Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April

Liberty GB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted despite coverage in major media sources. I get it, it's an anti-immigration, anti European union, anti Islam party so we want to censor it, but I don't think closing our eyes to subjects we disagree with is the best way to educate and inform readers. Party was started by the founder of the British Freedom Party who was also once a UKIP candidate. He and the party are in the news today BBC story, but we can't cover the subject because we disagree with their positions. But I get it, some people want to censor this kind of thing so the page is protected and can't even be redirected. But why do we purport to have a not censored policy? Seems dishonest. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Includes otherwise unavailable criticism (by Jimbo Wales, among others) of use of administrative authority regarding a dispute in which I was blocked, if anyone cares about my purpose. Because the block has been brought up regularly in disputes, as recently as last month, and absent any way to expunge or modify the block log, it's unfair to allow only one side of the dispute (primarily) to be accessible. The talk page was deleted after the blocking admin exercised their right to vanish, after Jimbo's criticism. This request applies to the original talk page, not the vandalous creation that was properly deleted a few months later. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been on the receiving end of a bad block myself, and I sympathise. It's extremely irritating when a sysop screws it up and leaves an utterly indelible mark on your record in the process. The right to vanish is also important, but when we balance a sysop's right to vanish against a non-sysop user's need to deal with their block log in perpetuity, I think we need to hold the sysop to the higher standard. I feel we should restore selected diffs, to the minimum extent necessary to accomplish HW's purpose. The remainder of the talk page should not be restored.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to undelete selected diffs only and move them somewhere else (Hullaballoo's user space?), so that we have a record of what was said. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. There was a quite a lot of maladministration around that time concerning blocking and concomitant out of process WP:CSD#U1 self-deletion of user talk pages. Perhaps this was a case in point. Not being able to see the deleted page means I can't judge whether anything should be restored and I don't think it is appropriate to ask for temporary undeletion. So, I think someone should do the right thing (though I don't know what that might be!). Thincat (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found the relevant ANI discussions and even (off-site) the user talk page containing Jimbo's remark "... If you do not agree, then the honorable thing to do is to turn in your admin bits ..." which, fortunately, was persuasive. Assuming the ANI, block, and slightly later talk page comments are related (and I think they are) then HW was wronged not only by the block log (which was mildly worded) but by some of the remarks and attitudes in the archived ANI discussions. I have not found any retraction of the allegations against HW but I don't really know where to look. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a reasonable request, but I'll defer to those that can see the content. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: restore unless there is some significant issue which I can't see. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Hobit makes me realise I should say restore to, say March 2009 and fully protect. I can see the version of 21 February 2009 (last modified 18 February 2009, at 20:01) and, except for the embarrassment of having Jimbo and others posting reasonably-worded but critical remarks, I see no reason for deletion. It was speedied WP:CSD#U1 on 31 March 2009 by Dweller so some rot may have set in by then. Even for people vanishing their talk pages are MFD'd rather than speedied (though I'm sure there can be sensible exceptions and this may be one of them). Wikipedia:User pages#Deletion of user talk pages. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Alamuddin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted on 16 April following a discussion with one keep and two deletes (plus the nom). I'm not asking for a review of the 16 April decision – I don't know what state the article was at that time. However, someone recreated the article a few days later and this evening I have been trying to improve the coverage and sources, only to find it speedied by User:TJRC via Twinkle on CSD G4 grounds. Several editors queried this on the talk page, and in particular I asked an admin to check whether the current article was genuinely "substantially identical to the deleted version" as required by the CSD criteria. Given that the subject is now all over the news as the fiancée of George Clooney, I recommended that we have a proper deletion discussion rather than just speedying. Nevertheless Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) (making an otherwise welcome return after a long absence) has deleted it. Could we please have some fresh eyes on the situation? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there is a debate on whether to delete this article or not. I just wanted to add my 5 cents and say that I read about her in the media today for her relationship with George Clooney and I was interested to know who she was, and went straight to wikipedia to find out. I am sure others will be curious to know who she is after seeing she may be married to George Clooney. Upon further reading, she has also done some very high profile work with Julian Assange, the Bahraini government etc. So I don't see how this article needs deleting, it is very useful to inform people who she is, even the main stream media is informing people who she is so clearly she is someone of note: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/george-clooneys-fianc-amal-alamuddin-3464940 I believe those who want her deleted are doing it for political or ideological reasons rather than a sincere belief that precious wikipedia server space will be wasted on informing people of who this person is. Dawud Beale (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AFD was appropriate, and nothing's changed since then except the news reports that she and Clooney are engaged; but notability is not inherited, and being the fiancee of a notable actor does not make an otherwise unnotable (as determined at AFD) attorney notable. There was nothing in the re-created article (other than the fiancee news) not already discussed at the AFD. Disclosure: although I did not participate at the AFD, I agree with it, and as Pointillist points out above, I'm the editor who G4-speedied its re-creation. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you compared the April 16th deleted article with the today-deleted version? I'd added several more reliable sources and I think covered notability better. I'm not saying that she is more than borderline, but I think this one should have gone back for another full discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of sourcing, it's a matter of notability. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with that, of course, and I'm quite happy to concede that she's borderline. But I'm surprised that an experienced admin was prepared to push the button despite the linked talk page comments. The speedy deletion process is only intended for pages with "no practical chance of surviving discussion." In this case, I think a fresh deletion discussion would have been appropriate because (i) the original discussion had only four participants, (ii) the article and its sources were being actively improved, so a discussion period would have allowed for further development, and (iii) the subject was arguably becoming notable through the widespread press interest in her since her engagement was announced. It's a bit like Catherine Middleton: though she didn't become engaged until 2010, we've had an article about her since 2005 because of all the press interest in her. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Deletion that may sense before not necessarily make sense now. Notability of person changes with new events. Whatever rationale and discussion that lead to deletion of the older page should not automatically apply to the new page. It needs to be reevaluated without prejudice to past deletion. Note that WP:G4 is specifically for "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" so it may not be applicable to the new page. — Hasdi Bravo • 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: thanks for that. It might make sense to restore the deleted talk page, too, given that this is a review of process and {{Db-g4}} says Note to administrators: this template has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. FYI the currently-visible talk page content is irrelevant because it was added after the temporary restoration. - Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. It is not a matter of notability, it is a matter of whether the version speedied was "substantially identical" (WP:CSD#G4) to the one deleted at AFD. And it was not (diff), was it? OK, BLP issues or something else could have warranted a speedy but I don't see anything requiring deletion and no such issues have been raised. Thincat (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - new, substantial sources are in the new version, which invalidate the previous deletion that appealled to WP:N. WilyD 09:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with WilyD. I think a key test of whether a fresh article is "substantially identical" is whether it uses the same sources. Where the fresh article uses quite different sources, as in this case, it is overreaching to use G4 to delete it. Restore but with leave to nominate it at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that another AfD should be "forbidden", merely that the G4 should be overturned. (Which is not to imply that there should be another AfD either). WilyD 14:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. I agree with Dawud Beale that the person is of public interest and also looks notable for Wikipedia criteria (at least at first glance). Aside the connection to Clooney and aside representing Assange, there's also information on the web that she "has advised former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Syria and helped ex-Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko challenge her imprisonment." (emag.co.uk) The topic would merit a proper AfD discussion, possibly even a Keep. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I have reviewed the background on Amal Alamuddin and find that she meets the standards for being notable from the body of her work, without being the fiance of George Clooney. Anyone who has clerked for a Supreme Court justice is notable, as is her work as a prominent lawyer. Her resume is enough to consider her notable. Bracton (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Lots of people are interested became of her connection to Clooney but she is notable in her own right. For example, I included a link to a BBC News interview Alamuddin conducted on behalf her client Yulia Tymoshenko. The interviewer considered an expert on legal issues in Ukraine. Clooney was not mentioned once.Popeye191 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to vote Overturn. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changed it! Popeye191 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy. Clearly not substantially identical, and, given the extensive coverage she has received due to the reported engagement, there's a decent argument that the original reason for deletion, failing the GNG, may not apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the guy who tagged it for SPEEDY in the first place, and the sole Endorse !vote, it seems clear to me that this should be be closed as overturn under WP:SNOW. I'll then re-AFD it where it can be assessed as to whether the new report of being Clooney's fiancee is, despite WP:NOTINHERITED, enough to make her notable now. Because of the recentness of the prior AFD, I will notify each of the prior AFD's participants of the new AFD, regardless of their positions. I don't think this violates WP:CANVASS. (Based on the spiritedness shown here, I suspect the AFD will go down in flames, but I think it's worth an airing.) TJRC (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @TJRC: this isn't an attack on you. The process is that either the admin who originally deleted or the admin who performed the speedy should have compared the as-deleted and current versions, taking into consideration the then-current talk-page comments. So far neither of them has commented on the review. The rubric for DRV says "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days." So any close before 22:15, 05 May 2014 UTC would be a breach of procedure. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it never occurred to me that this might be an attack on me; but thank you for saying so. As I see it, this has been an open discussion with everyone respecting everyone else's point of view. But I recognize that my position is the smallest of minorities here, and despite the rubric of DRV, that's exactly why WP:SNOW exists: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." WP:SNOW uses the deletion process as an example, but only as an example; it's applicable to any process, including DRV. TJRC (talk)!

There's no urgency AFAICS. Some contributors don't check their watchlists every day, and given that we are discussing administrative processes it is important to give all concerned a chance to comment. With this in mind I have now notified Crisco 1492 (who closed the AfD on April 16th) about this review. I've also reminded Manning Bartlett (who performed the speedy). We might as well let this discussion run its full course. I know that G4's purpose & wording have been debated on several occasions over the past five years, so this instance might be a useful case sometime in the future. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have not had a chance to check the most recent sources (I literally woke up less than 20 minutes ago) but would like to note something for those simply !voting "overturn", rather than "overturn speedy": an AFD is judged on sources existing at the time, rather than those which become available at a later date. Yes, when that "later date" is so soon after the AFD closes it makes us look like a bunch of fools with our thumbs in the wind, but that doesn't change the fact that we have attempted to find a consensus. In this particular case, the single keep !vote was a bare assertion of notability without providing sources which prove this notability, whereas the delete !votes used this lack of referencing as to support their position. I will now take a look at the deleted version and compare it with the G4 deleted article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy - Based on a) the prose itself and b) the information contained within, this does not appear to be close enough to the deleted content to meet the G4 criteria. I still stand by the AFD, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so quickly. This wasn't trying to second-guess the AfD, of course – I didn't have sight of that version until DGG temporarily restored it along with the recreated article – it was specifically about whether the G4 speedy process had been followed correctly. - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. She's the subject of a 15 minute profile on BBC rRadio 4 [link here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042cq8p]. It says "she is an impressive figure in her own right. As a high-flying human rights lawyer she has defended the likes of Julian Assange of Wikileaks, former Ukrainian president Yulia Tymoshenko and the former head of Libyan intelligence Abdallah Al Senussi. She has also been an adviser to Kofi Annan of the UN on Syria and to the UN tribunal on the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri." Geoffrey Robertson said he gave her an Exceptional Pupillage at Doughty Street Chambers because she was outstanding, and reckons she has the brilliance to become a Supreme Court Judge. 62.7.179.97 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion. It frankly seems absurd not to have an article on this person. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I !voted above). In the BBC radio programme referred to above (can it be heard outside the UK?), as well as recording her extraordinary achievements, the programme commented on the deletion of her Wikipedia article (08:44). Some people here may find it a relief that the deletion was ascribed to her and her fiancé's wish for privacy rather than to the unsatisfactory nature of the notability guidelines or the waywardness of those trying to enforce them. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the fact that about 80% of the sources I've seen recently were published after the article was deleted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (08:28 into the podcast).[1] Yes, that would indeed have been an unlikely matter to have reported. They didn't cover the proper application of WP:CSD#G4 either! Thincat (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Crisco 1492: actually, of the ten references in the speedily deleted version, only two were published after the AfD started on April 8th. 80% of the references pre-date the AfD - Pointillist (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2014-03-31 (before)
2. 2014-04-27 (after)
3. 2014-03-31 (before)
4. 1997-10-23 (long before)
5. undated, but the linked pdf download is dated 2004-12-02 so (long before)
6. 2014-04-05 (before)
7. undated, but per line 317 in source HTML contextually before 2014-03-17 so (before)
8. 2010 (long before)
9. she's listed on the 2014-03-13 wayback snapshot so (before)
10. 2014-04-27 (after)

• Did I say "in the article"? No. I said "that I've seen". This includes sources not in the article, or brought up here. BBC interview: well after the AFD. Something I saw in the New Yorker about her being a hero: also after the AFD. Admittedly Google News isn't the best go-to for searches, owing to their tendency to delete older listings, but compare two pages of results for Amal Alamuddin before 8 April, 11 pages between 8 April and 16 April (the length of the AFD), and 16 pages of results since the AFD closed on 16 April. Doing a regular Google search would probably find similar results. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how any of that relates to CSD G4 being used to support deletion. Having been speedied by a non-admin who didn't take part in the AfD (and apparently didn't have a copy of the deleted article to compare with the new version) the 21:31, 28 April 2014 version was deleted by a normally inactive admin who apparently didn't check the versions. The relevant questions are: - Pointillist (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. In this case, should the article have been deleted on CSD G4 grounds? I'm hoping that the deleting admin (Manning Bartlett) will join the discussion on this.
2. Before deleting an article nominated for CSD G4, what checks do we expect the admin to perform to decide that the speedied article is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the deleted version? Should that admin be sanctioned in the event of failure to perform those checks?
3. In future should CSD G4 nomination be available to all users, or only to admins who have sight of the deleted version, or only to the admin who closed the previous AfD?
4. Is the current deletion review process appropriate for articles that have been speedily deleted? In particular, when a CSD G4 deletion is referred for review, do we need seven+ days to determine whether the article should have been speedily deleted?

• Again, you are reading things in my comment that were not there. Did you not see me !vote to overturn the speedy deletion above, precisely because of the reasons you've indicated above? The speedy was incorrect. My concern was the AFD.

