

I. AFD template - Personal style has not been reviewed inspite it's removal by editor, who is a beginner and learner as well.

II. Article's factual accuracy - Almost 700 page view statistics show no challenge to it's accuracy, however in this situation edit option is open to modify or delete the contents contrary to facts.

III. The article has been edited by it's writer till 18/19 October 2013 with a clear objective of it's improvement. This improvement aspect requires attention of WP Admins.

IV. For Article's Layout Template - Beiginner once again seeks instructions/guide by any esteemed admin.

V. Proposed Deletion to Article's Content/Section will be a tool of help to editor not only for this article but also base for future article(s). Nannadeem (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have completed this nomination on behalf of the editor/article creator, who posted the above on my user talk page. As the closing admin, I self-endorse per the consensus established at that page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, unanimous consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Despite author's good intentions, the consensus was clear and the article was unrecoverable from its incomprehensible state. It was difficult even determining what claims the article was advancing, let alone whether those claims were notable or supported. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No grounds for undeletion. The consensus was clear, the article doesn't seem to be subject that would ever have an article (if it had a specific subject). Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per Dougweller. Rambling incoherent OR and SYNTH. Consensus was clear. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Process was followed, consensus was clear. As per my own PROD nominaton, and as per my view in the AfD, deletion was proper. DES ^(talk) 03:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Pretty clear outcome and I can find no fault with it. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was out-of-process. AND THIS WILL GO TO ARBITRATION IF THE OUTCOME IS NOT SATISFACTORY. Bambenek is notable, even Miley Cyrus is less well-known than him. Sharoncooper1963 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No it wasn't. Who were you planning to drag in front of arbcom, exactly?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG, everyone involved in the AfD's, the whole nine yards, even Jimbo Wales if I have to. Oh, and Taylor Swift actually has been asking people to come here and get the article undeleted via her Twitter feed; but she pulled the message which read:

Hiya, get #johnbambenek back on wikipedia. Create account and vote.

Before you ask... I am a follower on Twitter of hers, and John is as well, watch this space for people voting on here.

--Sharoncooper1963 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharon, decision-making on Wikipedia is driven by consensus, not majority rule. Votes cast by single-purpose accounts are likely to be dismissed as weightless in a straw poll. --Chris (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Perennial requests#John _Bambenek after AFD1, AFD2, AFD3, AFD4 and about sixteen DRVs.[23] Thincat (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Graham (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. With Jessica Ehrlich (see DRV for October 23), this is one of a batch of articles about candidates for U.S. Congress that were speedy-deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven, on the premise that they did not assert notability of the subject (WP:CSD#A7). The articles are sourced. Notability per WP:POLITICIAN may not be clearly established, but the articles are full of assertions of notability. The WP:CSD#A7 was unjustified. WP:AFD is the proper place do deal with articles whose subjects might not be sufficiently notable. All of these articles should be restored. I regret bringing this list to DRV, but DS has not had the courtesy to acknowledge (much less respond to) responded to the request I posted on their user talk page. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

For both of these reasons, in my view all of these speedy deletions were an error of judgment. I see that Spartaz decided that the previous debate on the same issue was clear-cut enough to speedily overturn, and I agree with that decision, and I suggest that we do the same in all these cases.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DS has restored the deleted articles, so I'm closing this entire batch of discussions. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Bilbray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bevin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Strouse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis (Montana politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clements (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna Robinson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mowrer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hugya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No justification for speedy deletion. See Gwen Graham entry. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ehrlich (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Subject was the Democratic party nominee for a U.S. House seat in 2012. She is running again in the 2014 election. She has received substantial coverage during both campaigns including recent coverage. Deletor has refused to restore, to allow me to work on it in my userspace or to allow an Articles for proper Deletion discussion despite ample assertions of notability and media coverage of her and her campaigns. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unavailable for next 4 hours or so, but being a candidate at this level is not in and of itself notability. DS (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonflySixtyseven are you aware that there was an AfD for this subject that closed keep September 27, 2013? There were votes to redirect, but no arguments for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the speedy deletion and restore the article. The subject has been (and currently is) a major-party nominee for the U.S. Congress and has held other public positions of some prominence. The article was thoroughly sourced. Notability per WP:POLITICIAN may not be clearly established, but the article is full of assertions of notability, so the WP:CSD#A7 was unjustified. Moreover, after the recent AFD closed as keep, the speedy deletion was totally inconsistent with process. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons laid out by Candleabracadabra and Orlady. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of the article. Note that several other similar pages were deleted, see User talk:Orser67 for the full list.

Comment: At User talk:DragonflySixtyseven I've asked the deleting administrator to restore the whole list of deleted articles.[24] This was not a valid application of the speedy deletion criteria. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, my pupils have reconstricted, Let's take a look at this content, sentence by sentence.

• Ehrlich is running (big deal).
• She ran before, and lost (big deal).
• She's from Florida (big deal).
• Has a degree from Vanderbilt, and another from Southern Methodist (big deal).
• Her dad was a prominent attorney (good for him, but big deal re: her).
• Her dad was affiliated with various Jewish groups (good for him, but big deal re: her)
• Her dad and grandma escaped Nazi Germany in 1944 (good for them, but big deal re: her)
• She clerked for a judge (big deal - all it says is "clerked for", seriously)
• She worked for various cosmetics and jewelry companies (big deal - all it says is "worked for", seriously)
• She has also worked for various congresspeople (big deal - again, all it says is "worked for")
• She's affiliated with various political groups (big deal)
• She's also affiliated with various Jewish organizations (big deal)
• She ran for office before, but lost (big deal)
• The guy who defeated her last time, died a few days ago (RIP, but big deal)
• A political action group has endorsed her (big deal - they endorse loads of candidates, it's what they do)
• She supports various laws and programs (big deal)

Now, tell me, WHERE is the notability? There have been thousands of candidates at this level over the years; most of them lose; we do not and should not have articles on them just because they ran for office. "Ran for office and lost and is running again" is NOT NOTABILITY. Would the individual in question have any news coverage if they weren't running for office? If yes, cool. If there's anything about Ms Ehrlich that can be used to show notability, then by all means, TELL US ABOUT IT. PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE. I read through twenty-two articles by Orser67 about congressional candidates. For exactly half of them, there was NOTHING that indicated any notability whatsoever except for the TRANSIENT notability that comes with being a candidate. Will the media care at all about this person after the election is over? Did the media care at all about this person before they announced their candidacy? If yes, then you damn well should have said so. (And for Bevin, I was iffy about that - president of a notable company?! - until I read our article about the company. Being the president of a business with 19 employees total is not, in and of itself, an assertion of notability.)

