Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December

Template:Current APEC foreign ministers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Result of its deletion and the Discussion closed by non-admin early as keep, despite a justifiable reasoning that the template for APEC foreign ministers are not a CRUFT and therefore legitimate. Additionally, the users does not appear to have the relevant understanding on how important the foreign ministers contribute in the APEC which they have a significant coverage (through attendance of ministerial meetings). Saiph121 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I've corrected the link to the discussion above. The discussion was closed after 9 days (more than the mandatory 7) by a non-admin (which I believe is acceptable at TfD). While Saiph121 did feel that this was a significant grouping the other 4 people who commented felt that this grouping was not sufficiently important to justify a navbox and/or that the grouping changes too often for the navbox to be useful. Incidentally you aren't allowed to recreate a page just because you disagree with its deletion, which you've done twice at Template:Current APEC foreign ministers. Hut 8.5 10:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Any admin may revert or support the NAC, but I think it unlikely that any admin would revert it. The close was a fair reading. Personally, I don't support many of these "current" things, as they create a maintenance burden to keep them up to date. "APEC ministers of 2016" might be more reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clearly an appropriate summary of the discussion. Consider this an administrator endorsing the close, if necessary, but this is well within the bounds of what an experienced non-admin such as Primefac may close at TfD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Its the most popular ticketing platform in India. Its alexa rank is 770 (globally) & 49 (India). Per month it books more than 10 million tickets. It serves 4 countries globally. I believe it is a clear candidate to have its article on wikipedia. I was searching for information about it and couldn't find a wikipedia page for it, so I want to create this article. It was previously deleted because it was found to be written in promotional way. I refrain myself from writing promotional things on Wikipedia. My yesterdays attempt to clear a neutral unbiased article was overridden by a deletion by an admin. As per his/her answer to my query about deletion he mentioned that he deleted it "because it was deleted first via an AfD discussion". So I am raising a request here. Kindly have a look at the stub that I had written yesterday. It was not a promotional article in any way. I invite any one to question the quality of the article I wrote yesterday I will be most willing to modify it or add any information which it is lagging. Lets create a informative article this subject deserves together. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was unanimous, so the odds of it getting overturned are approximately nil. If you believe you can write a good (i.e. neutral, non-promotional, well-sourced) article about this topic, my suggestion would be to start at Draft:Bookmyshow. If people agree that the new draft meets our requirements, I'm sure there won't be any objection to moving it into mainspace. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation for more information about the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the suggestion. I have started Draft:Bookmyshow. Can we mention something like "A new draft for this article is being created at Draft:Bookmyshow which is open for contributions and suggestions from anyone" in the article page? It will help us in getting contributors. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is us, as in, It will help us getting contributors? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Us' as we the people who want to see good articles in wikipedia :) --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an unresolved problem.  As per WP:Drafts#Incubation, the cross-space redirect is deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per RoySmith. I agree that Articles for Creation is a good idea for this article. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and there's nothing to negotiate here since the AfD was quite clear with the concerns. Also, should AfC be an option, it must be significantly different because no one will accept the same advertising and triviality especially so soon, so in these case, it's best to wait long enough for the company to become established with actual major news, not PR or PR they helped influence or publish. As always, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else so that won't be a factor of automatic acceptance at AfC either. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for temp undeletion  The deletion was A7, "no indication of significance", which seems to be in question given the OP that the company books 10 million tickets a month.  We need to see the deleted article.  Nor is the AfD directly relevant, since it appears to have been closed for promotionalism, not notability; and the remedy there is a new article, which is what is being discussed here.