Let's retread. Thincat wrote "the programme [ascribed] ... deletion ... to her and her fiancé's wish for privacy rather than to the unsatisfactory nature of the notability guidelines or the waywardness of those trying to enforce them", which I understood as meaning the AFD (as "notability" is an AFD term; CSD uses "claim of importance"). I replied that the deletion happened (IMHO) because the majority of sources now available were not published at the time of the AFD/closing (and I again mentioned the AFD in my reply to you after you spoke of sources in the article now, hoping that it would be clear that I was speaking about the AFD). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ashamed to say my comment was more mischievous than analytical and shouldn't be taken too seriously. My !vote was serious, however (and it agreed with yours). Thincat (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Impressive lawyer in her own right. JASpencer (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn ditto about her international credentials Kanatonian (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen AfD  This AfD would have been best relisted, so the G4 review is a bit moot.  Every !vote is impeachable, and especially the last !vote should have drawn the attention of the closing admin as not something that is helpful in forming consensus.  I suggest reopening the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clear policy based reasons were provided to justify deleting this article. The closing admin decided that "The three people arguing for deletion did indeed make cogent, policy-based arguments, but were still a numerically small enough minority that I felt declaring a keep consensus was the correct thing to do. ". The 6 people who argued to keep the article discuss the extensive souring of the article. The sourcing of the article is not an issue, the issue was that it was a POV article comprised of a collection of news articles and laws (that in all honestly could be considered OR, the collection of a large number of articles is almost a quasi meta-analysis) to discuss reactions and laws after a major event. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually renominated (outside of process) and the second nominator gives a better, more informed rationale: "The existence of this article screams of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and is a POV fork. Yes, its well sourced as most of its content is rehashed from other articles. In fact everything in it is carefully selected content. There have been other (just as horrific) events that have generated public outcry and debate, but we do not have separate articles on their "after effects" with regard to any particular political movement. The articles themselves include the information along with related articles. If this were a List article, I would venture to say that few would think twice about its deletion, and that is essentially what this article is with some Editorial Opinion thrown in.". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I took a look at the sources and the sources directly state "calls" at the least for gun control. If I recall there was more coverage for this shooting in relations to gun control than others due to the perpetrator, victims, and location. The close to keep was definitely proper as well. Since RS is not an issue and we are looking at undue, the best way to prove this is to bring multiple sources stating that legislation is common after shootings and that the coverage received in this particular case is no greater than others. This was not successfully argued in the prior AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem (and others watching), although school shootings date back to the 1700's, as far as contemporary events are concerned, the 1989 Cleveland School shooting in Stockton, CA received a substantial amount of (pre-internet) media attention and is cited by many (gun control and gun rights proponents) as a watershed moment that lead to firearm (specifically assault rifle and assault weapon) legislation. High profile shooting incidents that have generated further debate or that are credited with creation of legislation are not limited to schools. In addition to the events at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University, the Aurora, Colorado and Washington Naval Yard shooting incident articles have content related to the "aftermath" regarding gun politics or legislation. To allow this article to remain gives it WP:UNDUE emphasis over every other shooting incident regardless of where it happened or the ages or numbers of the victims. Out of tragically over 250 school shootings in the U.S. in the last 200 years, there is no Wikipedia policy I am aware of that supports this level of priority or preferential treatment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse keep WP:GNG by a huge margin on its own, and a logical WP:SPLIT from the main shooting article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is it "WP:GNG by a huge margin on its own and a logical WP:SPLIT" versus every other shooting incident with or without an article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST There are numerous secondary sources discussing the gun control efforts and proposals in the wake of Sandy hook, and those sources directly link the proposals to the event (in addition to the proposers doing it directly as well). Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum should agree to that obvious fact, regardless of one's opinions as to the wisdom of the proposals, or one's opinion about their respective successes and failures. Maybe those other events did not evoke similar levels of political activity. Perhaps they did and it was not covered in RS as well. Perhaps it is in fact covered as well, but nobody has put together an article. In any case, it doesn't matter, as there is no policy requiring parity. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's a convenient way to weasel word around addressing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, but still does not justify the existence of this article and the preferential treatment that one event is being given. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my comment on the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per reasons given previously. 1. There are already three articles that discuss this material: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions, Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun_control, and (to some degree) Assault weapons ban. 2. Even though it was the impetus behind the federal AWB of 1994 and three state assault weapons bans, the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) never resulted in a "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting." 3. This one broad, non-specific article is subject to recentism problems like becoming a bloated, rambling, disorganized WP:COATRACK mess. Lightbreather (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone else notice that the article's creator is asking for it to be deleted? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UNDUE versus every other shooting incident, WP:RECENTISM, that its POV fork created from redundant material, and by the admission of the author on its Talk page that the subject is vague enough that they are unsure of the period of time it should cover. I guess we wait until another horrific incident occurs and then start Gun control after ''fill in name of mass shooting here''. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - content management is a headcount heavy process, and this is management, not a deletion question. The parent article is big enough that a daughter is sensible. Although there are claims that policy supports deletion, that appears to be false - WP:UNDUE is perhaps usable to support a keep position (to avoid an undue emphasis in Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), but it's farcical to suggest it might support a deletion position. As for the claim it's a POVFORK, that's asserted but not shown, and I certainly can't ascertain the POV of the writer(s) by reading the article, so I have to conclude the appeals to POVFORK are wholly invalid as well. Keep has the headcount, and the policy (most WP:N, which is a big hill to climb against), while delete is numerically inferior and has only WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a deletion argument. Pretty clear-cut. WilyD 09:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I differ from WilyD on a number of points. I think the distinction between deletion questions and content management questions is spurious: this was at AfD, so it's a deletion question. I think that there are Wikipedia rules that do support deletion, and the "delete" side has explained them quite clearly; and I don't see the relevance of the headcount. However, I still think we should endorse the decision.

  The "delete" side's case is that because we have rules, they should be enforced in this case. That's erroneous. Wikipedia policy is and has always been that rules aren't enforced blindly. Per policy, rules are only enforced in any specific case if it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to enforce them in that case. Where users disagree about whether to apply the rules, we have a discussion and try to reach a consensus. In this case consensus was not reached, so the closer had to follow the deletion guidelines for administrators.

  Because of this, the close I would have preferred is "no consensus to delete". At DRV we don't normally overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", though.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the AfD. I just wanted to respond to the keep vs. no consensus point raised by S Marshall (talk · contribs). I figure the big decision in an AfD is delete vs don't delete. The line between "clear consensus to keep" and "no consensus" doesn't excite me as much, so I don't put as much effort into making sure I get that right. In this case, re-reading the AfD just now, I could have gone either way (i.e. keep or nc), but I don't see any possible way this could have added up to a delete. I should point out that I completely discounted the comment by Mike Searson (talk · contribs) as being totally inappropriate and disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I take it the article topic is "a series of gun laws proposed in the United States at the federal and state levels after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" (in the first sentence). If so I am not clear what it is a POV fork of. And anyway, as WilyD asks, what is the POV? Where is this explained by those objecting? The article may duplicate material in other articles but that is an editorial, not a policy, issue. WP:UNDUE explicitly refers to balance within an article. There has never been any coherent attempt to achieve balance across articles (WP as a whole is hugely biased towards material published since 1990, using sources in English, and on topics of interest to human beings). WP:OR? Editors of any decently written article will have quite properly undertaken a "meta-analysis" of what relevant sources exist and what ideas and facts from them can be usefully reported. What we are pleased to call OR is including statements not in such sources or in combining statements so as to "advance a new position". I do not see the topic as being unusually recent. I think the argument is not between those who want to uphold policy and those who don't. It is between people with different interpretations of how policy should apply. If the material here excessively overlaps that elsewhere, or if there are other topics that should be covered elsewhere, those are editorial matters. The consensus at AFD was to keep and the close was correct. Thincat (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an accurate evaluation of the deletion discussion. The argument that the selection and structuring of article content amounts to original research pretty much applies to every article, and is based on a fundamental misconception. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNDUE.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give any reasoning as to how WP:UNDUE, which explains how the prevalence of viewpoints within an article need to be balanced by the prevalence of those viewpoints among reliable sources could conceivably be a reason to delete this article? WilyD 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not the prevalence of viewpoints within the article, its the entire article that is problematic. In roughly the last 50 years, there have been several high profile assassinations and attempts (including U.S. Presidents) in addition to other (just as horrific) shooting incidents around the U.S. The existence of this article places an WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Sandy Hook School shooting with regard to a political movement. Furthermore, by the article authors own admission above, "1. There are already three articles that discuss this material: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions, Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun_control, and (to some degree) Assault weapons ban. 2. Even though it was the impetus behind the federal AWB of 1994 and three state assault weapons bans, the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) never resulted in a "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting."" It is essentially the Wikipedia defacto guideline that this kind of material be included in the main article about its associated incident and not in a separate one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems like this should just be a section of the Sandy Hook Shooting article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's too late to !vote at the AFD but I just look at the title and it looks like a subtopic of gun control, to be paired with gun control before the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, rather than a subtopic of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. As such it seems ridiculously arbitrary, sure it's an important moment in the history of gun control but do you have to keep changing the title and contents every time there's a shooting that seems "pivotal"? Should we also have gun control after Columbine? But that would have to be gun control between Columbine and Sandy Hook, because otherwise the contents of the two article would overlap! 71.58.104.46 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly not a subtopic of gun control. It might be a subtopic of gun politics in the United States, but it's of purely national-level importance.—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably better as NC and I'd have !voted for a merge or delete as I don't think this is an appropriate topic for an article (rather it should be a part of the parent). But weak endorse (only weak because NC would have been a better reading of the discussion IMO). Hobit (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Ga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

She seems to have garnered some notability since the deletion in late 2009, and I'll edit the article further once it's restored to incorporate these sources:

• http://galleristny.com/2013/02/art-of-darkness-ellie-gas-north-pole-tell-all/
• http://theamericanreader.com/submerged-ruins-an-interview-with-ellie-ga-visual-artist/
• http://kcur.org/post/ellie-ga-searching-ancient-light
• http://www.timeout.com/newyork/art/ellie-ga-four-thousand-blocks
• http://www.newyorker.com/arts/events/art/ellie-ga-bureau
• http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2011/03/31/ellie_ga_an_artist_adrift.html
• http://makemag.com/review-classification-of-a-spit-stain/

Thanks for your consideration. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the closer of the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Ga. Though no longer an admin, I'll respectfully defer to the outcome of this discussion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore Nothing wrong with the close, but the sources clearly pass WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also please restore article and talk page for discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or re-create article. I agree, there seems to be new notability since 2009. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily restored for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, userfy, allow recreation. This really isn't a DRV matter, since the article wasn't salted. Going through WP:REFUND would have been more efficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in outer space (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nothing wrong with the close admin did the right thing, but per his request due to the recency of the discussion I am requesting a DRV. New reliable sources have been found and added to the article.

• IBTimes
• Huff Post
• NYTimes
• IBTimes
• IBTimes
• NBC News
• These sighting were also covered in Condon Report and by James Oberg
• Sighting outside of the ISS launches the program "NASA's Unexplained Files" and was covered as part of the Science Channel's "Are We Alone?" series.
• It is also an element in science fiction The Astronaut's Wife and Space (The X-Files)

This is a widespread, everlasting, and recurring event in space exploration. The AfD essentially snowball into a delete because it is apparent that no one did any research. Here is the condition of the article during the two AfDs, AfD 2, AfD 1.

Here is version of the article I intend on restoring User:Valoem/UFO sightings in outer space.

I am requesting an Allow recreation Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that I posted this in the wrong date. Should be in 4/24. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved to correct log page for you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. This can be covered in the main article on UFO sightings, it's just the same crap from a different pilot's chair. The sources don't really establish notability any more than they did last time round - a "Myth: Neil Armstrong saw a UFO; Fact: No he didn't" in long article, for example, is really stretching. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we say this? I have attempted to give as much due weight as possible. Even as a hoax the coverage is considered notable. I noted that officially the Armstrong report is not true, perhaps we can move it to the list section. I added over 8 sources not included in the prior debate. The sources have given significant weight on sightings in outer space. I feel a separate article is necessary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are about a dozen and a half pages of the form UFO sightings in place (see Category:UFO sightings#U). That they're not see aliens doesn't mean it's not a big social phenomenon that requires a substantial amount of depth. WilyD 08:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The decision on whether to make a separate article is a value judgement, and the new sources might affect it. Whether they do should be discussed at AfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - I dunno about the venue. I "think" the proper procedure would be to request "somewhere" (here is just as good as any). As for the article itself, if the information is worthy to be in an article, it doesn't matter if it is on a standalone page or merged to some other page per WP:SS. This is an easy split from some other related article as noted by JzG. And the references I looked at appeared to give coverage, including at least one first person account. - jc37 19:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, another target for loons to try to use to pretend that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration - certainly sources have been presented here that invalidate all the deletion arguments made in the XfDs (except, perhaps, the rampant "I don't like it's" that were silly to begin with). It could be relisted if someone thinks it should be deleted, though that appears to be a pretty silly thing to think; relisting for process's sake is a waste of everyone's time. WilyD 09:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Idee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<Not Notable Company>

Media Idee • ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) • [revisions] Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -115.186.121.30 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The Page 'Media Idee' was deleted for the company not being notable at the time.

Since then, the following are some of the projects that have gotten it into the limelight:

The biggest one is the Organization of the first ever Dolphin Show in Pakistan. Please see http://www.dolphinshow.org/partner.php and www.facebook.com/dolphinshowkarachi for proof that MI was the main organizer. Just Google 'Dolphin Show Karachi' and you will get about a 100 links back from major media companies in the country discussing that including some that actually Cite Media Idee. This is one FB page which lists the event's as MI: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Media-Idee/346860588664883.

Some pages which list MI are: http://tcsconnect.com/dolphin-show-ticket-12897.html

http://www.awamiweb.com/dolphin-show-in-karachi-from-10th-of-january-67671.html

http://www.mediakorner.com/pakistans-first-ever-dolphin-show/

Media Idee is also part of PAS - The ruling body for all advertisers and agencies.

PAS - Pakistan Advertisers' Society: http://www.pas.org.pk/media-idee-celebrates-8th-birthday/

Other Links Include: http://trango.co/interview-with-umair-mohsin-of-media-idee/

http://www.pas.org.pk/mira-media-idee-research-analytics/

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/mi-digital

http://www.midigital.co/nestle-fruita-vitals-production-handled-mi-productions/

Network Companies include: www.miproductions.tv

www.mievents.asia

www.creativecom.co

• Comment I've removed a large amount of text copy-pasted from various conversations and talk page material by an editor that involve the process before bringing this page to deletion review. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AFD was unanimous and reasonably argued. An AFC submission would have been a much better choice than bringing this here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IronGargoyle (talk) and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please do note that the Admin who deleted the page is no longer available. Secondly, please note that the deletion occurred in 2011. Since than the company is now 'Notable'. The issue was not being resolved. Thats' why the complete context was posted here to make decision easier. Please do the right thing and undelete the page, also as requested the same as Stuartyeates, one of the people who approved the original deletion. Also an AFC Submission is not required. WE are well equipped to create an entire encyclopedic article on Media Idee and rest assured it will not sound like a promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.101.169 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and agree with suggestion of creating an article through AfC. IP user, "WE are well equipped to create an entire encyclopedic article on Media Idee" sounds as though you are connected with Media Idee, in which case read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide: you should not create your own article directly, but use AfC so that it can be reviewed by an uninvolved user before it is posted. We find that people's ideas about what "will not sound like promotion" about their companies are very different from ours. Most of the references you give above seem to be written by the company or based on press releases: what will be looked for is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse That was an unavoidable close, thoughtful discussion and a unanimous set of opinions by participants whose tenure evidences an understanding of our policies. The editor requesting undeletion is clearly new here, and unfamiliar with our policies, and this is not the spot from them to learn. AfC, as challenging an option as it can be, is at least a bit better. JohnCD's comments are spot on. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been created multiple times, almost certainly be people looking for neutral information about this company. I came to Wikipedia looking for unbiased information on DigitalOcean, a fairly significant service in my version of the world, and found that the article has been deleted twice. As an wikipedia editor of 8 years, contributor of both articles and images, and having edited hundreds of scientific journal articles, I endeavored to write with NPOV, wikified my text, and cited sources. Perhaps User:Deb and other deletionist-minded editors are unaware, but this company is on par with Amazon as an entrepreneurial resource. It is not advertising to cite market-based research. I specifically cited market-based criteria, like Netcraft, because the company is focused on entrepreneurial markets. I note it is entirely comparable to other services, like Bluehost and Amazon AWS. Please undelete the article. Niels Olson (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now being canvassed off-wiki.[2] The company is probably notable, but "on par with Amazon" doesn't sound very neutral (it's a startup company not much different than a zillion small VPS hosts).

70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That claim was not made in the text of the article and, in the narrow space of hosts a early stage entrepreneur or hobbyist would consider, it's absolutely on par.Niels Olson (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, coupled with their recent large Series A round from Andreessen Horowitz, and examples of high profile use of their services given on TechCrunch: [3] (e.g., the host for beyonce.com), the notability of DigitalOcean and suitability for inclusion here is significant. I vote for a speedy undeletion. Daniel Smith (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the article was deleted for promotional wording, not for lack of notability. Deb (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a series A round makes a company notable. An IPO might make it notable, but I'm not sure even of that. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) "no explanation of significance" speedy deletion by Bbb23 based on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=DigitalOcean.