I am willing to do repeat this sentence-by-sentence analysis of the content of each of those articles if you insist. DS (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, I've restored Rocky Lara because, upon a closer rereading, she's been a county commission chair. That's notability. DS (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you feel the need to do a detailed sentence-by-sentence critique of the notability of an article topic, that's one strong indication that speedy deletion wasn't justified. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The fact that this past AfD just weeks ago as Keep should be ample evidence that the speedy deletion was unjustifiable and that the article should be restored. Not only should the community be making these decisions, rather than having admins making arbitrary decisions on their own, the community had already spoken and saw no reason to delete the article, making the speedy completely out of process. The even more disturbing aspect is the deleting administrator's sentence-by-sentence analysis, which would be a rather lame justification whatsoever in a vote to delete at AfD, but that goes nowhere in justifying speedy deletion. The ample coverage of the individual is what's relevant, and as User:DGG pointed out at the AfD, being a major-party candidate in a Congressional race is a strong inherent claim of notability. That any editor should have to face this kind of abusive tactics at no less than twenty-two articles by Orser67 earns my sympathy. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (and trout) - yeah, those are arguments for AFD and you are free to open a new one and participate there. But admin powers are not for overruling community consensus so that you can unilaterally delete things because you missed out on your chance to contribute to the AFD. You've also effectively reverted another admin's AFD closure. I'd personally support redirecting the article too (as has generally been the consensus for otherwise non-notable political candidates) but I also didn't get to the AFD in time. That's life. Stalwart111 04:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. "Notability not asserted" is not a reason for speedy deletion, and any candidate at a RfA who would suggest that it was would surely be soundly rejected by the community: the most basic rule about speedy is that passing A7 requires only an indication of importance, which is much less than proof of notability--the policy and the templates state it at multiple places. Being a major party candidate for national office may or may not be notability, but it is certainly an indication of plausible good-faith importance. (I have consistently maintained for the past 6 or 7 years that it should be considered notability, and I am prepared to give the argument in full elsewhere. --consensus has usually been against me, and if I ever did an admin action or an AfD close on the basis of my own opinion on this it would surely be overturned, and if I consistently did it I would no longer be an admin.) The same applies in the opposite direction. if D67 or any other admin thinks such individuals not notable, they should do what policy prescribes, which is to take them individually to AfD , where the community will decide--rightly or wrongly, consistently or inconsistently--but it's the community that has the right & responsibility to do it & it's another admin who will decide what guidelines the community wishes to apply, & how to apply them. The standard guideline, like it or not, is that notability is judged here by the coverage they get from reliable sources. I'm myself no fan of using that guideline always, but every admin must follow the community view on this, and it is very clear that the community consistently accepts it. Any admin can make mistakes, but no admin should be too stubborn to correct them. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hamm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Hamm. I meant to DRV it the time but forgot discussed here with closing admin. In the meantime a redlink user re-created the article in original form in violation of G4. Before it was speedied, I used the opportunity/reminder to re-do the article in a number of ways: inlined all the sources, added new text, de-spammed, and added quotes from sources that asserted new notability that was not in the original article or AfD (called a "groundbreaking book" etc). Despite all these new changes and new assertions of notability the article was speedily deleted. I would like to restore the recent speedied version so I can continue to work on it, and if someone wants to AfD it in the meantime that is OK as I feel confident it will survive a second time with the new changes and assertions of notability. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as the G4'ed version differs substantially from the original. I would go so far as to overturn the original AfD as having reached a clearly wrong conclusion, since there is plenty of RS coverage of Ms. Hamm as an author in mainstream RS media, including boston.com, GMA, and NPR. Mind you, they were bare links badly formatted, but this is clearly an article that should have been improved rather than deleted the first time around. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I strongly supported the original deletion, on the basis that her notability did not come near meeting NAUTHOR or the GNG. But there is additional material now, and I think it only fair to reconsider it. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and consider relisting New material and sources added. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note the article was re-created again today by User:Rsmith321 (and subsequently speedied). The recreated article is not the one that I am trying to restore, I have nothing to do with this user and will make sure the article is improved. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Candleabracadabra has now declined the speedy. However, the article as it stands is exactly the same as it was from the last AfD that closed Delete. I really need a copy of the article from the last time it was speedied. This DRV was initiated to restore that copy. That is the copy that is significantly new - not the one currently in place. Can anyone help? Restore it in article space or userify but that's what I need to continue working on the article. If we continue to wait, someone will probably just speedy again for the 10th time, or AfD without knowing there is a better version waiting to be restored. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the history should be restored ASAP. As a non-admin it was impossible for me to ascertain whether the new version was closely related to the old one, but it certainly has assertions of notability and no objections have been raised to working up an improved version. I do not have the power to restore the history but perhaps an admin can help. I don't know why this can't be closed early and implemented since there is a consensus apparent? Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been asked to do so, I've undeleted the earlier (and I agree better formatted) revisions of this article. This can be reversed here by any admin if the consensus here is that the article is not notable and the original deletion is endorsed. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The last best version of the article can be seen here: [25]. I'll abstain from doing any more work until the DRV is resolved. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - I expanded the article with new sourced information.[26] I found at least five news articles where she is discussed as the main topic. The topic clearly meets WP:GNG. Her same-sex marriage supply business was one of the first of its kind, which drew news attention and obtained a high-profile as a go-to person on same-sex marriage. She refused to move from Virginia, where her same-sex marriage was not legal, because she felt it was a good place to raise her son, drawing media more attention to the topic. I didn't have time to add the further reading references, so please someone else add that information to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nox Aeris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

On October 17, 2013, I left a message at User_talk:Wizardman#Nox_Aeris indicating that per WP:R#KEEP bullets 3 and 5, "Nox Aeris (2012 Janus album)" [or something more concise] should redirect to Janus (American band). No AfD was conducted, and to this date, User:Wizardman has not responded despite making edits over the last two days. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not notable on its own and is only useable as a redirect, then I am okay restoring it. However, you want it solely to redirect just because, which does against bullet 10 on the section just above the one you note. Somehow I missed the section on my talk page. I would be much more strongly in favor of just making it an article, which is why I deleted it in the first place, the redirect basically defeats the chance of having an article. Wizardman 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wizardman, thank you for your reply. After WP:R#DELETE, it says under WP:R#KEEP "However, avoid deleting such redirects if" followed by six bullets. I believe that implied in this, is that "WP:R#KEEP" are the exceptions to "WP:R#DELETE" (meaning that in this case, the former supercedes the latter). I also believe that "Nox Aeris" "[aids] searches on certain terms" and that "Someone finds [it] useful". If you are "strongly in favor of just making it an article", are you volunteering to do this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and troutslap. "Someone could write an article here" isn't a speedy deletion criterion. Heck, that's what {{R with possibilities}} is explicitly for. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Scratching my head here, Wizardman, because the above IP is essentially right. Every album redirect could be a standalone article if enough coverage is found, and someone wants to go to the trouble. Based on my interactions with music articles, a redirect (to the artist or a discography article if one exists) is the normal state of a released album by a notable artist for which no album article (yet) exists. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and redirect. If thought inappropriate for some reason, RfD is available. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore redirect per Jclemens. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Incubator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Wikimedia Incubator is currently the only WMF project which has no own article here on the English language Wikipedia because of a delete decision back in 2006 shortly after the project was launched. It has grown in the meantime and there were also some attempts to recreate this article with some more information than it contained in 2006 as far as I can see from the page history. I consider this project not to be less relevant than most of the other small sister projects as it is probably one of the best-developed places on the internet to share free knowledge in rather uncommon languages. Thus I ask this redirect to be revoked. Vogone (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I wouldn't consider a seven year-old deletion discussion attended by five people "good law" at this point, and it certainly shouldn't stand in the way of reverting a redirection. That's an editorial question and the content is kept either way. If you think you can write a free-standing article from sources then I'd say go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What Mackensen said. The article wasn't deleted; it was just made into a redirect. I don't think anyone will stop you if you undo the redirect. In fact, I would not have even noticed. Harej (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely. The usual view at DRV is that deletion discussions expire. Their lifespan is variable depending on the reasons for deletion and the arguments raised and considered during the discussion, but we normally take the view that if a couple of years have elapsed and there are new sources and a good faith account wants to create content in that space, then they should be allowed to. This is a very extreme example of that because there was no deletion in the first place and the discussion is seven years old. I think you should just go ahead and write the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, as above - a good faith request from an editor in good standing. Seems fair enough to me. Go for it. Stalwart111 13:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was this article related to Gravi game? If so, then I would like to request the recovery of that page. The game was released 8 Oct 2013 and is nominated for "Best Audio in a Game" 2013. Players may want to edit this page too add more information. Teyandee (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Raymond (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This Nathaniel Raymond page was put up for deletion recently. The discussion was closed after a day, possibly two days, as a "Snow Keep." I'm sure that administrators will generally agree that an uninformed vote (such as one made when it's clear the editor in question has not read the sources in question), or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid. Bearing that in mind, the votes look like this:

Blander Remove; says references weak
DavidinNJ Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Quadell Keep; does not mention sources
Colonell Henry - Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Green Cardamom - Keep; does not mention sources
NinjaRobotPirate - Keep; does not mention sources, says that his vote is influenced by dislike of my posts (not the sources)
Khazar - Keep; does not mention sources
Randykitty - keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Juan - Remove; references weak

So they add up:
Remove 2 (note references are weak)
Keep 3 (note which references establish notability; explain why)
Keep 2 (explain nothing; I requested clarification from both, none was provided)
Keep 1 (explains nothing and says he/she is voting "keep" due to spite)

Interpreting these votes as a "Snow Keep" is (I apologize in advance for this mixed metaphor...) a slippery slope. This deletion discussion should still be open--and, unless there is a drastic change, a consensus should not be taken until the customary seven days have passed. 0Juan234 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin: I closed the discussion early as a strong consensus as to the subject's notability seemed to have developed. It seemed pointless to allow it to run longer since there wasn't a snowball's chance of it concluding as anything other than Keep. I also take issue with 0Juan234's summary of the debate, as User:Quadell, User:NinjaRobotPirate, and User:Khazar2 did explicitly mention the depth of sourcing in their !votes. As 0Juan234 and Blander2 are apparently roommates, I've only considered their input as one !vote per their apparent meatpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"as User:Quadell, User:NinjaRobotPirate, and User:Khazar2 did explicitly mention the depth of sourcing in their !votes." Does the phrase "I think the Bible is a great book" demonstrate that someone read the Bible with "depth?" No. Nor do these nonsense comments demonstrate that the editors actually read the sources before voting. Nor did they respond to my inquires to indicate which sources they feel indicate notability and to explain why:

"this person is prima facie notable, and is subject of significant, independent secondary coverage. – Quadell"

"Ample secondary sources establish notability, and the page is being substantially improved beyond the original mess created by a sockpuppet. Spurious accusations of censorship and further sockpuppetry (against widely known and respected editors) don't do anything but push me even further into the "keep" camp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)"

Someone should note here that the sockpuppets here have been supporting the existence of the page.