  At the time of the 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) deletion, if not substantially changed from the version in the Google cache, the article was neutrally written and contained two reliable sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danreich/2012/09/19/startup-ceo-ben-uretsky-on-launching-digital-ocean-raising-money-and-joining-techstars/ and http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/techstars-graduate-digitalocean-switches-to-ssd-for-its-5-per-month-vps-to-take-on-linode-and-rackspace/

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on this article in TechCrunch ("DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz To Take On AWS"), this article in VentureBeat ("DigitalOcean's cloud surpasses Amazon Web Services in one category"), and this article in The New York Times ("Andreessen Horowitz Backs DigitalOcean, a Cloud Computing Start-Up").

  I cannot see the 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "unambiguous advertising or promotion" speedy deletion by Deb, so will not express an opinion about that deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much point trying to overturn a deletion that happened before the one that's being challenged. You can see the article I deleted here.Deb (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds wrong to me, if there is a viable article to be had then what's the problem? For sure your deletion may have been ok, but since you aren't "banning" the topic from existing, if a previous version is valid there is no reason not to turn back to that one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's as maybe, but that's not what User:Niels_Olson has requested. Deb (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're familiar with WP:NOTBURO? I don't like the ad hominem in the nomination here, but at the end we should be concerned about building the encyclopedia. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're imagining the "ad hominem" - don't forget to assume good faith. I'm pointing out the facts, which are being consistently clouded by misleading comments from those who apparently still think that the version User:Niels_Olson wants undeleted was deleted for non-notability. If you would like to nominate the previous version for undeletion, go ahead. Deb (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you do want to put a bureaucratic process first, we are here discussing this article. If there is a viable one which can help improve the encyclopedia there is no issue with discussing that here, despite your desire to make sure form xxxb6 has been filled in properly by raising a new nomination for a different deletion i.e. making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - the use of "deletionist-minded editors" in the nom is clearly being used as a pejorative. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you or don't you care enough to make a valid nomination, then? Deb (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's already a valid nomination, so no need to open another (your assertion otherwise is not "law"). I'll take my chances that the closing admin will be more clued up on the idea of what is and isn't bureaucratic that you seem to be demonstrating. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the quickest path forward to having a DigitalOcean entry then? Seems like notability has been established, now there's just an argument around language. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Should User:Niels_Olson simply resubmit the entry using more neutral descriptors? Chorder (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the obvious solution - he's had it in his sandbox all along so I don't know why he is so reluctant to do it. Deb (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No reluctance here, merely a combination of trying to defer to process, and having other things to do in meatspace. I don't have access to the wikitext of the 11 April 2014 vesion cited above in the googlecache link (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=DigitalOcean). If someone with access to the deletion log would drop that wikitext in my sandbox or elsewhere and point me to it, I would be happy to merge the two with a focus on ensuring NPOV. As for an ad hominem attack, please consider "deletionist-minded editors" in the same context as an American Congressperson might refer to "my friends on the other side of the aisle". Also, just to clarify, I'm not even a DigitalOcean customer. I'm a prospective customer looking at available options. I have no interest in this company other than its value to me. Niels Olson (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resubmitted the rewritten article, citing consensus in this conversation. Niels Olson (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we could close this now as a new version of the article has been created. I'm not at all concerned about being lumped with "deletionist-minded editors"; I believe it's important to avoid our servers getting gunged up with iterations of spam and other inappropriate articles - it saves long-term hassle if we nip it in the bud. Deb (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear

    I'm not at all concerned about being lumped with "deletionist-minded editors"

    . It has been my impression that folks on both sides wear their labels with pride. Perhaps I should spend more time trolling for spam to delete, but I don't even know where to look for it, and most of my work is in the sciences, where NPOV is usually a moot issue and we cite anything we can if for no other reason that to keep track of all the literature. Niels Olson (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Niels, I saw you wrote on Talk:DigitalOcean, ...has been resubmitted with a focus on NPOV to conform with the consensus reached in the deletion review. Given that this debate is still going on, it's really too early to declare that consensus has been reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In creating this new version was stuff copied from the cached version? If so then the advice to close this is as broken as the advice about making this bureaucratic. We now don't have proper attribution for the earlier copied material, so there will still need to have the earlier revisions restored to maintain that. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Rosaenv (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have improved and reviewed the page. I would like to have another opinion or chance at this article.Rosaenv (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ISERN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Draft article was re-written to avoid possible copyright issues. Administrator deleted revision without comment or elaboration. Request made to editor on 4/14/14 for elaboration on copyright issues. No response from administrator. ISERN Member (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you looked at our guidelines around editing while involved? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I undeleted the article to run the duplicate detector tool to compare the deleted page with the suggested source. The outcome is pretty clear. This has seen changes but is still too closely paraphrased to be acceptable here under any terms. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ESC entry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am very concerned that the closure of this discussion was improper. It appears to be a !vote count, and not to include any analysis of the points made in the discussion. I raised the matter on the talk page of the editor who closed it, User:DavidLeighEllis (not an admin), asking "please will you explain how you weighed up the arguments, rather than simply counting !votes? (Your one-word comment on closing does not do so)" and did not receive a satisfactory answer, but rather gained the impression that David did not act in a neutral manner, imposing his own view of the case. When I commented again, I was referred here. I suggest that the discussion be reopened and relisted, and only closed again after further discussion, by an editor with more experience at TfD, who is prepared to review the discussion in their closing summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seemed to reflect a prevailing view that the template adds value to the articles in which it is transcluded, and that any merger to a more general infobox template would be highly problematic. Furthermore, there was no evident consensus for deletion/merger of the template. Therefore, I closed it as keep. The discussion had been open since March 23, so someone had to close it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have no deadline. Not one of the commenters in the debate raised an issue of a merger (since none was proposed) being "highly problematic". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed modification of the template was "Should be recast as a module of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}". That sounds like a merger to me. There was no consensus for your proposal. By the way, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To merge has a huge backlog of mergers already. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposal you closed is all the more reason why it should be reopened. I'm not sure why you've raised the 'holding cell' red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you didn't propose a straight merger, you added some sauces and pickles. The bottom line is that you proposed to incorporate the template code into {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. There was a consensus against doing this. I bring up the backlog of mergers as one compelling reason not to add to it when a proposed merger is against consensus anyway. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QED. I didn't propose a merger of any kind; nor did I propose to incorporate any code into either infobox. While you persist in such misrepresentation (AGF: though ignorance rather than malice), there seems to be little point in us discussing this further. I await the views of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then your language was ambiguous. It could also mean that you proposed to rewrite the template as a wrapper for {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. Or something else entirely. It would be helpful if you explained what you meant, rather than forcing everyone else to guess at it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you were suggesting that the template be rewritten as Module:Infobox ESC entry... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the code from Infobox ESC entry would be incorporated, with modifications, into Infobox single to effectuate this? And when Andy said "nor did I propose to incorporate any code into either infobox" he was outright lying, trying to create the misimpression that I didn't understand his proposal, and baiting me to try to construe his words in a different way. Adding the features of Infobox ESC entry to Infobox single sounds like a flavor of merger, just as I originally described the proposed action. I'm really getting tired of Andy's smoke and mirrors. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No code would be added to either {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} at all. There would not be a single edit to either. The only template to be edited would be the nominated one. I look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Template:Infobox song and Template:Infobox single have no module parameters. This is why, in the example of modules provided above, RexxS used Template:Infobox person. Code would therefore have to be added to Infobox song and Infobox single to effectuate the module. The user could certainly pass a transclusion of Template:Infobox ESC entry into the modified templates at the point of use of course. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought they already had |module=. Very well: No code from {{Infobox ESC entry}} would be added to either {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} at all. There would not be a single edit incorporating code from {{Infobox ESC entry}}, to either. I still look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a transclusion of {{Infobox ESC entry}} is passed as a parameter to {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}, whereafter the latter templates pass {{Infobox ESC entry}} to template:infobox via a numbered data= field, is this not effectively an instruction to the mediawiki software to incorporate code from {{Infobox ESC entry}} into {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} when rendering the page? Could a process in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} is modified for use as a parameter to {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}, and the latter templates are also modified to recieve the parameter, so that, when articles are rendered, information from {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears in the infoboxes produced by {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} be described reductionisticly as a merger? Do I have to trace out the reception of the numbered data= field by Module:Infobox when {{Infobox}} invokes it before you are convinced that I really understand your proposal? In the interest of brevity I have certainly omitted some technical details, but I could say that when the transclusion of {{Infobox ESC entry}} is passed into Module:Infobox, it is recieved by the code

preprocessArgs({

     {prefix = 'header'},

     {prefix = 'data', depend = {'label'}},

     {prefix = 'rowclass'},

     {prefix = 'class'}

}, 50)

and most directly by the portion

{prefix = 'data', depend = {'label'}}

Your assumption that people must not understand what you are talking about because they have not spelled out the mechanics of your proposal in lugubrious technical detail is completely unwarranted. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. You've asserted that I proposed to merge templates; I did not. You have accused me of "outright lying". I did not. For the third time, I look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's just no convincing you that I understand your proposal, is there? When I described it reductionisticly, you said that my description was inaccurate. When I responded with a more complete exposition of technical detail, you said "tl;dr" (too long, didn't read). If I were to describe the proposal as making {{Infobox ESC entry}} into a module, your own language, you could also say I didn't really comprehend it. Your game is rigged. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me that Andy isn't going to claim that if a modified version of Infobox ESC entry were transcluded into Infobox single to effectuate the module, this would not constitute incorporation of code. The code is substantively incorporated whether it's by transclusion or cut-and-paste. Any claim to the contrary would be a hairsplitting distinction. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks like a good close to me. It certainly appears to reflect the discussion that preceded it.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, please explain how you weighed up the arguments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was to keep. The original nomination failed to explain convincingly the reasons why advantages of recasting might outweigh the disadvantages. Haranguing the participants is less likely to be effective than referring to an essay or guideline on the matter. Documentation on techniques of template development seems lacking. Thincat (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, please explain how you weighed up the arguments. You also appear to have overlooked the rationale for making the nominated template into a module: "so as not to repeat information on composers, lyricists, performers, etc". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a reasonably well-attended discussion, where only one other person supports the nomination, it would be very unusual for the discussion to be closed other than for the status quo. The suggestions that the closer acted improperly or "did not act in a neutral manner, imposing his own view of the case" seems to be very bizarre indeed. Do you not see that? The rationale "so as not to repeat information on composers, lyricists, performers, etc" was clear to me and I can only suppose was clear to those at TfD. They were not convinced by the proposal. They either thought that the benefit was slight or that there might be concomitant disadvantages. Rather than demanding in green ink that people justify their actions, it might be more fruitful to explain and soothe so as to allay people's doubts. Thincat (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you ask, I don't think it unreasonable to to consider David's response to me on his talk page (when asked how he had weighed up the arguments) "The template is frequently used (so frequently that it's template protected), and a merger would a royal pain in the posterior." an indication of him not acting in a neutral manner (not least as no merger was proposed; see above), but instead imposing his own view. Perhaps you do, but I note that the two sections after the notification about this debate, on his talk page, also feature people complaining about other instances of him acting both prematurely and out-of-process. I'm sure your views on the styling of {{Tq}} will be welcome on its talk page. I note that you have avoided my question about the arguments made during the TfD, and have instead chosen to take a quantitative approach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not repeat my exposition on the technical aspects of your proposal explaining why I described it reductionisticly as a merger, to which you responded "tl:dr". The reason I characterized your proposal as a "royal pain in the posterior" is that reworking {{Infobox ESC entry}} as a module of {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} would require significant and possibly manual alterations to every article in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears, 1365 articles in total. Moreover, while the article modifications were in progress, both the module and freestanding forms {{Infobox ESC entry}} would be in use simultaneously. The only way to avoid breaking hundreds of articles during this process would be to start a module form of {{Infobox ESC entry}} as a newly named template, apply template protection, then delete or redirect {{Infobox ESC entry}} to the new template name when the process was completed. The lugubrious nature of your proposal was doubtless a factor in the formation of a consensus against it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are, again, utter bollocks. Just as there was no proposal for a merger, there would be no need for "alterations to every article in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears"; no need for a new template; no need for template protection. Your claim of consensus again ignores the - highly facile - arguments made in the TfD, which do not address your imagined scenario and which you persist in ignoring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. When {{Infobox ESC entry}} becomes a module of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} then every use of {{Infobox ESC entry}} would need to be converted from freestanding to an argument to the (newly minted) module= parameter of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. This alteration of {{Infobox ESC entry}} usage would affect every instance of the template, requiring alterations of every article in which the template appears, with the implications described above. If you don't understand your proposals, then you have no business making them. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I understand the proposal fully. Your claims are false; you're talking bollocks again. when you don't understand proposals, then you have no business closing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your bare proof by assertion that I don't understand your proposal isn't going to convince anyone. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, but your repeated insistence on demonstrating that fact will. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, regardless of the merits of the argument, it's clear from that discussion that there was not only no consensus to undertake it, but an active consensus to maintain the status quo. Jumping up and down and stamping your foot about how unfair it all is won't change that, unfortunately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse  The nom initially notes that the closing was one-word and wants a better explanation, and later reports "tl;dr".  I infer that the initial concern is satisfied.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberget 4A (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This may be a new brand, but it is significant anyway, because it is the last in a range of beers supporting Djurgårdens IF. It is not a promotional page. There is a page about the beer on Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Alberget 4a. The user deleting the page claims the article on Swedish Wikipedia was deleted, but even if the deleted article on Swedish Wikipedia had the same name it was not about the beer but about a street address, sv:Alberget 4A. Bandy boy (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think the best solution would be to add a few lines to Djurgårdens IF until this has gained enough coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Stalwart111 12:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you say there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources already? Bandy boy (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There may well be but I've had a look and couldn't find much. It would seem that a sensible suggestion would be to add some more information to Djurgårdens IF where the beer is mentioned already and then split it out into a new (less promotional) article once the volume of information justifies it. I think the only other way you're going to get a stand-alone article (having had it G11'd twice) would be to create a draft in your userspace, get it reviewed and then publish it. It was speedy deleted so realistically there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from creating a new article at Alberget 4A (it hasn't been salted). But you seem to be struggling with what to include so that it doesn't get G11'd again. DRV isn't really the right venue - I don't think anyone is going to overturn the deletion of a G11 article when it would be far simpler for you to simply create a new, less promotional one. Stalwart111 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't even read the article since it is deleted, have you, so how can you claim it is promotional? In what way was it promotional? It was not in any way promotional, at least not intentionally, it was just stating facts about this product. BTW, this discussion should be about if Wikipedia may have an article about Alberget 4A or not. Do you seriously suggest that I "create a draft in [my] userspace, get it reviewed and then publish it", in spite of it having been deleted? Wouldn't that be to break the rules? I am trying to do the right thing here by having the deletion formally reverted, and you suggest I should just ignore this deletion and write a new article anyway? Bandy boy (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, obviously not. But it was deleted for having been overly promotional so we can assume it was (at least in the opinion of one experienced administrator) overly promotional. But it was speedy deleted - it wasn't deleted as a result of a deletion discussion so there's no specific prejudice against recreation. As I said, DRV is probably the wrong venue because editors are unlikely to agree to overturning the G11 deletion of an article based solely on the word of the creator. Best to have another crack with a specific focus on producing an article that isn't promotional. If you want some input from others to ensure you avoid G11 again, you might consider a user-space draft. The article won't be deleted again unless it meets one of the speedy deletion criteria or is subject to a deletion discussion (WP:AFD). The article wasn't deleted "because one user found there shouldn't be any article about this thing". Nobody is saying you can't have an article - they are saying you can't have an overly promotional article. Fix that and you'll be fine. Stalwart111 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As Stalwart says, it would be more reasonable to try for a better article than to resurrect this one. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How could I "try for a better article"? The article will be deleted again unless the deletion is reverted by this process, isn't that the point with this process? This deletion review is not about the way the article was written, it is about whether this product may have an article at all. Do you actually mean that I could just write a new article about this (but just without whatever it is you find to be "promotional")? I don't think so, wouldn't that be breaking the rules of Wikipedia? The article wasn't deleted because it could have been made better but because one user found there shouldn't be any article about this thing at all no matter what – or else he would have just rewritten the article, as you do on Wikipedia when you find an article with unfitting contents, or helped me do it. Bandy boy (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No it was deleted for being promotional, it can be recreated as long as it isn't promotional. This isn't at all about one user saying it can't ever have an article. Promotional articles are speedy deleted, they generally don't get rewritten because that rewards the individual/company doing the spamming. But if you think it should have an article and you can write it without being promotional then go ahead and try. -DJSasso (talk)

• I think going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation would be helpful. I note that Bandy boy has created several articles which have been tagged for notability concerns, or have been deleted. Our inclusion criteria is not always clear, and AfC would be able to assist Brandy boy in creating articles that do meet the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think explaining what was considered "promotional" in the article would help more, so this could be avoided in the future. Also, it could help if people wouldn't just tag articles for notability concerns just because they don't personally know anything about the subject. Bandy boy (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on your talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are several relevant sources which have not been discussed in any of the AfD discussions of this article:

• [4] This is a popular article on this criterion. Democracy Chronicles meets the requirements for a WP:RS: that is, it is not a mere blog, but a news/opinion site with editorial oversight.
• [5] : This is a peer-reviewed paper, not discussed in any of the previous deletion discussions. It does not consider the issue of favorite betrayal as a voting system criterion, but rather as a more general phenomenon. Still, it gives clear evidence that this terminology is known within the voting theory field. (In fact, it suggests a possible compromise: rather than an article on the favorite betrayal criterion, we could have a slightly more-general article on the phenomenon of favorite betrayal (voting theory). I for one would be entirely satisfied with such a decision, though it's not my first choice.)
• Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It) by William Poundstone ISBN-10: 0809048922, p229: This is a book citation, not discussed in any of the article's AfD's. In fact, the nominator in the most recent AfD explicitly denied that there were any citations in published books. While it mentions the criterion only in passing, again, it gives evidence that this is a known idea in the field.

There are also relevant citations which were not mentioned (or actively denied) in the latest AfD, though they had been brought up in previous AfD's:

• [6] An undergraduate honors thesis which discusses and clearly defines the criterion.
• [7] A paper which discusses this criterion extensively. Though this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has been cited in a peer-reviewed paper by Steven Brams, making it a legitimate part of the scientific literature.
• [8] A homework problem in a math textbook which involves this criterion. What is Wikipedia, after all, if it isn't a place where you can look up the definitions of the terms used in your math textbooks?

Homunq (࿓) 13:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please redact the reference to another users' motivations. DRV is not a platform for attacking other users and DRVs can and have been closed early if that is how they are perceived. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Homunq (࿓) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (And, sorry.) Homunq (࿓) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The paper by Ossipoff is problematic because Democracy Chronicles is merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper. In any case, Democracy Chronicles is not a peer-reviewed journal.
• The paper by Stensholt is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" in a different manner. He uses the term "favorite betrayal" as a synonymous term for "compromising".
• The paper by Poundstone is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" only in a single sentence. In this sentence, he lists criteria he doesn't consider for whatever reasons.
• The other papers have been mentioned in AfDs. Markus Schulze 18:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze's objections above are all three based at least partly on his own original opinions. My opinions differ in key regards.

• The fact that DC is not a peer-reviewed journal does not make it "merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper". It is a news site with editorial oversight. Schulze apparently believes that only peer-reviewed sources are WP:RS.
• Stenholt's use of "favorite betrayal" was relevant in general, though as I acknowledged, it relates to the cases where this criterion is failed, and does not contemplate the criterion as such. We can continue to debate this issue, but anything we say on the subject is likely to be WP:OR.
• Poundstone chooses to mention this criterion, out of all the many criteria he could have mentioned in such an offhand manner, because he has actually already spent almost half a chapter discussing the phenomenon (without naming it), so the reader of his book will recognize the idea.

Homunq (࿓) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is another skirmish in a very longstanding argument between two well-established editors, both of whom seem to be experts (or at the very least, familiar with obscure and recondite texts) on a topic that very few other people are qualified to evaluate. This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs. If we decide to overturn, then in due course there will be an eighth AfD, and if we decide to endorse, then in due course there will be a third DRV. I believe that Markus Schultze and Homunq have become entrenched in their opposing positions and will never agree with each other now. I also believe that in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, we need to find a more permanent solution. I don't suppose both Homunq and Markus Schultze would agree to move this to a binding RFC?—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that, as long as the resulting RfC gave due consideration to the possibility that the situation could change. That is to say: if the verdict were that the article is not currently notable and/or verifiable, I would hope and expect that there would be clear conditions on what kind of new sources could change that, and perhaps some process (that is, if a new source appears, which editors could decide if it's relevant). But since I trust that an RfC result would be at least that reasonable, I don't object. Homunq (࿓) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall wrote: "This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs." Actually, this is the third DRV. The other DRVs are here and here. And there was a request for undeletion. Markus Schulze 04:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise for understating the extent of the problem; thanks for reminding me of the other discussions I didn't find. I feel as if this needs a more permanent resolution, because you both appear to have knowledge that could be used to develop articles and it seems such a pity that you're spending so much time butting heads with each other over this. I feel that at some point, we reach the stage where further discussion is unproductive. When this discussion is eventually closed, and whichever way it goes, please would the lucky closer who gets to decide which of these editors is right consider the following additional remedies:- (1) Listing "Favorite betrayal criterion" and variants thereof at WP:DEEPER; and (2) Imposing a rule that further discussions will be speedily closed unless a substantial new source has emerged.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - while I didn't offer an opinion either way, I did participate in the most recent AFD and was able to conduct some analysis of my own in the process. I suppose my commentary could have been (and probably was) interpreted there as weak delete. I simply couldn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources no matter how hard I looked. I can't see that the passing mentions really do much to get is closer to the line. I can see the argument that Poundstone was "discussing the phenomenon without naming it" but that's probably not a great example to hang your GNG hat on. It relies on the premise that others interpret that discussion in the same way. As sources go, it's not a particularly good one. I'm not convinced Democracy Chronicles is a reliable source. It's effectively a blogging collective built on a WordPress system. There's nothing wrong with that per se but it seems there are some good writers there and some not-so-good writers. While it seems true that an "editor" (of sorts) picks and chooses material for publication, it's unclear what level of oversight exists. The reliability of any given article from that site would probably need to be based on the author rather than the method of publication. In this case, a Michael Ossipoff is the author. He doesn't seem to have much of an online presence at all and he certainly doesn't seem to be a professor or other academic expert somewhere that might make him a reliable source in his own right. From a functional DRV perspective I imagine the close of that AFD will be seen as entirely valid and I don't think the nominator is suggesting otherwise. But the secondary consideration (potential recreation) is more difficult. I don't think we're there yet. While this is a concept that some people have accepted, it just doesn't seem to have gained the sort of widespread acceptance or coverage that would allow it to meet WP:GNG yet. Stalwart111 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you would get more external input if you didn't post a massive wall of text after every comment. This kind of uber badgering is very offputting and discourages other editors from commenting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Spartaz was right, above; so I collapsed the comment just above and trimmed the others down: [10]) Homunq (࿓) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm sorry for badgering; my intent was only to take a reasonable look at both sides, but without giving ground... heh, now I say it that way, I see what a bad idea that was.

To summarize my point:

• Nobody here has disputed that the favorite betrayal criterion (FBC) is WP:V; as far as I can see, the debate is only on notability.
• I don't want this dispute to morph into an edit war about whether the FBC merits mention on voting system ("If a topic does not meet (GNG) but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.")
• Thus, ideally I'd like a ruling strong enough to prevent such an edit war. I realize this isn't exactly the place for that, so I was asking if an RfC would be (and now, before such an edit war starts).

Homunq (࿓) 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus is pretty strong that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article subject should be left deleted until such as as very substantial coverage in very reliable sources emerges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I've done this previously. It would be good to have it settled, but the two principal disputants seem unlikely to settle it between them, and as far as anyone else goes, the arguments seem equivocal. Personally, I think we'd be best served to settle it by having a modest article. It wouldnt be undue promotionalism, or anything serious, just borderline notability. Including it is less trouble than arguing about it. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If additional expert voices, besides Schulze and myself, are wanted, I'd say the best place to get them would be by posting on the Electorama mailing list. This is a discussion list open to anyone interested in voting systems, and participants have a diversity of views; for instance, both Schulze and I participate, and are welcome there. Traffic is not too high, and I estimate a post there would get a response here from only a handful (say, 0-4) of more-or-less experienced wikipedians; not an unhealthy tidal wave of new users. Obviously, any notice there should be careful to stress that this debate should cleave to wikipedia policy and avoid WP:OR. I'm not going to post anything there, but I'd consider it healthy if a neutral admin were to do so. Basically, the sad fact is that these days, since so many people have drifted away from the project over the years, it's easier to get the attention the average experienced wikipedian off-wiki than on-. Homunq (࿓) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop. What we have here is a procession of poorly attended AFD and DRV discussions, neither of which has definitively answered the question of whether we ought to have an article on this topic. I really think the best way forward might be to have an RFC, as widely promoted as possible, to attempt to come to a decision one way or another, that most importantly, should be made binding for a lengthy period of time (say, 1 year). Otherwise I fear this is going to continue showing up at AFD and DRV and continue wasting the community's time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be happy to accept a 1-year binding decision, if Schulze would. I'd be even happier if the decision also (temporarily) stopped any edit warring over mentioning this criterion in voting system. (But not just by freezing at an arbitrary version; I mean, some principled choice over whether inclusion in the table there is or is not WP:UNDUE.) Obviously, part of the reason I'm agreeing is that I hope to win on the merits (on WP:GNG here, but especially on WP:UNDUE there). But even if I lose on both... well, I think that the situation with citations will improve over time, but not so quickly that a year is an unreasonable period to wait before coming back to the issue. So if an RfC is the only way to have a binding answer... who should start that, and how? Homunq (࿓) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse I see nothing wrong with the decision, or any other way it could have gone, and no valid reasons have been given to overturn it. Hardly poorly attended, it was better attended than many if not most, and many editors don't bother with decisions with enough !votes and discussion to establish consensus (the discussion has been viewed 400 times, so was hardly overlooked).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To head off the possibility of edit-warring on this topic, I've started an RfC on the issue of whether the FBC deserves mention on voting system.Homunq (࿓) 14:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn because favorite betrayal is the strongest strategy under Condorcet and approval methods. EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather say that burying and compromising are the strongest strategies under Condorcet and approval methods. Markus Schulze 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source to back up that assertion Ellen? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Homunq writes: "I think that even Schulze wouldn't deny that the FBC is a well-defined criterion." Actually, I do deny that the favorite betrayal criterion is well defined.

I have made the observation that, whenever I ask one of the few supporters of this criterion a non-trivial question about this criterion, he modifies the definition of this criterion a little bit so that this definition answers this question, but simultaneously opens many new questions.

The current version of the "favorite betrayal criterion" article says: "A voting system satisfies the favorite betrayal criterion if there do not exist situations where a voter is only able to obtain a more preferred outcome (i.e. the election of a candidate that he or she prefers to the current winner) by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his or her sincere favorite."

Example: Suppose in a concrete situation a concrete voter can, when voting system X is used, obtain a more preferred outcome only by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite. Suppose in the same situation the same voter can, when some other voting system Y is used, obtain the same more preferred outcome by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite and also by some other strategy that doesn't require that he lists another candidate ahead of his sincere favorite. Then, voting system X violates the favorite betrayal criterion and voting system Y satisfies the favorite betrayal criterion. So, according to the favorite betrayal criterion, voting system Y is better than voting system X. But this is not only in drastic contrast to the consensus in social sciences, it is the exact opposite of the consensus in social sciences, which says that a voting system is the better the less manipulable it is. The consensus in social sciences would be that voting system X is better than voting system Y because in voting system X the outcome can be manipulated only by insincerely listing another candidate ahead of one's sincere favorite.

When you promote an idea that is in drastic contrast to the consensus in your academic field, you need good sources that support your idea. But there is not a single reliable source that focuses on the favorite betrayal criterion. Markus Schulze 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made the same comment on Talk:Voting system; I've responded to it there. Homunq (࿓) 13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my opinion the criterion is not yet fully well-defined, or else it is not yet clearly explained. (How can Approval voting pass this criteria when that method makes it impossible to "[list] another candidate ahead of his or her sincere favorite"?) I am in favor of using the Election-Methods forum (on which both Homunq and Schulze participate) to better define the criterion where it can be peer-reviewed, and I regard that process as fully authoritative for peer-review purposes. (In that forum, as Schulze has pointed out, another supporter of this criteria keeps changing his version of the definition; in that forum I haven't yet seen a non-ambiguous definition of the criterion.) I have no strong opinion one way or the other about whether the article should be restored or not. VoteFair (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your question: in approval, if I prefer A>B>C, yet approve only B, that would constitute "[listing] another candidate ahead of [my] sincere favorite." Such a ballot might be strategically "inadmissible" in approval, but it is still perfectly valid. This criterion states that there in approval, there is no possible election where all of my strategically optimal votes (in a von-neumann-morgenstern sense) would be of this form, holding everybody else's votes constant. For approval, a slightly more general property than this is proven (without, sadly, mentioning the words "favorite betrayal") in Endriss, U. “Vote Manipulation in the Presence of Multiple Sincere Ballots.” In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 125–134, 2007. From the result there, the consequence that approval and the principal rated/graded systems (median- and mean-based, without abstention/quorum rules) all pass FBC, is trivial. Homunq (࿓) 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic harassment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted by Dennis Brown moments after I had posted a discussion to ANI about the subject (because it kept getting redirected by someone who seems to have thought it was the previous article). Dennis speedily deleted the article with the rationale "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (ie: Voice to skull)" but this was a completely new article that I had written from scratch based on reliable independent sources.

I am working on the article in my userspace at User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. And for those claiming that this is some sort of completely made up nonsense fringe (which is irrelevant if it's covered in reliable independent sources, because it would still be notable) aspects of this subject are already covered at articles including Microwave auditory effect and sonic weapon. The previous article that was deleted had to do with mind-control, an aspect I didn't find in the sources I found. I did find lots and lots of magazine articles, newspaper sources, and books with substantial coverage of acoustic harassment and acoustic weaponry in reliable sources of this subject. For example here are the Google Books results of a search for "Acoustic harassment". Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, the MFD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull and, since this DRV has been opened, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. The ill-tempered ANI discussion is at WP:ANI#Voice-to-skull – the evil microwaves have been effective in harrassing everyone. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitant to ask for this to be restored for the purposes of this discussion and I'm also not sure whether it would do us any good given the "previously deleted" content was under a different title again. So we'd have to have both temporarily restored so that we could consider whether they were sufficiently similar to warrant G4 speedy deletion. But I'm still a bit confused. The author claims this is a different article about a different subject with different content under a different title. I fail to see how such an article would qualify for G4 in the first place. Again, not an admin; can't see the two deleted pages. Maybe I'm missing something but the accepted standard would normally be to allow an editor-in-good-standing to create an article and have it judged on its merits. If someone wants to take it to AFD (which seems likely given the day-old userspace draft has already been taken to MFD) then so be it. Stalwart111 10:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I suggest looking through all the history and checking he various redirects. I think the cvoice-to-skull"version is included, but if not , let me know. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/allow G4 seems inappropriate and the title obviously ought to be a blue link because there are numerous variations on this — see Acoustic harassment devices reduce seal interaction in the Baltic salmon-trap, net fishery. The page ought to start as a general survey of related topics in the style of a dab page. Examples would include bird scarers, white torture and music in psychological operations. The microwave technology is covered at microwave auditory effect and seems to be a well-established phenomenon. Andrew (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would note that this article was named Voice-to-skull (similar to the previous Voice to skull) then renamed to the current title at 17:56, 13 April 2014‎ only after people complained it was a recreation at ANI, seemingly a failed attempt to bypass AFD or G4. The rest I will for others to sort as my opinion should already be obvious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Restore Additional sources have been added, this is a contested G4 and should be ripe for restore. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Userfy", or something. I can't make out what two versions of what were judged to be "substantially identical" so as to justify WP:CSD#G4 – but never mind. I don't think the speedied page met the notability criteria so if it is undeleted it could very reasonably be sent to AfD immediately. However, the only problem with it being made a userspace draft is that it is one already. If Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment (a very unfortunate nomination) results in delete we should userfy the article. However it would be best for the present draft to be allowed to remain and let this page be deleted. Complete deletion of both is inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn  I don't know, but I'd think that acoustic harassment would be like playing Frank Sinatra music at the end of a rock concert to drive off the hip crowd, or the loudspeakers set up at the Vatican Embassy in Panama in 1989.  As for G4, if it is a new article, G4 does not apply.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robkall has asked me on my talk page what the procedure is to appeal the deletion of OpEdNews, and in an attempt to be helpful I've agreed to begin this discussion on his behalf. As far as I can see the previous discussions we should be reviewing are:-

• AfD#1 closed as "no consensus" by Xymmax
• DRV closed as "no consensus endorsed" by King of Hearts
• AfD#2 closed as "delete" by Ks0stm.