"Per DavidinNJ--significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'd also like to note the unusual situation that two of the accounts driving the call for deletion here are new accounts with less than 50 edits apiece; since this is a very low-traffic article, it would be remarkable for two such new users to converge here, and suggests to me that some form of offline shenanigans may be happening here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)"

Ditto as above.

"As 0Juan234 and Blander2 are apparently roommates, I've only considered their input as one !vote per their apparent meatpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

We'll just add this to the list of reasons why this administrator/editor's sense of consensus is invalid. 0Juan234 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I have a lot of sympathy with Mark Arsten's view, this page is constrained by WP:DRVPURPOSE. We're here to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and a snow close is by its very nature a decision to disregard the process. As far as I can see there's no harm that would be caused by allowing the discussion to run its normal course. I won't add a word in bold quite yet, but my initial reaction is that this should be relisted for a full 168-hour AfD.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Perhaps it would not have hurt to keep open for a day or two longer, but really the likelihood of this AFD yielding a Delete conclusion were and are nil. Given the increasingly strident rhetoric from the nominator, plus apparent meatpuppetry, it was much more likely (and indeed was well on its way) to degenerate into a shouting match. Therefore a valid exercise of administrator discretion to close it early. Pace S Marshall, but why reopen for bureaucracy's sake, with a foregone conclusion, with likely additional acrimony? Martinp (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - to give the rest of the community a chance to !vote "keep" too. We're bureaucratically enforcing the rules to allow an editor to retain his death-grip on a WP:STICK. But if that's what he wants, I can't see the closing admin protesting too loudly - the SNOW close was merciful. Endorsement would be the sensible approach here, but sensibility went out the window a while ago on this one. Stalwart111 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consensus is not just a vote count. It's also based on the strength of the arguments presented. Overwhelming evidence was presented that Nathaniel Raymond was notable. Simply look at the article's 21 references, and you'll find significant coverage of the subject in the Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, and the International Business Times, and limited coverage in the New York Times, New Yorker, Associated Press, Asian Tribune, Global Post, and National Public Radio. Raymond has made significant contributions to human rights, having been the lead investigator into the Dasht-i-Leili massacre, and now being at the forefront of using satellite technology to detect human rights violations. Mark's decision to close the discussion early was correct not just because of the number of votes in favor of keeping of the article, but the arguments in favor of deleting the article had been fully refuted. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Responding to MartinP, earlier): I feel the force of what you're saying but the thing is that shutting off a discussion before everyone's had their say doesn't bring the drama to an end. It just brings it here. Or onto one of the drama boards, or onto user talk pages. I totally agree that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but then in my view it's a foregone conclusion for more than 90% of AfDs. We still give everyone concerned the time and space to make their best arguments and close it after due course, because that's what enables the close to bring some actual closure.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The result is clear, and the nom's determination to disrupt the process is no reason to extend it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a responsible and sensible close on multiple levels. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist "The result is clear, and the nom's determination to disrupt the process is no reason to extend it" (Hullaballoo). That's right: the 3-2 vote is the reason to extend it. At any rate, listing your "vote" here as being based on an assertion that someone is "disrupting" the process nullifies your vote; the decision here, as on the other page, should be based on the strength of the sources on the Raymond page. "A responsible and sensible close on multiple levels" (Green Cardamom). Yawn. And, in order for this comment to make any sense, precisely what makes this "responsible and sensible" must be explained. Congrats, Nathaniel Raymond--ahem--I mean DavidinNJ, for explaining your case. (Actually it makes no difference if you are Raymond or not.) It's too bad, however, that only one source (the Globe) you listed concerns Raymond. The others are quotefarm agriculture. But, your vote counts, here and on the other page.0Juan234 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more interesting things happening here: DavidinNJ apparently accidentally made a post [27] from an IP in New Jersey, which he/she corrected [[28]]. A few months ago two editors recommended deletion of this silly page (here [[29]] and here [[30]]). Then, mysteriously, an IP located ten miles from where DavidinNJ accidentally posted today, set the archive to remove "old" text (i.e. the discussion of Raymond's lack of notability) to ten days [[31]], which effectively hid the posts from sight until someone happened to review them last week and reposted them to the talk page. Then -poof!- in just a few days the delete-this-page discussion was coincidentally archived yet again (bear in mind that the non-deletion text had been sitting there for nine months). Maybe my novice wiki mind has misread this, though I am sure it can't be Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, DavidinNJ playing games. It's just some strange coincidence.0Juan234 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More fishyness: There are several people with New Jersey ties who have been blocked and apparently have been advocating the existence of the Raymond vanity page. One is here [[32]] and here [[33]]. There's this text, concerning topics all through DavidinNJ's contribution history, "Although there are a few articles which both HHIAdm and I editted, there are a number of articles which I regularly edit that HHIAdm has nothing to do with -- Drew University, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, St. Padre Pio Shrine, We Can't Wait" here [[34]]. This Dwair123 is the user who created this Raymond vanity page to begin [[35]]. I am sure all of the above and all the hostility and strange posting patterns (five or six editors posting the same thing within twenty minutes) that lead to the "snow keep" as noted here [[36]] are coincidences.0Juan234 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I agree with S. Marshall--an early close of an AfD disputed in good faith (or even possible good faith) often does lead here,and the AfD itself is the better place for the discussion on the merits. Even if I agree with others that the article will be kept, the place to say it is at the AfD. If the article is not NPOV, though the article talk page is the best place for the discussion, the AfD can properly discuss whether a NPOV article is possible. Possible socking is best discussed elsewhere altogether. The merits of the article needs to be discussed in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for full seven days. A reasoned complaint indicates that in hindsight it was a bad application of WP:SNOW. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Jclemens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, there is no good reason that I can see not to do this one by the book since it has been requested. It will almost certainly still end as "Keep", but that way the process would have been done in full and there should be no reason to dispute the result. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and relist but with a limit of one comment from 0Juan234 and no replies to other people's !votes. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will post wherever and whenever I please. If you'd like to limit other people's expression, you might consider enrolling in some online initiative that promotes fascism and despotic values. 0Juan234 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to speedy close without result. I now perceive that this user isn't going to be someone we can work with.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If "working with" means a control on someone's expression then, yes, you'd better try another avenue. 0Juan234 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy keep After some degree of research on AfD policy, I'm modifying my stance slightly. I think that speedy keep would be more appropriate than snow keep. Although both have the same net effect, WP:SNOW is a bit vague and self-contradictory, whereas clause 2B of WP:SK provides for a speedy keep for "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption." DavidinNJ (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse SNOW keep as checkuser. I've reviewed the contributions in the AfD and the relevant logs, and find no evidence that any editor other than the nominator had supported the AfD, making the consensus even more overwhelming than that seen by the original closing administrator. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy keep correct close, there was and there still is no chance the article will be deleted. Cavarrone 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus to keep was strong, and given the only vocal opposition was by a sockpuppeter, acknowledging the snow was appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bongino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Protected redirect linking to an election that is long over. The individual continues to get coverage for example [37], [38] and recently received an endorsement from an Allen West affiliated group. He is a candidate in the upcoming election making the redirect to a previous election problematic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotect. Things have moved on, there's new evidence that the previous discussion did not consider, and a good faith user wants to write an article in that space. It's not for us to stand in the way.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, is there a draft in userspace or some indication of what the new article would look like with the new sources? I'm not sure how reliable redstate.com and legainsurrection.com are considered to be with regards to WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to work from the existing article that has been redirected. Those and other sources establish that he is still generating interest and coverage from conservatives. He was became the Republican nominee in the 2012 election (something some of the commenters in the previous discussion seemed to be confused about) AFTER the previous AfD concluded as redirect and he is campaigning again for the 2014 election. If I can work on the article in userspace and then move it back into userspace once I'm ready I have no objection, but the redirect will still need to be unprotected. If someone wants to take the subject to an AfD again they are welcome to do so. I don't think a redirect to a 2012 campaign is appropriate for someone who is campaiging in the current election cycle. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional sources covering Allen West endorsement, an upcoming talk he is giving, a recently published editorial, Italian media coverage, and West endorses Bongino's bid additional coverage of a recent endorsement for his current campaign. He has also appeared on news programs subsequent to the previous AfD. He is running against U.S. Rep. John Delaney D-Md. in the next election. And frankly I think it's very weird for a major party nominee for U.S. Senate to have their article deleted anyway. There are articles on third party candidates. But since he is running again and getting newer coverage at the very least an update and a new AfD consensus (if one is sought) should be determined. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see now that the pervious AfD occured before he became the Republican nominee for US Senate in the 2012 election. So the article should have been restored once the primary election concluded and additional coverage took place during that general election. At any rate, for all of the reasons I've stated above as well as the substantial coverage in reliable sources, please allow the redirect to be unprotected so the article can be restored and worked on. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• permit restoration There is certainly enough reason to restore and have another AfD if challenged. This is not the place to discuss the merits, or the actual notability , It's enough that there be some reasonable chance. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect, with a view to restoring, per DGG. Things have obviously changed and on that basis there has been a reasonable request to restore and reassess notability. As DGG says, that reassessment is not really DRV's role and if someone wants to take it to AFD, that's another matter. Stalwart111 13:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect and eventually send to AfD per above additional coverage. Cavarrone 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 eurocent malta.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This file has been deleted as not in accordance with WP:CSD#F7. However, I think that I had tagged it for deletion wrongly, because WP:NFCC#1 states "Where possible, non-free content is replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." [emphasis by me]. There is no freer alternative of acceptable quality currently available. I've discussed the issue at the deleting administrator's talk page.[39] He has stated that it has been deleted routinely in accordance with the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, because there was no significant objection. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• this discussion appears relevent to the deletion. As the image has been deleteted for reasons to do with licensing I have decided not to undelete the image for the purposes of this discussion. Another admin is welcome to disagree if they so wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was this image significantly different from any of the other 1,021 images in Category:Non-free images of currency?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so (although photos and renders of 3D objects - i.e. coins - should be treated differently than photos and renders of 2D objects - banknotes) and the deletion is still against the rule that states "replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available", therefore (as no freer alternative is currently available) in my opinion it should be undeleted (or the policy changed). This image should be deleted only when we get a free photo of the coin, which per the discussion does count as a freer alternative. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't like it, the availability has to do with whether a free image could be reasonably obtained. Unless the coin is an exceptionally rare specimen which is locked away in a vault at the European Central Bank, it is plausible that one could obtain one of these coins and photograph it. Compare to the norm of keeping unfree images of dead people vs. deleting unfree images of living people. Once somebody dies it is not plausible to obtain a free image of them any more. If they are alive it is, in most cases, possible (but still might take some work). IronGargoyle (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to RfC. My gut instinct says that an image of a commonplace item such as a coin is fundamentally different from a picture of something more unique, and that the image is appropriate and should be on the encyclopaedia, but I also think that we need to treat all 1,021 images in the same way and at the moment, DRV is not sufficiently well-attended to make a decision of that magnitude, particularly when there's an apparent conflict with the relevant policy.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The copyright inherent in the coin design is not replaceable, but I don't think that's what is at issue here. The issue is that a free photo of an unfree coin would be preferable. I've always felt that it was silly to consider coins to be a sufficiently 3-dimensional object for photos to have their own copyright, but that seems to be the consensus around here. As far as the process of deletion was concerned, this all seems to be reasonably within process. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Gage (prosperity coach) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article do not fail WP:CSD#G11, deletion is actually based on past history—see User talk:DGG#Randy Gage. JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE! A new revision exist HERE!. Thank you.) —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself was very highly promotional, using an extraordinarily promotional title. repeating the name at every opportunity (one single sentence there used his name four times!), avoid claiming importance based on non-notable awards, and avoid using sources that are essentially press releases. I certainly did take account of the prior history, which showed similar efforts to write a similarly promotional article on a borderline notable author who managed to get one book in the bottom position of the NYT best-seller list. It wasn't strictly speaking a re-creation of deleted content, (see [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage, Randy Paul the prior AfD] but it came close. As I told the editor, an article might be possible, but since it would take rewriting from scratch, AfC is the place for it. In fairness, I'm restoring the history as I normally do for articles that come here. (fwiw, I should probably just have nominated it for speedy and let some other admin delete, but I'm losing patience with promotionalism ) DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last revision before deletion do not fail WP:CSD#G11, it does not require "rewriting from scratch" and it was already reviewed by another user. You already know why the current title is "extraordinarily promotional", it is because the actual title is protected and the current one is meant to be temporal, which is why I was asking you to remove protection from Randy Gage, so I can move it there. AfC is not compulsory and it is actually meant for new or not advanced users; I review AfC sometimes. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The present material is highly unsuitable as an encyclopedia article though I suppose an acceptable version might be possible. Maybe the article could be reduced to a stub – the Bloomberg reference is good though brief. I think WP:CSD#G11 was met but that does not preclude a fresh start being made. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article is a self-serving uncritical hagiography. It is possible that there might be enough notability for an article to be written, as suggested above, but this isn't it. I would grab the text while the history is available and work on it in a sandbox if I wanted to rescue it (which I don't) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD! Consider an attempt at addressing promotional tone concerns at the new revision—HERE! Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes; kill it with fire. Good decision by DGG there.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note from the infobox:

Occupation

Writer

Prosperity Coach

Motivational Speaker

Organization Prosperity Factory, Inc.

Known for

Writing

Prosperity Coaching

Motivational Speaking

with the lede sentence:

Randy Gage is an American author, prosperity coach and motivational speaker.

Everything linked, every time; Prosperity coach is linked as if we had an article on it, but the link is just a piped link to coaching, a article that doesn't even mention the concept of a "prosperity coach". What this article needs--and the subject deserves-- is not tinkering, but radical rewriting from scratch True, nobody is required to use AfC, but it can avoid the embarrassment of repeated trying to put articles like this in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - nobody is required to use AFC (and I never have) but if it means avoiding blatantly promotional content like this then it should be considered. I think the deletion was entirely appropriate. Want the "proper" title unsalted? Develop a good draft in your userspace and bring it back to DRV for discussion. Stalwart111 22:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the past history of this article, DGG has not pointed out what is so critically wrong with the current contents:

1. Is Randy Gage not an American author, prosperity coach and motivational speaker? — 12345
2. Is there a policy or guideline against using multiple occupation, 'Known for' or indicating the organisation in the inbox or lead sentence of the biography of a living person with multiple occupation and notable for them?
3. There are various applications or kinds of coaching included in the coaching article, if prosperity coaching is not included, is it not one of them or must it be included before linking to the general article on the subject?
4. His book was 1 on WSJ, 6 on Publishers Weekly, 10 on NYTimes and was also on the US Today list, but you called him "a borderline notable author who managed to get one book in the bottom position of the NYT best-seller list"? — 1234
5. The CPAE Speaker Hall of Fame, one of the most cherished honours in public speaking, particularly in the US, which he shares with other notable public speakers, and the other recognitions he earned, you called them "non-notable awards"?
6. Can you point out the references which "are essentially press releases"?
7. Is this article not a WP:BLP, and should WP:BLPSTYLE not be followed?

And apart from perception, can someone else tell me how this cautiously toned and properly referenced WP:BLP article—HERE is advertising, and therefore, fails WP:CSD#G11?

Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you aren't capable of creating a WP:MOS-compliant, neutrally worded and well-sourced article, just that it hadn't been created when the admin made his decision. G11 doesn't really take into account what an alternate article could be like. As such, the deletion is likely to be endorsed as technically valid. But as I suggested above, the best thing to do would be to work on a great draft, come back here for approval to unprotect the proper title, Randy Gage, and off you go. Start a draft at User:Johnmoor/Randy Gage draft or something so you can work on it for a bit. Stalwart111 09:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all the questions, simply re-review the discussions on Talk:Grammarly. The problems with Randy Gage are almost identical to those that have been discussed concerning Grammarly, with the added problem here that we're dealing with a BLP.--Ronz (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reads like an autohagiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, absolutely textbook case of G11, and a good call by DGG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• I would endorse any deletion by DGG as I am familiar with his high standards. This is no exception — it's an advertisement. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The fervency of recreation and argument here suggests a unique interest in this particular individual, who seems at best borderline notable. That itself calls into question motivation, but I don't think we need to pursue that aspect, because G11 doesn't take motivation into consideration, just the state of the article, which looks solely promotional to me, too. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT! Consider another attempt at addressing promotional tone concerns at the new revision—HERE! Thank you. —

Sam Branson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

documentary film maker, philanthropist, heir to a billionaire fortune Zigzig20s (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy so interested editor(s) can work on the article for possible reintroduction in the future. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No evidence provided for how the article could be improved through userfication. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joju George (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article do not fail. Request the admin to reconsider and restore the article as the information given in the article is correct and is given from reliable sources (links are given below) that the actor is notable personality. [40], [41], [42], [43] and also wiki pages has mentioned his part in the movies he has acted. The interview in a famous channel is also a good reference for more information on this actor.[44], [45], and [46]. Based on the guidelines, I am unable to site his facebook, twitter and other pages which are user edited, as pointed by the admin. The page is searched and this is the reason I have created the article on this actor. He has been in the Malayalam Film Industry for almost 10+ years and has acted in 50+ movies and is not a non-notable personality. A reviewer may review the article and make necessary changes to the page after the page is published. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joju George and User talk:Mr.Z-man Prardhana (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy The Deletion discussion seems valid, but if an editor wants to work on the article they should be able to do so. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Editing I want to provide the the reference links given above in the article and would want to work on this thereby improving the article. Please suggest on how to get a copy of the article to work on. I would also like the page to be reviewed so that the page doesn't get deleted again. Requesting the admin to restore the page in the wiki.Prardhana (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Article quality was very poor on many levels and I am unconvinced that userfying will do anything to improve the article. Evidence towards notability is minimal and unconvincing. This still fails WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I tried contacting Juliancolton (talk · contribs), but he is inactive since August 2013. I believe that consensus may change after four years of deletion. This deleted dab page is discussed in WT:DAB. Ambiguous or not, I have concerns on the original film as "primary topic", especially now that the remake is already made. Even when the franchise page is already created, dab page could be made of use for easier readability and navigation. Also, attempt to make the franchise page the broad concept or primary topic failed (see talk page of franchise article). If Resident Evil (disambiguation) can be "kept", then this dab page should be undeleted by overturning decision. George Ho (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the unanimous, 6-0 to delete, at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation). A dab page seems redundant with A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Yes, the AfD was years ago, but the arguments that carried the AfD seem still valid. Not strongly opposed to allowing recreation and testing at AfD. Oppose the arguing of the facts at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation), you voted "support". How is "Resident Evil" different from this? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I did. I hadn't remembered. At DRV, we wear a different hat. The was nothing wrong that I can see with the 2009 AfD. I guess you want to use DRV to establish that WP:CCC. Ok. I support recreation, allow listing at AfD, do not allow WP:CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, if "endorsed", can it be userfied as part of my user subpage? I'll make sure that I can make a current version unequivalent to the recent deleted revision. --George Ho (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• History undeletion is appropriate if recreation were allowed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Chawla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article I wanted to create has been deleted by Mark_Arsten, and I talked to him regarding creating article of Ayaan Chawla as he told me to request for Un-Deletion. AdamCharles89 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Deletion Review filings need a reason who you think the consensus to delete was wrong; "I disagree" isn't enough, and you didn't even bother to say that. I'd also note that this user recreated the article already at Ayaan C. (currently a speedy deletion nom), and that Mr. "AdamCharles89"'s account was only created on the 13th of October. Seeing how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayaan Chawla was plagued with sockpuppets, I'd like to see a check on this account too. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 21 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron Gates/Archive. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The above discussion is totally misguided & nonsense because I am Adam Charles lives in UK, I saw Ayaan Chawla on webinar and I have searched him and I got some details, so I saw Article Ayaan Chawla which was deleted by Mark Arsten and I have contacted Mark Arsten to create Ayaan Chawla article and then I have started a article named Ayaan C.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamCharles89 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where you live has no relevance to this discussion. And neither has where you heard of Chawla. The only topic for discussion is whether the deletion discussion was properly closed. What are the grounds based on Wikipedia policy for suggesting that the closure was incorrect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this can be archived now. User:AdamCharles89 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Ron Gates, the sockmaster at the AfD for Ayaan Chawla. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Valeri_Lilov was deleted in 2010 and protected from creation. Now, it has been updated/reviewed and exists under a different name (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Tiger_Lilov). How is it possible unprotect the page, so it can be moved to it's original name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Already DRV'ed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3. I haven't looked to see if this is a G4 or not. Courcelles 03:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There is new information. Apparently he made International Master in 2013. I doubt that's quite enough, but it isn't a G4 IMO. I think list at AfD is likely the right outcome given the IM title. I suspect it will again be deleted, but... Hobit (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Murray rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted because there were allegedly not enough reliable sources that suggest that this is a genuine rivalry, as well as the fact that it hasn't been THE single dominant rivalry. I feel that although the latter fact is somewhat true, there are also other, less competitive or well-known rivalries that should not still maintain their own independant articles. Federer and Murray have now played 20 matches against each other, 4 of these coming in Grand Slam tournaments, 3 in finals, and this total is more than the total of Djokovic-Federer, who may have contested 28 matches in total, however have only ever contested one Grand Slam final in their careers; also the two have contested 8 finals in total, which is exactly the same number of finals as Federer and Murray have played against each other. In addition, it is a much more competitive and equally balanced rivalry than that of Federer and Roddick, who played 24 times and Roddick only won thrice, however that merits it's own page. Furthermore, this has had a good amount of media coverage, more so than other "rivalry" pages that have been deleted, especially over the last few years, and I have definitely heard Federer vs Murray referred to as a rivalry multiple times, whilst I don't think Djokovic and Federer have ever been consistently referred to as genuine rivals. I have found several articles that back up my argument, including one from the official ATP World Tour website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2063741/Andy-Murray-stokes-rivalry-Roger-Federer.html
http://www.atpworldtour.com/news/tennis/2012/11/features/rivalries-federer-murray.aspx
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/370454/20120805/olympics-federer-murray-final-watch-live-stream.htm
http://blog.wimbledonticketsonline.co.uk/2012/12/one-of-tennis-great-rivalries-murray-vs.html Thetradge (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of the AfD discussion was not too pertinent because it seems to be about whether tennis rivalries are inherently notable or inherently non-notable. These arguments miss the point of WP:Notability. DGG's and Theworm777's arguments were guideline-based but they drew opposite conclusions. I think "no consensus" might have been a better close though "delete" was within discretion. However, I find myself rather persuaded that there may be sufficiently substantial coverage in the references listed here. Recreation in some manner could produce a viable article. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unexplained six-month delay in requesting review, and fails items 1 and 3 of when deletion review should not be used. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am using it in order to reinstate a perfectly viable article that was deleted because of differences in opinions rather than lack of sufficient referencing, if I was in any way suggesting that other similar articles don't merit their creation, that was not at all my intention, plus I consulted with the user who ultimately made the decision to delete the page, pitched my case to him and he felt that I had a valid argument. Thetradge (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD close was reasonable and I'm not seeing strong enough sources to be able to claim the discussion was flawed. Hobit (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• possibly permit recreation on the basis of Wimbleton reference, but it would help to know how many other rivalries they jave referred to in this manner? It could be merely hype. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Wimbleton reference article, maybe this is just an article naming problem. An article on Andy Murray and Roger Federer tennis matches would seem reasonable and better than using the charged word "rivalry." -- Jreferee (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - As another pointed out, tennis rivalries are inherently not-notable. It's what they do...play each other a lot. If you're in the top 5-10 that is going to happen a bunch of times. We step back and look at the big picture and ask what will people think 10 years from now about the greatest rivalries of this generation and I don't see it measuring up in fact or hype. For players who have played a lot but don't reach the level of a great rivalry we do maintain a separate list of rivalries at List of tennis rivalries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is just rearguing the substance of the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There appear to be three ways for this sports rivalry topic to qualify for a stand-alone article: (1) A Federer–Murray rivalry qualifying under WP:SUMMARY from the Federer biography article and written using a perspective from Federer, (2) a Murray-Federer rivalry qualifying under WP:SUMMARY from the Murray biography article and written using a Murray perspective, and (3) a Federer–Murray rivalry notability based on the reliable sources writing from the perspective of and relative to those who view sports rivalry and qualify under WP:SUMMARY from a tennis rivalry article or a sports rivalry article. Those arguing keep at the AfD pointed to numerous articles merely having an intersection of "Murray", "Federer", "rivalry". There was no showing at AfD for a need to provide a fuller treatment a major subtopic in a separate article of its own. Those maintaining a delete position point this out in various forms "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable", "these sorts of articles are generally not notable enough". As for how to figure out a need to provide a fuller treatment a major subtopic in a separate article of its own, those maintaining the delete position note: J04n: "True sports rivalries, that warrant inclusion, ... have books and countless articles written about them, and by them I mean the 'rivalry' not the games or matches." DGG - "a=n exceptionally well commented on specific rivalry." -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Murray seems to be straying from his intended and Federer seems to be paired with another: Murray eyes Nadal-Federer like 'rivalry' with Djokovic -- Jreferee (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Uhlmann (media executive) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Has he produced any notable compositions?--Launchballer 15:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable composition, disregarding earlier mention of his involvement in the Swedish contribution to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, would be the credit for music/lyrics for Calcutta (Taxi Taxi Taxi) that launched Jonny Jakobsen's career, selling Platinum in Sweden and Norway^[1], placing him on the singles chart for 26 weeks, where as 9 weeks as no. 1^[2][3] on the Swedish Singles Chart during 1998. --Rutberg (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree, but that is enough per WP:COMPOSER.--Launchballer 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER doesn't trump WP:BIO and WP:GNG. To create an article we need sources about him, not just to be able to verify that he composed some music. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've collected a number of sources that are located in a digital library (Retriever (media monitoring)). The links are available for 30 days from this date

* Kvällsposten: "You have written the song together with, among others Robert Uhlmann, who is not is a junior Member in this kind of context. - He is also Malmö Composer and producer. In fact, we have our respective studios next to each other here in Malmö. He has worked with everyone from Dr. Bombay and Smile.dk to Basshunter and Arash. In any case, he and Niklas Edberger made the song with me."^[4]

* Expressen: "Uhlmann have previously shown to be able to balance the delicate line between humor and serious pop craftmanship. Dr. Bombay is one of his projects. Victoria Silvstedt another. Swing Sisters with "Calling disappeared '- the story of an astronaut who gets lost in space - beds for the Eurovision Song Contest's first cartoon-song.''^[5]

* Sydsvenskan: "Behind the singers are seven authors - Johan Bejerholm and Robert Uhlmann are two of them. Both came home to Malmö from Moscow on Sunday night. And even if they thought the Eurovision Song Contest was overwhelming they do not look particularly worn out. They are happy for third place and think it's great that they helped put Azerbaijan on the map - a country that is otherwise rather unknown they mean." ^[6]

Please let me know if I should supply more sources --Rutberg (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's marginal, and this isn't the most notable person in the world, but I'm leaning towards allow recreation on the basis of the sources presented.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - From Wikipedia's perspective, what Robert Uhlmann is whatever a summary of the collective of information says he is. Writing a Wikipedia article is simply is a matter of gathering all your research material at one time and then summarizing it without a preconceived approach to where it should lead. There is a sufficient amount of source material on Uhlmann in the Kansas City Star archives[47] (search "Robert Uhlmann"). Also see

• Jennifer Mann Fuller (April 23, 1996), Riding the airwaves to success Robert Uhlmann makes the most of technology for tracking the music., Kansas City Star, p. D7 (all about Uhlmann)
• Jennifer Mann Fuller (November 4, 1996), Big guns rely on ad tracker KC company keeps an eye on campaigners' messages., Kansas City Star, p. A1 (a quarter about Uhlmann)
• Airplay-Detection Field Heats Up With Introduction Of New Service, vol. 111, Billboard, May 29, 1999, p. 87 (some info on Uhlmann)
• Uhlmann appears to have been involved in a 1996-1997 Kansas City Star widely covered land use dispute with Kansas City, from which there may be biography information for the article.

The deleted article has other sources from which material can be drawn for the article and there may be additional information in books or magazines. Before you post the article, gather all your source material, then summarize it, using template:citation for each reference. Again, summarize the source material, don't pick through it to only find producer or composer information. Post all the life event information you find on his and others will come by and edit/revise to improve. The original article suffered from being written in a list format that would have been better presented using prose. I suggest avoiding a list format for the article as well. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the final comment on MobileIron's deletion page, Unforgettableid (talk · contribs) says, "Can anyone please point us to two independent non-churnalistic reliably-sourced articles about MobileIron, preferably balanced articles which discuss the relative merits of both MobileIron and its competitors?" Here they are:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323864604579069441032378518.html
• http://www.cio.com/article/738935/Mobile_Management_Spurs_Power_Shift_in_the_Enterprise

This proves that MobileIron meets WP:GNG. As for WP:NPOV, the article I created may have had some minor issues, but nothing to merit it being worth deletion. Happy to help tweak it so it doesn't sound like marketing. Zzzronnyzzz (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the first source, which is behind a paywall, but the CIO article isn't about MobileIron. It discusses one of the company's products, but that seems to be all. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ article is definitely more substantial than the CIO article. And I linked to the WSJ article because Unforgettableid (talk · contribs) specifically asked for something from NYT or WSJ. The WSJ article discusses BlackBerry's crumbling to iPhone and Android, which benefits companies like MobileIron and similar companies. Zzzronnyzzz (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Blackberry's decline may make things much more favorable for :competitors like MobileIron and similar companies" does not necessarily show the notability of MobileIron itself. To what extent is MobileIron specifically discussed in this article, or is a it only a mention? (fwiw, I was the person nominating the article for deletion at AfD). And I do not think anyone should have specifically requested comparative articles--usually an extensive NPOV review on a single product is a very much better source for establishing notability than an article discussing it among other similar products. It may not be as useful if one is thinking of buying a product in this class, but that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a mention. After setting the stage in the first couple lines with BlackBerry's decline, the article goes on to describe how MobileIron has raised new funding, doubled its customer base, and readied for an IPO. After mentioning some competitors, it talks about how Gartner has ranked MobileIron and its competitors as leaders in the growing mobile device management space. Then MobileIron CEO is quoted. I'd say half the story is about MobileIron specifically, with the story as a whole describing the space they play in. Would it help for me to quote parts of the article here? (Not sure about the rules around that.) Zzzronnyzzz (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would seem to me that if the company was truly notable, it should be easy to find more substantial sources than the CIO article, which is a pretty flimsy foundation to base notability on in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Philip Guarino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Note, I have also posted this appeal on the page of the Admin who deleted my article, Darkwind) I would please like to appeal regarding Darkwind Speddy Deleting my Philip Guarino page.

Darkwind has stated the reason he speedy deleted my article was:

"The result was speedy delete. The notice at the top of the page at TheKnightsTemplar.org is not a sufficient release for Wikipedia purposes. The article can be recreated with sufficient references when/if Dr. B. Jones (t c) provides a valid license or release of rights. —Darkwind (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)"

After Stalwart111 first tagged my work for "Speedy Deletion" for "Copywrite" issues, I quickly changed several permissions so that it would be in Wikipedia compliance. Before Darkwind saw my page, all of the following permission fixes were in place:

1) Besides the note on the top of the site (go to http://www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/ to see it) saying clearly that it was my own work: "Notice to Wikipedia Editors: This history page is a work in progress as I’m verifying references. I have been asked to write a history of Philip Guarino by Grand Prior Mark Warren and this is my own work -Dr. Jones"

2) And besides addressing this topic priory to your speedy deletion where I specifically gave permission for all my work to be used freely on Wikipedia.

3) There was and still is a copyleft notice on the bottom of the page saying: "Copyleft Free To Use License: The content of this website is free to use for your personal and commercial projects." (again, you can see this copyleft on the bottom of the page here)

4) Since your comments indicate that you seemed to understand that the work on [48] was my own and I was trying to give permission for it's use on Wikipedia, couldn't you have used your discretion as an Admin to instruct me how to give this permission instead of deleting?

5) You stated: The article can be recreated with sufficient references when/if Dr. B. Jones (t c) provides a valid license or release of rights. If I have not yet given sufficient permission, please tell me what more I can do and if I have, please undelete my article into my sandbox. I did not save it and I'm at a complete loss of many many hours.

Again, I did not save any of my work prior to your deleting it and I have lost 7 hours of hard work. I'm requesting that you please move my Philip Guarino article to my sandbox where I can continue to add references and clean it up. Thank you for your kind consideration of my appeal of my speedy deletion, Dr. B. Jones (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comment: At the time I deleted the article as G12, the copyright notice at the bottom of theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino actually said "Copyright 2013" and "All rights reserved." Since Dr. B. Jones (t c)' permission statement did not authorize a free license release of the material on that page, the article could not be kept, draft or not. Wikipedia policy takes copyright issues very seriously.