Strictly speaking, I should have contacted all these people before beginning the review. I hope it will be sufficient to ping them here and invite them to participate.

The sources that Robkall would like us to consider are:-

• Wall Street Journal, Aug. 26, 2008.
• New York Times, May 26, 2009.
• Washington Post Feb. 8, 2011.
• Pragmatic Racism by Bob Koehler Chicago Tribune (spelled Op-Ed News) Sept. 5, 2012.
• Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct 7, 2011

Arguably, these sources should be disregarded because they all pre-date the AfDs. But I think those AfDs were quite unsatisfactory, being full of sweeping assertions in the emphatic declarative and lacking in close examination of the sources, and I can't see any evidence that these sources were discussed at all. So I suggest that we can treat these sources as if they were new evidence.

Is this sufficient for us to allow an article with this title? —S Marshall T/C 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• could not see the Washington Post one, but the rest all seem to not be about opednews but mere passing mentions - even calling them trivial coverage would be stretching it. What can be said *about opednews* based on those beyond it existing? 93.158.40.76 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Post link. It's literally "candidate wrote a post on OpEdNews." Beyond trivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Nothing has been presented to show notability or any references to build an article from, and Robkall has a definite conflict of interest here as the publisher of the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am grateful it has been done, I did not ask for the opening of a delete appeal, Thargor Orlando. I asked some questions to understand the process more. One of the people involved in the deletion opened it.

I have a lot more material and supporting arguments to present to whoever decides, but the document is being worked on by the nine senior editors at opednews.com. They can be seen on the masthead, at www.opednews.com/masthead. I expect we'll have the document in a day or two.

Also I don't understand why my edit, correcting the washingtonpost link, is not visible, unless I posted it wrong. Here is the link again.

• revised Washingtonpost link: [11]

Robkall (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to get some more input on this. Robkall appears to be the publisher of the site, and Thargor Orlando is the initiator of all three previous deletion debates. I participated in the previous DRV, so the only fresh eyes we have on it so far are from 93.158.40.76.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Nothing wrong with the closure itself, but new sources certainly establish notability. The publication has been mentioned multiple times by reliable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need more than a mention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand these recommendations in terms of the most recent decision, so I think Thargor Orlando's "endorse" relates to AfD#2 (i.e. he wants the material to remain deleted) and Valoem's "overturn" also relates to AfD#2 (i.e. he wants the material to be un-deleted). Because there are multiple sources which are widely accepted as reliable, the case for deletion relies on defining all of the references as "passing mentions". If any source that passes as "significant coverage" can be found, then I would think that's decisive.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to any defined standard of notablity for such items where the bar is so low as to be "mentioned multiple times by reliable sources" --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse due to a lack of significant coverage. Also note that Rob Kall is the executive editor of OpEdNews. Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion. ThemFromSpace 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More evidence for reversing the deletion My apologies for not knowing wikipedia formatting better.

Here is another citation: A local paper, Bucks County Courier Times has this article behind a paid firewall: Local site wants piece of online news market; Highly traveled Opednews joins ranks of growing Web news base. BY THERESA KATALINAS Title can be seen at the following link. These are not casual mentions: [12]

a similar article was published in the Bucks County Intelligencer. The archive link for the Intell lists that article and several other articles referencing Opednews. [13]

• Here's a link to an article in thenation.com [14] which refers to a Zogby poll commissioned and published by Opednews.com. But it is spelled Op-Ed News.com The poll was reported in several articles, starting with this one [http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_060127_opednews_com_2f_zogby_.htm[. Back in 2006, Opednews was one of the first news websites to commission a full poll by a major pollster. The costs were crowd funded.

• in another mention, in the Guardian, which just won the Pulitzer for public service articles, Opednews was also mentioned here [15]

• In the deletion record, several criticisms were either not accurate or inadequately researched, presenting an incomplete or misleading case.. 1-OEN WAS mentioned in NYtimes, 2-There are numerous mentions in notable publications. One possible reason is that different people spell Opednews in different ways, including Op Ed News and Oped News. Another wikipedian said that OEN had no effect upon the web, but alexa lists over 5000 inbound links to Opednews.
• Opednews is and has been indexed by google NEWS since 2003. It has met and maintained google News' criteria for indexing. Wikipedia reports that google news indexes about 4500 English language sites.

    A search of google news for OPEDNEWS shows this result: "About 2,250 results (0.20 seconds) I believe that only reflects the past 30 days news. 

Substantially more information will be posted within 24 hours. It is being assembled and vetted by the volunteer editors I mentioned earlier Robkall (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only one that shows anything remotely substantive is your local paper doing a local interest story on a local person. Not really the type of thing that reflects notability. That your site is indexed on Google isn't really much of anything. We need substantive pieces, not local mentions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid the idea that notability requires national-level sources is erroneous. What notability requires that the sources be (a) reliable and (b) more than a passing mention.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't wait until the article about me hits Wikipedia because my local paper did two pieces on things I did. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting history and talk page be restored for discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review, including the talk p. I've never understood why I am usually the only one doing this--it seems to me a minimal basis for a rational discussion--otherwise its only the interested parties pro and con who know what is being discussed, not the previously uninvolved outsiders who are needed to resolve the matter. Even if one of the parties has already posted it elsewhere, there's often a elevant history (there is a reason for not making it automatic: there are some blp and copyvio exceptions) DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Robkall, I'd advise you userfy and add citations so we can have a look. I am familiar with your site and believe articles are subject to editorial review. The website is definitely notable and is often referenced by major publications. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Valoem thank you. Yes, we have an editorial queue where writers submit articles. Then, volunteer editors vet the articles. Some articles sail through, others receive feedback on how to make them better. Some editors will help people writing in English as a second language. A good example is [George Eliason] who is reporting from Kiev about developments in Ukraine.

Here are a few questions:

1- I don't understand "userfy" and can't find reference to it in a search of wikipedia. Can you explain?

2- I did a search for Deletion Review and nothing comes up. Is there a link so I can get to where the opednews deletion discussion is? (This is deletion review we are discussing your article) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3-can you give me more of an idea of what kind of citations?

4- (and this is not just for Valoem) one of the occasions of thargor orlando attacking opednews was here where there was a [discussion of an article by Dennis Kucinich ] Thargor Orlando questioned the authenticity of the article cited. Dennis Kucinich is a supporter of a opednews and a subscriber to the daily enewsletter (which has over 28,000 subscribers) I'm certain he or his former communications director can confirm that Opednews was authorized and encouraged to publish his words. I've had him on my radio show numerous times and hear from him every now and then when he likes something we've published. Robkall (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's history is available online now. I'll userfy it for you. It is here User:Robkall/OpEdNews. Revise the article with sources use this format for citations: <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |publisher= |author= |date= |accessdate= }}</ref> (Just add what criteria you can, you do not have to fill each requirement). I would recommend adding some book citations using <ref>{{cite book|last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |publisher= |isbn= |accessdate= }}</ref>. Because you are a conflict of interest editor you should have a separate set of eyes review it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the research tools on your talk page. Use what I linked to find sources. I found plenty of RS and books that reference your website. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this following list this afternoon and just noticed, Valoem, that you'd posted more info. I'll get on it but wanted to put these up for now. Thanks again for your help.

• Citings/mentions of Opednews on conservative sites with pages on wikipedia

• A citing on [RT.TV]

[Breitbart.com]

[Townhall.com]

[FoxNews.com] spelling it Oped News

[RedState.com]

[newsmax.com], and [another newsmax.com]

This one in Dailycaller.com quotes a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin thanking opednews [Dailycaller.com]

[FreeRepublic.com]Robkall (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I had said I'd post more information within 24 hours. It appears I need to post, with formatting to the resurrected, temporary opednews page. That will take more time than I can give tonight. So, just for the record, I am pasting the information here, to, so to speak, put it on the table.

-OpEdNews (OEN) has published more than 90,000 articles since 2005, by thousands of writers in over 30 countries, including Nepal, Syria, Egypt, Burma/Myanmar, Mexico, Canada, Pakistan, India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Mexico, Cuba, Ukraine, China, and much of Europe.

-Google Analytics reports that OEN is visited by people from over 180 nations and territories

-OEN's monthly traffic ranges from 200,000 - 800,000 unique visitors per month, according to Google analytics.

-OEN has a dedicated team of more than 30 volunteer editors.

-OEN appears as the top unpaid result when Googling Liberal News or Progressive Opinion and it has for over two years.

-OEN uses a custom-built proprietary content management system with highly advanced functions for multiple levels of editors. It is designed so that all submissions receive notification of acceptance or rejection -- something rare for news websites. The site has many other unique features, including tools to make it easier to find and attribute creative commons images, poll creation, WYSIWYG content submission system that allows writers to submit directly to the site, popularity analysis based on page views, comments, Facebook shares, reader ratings, and more.

-OEN is one of a small number of news sites recommended on the front page of the Huffington Post.

-OEN is one of a small number of sites tapped by Project Censored's "DailyCensored" website for daily content.

-Both OEN and Editor-in-Chief, Rob Kall, were awarded the 2013 Pillar Human Rights Award (New Media Category) for community activism and journalism at the 2013 National Whistleblowers conference.

-OEN has published hundreds of podcasts and scores of transcripts of exclusive interviews by OEN Editor-in-Chief Rob Kall, with notable personalities, many with personal Wikipedia pages. Interviewees include Senators Bernie Sanders, Arlen Spector, Byron Dorgan, Mike Gravel; numerous members of the House of Representatives, including Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler and John Conyers; Corporate innovators like Arianna Huffington, Craig Newmark (Craigslist,) Robin Chase (Zipcars); thought leaders, such as Jean Houston, Joseph Nye, Anne Marie Slaughter, Clay Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff; whistleblowers and their allies, including Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Drake, Christopher Pyle (Church Committee), and leading scientists, like Frans De Waal.

-OEN, like most progressive news and opinion websites, is critical of much of Israel's policy toward Palestinians. OEN employs strict policies prohibiting anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds. OEN is progressive and opposes right-wing, authoritarian policies which undermine human rights. OEN's coverage of Israel is fair, as evidenced by our efforts to publish both Israeli and Palestinian contributors.

-OEN receives article submissions that could be considered conspiracy theories, as do other news and opinion web sites. Over the years we have shaped and refined our policies for dealing with such submissions. As a result, OpEdNews maintains a strict policy of not publishing conspiracy theory submissions, described in our FAQ at www.opednews.com/faq.

-OEN has the endorsement of numerous leading personalities who are featured on the Wiki, including Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Greg Palast, Naomi Klein, Thom Hartmann, and David Swanson. Below is a sampling of their sentiments toward OEN:

Senator Bernie Sanders: "I think you guys do a great job. One of the issues we didn't touch upon is a situation which is becoming worse, and that is corporate control over the media: fewer and fewer large conglomerates controlling what we see here or read. So if ordinary people are going to get a different point of view, a point of view which reflects the needs of the middle class and working families, to an increasing degree that we are going to have to go the progressive media. You guys do a great job, and I appreciate what you do."

Greg Palast: "OpEdNews is where you get the real thing. It's not just progressive opinion. It's the hard, cold truth, the real facts. If you don't listen to Bob Kall, if you don't read OpEdNews, then you don't know what the hell is happening in American you don't know what's happening to you. This is our weapon of mass instruction. Read it top to bottom or you just don't know what's going on."

Naomi Klein: "I think you guys are fantastic and yeah, I read you all the time. And I appreciate the non-partisan nature of it. It's going to be more and more important to have real, critical alternative voices that aren't lined up behind a candidate."

Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich: "I'm always, I'm always grateful, Rob, for the work that you do because it's so important to give people information about what's happening so that they can make decisions about their own world based on the best information."

David Swanson: "OpEdNews is unique in providing new reporting, opinion, discussion, and community from an independent progressive perspective. The internet would be greatly impoverished without it. The world would be greatly enriched if everyone would make it part of their routine."

Thom Hartmann: "OpEdNews has grown to become one of the most influential alternative internet media sites. Between original articles and links to diverse media all over the world, it is a highly useful source we use, at our program, to research current events and perspectives. It brings depth and an unusually broad range of coverage to what is going on the world, going beyond the usual political realm into culture, science, business, arts and living. OpEdNews' founder and director, Rob Kall, is a creative, brilliant innovator who I have had the pleasure to interact with on several projects on and off the web. He is a master at bringing together the best people in ways that take the goals of the project to the next level."

• Details on the Opednews content management system:

Opednews was started as a personal blog by Rob Kall, running on Microsoft's FrontPage website creation software. But in 2005 was switched to a proprietary Content management system developed with significant input from the volunteer editor team, as a private project of Rob Kall, working as site co-architect with co-architect and coder Vidya. Many of the features have been developed to raise the quality of the journalism and the community of the site, which now has over 70,000 registered members. Features include:

-high level, powerful back end control panel for administrators

-five levels of editor.admin/sysadmin controls,

-a volunteer sign-up, profile and mentor assignment system

-newsletter creation software that pulls new content not sent out in previous newsletters, prioritized based on how it was headlined, designed to be integrated with third party bulk-emailing services or done in-house

-content submission queue with powerful editing and publishing tools that show editors submitter bio, word count, image inclusion,

-content acceptance rejection/acceptance system with over 20 form letter acceptance and rejection emails (too short, formatting problems, not a good fit, needs revision, promotional, does not meet writing standards, etc.,) some editable, so all submissions get responses

-Think-twice word-tracking system detects words that editors feel have been overused, and suggests that they be replaced by less hackneyed and abused

-content editing, headlining and management icons and tools viewable and accessible only by editors

-content statistics, popularity analysis based on page views, comments, shares, likes, tweets, tell-a-friend email sends and more.

-Front page options: editor curated, popularity based, tabular

-group creation by members

-a unique commenting system with member flagging,

-internal member messaging system,

-poll creation with cross-tab demographic analysis of poll questions

-a unique collection of tools for image and video sourcing, inclusion, posting and management

-front page image standardization coding and user cropping tools so the front page has uniform size and shape images

-a WYSIWYG article submission system that enables members to submit content directly to the site, specifying whether it is exclusive or not,

-a premium membership system with three levels with expanding benefits

-a versatile headlining system

-a unique tagging and directory system

-threaded member commenting

-article series tool

-personalized member/author pages that are associated with the content and comments they submit

-unique quotation database software designed for user submissions and bulk uploads

-a powerful member and editor reputation scoring and tracking system

-hack and malware prevention security tools

-tools for bulk detection and banning of spammers

-petition creation and sharing software

-FAQ creation and editing tools for editors

-RSS feeds for varying levels of content including tags, authors, directory levels,

-tracking of article changes/revisions

-member Bio and pseudonym minimal requirement notification and revision tools

-blocking of banned IP addresses (usually commercial spammers and site rule violators)

-to-do list control panel with prioritization

-content syndication widget for use by other websites

-quicklink or full article grab browser toolbar widget for making it easy to link to or reprint articles from other sites

-integration of social media share buttons and APIs from Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Stumbleupon

These features add up to make the content management system that Opednews uses among the more powerful and versatile on the web.

I apologize for my inability to properly format. I wanted to get these up because I was given the impression time is of the essence. Tomorrow I will work at adding this info, if it is appropriate, to the temporary Opednews page that has been resurrected.Robkall (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are just quoting or referencing OpEdNews. None of them are offering substantial commentary on the website itself. Passing mentions do not qualify towards the "significant coverage" provision of the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N and WP:WEB).

If you want to reinstate the article you will need to show that OpEdNews has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A well-respected magazine or a newspaper describing OpEdNews in detail (at least a few paragraphs of space talking solely about the website itself) would count towards significant coverage. If two well-respected sources do this then consensus may swing in your favor. The more sources you can provide that cover OpEdNews in detail the more likely the article will be reinstated. ThemFromSpace 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as far as I'm aware "at least a few paragraphs of space talking solely about" is not a phrase that appears in any of our notability criteria.

  I think the trouble we have with notability is that we've lost sight of its purpose. When I joined this encyclopaedia, notability was a tool for detecting and removing marketing material. At that time it was a necessary rule whose purpose I understood: there are lots of good reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to those who want to promote their pet project, and we need a simple and drama-free way of dealing with those people. It's not actually an encyclopaedic concept at all (you can bet that the editors of other encyclopaedias don't waste any breath on notability!)----it developed because of Wikipedia's openness to anyone.

  From these origins, notability has now mutated into something entirely different. Notability now appears to mean "A worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write some content." It's so important to Wiki-culture nowadays, and there are now so many rules about notability (each of which was written by a small committee of people with conflicting agendas) that we can't even keep track of all the rules people keep making, and in the last couple of years DRV has largely stopped bothering to look at the specific notability guidelines. (If you're interested, the one that applies to this article is Wikipedia:Notability (web), but the test DRV will apply is the general notability guideline.) And notability is enforced by a self-appointed article police. We do need these article police, because spammers are clever and someone's got to stop them or our encyclopaedia fills up with crap until it's totally useless, but, well, let's just say that the fact that we have a rule doesn't mean it's always in the encyclopaedia's best interests to enforce it strictly on every occasion. I think it would be better if more editorial discretion and judgment could be shown.

  But it won't be; Wikipedia is what it is. Considering the preceding debate and the strength of opinion that's being shown, and considering that we don't have evidence that OpEdNews passes the strict notability criteria as written, I now feel that a separate article isn't the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. But even if it isn't notable, to suggest that an award-winning site that publishes articles by US senators shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia at all is bizarre. Can we agree that the site doesn't get a standalone article but should become a redirect and should receive a paragraph in some alternative article such as Political blog#United States, so that at least someone that reads a post by some dignitary and types "OpEdNews" into the search box gets something more helpful than a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point: I realise I wasn't quoting policy (that's been done enough times in this discussion and the prior AfDs). I was trying to explain in layman's terms how things generally work around here to someone who may be confused. What I said generally sums up what is expected to pass notability, (exceptions aside). A few paragraphs of space is usually the minimum I accept for a source to demonstrate significant coverage.

With regards to your point about the policing of notability guidelines, I remain of the opinion that this article isn't helping out our cause. I still feel that, generally, our standards for inclusion of small companies and websites is too lax and that our notability guidelines are our best defense (however flawed) against being run over by a myriad of unimportant, trivial articles. I agree with you that discretion and editorial judgement is needed on borderline cases. But as I feel that our guidelines are generally applied too weakly I don't see this as being anything close to a borderline case. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things I've been holding back from bringing up.

One is the fact that last year, beginning in the spring, a group of former members of the site who were banned for various reasons began posting very hostile attacking messages about Opednews. They started sending messages to a group of current and past editors and began posting attacking, untrue statements on various websites. It was about that time that the question of delisting Opednews seemed to raise it's head. I trusted that the wikipedia system would work and that someone or multiple people with bad intentions would not be able to cause a page that had been up for several years to be taken down. I bring this up because you mention that "Strength of opinion." And you are talking about two people. I can't tell if either of the people opposing are among the malcontents from Opednews. To get an idea of what I am talking about, do a google search here: site:OliveBiodiesel.com opednews .

Over 200,000 people a month visit Opednews. 5000 websites link in to it. Senators and members of congress have their staffers post articles to the site. Thousands of people from scores of countries have submitted articles that have been published by the site. Over thirty volunteer editors put in time working on the site article queue and policies. Google lists over 1400 BOOKS that reference Opednews. But that's not enough?

Here's the second reason, which I actually wrote a few days ago. Given your thoughtful discussion of wikipedia policy on notability, I think it applies.

I have to say that this re-opened discussion is both encouraging and discouraging-- encouraging because it is clear there are people working with good faith and good intentions here. But the other side, that's discouraging, is that Opednews is an alternative media site-- we routinely criticize the mainstream media for failing, or more realistically, intentionally not covering issues, people, organizations who/that stand up to the mainstream establishment narrative. By definition, alternative media are not given the attention or coverage by the kinds of sites that wikipedia notability requirements call for. In that way, wikipedia reinforces what James C. Scott has described in his book, Domination and the Arts of Resistance; Hidden Transcripts, as the [public transcript] and represses and sabotages the message of alternative media. I don't believe this is the intention of the policy and I believe that most wikipedians do not have that intention, but the result of requiring notability to be supported by mainstream media, and some, like thargor orlando appear to be attacking any sources that are not MSM, produces a result so that alternative media are treated as illegitimate-- which exactly what dominating powers would want. I am not accusing anyone of that intention, but it appears to be an unintended consequence that would bear close consideration so the "side-effect" can be avoided. Even attacking the content management system for not being as polished as a massive media site seems to be an ad hominem way to attack the organization. By nature, alternative media may choose not to use mass produced content management systems, like Wordpress, and should not be expected to be able to afford the biggest, most expensive, fancy ones. I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to raise this. And if it is inappropriate, is there a more appropriate place? Wikipedia is too powerful an entity to unintentionally prevent alternative media from being recognized because of a propensity for trust in top-down institutions. Robkall (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate closure and permit recreation.

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination) was correctly decided in August 2013 because at the time of deletion, no reliable sources were cited in the article and none were mentioned in the AfD debate.

  Vacate closure because I have found two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of OpEdNews:

  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – titled "Bucks Web site grabs piece of the online news market: The highly traveled opednews.com joins the ranks of a growing Web news base", this The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania) article provides in-depth substantial coverage of OpEdNews.

     Author Theresa Katalinas discussed how OpEdNews was launched on February 28, 2003. She wrote that in 2007, OpEdNews had 500,000 visitors a month, a total of 7 million hits, "a bare-bones operation" operated in a "small college student apartment turned office in Newtown Township", 4,500 registered members, 25 volunteer editors, and 500 regular writers.

     Katalinas further noted that OpEdNews in 2007 had an "arsenal of tongue-in-cheek blog entries, editorials, political articles and countless anti-Bush opinion pieces".

  2. http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709^WebCite – titled "What the world is reading", Asavari Singh's May 2009 The Financial Express (India) article provides a paragraph of coverage about OpEdNews:

     Opednews.com
     
     An award-winning political blog that refers to itself as the “the drudge report for progressives”, Opednews has a lengthy section devoted to the swine flu pandemic. The dozens of features range from the latest news to well-considered analyses of the subject (such as “The Real Swine Flu Conspiracy” by neuroscientist John R Moffett) to surreal meanderings like the “Quoth the Pig” series, which uses multimedia and text to ‘express’ the poetic anguish of the much-maligned creature. However, for those who want to hear it straight from the hog’s mouth, satirist Allan Goldstein’s “Swine Flu Hate Speech” is a must-read. He puts himself in the trotters of an indignant pig who proselytises against the “racially” insulting “S word” but with a stoic acceptance of his value in the food chain. “We are being blamed for a virus that has yet to be detected in a single one of our members. Pigs by the million have been slaughtered to no purpose. Good bacon is going to waste.”

     Singh referred to OpEdNews as "[a]n award-winning political blog" that calls itself "the drudge report for progressives".

     He noted that OpEdNews provided in-depth coverage of the swine flu epidemic through "dozens of features". Those features take the form of the "latest news" and "well-considered analyses" and "surreal meanderings". Singh discussed a particular piece by satirist Allan Goldstein whose "Swine Flu Hate Speech" is called a "must-read".

  Analysis of the two articles

  Katalinas' article provides roughly 700 words of coverage of OpEdNews. This is substantial coverage.

  Singh's piece consists of 165 words about OpEdNews and its coverage of the swine flu epidemic in 2009. It also provides significant coverage of OpEdNews.

  These two articles allow OpEdNews to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

  Mentions of OpEdNews in other reliable sources

  OpEdNews is also mentioned in other reliable sources. I list them here for completeness for improving the article, but I explicitly note that I am not using them to argue that OpEdNews passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

  1. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/0F9FF58EA8711C82/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this article by Ed Weiner of Philadelphia Daily News says: "Homegrown (Newtown, Pa.) OpEdNews runs news stories and sharply smart anti-war/anti-Bush opinion pieces; someone's called it the Drudge Report for people who think."
  2. http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11131915^WebCite – Oakland Tribune article: "Stillwater's pieces appear on her blog and on the Web site OpEdNews, which according to an e-mail from editor Rob Kall has 700,000 unique visitors in 200 countries each month."
  3. http://newsitem.com/opinion/former-editor-sues-philadelphia-1.1208520^WebCite – The News-Item article: "A former managing editor for the online newspaper, OpEdNews, has filed suit against the city of Philadelphia and eight of its police officers, accusing them of violating her constitutional rights."
  4. http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-07/news/30253631_1_police-officer-videotape-violent-arrests^WebCite – Philadelphia Media Network article: "In another case Cheryl Biren-Wright, a former managing editor for OpEdNews, was arrested while photographing a protest two years ago outside the Franklin Mills Mall."
  5. http://www.stltoday.com/business/planting-cyber-seeds-monsanto-s-blog-started-last-month-is/article_00373658-1082-59e4-a4bc-e1088e587792.html^WebCite – St. Louis Post-Dispatch article: "Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the company should be allowed to cross-post its blog entries."
  6. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/117CE0758494F940/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A^WebCite – this Bucks County Courier Times piece discusses OpEdNews founder Rob Kall.

  User:MichaelQSchmidt

  Experienced editor MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) wrote in an edit summary at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/OEN: "OEN. When improved enough, will request a return and hist merge". I have contacted Michael, asking him to work on the article with Robkall (talk · contribs). The userspace draft User:Robkall/OpEdNews requires significant work to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and verifiability policy, time which I am unable to provide at the moment. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also willing to help.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much 'User:MichaelQSchmidt, User:Cunard and User:S Marshall. I am willing to work, under supervision, to get the page up to specs, and I realize that editing will be required to meet neutrality and verifiability policy. I am also happy to help document whatever is needing documentation. Robkall (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and Userfy without prejudice to re-creation  Being included in Google News, and recommended by someone I view as the most famous independent politician in the country (Bernie Sanders), are strong indicators of notability.  On the other hand, searching on "OpEdNews" on a Wikipedia search reveals a bit of a Wikipedia disaster with this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think I have added one more link of one of India's biggest Newspaper Publishers who have given tag of 'India's Youngest CEO With A Heart Of Gold" and I think it is a good reference and in that interview every detail is mentioned, what I think. What you all say? So if Administrators are satisfied with article kindly restore. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads a bit like an advertisement at the moment. I suspect the article would be re-sent to articles for deletion likely with a similar outcome. It's not citation that's the main challenge with the article, it's notability. Simply founding some companies does not establish notability by itself. -- Tawker (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted - He's 16, CEO of four companies, and still finds time to study 11th in school. The Wikipedia article was built using information from Ayaan Chawla himself and looks like a puffed up resume for a 16 year old, where Wikipedia is being used to validate Ayaan Chawla's purported qualifications. The thehansindia.com/CEO With A Heart Of Gold interview states "All my employees in my companies are senior to me." How many employees would that be? One is "My mother ... is chairman of my company." Prior history of the article - SPI Ron Gates, DRV 2013 August 21, DRV 2013 October 15. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deletion As promotional and with insufficient substance to produce an acceptable article. The references are essentially PR. We are gradually getting away from the most naive interpretation of the GNG, that it doesn't matter where the article comes from or what it says. Notability has to be for something, and if there are references expressing coverage for nothing much, it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. Having worked with this area for years, I am getting increasingly skeptical of the non-promotional or substantial nature of much Indian newspaper coverage, even in the best papers. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For Jreferee, I do understand your concern on Wikipedia because I know many people who are doing marketing & PR Activity and there I place deletion tags also. But first of all he is not studding 11th in school he is studding from NIOS - National Institute Of Open Schooling, I think if you understand it is not a regular school. And about employees his company employees are 25+ main are Kunjam D. Chawla - Chairperson (Only Handel Legal As Ayaan Is Not 18+ to for legal authorities in India), Ayaan Chawla - Founder & CEO, Jyolsha Chawla - VP Business Development, Vinay Oberoi - Global Marketing Head, Tanya Bhasin - VP of Product Development. Founded Details on http://www.asianfoxdevelopments.com/meet-the-team.html. For example in this age his company is IT & ONline Media Partner of Bollywood movie of one of the biggest Director "Ikram Akhtar"'s Movie and you can guess nobody makes any partner without knowing the company. And maybe my article was to long like resume :), but you can edit it full rather deleting it. Snd yes I have checked about that sock puppet case and that was obvious but here there is no concern to that. So kindly rethink, because my thinking can be differ from yours but as an editor it is not. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For DGG, I do understand your concern I am not a PR or PR Activity person, I am an editor and I don't want to be called PR. So Thanks PradeepChowdhury (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have identified a true problem: the pervasiveness of PR writing in WP is becoming so great for some types of articles, that even good-faith editors when they write about a company or an entrepreneur tend to write in exactly the same manner. The only practical way we can deal with this is to remove such articles when the notability is borderline (and drastically rewrite from scratch any that are truly notable) regardless of who has written them or what their motive may have been. An even better solution would be for people who knew how to write good articles about all actually notable companies, but there are insufficient qualified and interested editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted, notability doesn't work on the basis that a large number of flimsy and weak sources sum up to have the same weight as a couple of good ones. These "feel good" news stories might be good for padding out the paper on a slow news day, but they don't bring Chawla any closer to Wikipedia's notability standards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Leave deleted. Does not look close to having Independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. These definitely do not include Facebook or LinkedIn. Not only do they note demonstrate notability, they are not welcomed, see Wikipedia:External links.PradeepChowdhury, See WP:COI. I recommend that you do more editing on subjects unconnected to yourself, to learn and demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia, and that your should do this before you [[User:PradeepChowdhury|"spread vast knowledge on Wikipedia". When you have more productive editing history, and reliably sourced content, I recommend that you write a userspace subpage draft before asking again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - SmokeyJoe, Thanks Actually I have added Facebook links for Photo References & LinkedIn for Professional Life, I know these links are not recommended reliably sourced but I have added. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - OK Everyone, as per all your suggestion & conversation I'll recreate this article with reliable references like News Channels, News Papers, Big News Portals & Etc. in my Sandbox and when it be finally completed I'll tag this article again for review. But don't block the article so I can recreate it. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. The page was created by one of the users of the language. Since then the language has been starred and followed by other developers on github, a few side-projects have been started on github^[1] and bitbucket^[2], and mentioned in a number of other forums/blogs^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} in addition to my own blog^[9] and usergroup^[10] which now has around 50 members, meetup groups^[11][12], reddit posts^[13] and multiple demos have been put together by the community ^[14][15]. If you read some of the posts on our mailing list, you will notice a few recent newcomers wishing to use RapydScript for their startups/company but afraid to due to lack of awareness. This is precisely why I want to recreate the article to encourage them to use the language. As you can see from the above blog links, RapydScript often gets mentioned as a superior alternative to Skulpt/Brython/Pyjamas in the comments by the few members who already use it. This language has been around for over a year, and is not going anywhere (I have recently ported the compiler to be written in the same language so the compiler is now officially self-hosting. However, inability to get the word out there is really hurting the adoption.