That being said, now that the version of the article posted elsewhere online is no longer under strict copyright, I am happy to undelete the article and reopen the AfD (and relist it for a new 7-day discussion). I'll respond to the rest of Dr. B. Jones (t c)' concerns on my talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tyson vs Seldon.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Holyfield vs Lewis 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Holyfield vs Lewis.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Holyfield vs. Moorer 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Moorer vs Foreman.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Holyfield vs Moorer.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Bowe vs Holyfield 3.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Bowe vs Holyfield 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:The Event.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Pacquiao vs Bradley.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:He's Back.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
• File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discovered that two separate files for deletion discussions which were running concurrently were closed with one week inbetween, on 14 and 22 July, respectively, with completely different outcome. The discussions were on different FFD subpages and they were closed by different administrators, so it is possible that the two administrators were unaware of the other administrator's closure. Both discussions concern whether posters of boxing events satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in the articles about the boxing events.

• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 24#File:Tyson vs Seldon.jpg: 11 posters were deleted by User:Peripitus for violating WP:NFCC#8. A couple of days ago, I noticed that the posters had been reposted, so I nominated them for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, and they were later deleted for that reason by User:Nyttend. A user informed me of the other discussion some time after tagging the files for speedy deletion, and I realise that G4 probably shouldn't have been used if I hadn't overlooked the closure of the other deletion discussion.
• Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 8#File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg: 1 poster was deleted by User:ESkog for violation of WP:NFCC#8, went to WP:DRV where it was relisted by User:Spartaz and was later kept by User:Nv8200p for satisfying WP:NFCC#8.

This seems awfully inconsistent and anyone would agree that both of the discussions should have the same closure. I think that all of the files should be deleted for the reasons I expressed in the deletion discussions, but the completely different closures show that this isn't completely settled, so it may be best to relist the whole set at WP:FFD.

Note that the deletion discussions also sparked a request for comments at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 59#Promotional event posters as identification. It looks as if this wasn't mentioned at all in the deletion discussions (at least not in the latest closures), so the closing administrators may have overlooked that discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All Should be Restored and Kept: I may seem biased being that I'm the uploader of these images and creator of a large amount of boxing match articles, but the proof that these images are indeed used 100% legally and are important to article itself is right there in front of us. Long-time and respected administrator Nv8200p said it best when he opted to keep the Holyfield–Bowe poster, just like movie posters, these boxing posters do satisfy the contextual significance criteria as stated by NFCC#8. I don't think Stefan or any other user realizes just how important these posters are to the sport and just how big a purpose they serve. I don't think there is any doubt that these images should be kept. Beast from da East (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why do you think that posters identify boxing events in the same way as a posters identify films? Book articles are often represented by cover art because readers commonly see cover art when looking for books, and even if cover art currently is absent, no one would question its addition. However, the article Iphone 4 doesn't contain any cover art, simply because no one identifies mobile phones by their box art. Some things are identified by posters or box art whereas other things are not. Whenever I read about a sports event, what I see is not a poster but one or more photos from the event, so it seems that photos from the event provide more identification than advertisements for it. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boxing is different from, say, the four major American sports leagues in that most of boxings top events are not aired for free and instead shown on pay-per-view. As a result, boxing is 95% about promotion and drawing people into wanting to spend money to watch these events. Posters are shipped around in mass to get the word about these events around. Pretty much all of these posters feature both of the combatants, the date and location, the sponsers of the fight and if applicable, the title (ex: "Repeat or Revenge" for Bowe-Holyfield II) For boxing, as well as MMA and professional wrestling pay-per-view event, the poster BECOMES the de facto image associated with the event and that is why I feel that they should be kept, no questions asked. Beast from da East (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be helpful if you can find reasonable sources (not necessarily reliable, though that would be preferred) that use the posters in such a way or talk about using them as representative of different matches. It's not required, but it would certainly help if we had more than your opinion here (though I tend to think you are correct...) Hobit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • When the uploader mentioned pay-per-view, I took a look at the pay-per-view article and noticed the section Pay-per-view#United States, which largely discusses boxing. However, the section contains many ^{[citation needed]} templates, doesn't mention how the battles are marketed and doesn't tell whether pay-per-view is the only broadcast method in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist all of them together. I deleted them in good faith and Stefan tagged them in good faith, since we didn't know the big picture, but now that we know what's going on, there's no good reason to accept either one of these contradictory decisions. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to what I wrote above, I would also like to point out that there wasn't much discussion between the delete closure and the keep closure. Three comments were added, two saying delete and one saying keep. I do not think that those comments could have the effect that any consensus changed between 14 July and 22 July; the consensus on 14 July must have been identical to the consensus on 22 July. This shows that one of the closures was wrong, and this is better solved by relisting everything in a bundle. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there is nothing wrong with contradictory results. That happens. I'm certainly leaning keep on those (per my arguments at the FfD for the one that was kept) but I think a relist isn't unreasonable. Honestly might be best as an RfC given that I'm pretty sure which ever way it goes people will claim it as a precedent on a huge number of images so it's really more than an FfD. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an RfC during the original discussions but it went unclosed and we want one with more participants. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Guideline WP:NFCI para 4 has a section specifically saying that posters (promotional material) may be allowable, subject of course to the policy stipulations in WP:NFCC. Arguments at the FFDs specifically against boxing posters in particular (as distinct from book covers or film posters) seem to be contrary to the guideline. It is perfectly acceptable to argue against an established guideline if you disagree with it and it is fine to seek to change the guideline. However, a bundled FFD may not be the best way to assess whether the present guideline no longer has consensus. Hobit's RFC suggestion is well worth considering. Thincat (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All restored on request of Nyttend, the deleting admin, at WP:REFUND#Several G4 image undeletions needed. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the deleting admin of some of these at Ffd; sorry about chiming in late here folks. I'm unconcerned either way but given that the images existing or not is not earthshattering, the simplest path is to undelete them and then they can be relisted, if people want. Ffd discussions are often poorly attended and there are many of similar ones that have dissimilar outcomes. Undelete and relist looks like a sensible move from here - Peripitus (Talk) 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyson vs Seldon.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Okay, over the last few months I've created many articles about notable boxing matches. One of them, for example, is Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson. Now I've basically followed the format of several other boxing match articles (an example would be Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto, among many others) by including the official fight poster in the infobox. Everything was going well until an image-obsessed user by the name of Stefan2 appeared out of nowhere and objected to the use of these posters on the articles. He took several, but not all, of the posters that I had, at the time, recently uploaded, to FFD (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 24#Tyson vs Seldon and there was a small discussion that included, besides me and Stefan, only three other users. Despite the lack of a clear-cut consensus, the files were suddenly deleted on July 24, nearly three months after the brief discussion had taken place. I completely disagreed with this decision and eventually two discussions took place, one here and here. Now the latter was a discussion about whether or not to keep the poster for the Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe article and administrator User:Nv8200p ruled in favor of keeping the image. Now, I had decided to re-upload the images for the time being until an official agreement was reached, and though the the Holyfield-Bowe poster was allowed to be kept, but the remainder of the posters, which Stefan had tagged for deletion after the Bowe-Holyfield poster and had not been officially placed into the June 8 discussion were speedy deleted earlier today. Being that Holyfield-Bowe poster did in fact pass, I see no reason why the remainder of the posters should've been deleted in the first place and am hoping that they would be restored. Beast from da East (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/comment Why are you asking for the undeletion of exactly one image? Please explain why just one image should be undeleted, or please clarify that you're asking that we overturn all of the deletions that resulted from this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to fill in on the File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg poster. It was deleted at FFD1 and relisted after a DRV which led to a keep at FFD2. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a thought, Nyttend but would you agree that FFD2 gives reasonable grounds to believe that the previous deletions were not effective? If so this probably shouldn't be a G4 and the DRV will either restore or relist. Wouldn't it make sense to just do that now and save some time? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment up above, made several days after you asked this question. My comment here was simply mildly procedural — when several pages are deleted via the same XFD, we normally undelete all of them or leave them all deleted, and it's only a special situation in which one gets treated differently from the rest. I was attempting to see whether Beast had forgotten to list the others or whether he thought it was a special situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan-Zico Black (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I want to challenge the speedy deletion of this article because G4 should not have applied. I understand admins have wide discretion and can interpret speedy criteria idiosyncratically. That's fine. But here, deleting admin JamesBWatson has dispensed with the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved" wording altogether and substituted his own alternative: "essentially similar", which – as well as being woolly and arbitrary – has a completely different meaning! Anyway, I think my substantially-lengthened and improved new article did address the reason for deletion (WP:GNG failure) by including several additional sources from national newspapers. [49] [50] Also, I added a credible suggestion that the player appeared for Northern Ireland at B international level. Since the deletion in July 2013, there's been continuing non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources: [51] [52] The article could be expanded further with sources supplied at the first deletion discussion, at which it was kept. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Eight new sources including from national newspapers like the Sunday People, Independent and Daily Mirror means there's no way that this is "sufficiently identical and unimproved". OK they may still not be enough to establish notability but that's not for an individual admin to decide that's for an AfD to decide. I also note that even without the extra sources this still isn't "sufficiently identical" as it provides entirely new information such as the information on an international career. Again this may not be enough to meet our notability standards but again that's not for an individual admin to decide. Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The deleting admin has not understood WP:CSD#G4 which states that the criterion "... excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version...". It is nowhere in the criterion that the revamped article "... goes anywhere towards addressing the reasons advanced in the deletion discussion."[53] The introduction to WP:CSD says the "criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion ... They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." Differences of approach to G4 have been discussed regularly at WT:CSD, most recently here, which gives helpful links to earlier discussions. As it happens I proposed a broadening of the G4 criterion and this met substantial opposition here. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was interested to see the discussions on this issue linked above, which I had not seen before. One of the main points which emerges from those discussions, and others which I found by following links from them, is that there is considerable variation of opinion as to how CSD G4 should be used, with a lack of consensus on the questions involved. The wording of CSD G4 is very unsatisfactory. What is "sufficiently" identical? Sufficient for what? The purpose of speedy deletion G4 is to avoid having a page discussed, deleted, restored, and taken back to a new deletion discussion where exactly the same arguments are likely to be used, wasting everybody's time. That being so, the only logical interpretation of "sufficiently identical" is "sufficiently identical for the purpose of deciding whether the dame deletion arguments apply". However, if there is a consensus that this is not how to interpret the criterion, and that any re-created article which is not almost word for word the same as the previous one has to go back to another AfD, even if it does not address any of the reason given for deletion, then so be it. I really have no personal opinion at all as to whether this article is suitable, and I will accept whatever result emerges. (Incidentally, it is a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote to say that I dispensed with the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved" wording altogether and substituted [my] own alternative: "essentially similar". I did not substitute one set of words for the other, I simply used the words quoted in the course of describing how I attempted to apply the wording of the criterion, which is not at all the same as "substituting" one set of words for another.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not unknown for a DRV contain quite a wide variety of contradicting opinion statements on the exact definition of G4. I feel that it would be unwise of us to set concrete criteria for what is, and is not, a G4, because the more narrowly we constrain our administrators on this the more easily the system is gamed by bad faith contributors. But equally, DRV tends to interpret the speedy deletion criteria rather narrowly and where there's doubt, prefers a full discussion. A very strict reading of G4 would imply that a substantial rewrite of previously-deleted text would be sufficient to require a fresh discussion, but I don't like to read it that strictly because it creates an open goal for marketers. As is not uncommon at DRV, we have to weigh a certain amount of tension between competing attitudes.

  In my personal opinion one of the bright lines around G4 is sources. When a re-creation introduces new sources that the previous discussion did not consider, then I would see that as presuming a fresh discussion, unless the new sources were blatantly unreliable and/or inadequate.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the wording of G4 is indeed very unsatisfactory and so I was too harsh in saying you had not understood the criterion. A particular problem is that the phrases "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical" are both used with the former seeming to claim priority over the latter. This causes puzzlement and confusion. Thincat (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is clearly considerable doubt about how to interpret CSD G4 in this situation. Having thought about it carefully, I have decided that, in a case where there is so much uncertainty, the best thing is to restore the article, and allow the person who nominated it for speedy deletion (or anyone else) to take it to another AfD if they wish to. I have, accordingly, restored the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ann Friedrich (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe the speedy deletion for this was a little too quick. The article had content, which was then stripped by NorthBySouthBaranof as it wasn't sourced to anything reliable. I managed to find several reliable sources and posted a note on the talk page, but then the article was tagged with a speedy delete notice and was deleted before I had the chance to improve it. Here are the sources I first came across: [54] [55] [56] [57] That's four sources and there's definitely more. (Note this is my first DRV, so apologies if I did something wrong.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Taylor, and thanks for bringing our attention to this. I'm sure that when Anthony Bradbury sees your note on his talk page he will come here, find those four links to reliable sources, and restore the page. I see that there are many, many more sources to choose from and I'm quite confident that Wikipedia should have an article about this woman. I don't expect this discussion to be open for seven days.—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Of the sources listed above, it would appear from the dates that numbers 1 and 4 are mirrors of number 2; number 3 appears to be unique. Unless it is to be stipulated that every person convicted of murder or attempted murder is thereby automatically notable, I am not convinced that notability of this person is averred in the article, including in the full version prior to its being slimmed down by another editor. I would like to see further views on this; if the consensus is that notability is adequately exhibited then I have no problem restoring the article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The place for that discussion is AFD as DRV generally looks just at process. Unless you object, I shall close this and send this straight for AFD for that discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source, source. I could go on and on. In fact, I think I will. Source, source, source, source. I put it to you that nobody advocating deletion has taken the trouble to google. An AfD is a complete waste of the community's time and should be snow closed if started.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to having it taken to AfD. I try not to make more than one determination on any given issue. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Not a notable company - all the references seem to be primary sources or press releases Idea8623 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Idea8623: the "REASON" is meant to be the reason why you wish this material restored, not the reason why it was deleted (which is publicly viewable already).

  Everyone else: If the article he posted in mainspace has been speedied by now, he also has it in userspace at User:Idea8623/sandbox/Exari Systems. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification - the reason for for overturning the deletion is the fact that my draft does include reliable sources that cover the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idea8623 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I believe I have the draft in two places, how should I proceed? I am not really familiar with the procedure for overturning a deletion. Please advise. contribs (User talk:Idea8623)[reply]

• This does not qualify as a G2 deletion as it is not a test. It looks like it isn't eligible for A7 either. As to how likely it would be to survive AFD, well, that's not a question for this discussion. Recommendation: Consider restoring and immediately sending to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Update Also does not qualify as G4 as there has not been a previous deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) The deletion log didn't mention the AFD, but I did find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exari. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. These are the same sources that we had at the AFD: primary sources from partners and reposted press releases, nothing new here. Definitely does qualify for G4: AFD link here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exari- MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I believe that these sources could be considered as reliable sources. contribs (User talk:Idea8623) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to be fair - there are many wiki pages where the citation comes from own websites and the pages are still published on wikipedia. Please double check the sources for Exari again, thank you.contribs (User talk:Idea8623) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, results on article talk page and userfied-article talk page. This review resulted in the "Keep deleted" entry of 21:22, 1 October 2013 below. As for other articles with equally weak sources, consider nominating them for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted but allow re-creation when the userfied page uses suitable sources to demonstrate the topic is notable to a degree that it would easily survive another trip to AFD. I did not do enough research to determine if the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only that the version currently in the encyclopedia would clearly fail if it went to AFD today AND there is no reason to allow re-creation until a draft that will easily survive AFD exists. See my recent analysis of the sources on Talk:Exari. Recommend that the author send any improved version through AFD or a similar peer-review process before attempting to move it back to the main encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidwr, I appreciate the fact that you went and checked the sources. I'll add more sources to this version. I just want to point out that this company is a major player in the contract management industry: http://www.vagueware.com/top-10-contract-management-software-that-will-make-work-faster-and-easier/. I hope that it will be wikipedia notable. Again, thank you for your efforts - it's important to have people like you, who will check and double check everything. Idea8623 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major player in an industry does not necessarily mean that the company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, especially if the industry is one that at least a few people, myself included, didn't know existed, at least not under that name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put a temp undelete on the page and restored the history to assist discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After additional research I found this whitepaper from Forrester that talks about Exari: http://empoweringcpo.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Predictions_2009_-_ePurchasing_Market.191230122.pdf; Also, I looked for other players in the industry and their presence on wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Thunderhead_(software; https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Business_Integrity -- mostly links from their own websites or no links at all. As I said earlier, we need to keep wikipedia fair to all. Idea8623 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I put some cleanup tags on them and am considering nominating them for deletion, especially the one without non-independent references. Being "fair" isn't a reason to undo this action. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. When there are possibly significant additional sources, a new afd discussion is needed. It is not our role here to predict the result of it, unless the new information is so trivial that the matter is hopeless. That's not the case here. I think I am as concerned as anyone about promotional editing, but I think the best policy for any admin is to allow recreation upon a good faith request. It's not necessary for it to be one that would certainly pass afd -- afd is not all that predictable, and I'd rather debate those sources at afd than here. (my own view forthe moment is that they may well have shown at least borderline notability, and that is enough for here--there is promotional wording, but it isn't that extensive & can be easily fixed. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]