The original admin who has deleted the page no longer contributes to wikipedia, which is why I'm using this method instead of contacting him directly.

But do you have any reliable independent secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't posts made by other users conform to the secondary sources requirement or is the project out of luck until it gets popular media coverage? I'm not completely sure what's being questioned here, the existence of the project? Atsepkov (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I know nothing about scripting languages, have no experience, qualifications etc. I can happily put up a forum post, blog entry etc. and encourage all my friends to do so. Do you think that indicates any sort of real world interest (notability) ?. Or take it a step further, I can do that and get my friends in doing that to say "rapydscript is the biggest pile of #!$% I've ever experienced" - do you think that should count as a reliable source and should be covered in the article? The page you've been pointed to WP:RS has sections like Self-published sources which covers this starting "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Essentially, posts from other users are secondary/independent, but they in general aren't reliable. Really, information needs to be published somewhere with some kind of reasonable editorial control, a reputation for accuracy, that sort of thing. Random guy on the internet fails that very badly. WilyD 14:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the basic theme is that we don't cover subjects unless reliable sources that are independent of the subject cover it. We'd want to see coverage in something that has an editorial staff etc. Why? It's basically because there are folks who think we should cover most anything that can be verified (so is "sure" to be true) and others who don't want us covering trivia. The compromise is found in WP:N which gives us a guideline as to what we do and do not cover. In my ideal world, this language would be covered here. But my preferences aren't the bar for inclusion around here, WP:N is. So until you see non-trivial coverage in some publication in the field, it is unlikely we'll cover the language here (at least in an article by itself, there may be a list article somewhere it could be added to?). Hobit (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I Living For? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Too little input to determine a "keep" consensus, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Even though this got relisted twice, nobody made any further comments beyond two keep votes. What they overlooked in WP:NSONGS is how:

1. Artists talking about their own work doesn't count as notable coverage

2. Coverage from album reviews does not establish notability, and songs that only get coverage from album reviews shouldn't have their own articles, no matter how much input the album reviews give.

The question is: between overturning to redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or overturning to delete, which is the better option? Aside from one source giving a self-description, the only coverage available on the song is from album reviews. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus seems pretty clear considering only you, the nominator, felt the article should be deleted. The AFD ran for almost a month, so the closing was fine. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also felt it could be redirected, and 2-to-1 isn't necessarily consensus. Also, niether of the "keep" voters used WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS correctly in their rationale. WP:CONSENSUS indicates that consensus in things like AfD is determined not by votes but by strength of arguments and use of guidelines/policies to support argument. I tried to explain that they misinterpreted parts of it, though apparently that wasn't enough. Perhaps I should've elaborated further in the AfD, but I still cited WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS correctly. Another AfD might be needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - while the sources generally cover it as part of the larger topic of the album, the album article is already over 100k, and thus requires splitting. Arranging this as an article is essentially an editorial decision, in which headcount should be given a lot of weight. WilyD 09:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100k? It is only about 10k in size. Headcount isn't the only factor. If we were to take out the album personnel and self-comment (which WP:NSONGS indicates is not notable coverage at all), we're essentially left with a stub at best. WP:NSONGS indicates that songs which do not have significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the album should not have their own articles. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Headcount isn't the only factor, but it's an important factor where the policy arguments aren't very compelling and/or are reasonably well balanced (and a relatively unimportant factor where they are very compelling and/or wildly unbalanced), although the two tend to go hand in hand anyhow. That an obscure guideline suggests this arrangement may not be the best practice is something to consider, but it's hardly compelling on it's own. That several editors looked at it and found it uncompelling is critical to understanding the consensus of the discussion - one can't ignore that. WilyD 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should've elaborated during AfD itself, but at least I cited WP:NSONGS correctly. The whole bit on her having a lengthy quote being "enough" not only comes off as an WP:ILIKEIT argument (which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions) but also cannot be counted as notable coverage as WP:NSONGS (which is most definitely not an "obscure" guideline) indicates does NOT count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not the best AfD ever, but keep and NC were both within editorial discretion IMO. Already enough relists...Hobit (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NC would be more understandable as there was definitely not a "keep" consensus when the "keep" voters didn't cite WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS correctly. Is another AfD in order perhaps? We definitely can't just disregard WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Good close.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and DRV cares about NSONGS about as much as we care about all the other SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would people disregard notability guidelines in favor of keeping an article when they know it fails them, though? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse low turnout, but also unanimous Keep aside from the nominator. Had already been relisted twice, so no realistic cause to assume relisting again would have made any difference. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a case of WP:SNOW or anything, and "unanimous" doesn't seem like the right description as AfD nominators' rationales can't just be discounted. I am aware of how it got relisted twice, but the simple fact is that the track is not notable since it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Votes aren't everything per WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. Why are people disregarding this? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local consensus can override our guidelines. Some classic examples is that "Michelle Obama's Arms" is a topic that easily meets the GNG (apparently there are entire articles on the topic), but conscious was clear that we don't want that as an article. By the same token, we sometimes have articles that we do want that don't really meet the standard guidelines. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're suggesting to ignore all rules (which so far it seems like all "endorse" voters are doing), that is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions. This also actually did NOT officially reach WP:CONSENSUS, which states that consensus is reached by arguments supported by policies/guidelines and not just mere head count. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you misunderstand WP:IAR and the nature of consensus at Wikipedia. Local consensus can override "the rules". I'm not 100% with this being a keep outcome--I'd have gone with NC. But we give the admins a fair bit of leeway on making that call, and the line between NC and keep generally pretty small and rarely overturned as both have the same basic result (article stays). Hobit (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is NC, but still IAR is an argument to avoid per WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, which also states "that's just an essay" and "that's just a guideline" are arguments to avoid. The "determining consensus" section of WP:CONSENSUS states "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was entirely satisfactory. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not rules, and the closer may (indeed should) take account of coherent arguments. In this AFD the opinions were indeed coherent and I see that they were expressed with regard to the guidelines. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niether of the "keep" voters used WP:NSONGS correctly, though, and one of them was essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I don't particularly disagree with you. However, and this is merely my personal view, I find arguments such as "Although WP:POLICY says this and WP:GUIDELINE says that, I think in this case the article should be kept/deleted for this reason" are just fine. Better, maybe, than "I think in this case the article should be kept/deleted for this reason" and far better than "I think the article should be kept/deleted". I am less sympathetic to "This article should be deleted because it violates WP:GUIDELINE and rules are rules and must be obeyed". Thincat (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - nothing wrong with the close and we need to remember that not liking the result is a different thing to the result being wrong. You have every right not to like the result, or the opinions of those who contributed to the discussion. Had there been one or two strong opinions in favour of deletion, it likely would have closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep anyway. So you were a long way from this meeting an acceptable consensus threshold for deletion. That aside, given the low rate of participation, I don't think anyone would see re-nomination as particularly disruptive. I wouldn't suggest you do that right away (that would be pointy) but if you let it sit for a couple of months and nothing more in the way of coverage becomes available, there's an argument that it should be considered again. Stalwart111 08:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wasn't planning to just renominate right away. However, it isn't so much me "not liking" the result as it is bafflement at how it got kept when I pointed out specifically in the review how it failed notability per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It seems like a stretch to say I was a "long way" from reaching consensus when it was 1 vote citing policies (me), 1 vote not using WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG correctly, and 1 WP:ILIKEIT vote also not using WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG correctly. As I stated, this wasn't WP:SNOW. Good to know that another AfD wouldn't be seen as disruptive, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, well we can agree that you don't agree with the interpretation that led to the result, rather than that you just don't agree with the result but the result is the same. Right? Ha ha. The point is that it seems most agree that the interpretation was within the confines of reasonableness. You can disagree with that, too, but again, the result is the same. Best to just move forward and construct a solid nomination rationale for the 2nd nomination. Stalwart111 09:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Little Kids Rock (www.littlekidsrock.org) is a reputable national nonprofit organization that seems to have been taken down from wikipedia. Here is the article explaining its deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Kids Rock

The deleter, who is no longer editing for Wikipedia and thus has not been available to debate the deletion, claims not to have been able to find any recent news coverage of Little Kids Rock on Google News. I find lots! Please refer to their news index: http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/

Please also refer to their 4 star rating on Charity Navigator: http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/

Finally, see all of the artists who have worked with them to help transform more than 300,000 kids' lives by donating music educational resources to their schools: https://www.littlekidsrock.org/friends/our-big-fans/

The person who initially created the page back when Little Kids Rock was a much smaller organization was, in fact, an employee there. The organization has since grown, as has its independent network, and the content has been edited drastically since the time it was initially created.

How can I get this page reinstated to Wikipedia and the relevant hyperlinks on other pages (like their artist supporters' Wikipedia pages) also reinstated? 71.187.199.120 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-list. In view of the comprehensive list of independent coverage and sources provided on the company's own web site, it seems clear that something was missed in the deletion discussion. Not faulting Mark Arsten for respecting the consensus, but in this case the "consensus" seemed to miss something, else that list would have been at least mentioned in the discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment out of those news links can the nominator point out the 1 or 2 they think are the strongest. i.e. they cover the subject directly in detail and aren't press releases (Press releases aren't independent coverage). The couple I picked at random were press releases. Really it's a stronger argument if you point out a few strong sources whih are valid rather than a wave towards a big list of "stuff". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There appear to be new reasonable sources since the AfD. That's a valid reason to relist. Hobit (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if it is restored, some drastic editing is called for to eliminate the advertising: half the lede paragraph is a list of celebrities who have endorsed it, which does not belong anywhere in the article, but on their own website. The article reads like an article from the organization telling us why they are a good cause, not an article informing the reader who might come here wondering what it is. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. The deletion discussion (brief as it was) focused on notability and the discussion was presumably closed on that basis. In view of the list of sources provided that were apparently neither known nor discussed, re-listing for further discussion would be appropriate. If the outcome is to delete again due to being unsalvageable from the promotional content, then at least we have a more solid AFD case. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few reputable articles in the New York Times under the year 2011 and a more recent 2014 article on Examiner.com. Neither of these are press releases or focus on celebrities. The initial Wikipedia article about Little Kids Rock was written in a tone that was too promotional because the author did not understand the purpose of Wikipedia or the tone in which to write about the organization. As the person who will now be taking on that responsibility, I plan to edit the original content so that it is no longer written in the same tone that it was. If any of the new content DOES appear to be too promotional, rather than delete, I am 100% open to editing again until it meets the criteria. I am open to discussing this matter further if necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.120 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2014‎

  By the way, the Wikipedia community doesn't consider examiner.com to be a reliable source because of its reputation for having near-zero editorial oversight or fact-checking, and in fact it is blacklisted from being linked on Wikipedia. The Wall Street Journal reprint of an AP article is a good start although fairly brief. The New York Times blog has very good coverage, although, well, it's a blog, although we do use news publication blogs as sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, if you search for all of the "watch here" hyperlinks on the news index (http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/), you'll find several news clips from regional news stations covering Little Kids Rock donations, deliveries of instruments, celebrity involvement, events, etc... from Dallas, to Los Angeles, to Tampa to, New York... from NBC, to FOX, to CBS, to Bloomberg.

• Probably leave deleted - but I nominated it for deletion, so in all fairness, I'm probably biased in favour of agreeing with myself.

I realise this isn't directly pertinent, but I don't find the prospect of someone else from the organisation "taking on the responsibility" of editing the page (exactly what the COI policy says not to do) appealing; what I think is pertinent is the edit history on the page, which is woefully sparse, consisting essentially of a yearly cycle where a shill for the company inserts a bunch of promotional material and someone else takes it out. In my view, a good hint that an organisation is notable is that uninvolved editors have some interest in editing the page in and of itself. By that metric, LKR is about as notable as my laundry list.

I agree with the suggestion above that it would be better to identify one or two clearly good sources than to stack up this mass of recycled press releases; "independent" is a stretch when plainly something has arrived from the organisation or a celebrity's PR flacks and been used to fill up an awkward gap on page 92. On the other hand, there is an argument that we don't judge that kind of thing; if enough reliable sources reprint that fluff, it counts.

If reinstated it should be radically cut back, and representatives of the organisation encouraged to keep their mitts well off the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very good point about a member of the organization not being the one to edit the article. I wonder though, how other nonprofit organizations are created on Wikipedia like The Quincy Jones Musiq Consortium, Charity: Water, Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation, etc. Did members of their organizations write the article and then was it edited by Wikipedia contributors? Or did they ask an independent source to write the article for them? Little Kids Rock has brought music education to 300,000 + kids in the past 12 years and though the initial article was promotional in tone, that does not mean that the organization is not notable or reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia that explains what it does. Within 5-10 years, music education in U.S. public schools will have gone through a major system change (teaching rock/pop-based music education called "Modern Band" alongside Jazz Band, Marching Band, Orchestra and Choir) and Little Kids Rock is the organization leading that charge, having partnered with dozens of public school districts in the United States' largest and most under-served cities. I believe that this is something that people interested in public school education, music education, and nonprofit organizations ought to know. My question is, how can this be done while still fitting into the guide lines of Wikipedia? If the answer is to send a draft of an article to Wikipedia editors to review and approve before being published to verify the non-promotional tone of the article, that can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.120 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is sufficiently common that we have a stock answer: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article as written, sucked royally. It also had not one single reliable independent source. Please show us a compliant draft by a non-conflicted author if you want to have an article about this subject. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is if such a draft can be written--not if one is written. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources that have shown up since the last AfD [16], [17], [18], and a fair number more listed at [19]. While most of the coverage is local, we've got coverage in the WSJ, the Boston Globe, and coverage by local sources (many entirely on the subject) in LA, TX, NY, and CA. While someone could argue that the sources aren't enough (the ones that aren't local are "too short" or something) it's plain this meets WP:N by a fair margin and that we have enough in reliable sources to write an article. This is pretty straightforward, but we seem to have gotten off track. WP:COI isn't a reason for deletion, and a declared COI really isn't. If it were, I've got 100s of articles I'd be nominating (yes me). In any case, there are new sources that at least look okay, so the right thing to do is either allow recreation or relist. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - The topic clearly meets GNG: sfgate.com, mbird.org, nytimes.com, digitaleditions.sheridan.com, azcentral.com, etc. (Some potential early history 1998, 1999, 2001). The Wikipedia article was problematic and probably will be again if it is not created using independent, reliable sources. However, the AfD was based on WP:N rather than the article being too problematic. Since significant new information has come to light since the deletion that overcomes the AfD reason for deletion, I think it justifies recreating the deleted page. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maybe free media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Usable for pages which may be free but have a non-free rationale and/or a non-free copyright tag. UpEpSilon (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't needed. We still have {{wrong license}} and {{NFUR not needed}} to handle those situations. This was discussed in the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_22#Template:Maybe_free_media. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In such circumstances, it would be absolutely crucial to explain to the user why it might be free or copyrightable. I worry this might cause more confusion than anything; copyright nerds like me might understand, but would the average person? Still, if people are committed to using the template correctly, I have no objection. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure which way to go here. On the one hand, it might be useful to flag files as possibly being unfree, and just giving users a heads-up and urging investigation into whether it is, but on the other it can be used by lazy users who can't be bothered to check it. Inappropriate usage of something or the potential thereof doesn't negate whether that something should exist or be allowed, so I have to admit I'm thinking this needs to be restored. LazyBastardGuy 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nomination amounts to "I disagree with the outcome", somthing DRV is specifically not for - not xFD round 2. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. This template is exactly the proper tag for cases where non-free media might have become free, either by release from the copyright holder, or where some time limit seems to have expired (editor unsure), and wp:NFCC expert users should check the index of WhatLinksHere/Template:Maybe_free_media to help decide the issue(s). In most cases, there should/would be a talk-page link to discuss details; otherwise, a template parameter "reason=" could be made mandatory. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to use the word "overturn" because the close was a good one. But in view of what Magog and Wikid77 say, I do think it would be reasonable to restore the template.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a relist with some notification at the various NFCC pages. Seems reasonable to keep this around, but I don't really know how useful it would be. The close was fine given the discussion, but it may not be the best outcome and a wider discussion seems useful. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As there was no legitimate consensus on the matter to keep Voipfone as an article. Ironically, after the article got the many keep votes on the bases of winning awards, not for the development of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which should be the general reason to be listed on wiki. Please note the vote approval of all general references to awards were removed weeks after the keep vote was announced. Outside the awards, there is no significant reason to keep the article listed. The company may be notable company in general, but the article is not anywhere near. Voipfone's article gives the wrong impression that any company has won any award has the right to remain on wiki. Besides there are over thousand telecom companies in the UK who sell VoIP products, and only hundred who won awards, and yet only several companies have placed an article on wikipedia. None of these companies have a legitment reason to remain, which includes Voipfone listing. Aculab is the only VoIP company that actually developed the product which notable references, Voipfone has only proven it has won awards, the queen did not invent VoIP. Which company do you think is notable and has actually pionerr VoIP tecnology and is benfically to wikipedia readers, voipfone or Aculab. 209.172.25.71 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC) amended changes by 209.172.25.186 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the page's colorful history when I accepted the new article at AfC, however,none of the arguments above have anything to do with our policies for deleting articles, most significantly WP:CORP. The prior deletion discussion looks proper enough and was a good close by User:Northamerica1000. It does appear as though there has been a disruptive level of promotional editing, therefore I would propose semi-protection. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got my wires crossed - I did not accept this article out of AfC. It was put on my radar after glancing at user:Simon161388's contributions after reading this note. I notice Simon has been looked at for socking in the past and voted 4 times on the prior AfD, so I am left to wonder if this IP may be an un-intentional sock of a new user. He is not using the IP and username and a manipulative way, so there is no harm - just seems like a new user that needs help learning our norms and should move on. It's a big website and it's not healthy to brood on a single article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure. It was the correct closure given the arguments and !votes presented in the AfD. The only issues with the AfD were a possible conflict of interest with the nominator, and sock-puppetry by the nominator, but these did not affect the outcome. The article has been the subject of spam in the past (including copyvios), but not in the last five months. If this is not notable, then it needs to go back to AfD, not here, although I suspect it would be kept again. Martin451 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - plausible enough case for meeting WP:N, which is not really dispited in the discussion anyways. No one makes a case that it's spam, it's just asserted, and it's not obvious (and as he noted, if DGG doesn't think an article about an active company is spam, it ain't). If someone made a compelling case, it could be reviewed, but as a bare assertion, it has to give way to headcounting. WilyD 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Contest - I was more concerned as mentioned by an editor in Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, therforth I am not questioning the article based on being notabilty, and spam. It is best to place this article back to AfD, but keeping based on the previous consensus is not acceptable. Considering there has been Sock Puppetry, and conflict of interest from one editor to persue the consensus to delete the article. There on the other hand disruptive level of promotional editing by another editor to persue the consensus to keep the article. Now that is consider a tainted consensus, which the next AfD should be decided by netural parties that have never voted on this matter. Considering two wrongs do not make a right, and even if this article gets deleted on the next consensus. This would make the highly notable company, would have to work harder to make the article stronger so it would not appear under the grey area of acceptable, this article is extremely underdeveloped and needs major work done. FYI, I am not associated with none of mentioned editors, and one editor should be lucky that there was no lifetime ban on their user account or IP for Sock Puppetry, and conflict of interest nomination AfD and consensus vote stacking. Sorry to burst your bubble, and I highly agree with an mentioned editor, not healthy to brood on a single article. Which you are doing so in the Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, I know you are monitoring the outcome of this nomination. So there is my reason why I am putting this there, oh by the way get a life, and move on. 209.172.25.186 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The topic does not meet WP:GNG. All but a few of the 50+ articles that come up are press releases and the few that are not only have a sentence or two mentioning the company. I don't agree with it, but the AfD seemed to turn on "recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise" makes the topic notable. A delete close would have been justified and a no consensus close would have been more appropriate than keep. However, keep seems to have been within the closer's discretion if "recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise" makes the topic notable. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed prematurely. Arguments put forward for keep needed to be corrected and clarified in a full discussion. Closing admin informed me that I can take this here and seek the re-opening of the AfD so I can address the weaknesses of the points made with back up where possible. Madison Eagles is not notable and this needs to be proven fully. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting per meatball:FairProcess is reasonable. In hindsight, SNOW was an unproductive action. However, I see no likelihood of this one editor turning the discussion around. Anne Delong has improved the article considerably beyond the previously repeatedly deleted versions. I think the nominator is better advised to take some time to reconsider. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per SmokeyJoe. It couldn't have been closed any other way. Wait at least 6 months and try again if you feel there is a problem. Hobit (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you won't let me have my say in the original AfD. This can't wait six months. Errors have been made. This is a serious failing in procedure and I need the right to correct and clarify matters that came up in the discussion. This has to be done now. This article can not be left here as it fails WP:N and it never will. Leaving it will give the article a level of credibility that it doesn't deserve to have. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently Wikipedia didn't let you have your say in the AfD you proposed? starship.paint "YES!" 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't let me respond to incorrect information in the discussion. That's the issue here. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the pressing issue? The article isn't one of our best, but it does appear to meet WP:N (if just barely). Hobit (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained below - WP:SNOW applies. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Unusual history - 5 AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles, 2nd nomination, 3rd nomination, 4th nomination, 5th nomination, with four deletes and a fifth speedy keep. This is the first DRV and there was no DRV between the 4th delete and 5th speedy keep. Apparently Anne put the initial effort into saving the Articles for creation listed article, User:Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvement, including significant discussion prior to the AfD#5 listing: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Other regular editors then joined her efforts. From my own review, the topic looks to be on the low end of meeting WP:GNG, for example:

• Ben Pike (June 8, 2010), "Pro Wrestling Alliance Call To Arms IV", Macarthur Chronicle Campbelltown Edition, p. 79
• Louise Goodwin (August 3, 2011), "Hopes on the ropes", Liverpool Leader, p. 88

and AfD5 probably could have used more input. However, I can't say the speedy delete close interprets the discussion incorrectly, so I endorse the close. 124.180.170.151, you listed the AfD, so you did have a say in the original AfD. However, six months is too long to wait. Feel free to relist at AfD in three months from the close of this DRV. If you decide to relist at AfD in three months, you may want to focus your arguments on the use of anybody-can-post website sources that do not meet WP:RS such that there is not enough reliable source information to meet WP:GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with both of those citations. They fail WP:RS as advertising. They are local Syney suburban newspapers who have never been known to be reliable in this regard. They are usually paid for this stuff otherwise they won't put it in. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - as the Afc reviewer who accepted the article. There appears to be just one editor who wants the article to be gone, and, he/she (as stated above) "never will" accept any other result. I personally would have like to see the Afd stay open a little longer to see what other opinions may have been posted, but I doubt that the result would have been any different. About the "anyone can post" sources: Many of these have been added by enthusiastic wrestling fans after the Afc began, and could be removed, leaving a core of reliable ones, rather than deleting the whole article. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus. However, it's a bit disconcerting to see editors arguing that "accomplishments" in scripted performances are evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to discount anything about winning or losing for notability, and just go by the press coverage of her activities, the number and extent of independent reviews of the performances and DVDs, etc., as if she were an actress. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the "actress" idea doesn't fit anymore than the sports person idea. It's in between. If you were to call any pro wrestler an "actor" to their face, you wouldn't be keeping yours. Just saying. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I was comparing the methods of determining notability, not the professions. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Bring back to AfD in three months if you still think that it doesn't meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen, the discussion has been closed early per the snowball clause. I think that the closing admin's decision was reasonable in this case, but if someone wants to have a crack at presenting a deletion rationale I don't see any harm in re-opening the discussion, letting them try their luck, and closing it by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• I think Lankiveil has this right. Deletion review is here to see the deletion process is correctly followed. A snow close is a decision to disregard the process. I do think the snow close was the right call, but, a good faith editor has appealed to DRV and asked us to see the deletion process is correctly followed, and it's our job to help them. As a matter of meatball:FairProcess we should relist for a 168-hour debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 124 has already had a crack at presenting the deletion rationale, as the original proposer of the AfD. starship.paint "YES!" 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I have NOT had a crack at the incorrect information given in response to my nomination. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How does that affect what I said?—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, S Marshall. I was directly responding to Lankiveil, but then I saw you said "I think Lankiveil has this right", which is why I tried to respond to both of you at once. starship.paint "YES!" 07:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Eyh, I missed that as well, but I still don't see the harm in letting the AFD proceed "by the book" given that someone has asked in good faith for that to occur (even if that person is the nominator). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

*Relist (i.e. reopen the current Afd, not start a new one). Thank you to @Lankiveil: for standing out from the crowd (mob?) and making a good call. Wikipedia:Snow#The_snowball_test says, If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. So, I see this as the original decision by the closing admin to call SNOW being a good call, but implicit in that call is the expectation that no future participants would have objected. Once such an objection appears, backing away from the SNOW decision would seem to be the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the current objector is not a future participant and was the original proposer of the AfD. starship.paint "YES!" 01:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, did not realize that. Striking out my comment, as it was based on the assumption that this was a new participant. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, Roy Smith. WP:SNOW still applies because information was presented in response to my rationale for deletion, information that was not correct and needed a response. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at User_talk:Hahc21/2014/3#Madison_Eagles, there were many problems with the information given in the discussion that I have been prevented from addressing. I don't understand. Who or what prevented you from discussing whatever information you wanted to bring up? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD being closed very quickly was what prevented me. A snow job, even if it wasn't intended as such. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, since Wikipedia:Snow#The_snowball_test turned out not to apply here because the objector was not some new, future, unexpected voice, but just the original AfD proposer, which I did not recognize initially. He's had his say, no reason to drag this out any more. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist, per Lankiveil. The SNOW close was a correct decision, but it should be relisted per WP:SNOW#The_snowball_test (as pointed out by RoySmith). --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I suspect there's some kind of sockpuppetry going on here. Special:Contributions/124.180.170.151 shows the first edit from this anonymous user was 12 days ago. The types of activity (performing template maintenance, participating in AfDs, initiating DRVs, leaving administrative messages on other user's talk pages), are NOT the types of things brand new users do. I also note that virtually all of this IP's edits have been to articles related to professional wresting. My assumption here is that this is a long established user who is hiding behind anonymous edits. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith:I don't know who this IP is, but he seems to have some sort of grudge against Australian professional wrestlers as he's targeting them for AfD, and I don't really know of any WP:PW editors who are like that. From 16 Feb to 31 Mar, he was probably Special:Contributions/121.214.28.96. 121 seems to have a grudge against Australian football teams as well.
• Upon further research, it seems that from 15 Jan to 8 Feb, he was probably Special:Contributions/58.165.7.185. It's funny - RoySmith, he's even contacted you before. And on 27 January it was Special:Contributions/59.101.118.229!
• It is possible that this IP hopper has some sort of a vested interest in Legends Football League or Professional wrestling in Australia - he keeps redirecting articles to them. Or, he's a anti-Australian sports deletionist. starship.paint "YES!" 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, the 59 IP isn't me. But the 58 one was. The 59 IP is in fact a trouble making IP hopper that I've been reverting a lot. Very careless to the point that I think he should be acted against - at one point he was trying to speedy a redirect and the page was fully protected as a result. I'm not really interested in ladies gridiron but I know a not notable competition when I see one. I have never contacted Roy Smith before. BTW, when you say Australian football, Starpaint, be very careful because I love Australian football. Don't mix the two games up. I do however have an interest in Australian wrestling and I know that it's fragmented and all over the place to the point that it's literally impossible to be notable unless you do something elsewhere (Emma and Greg Bownds spring to mind with Emma being the benchmark at present). This isn't about a grudge. This is about notability. On the topic of IP editing, I've been doing that for awhile. It would take too long to find them all. I don't think an account is necessary for me and I never have held one. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been wrong about 59, yes. But if you're 58, you have contacted RoySmith before - on an AfD for a Australian pro wrestling article. starship.paint "YES!" 07:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, but the Madison Eagles article should be judged by its references and accuracy, not on whether certain editors like or dislike Australian wrestlers. 124.180.170.151 may be particularly determined to have this article deleted, but is being careful to follow procedures and so should we. I do find it surprising, though. that 124 believes that "it's literally impossible to be notable" as a wrestler in Australia. Surely Australia has as many wrestling fans as other parts of the world; perhaps they all only watch imported talent. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship Paint - you're right. I completely forgot about that contact. But then I don't keep track of those things in particular.

@Anne Delong - no, it should be judged on notability, and accuracy of references towards notability. I believe it fails the test of notability in spite of the references placed, and no we do not have as many wrestling fans quite literally as our base population is much smaller than the US or Japan. It is true also that the majority only watch WWE and TNA (the only two on TV here). Most wrestling shows here struggle to pull 200 people and crowds of less than 100 are unfortunately not uncommon. There is the odd exception but that's more a fluke than the standard. That's why promotions sometimes pay local papers (as I referenced above) to put articles in, and why they can't be used per WP:ADVERTISING. I'm not saying that affects this article. I'm saying that's what it takes. I would need to look into it further but it wouldn't surprise me if the Sydney Morning Herald article was promotional although it's much less likely to have been paid for. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well - I have stated my points. If it is judged that the AfD should be re-opened (not restarted), so be it. starship.paint "YES!" 07:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quillan Roberts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Player has now started in fully professional game for Wilmington Hammerheads FC - see [20]. We need to change process so we don't waste so much time at beginning of season deleting articles for players who will start sooner or later. In this case as a starter in the first game of the season. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best practise in this instance is to post to the WT:FOOTY noticeboard. An Admin will be able to restore it in seconds. JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, normally I simply talk to the deleting admin, but he appears to be indefinitely absent. Though it's also a perfect example of why we shouldn't spend so much energy deleting articles like this, only to recreate shortly afterwards. I think we need a process change. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty doing it for you a few mins ago at WT:FOOTY. I hope you don't mind. I disagree with you that we need to change anything. WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL are pretty solid in my opinion but you are of course entitled to discuss this as WT:FOOTY too. JMHamo (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not before someone recreated it from scratch, creating extra unnecessary work reconciling the two different versions. It's for this very reason I completely oppose this bizarre and unnecessary wholesale deletion of such articles shortly before the start of the season, that only result in wasting everyone's time. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous126 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

(Serious request, though) I believe this was removed prematurely. I am open to this being userfied if there are concerns about misinterpretation. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, if you really want it. I deleted it mainly because I had the feeling people might too easily be led into thinking you yourself were another sock of some of the serial sock trolls we've been seeing around the admin boards over the last days – so don't complain if somebody acccidentally blocks you over it ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Your face (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"Deletion review"? Oh yeah? How about I review the deletion of your face? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, as I am scared for my life. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Gimme back my face!!! Dough4872 03:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, YOUR face! ansh666 05:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

All your base are belong to us ON WHEELS! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

One of Wikipedia's finest articles. I have no idea why this got deleted.^{[April Fools!]} buffbills7701 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn on wheels because I said so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore page and block the fool who speedily deleted it. No consensus reached. Shame it took seven years for anyone to even realize such tyranny had occurred on that article. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Roll back, obviously. CodeCat (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ba dum tschhhhh ansh666 05:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sting (percussion) per Ansh666. — Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]