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks--Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entire prose of the A7'd version was "BookMyShow is a online ticketing company based out of Mumbai, India. It was founded in August 2007. The company now has expansions to Indonesia as well. Bigtree Entertainment is the holding company for BookMyShow." with an enormous, offensively promotional infobox. Unreferenced except for an external link to the official website. If the requester had stated what he did here in the article instead of working towards the sort of promotionalism that got the afd'd title salted, it wouldn't have been an A7. I'd have deleted this version too; endorse. —Cryptic 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I was in the process to write it. It takes time to grow an article. Its Wikipedia, several people can contribute to it. Plus my article was deleted (as stated by the admin) because it was created just after an AfD discussion. As per admin I should have raised a request here. Plus what makes a infobox a promotional thing? Its a infobox for user to grab information quickly. Also I was in the process to add links and stuff to it. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or, I could edit conflict with RoySmith temp-undeleting it. —Cryptic 00:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also endorse as G4. There's nothing in the new article that wasn't in the old, and the afd discusses notability too, so yes, it is directly relevant. —Cryptic 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It was what i could write in like 20 minutes. The second time I visited to add stuff to it, it was already deleted by then. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userfication /draftification. User:Sumitsinha_lko has here made statements that overcome A7. I advise him to read WP:CORP carefully before putting it back in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a new version underway at Draft:Bookmyshow, so I'm not sure what purpose userfication would serve. It might make sense to do a WP:HISTMERGE into the draft, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that draftspace works.  The user wants the draft available to other editors.  For the record, the A7-ed article stated in the infobox, "30 million visits monthly".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, draftspace is fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. I will be adding stuff into the draft (depends on time I get daily). Anyway can I get access to the old article which was AfD'd earlier. So that I can keep things which look worthy from it (yes with proper reference and all). --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not an admin would agree to some kind of restoration of the AfD'ed article, as per [1], there is an abandoned AfC submission draft available on request.  I had seen this earlier when your draft was at Draft:Bookmyshow, but it seems that during this DRV, User:Rebbing has moved your draft to Draft:BookMyShow, a location that now collides with restoring the AfC submission.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

New information since the deletion has come to light, diminishing the claim that there is no indication of importance as per A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The subject of the wikipedia article has taken his performance from electronic media to the theatre stage^[1]. This should serve as a credible claim of significance. Further, original deleter is no longer an active wikipedia user and unable to review decision. 203.6.176.27 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The correct link for the article in question appears to be Friendlyjordies. I don't see anything in the most recently deleted version which makes me think the WP:A7 was out of line. This is actually the second time this has been deleted under WP:A7, the first time being two years ago. And, I don't see anything in the proposed source which would satisfy WP:GNG. --RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The links in the template were malformed; I tried to fix them.  Sandstein  09:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The article seemed to have been written more as a joke than anything else, so even if we were to say that A7 didn't apply it would still have been a valid G3 deletion. However the problem is that the article as it was written didn't really make any huge assertions of notability that would have made it too borderline to speedy. I did perform a search to see if he would merit an article, but the best stuff I found were this and this, which wouldn't be good enough to assert notability for him. He just appears to be a mildly popular YT performer that has done some performing off camera. The vast majority of YouTubers don't pass notability guidelines, honestly, and notability is so hard to prove for them that even PewDiePie's article kept getting deleted until only a few months before he became the most subscribed person on YT. It's just that hard. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Don't come back until you have third party coverage of the subject. Independent, non-promotional, and in a reliable source. Moshtix, a ticket selling site, doesn't do it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, looks like it would still be deletable under A7 if re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go! Kids (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion closed by non-admin early as keep, despite a clear consensus not being reached and none of the other requirements for non-admin early closure being met that I can see. Additionally, closing user is the article creator and does not appear to have the relevant understanding or experience recommended for closing debates. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I reopened the discussion, since the closure by the article creator was such a blatant violation of policy. Safiel (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content creation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was unable to resolve this through discussion with the closing administrator. First of all, the venue is redirects for discussion, not redirects for deletion. The nominator was neutral on deletion, seeking a potential retarget. Two other contributors made comments, while another suggested retargeting. One contributor suggested deletion. The closer stated they found the deletion argument compelling, while I didn't. WP:XY would be more applicable if the redirect was, e.g., "Wikipedia:Content creation and deletion". Furthermore, it is guidance for the mainspace, project space shortcuts often point to one place when they could equally point to others (hatnotes are sometimes used extensively). I also disagree with the stance of the closer that there wasn't a reasonable chance for a better target to emerge from further discussion. I believe the discussion could have reasonably been closed as no consensus or relisted, but not as delete. Therefore, I suggest an overturn and relist.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note: I've been pondering this redirect since I noticed the discussion was closed and left an inquiry about it on the talk page of the closer. If the discussion is reopened, I have a target to suggest (i.e. Wikipedia:How to create a page) with a rationale for it.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:XY does apply to this situation and is a rather compelling argument here. Admittedly all the examples given there are of the form "X and Y" and in article space, but the argument applies more generally to all redirects that could point to multiple targets, whatever the wording or namespace. The fact that lots of targets have been suggested with no particular agreement about any of them would support this. I would also point out that "content creation" doesn't have to mean starting new articles but can also refer to adding more content to existing articles, which means there could be lots of other potential targets. I don't see any particular reason why this must have been relisted and it had sufficient participation to be closed. Hut 8.5 07:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Very reasonable close, close to being unable to being closed any other way. A clearly inappropriate recent redirect, no one questioned that. A few weak ideas for retargetting, but no agreement, no enthusiasm. So delete. No history to be concerned about. Godsy appears to want a discussion for the sake of a discussion. If there were any good idea for what to do with this available project space title, any editor may boldly create it. I see no benefit though, Wikipedia has a lot of essays already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unless we want to investigate an alternative outcome which isn't "delete", "relist", or "no consensus". Ruslik0's closure was reasonable given the comments on the RfD. Steel1943 and Ivanvector kinda wanted retarget but didn't argue out the possibilities. CWM wanted delete. Godsy didn't support anything explicitly. Nobody wanted keep. I agree that we could've benefited from more discussion but given that nobody responded directly to any of the retargeting proposals, it is reasonable for Godsy to conclude that there's a consensus to not keep, and we don't have much interest in this discussion, thus we should default to delete. Deryck C. 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Godsy: If the discussion was relisted, what outcome would you want? Deryck C. 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deryck Chan: I'm not invested in a particular outcome, rather I'd simply like it relisted, as I believe that action has a good chance of soliciting a stronger consensus in this case. The closer didn't share my view of the situation, so this was the only course of action I had left. This term (i.e. content creation) is commonly used to refer to the creation of new content meant for or within the mainspace. Though broad, it seems like a topic we would cover or define somewhere in the project space, and my hope was that in attempting to gain more input (i.e. relisting) someone might participate that knew of or had found an appropriate target. I commonly see that happen after something is relisted at RfD. I especially feel as I do in this case, because relisting something in the project namespace is essentially harmless, as the discussion notice doesn't affect the readership. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Godsy: I tend to agree with Ruslik0 on this one - there seems not to be enough interest in this discussion for it to be worth relisting. I see {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} as another possible solution but I don't know if we have enough interest... Endorse but allow speedy recreation of something else and/or renomination. Deryck C. 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not have any objection to its recreation provided that a reasonable target is agreed upon. Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not sure what to make of this deletion. The warning box at WP:UBX/POLITICS may address this, but that wasn't invoked. Rather, WP:G10 was invoked. G10 addresses attacking or harassing a person. Uncle Sam is not a person, nor is the U.S. government. Additionally, someone living in Canada should at least be aware that those of us living in the United States cherish the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a vital link to our claim as a free country. There's a big difference between using the public domain status of works of the U.S. government to fill up content and creating a work which appears to smell of reflecting the U.S. government's agenda by suppressing dissenting voices. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:G10, list at XfD. WP:ATTACK talks about a page, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. You could make a plausible case that this userbox was intended to disparage the US Government. But it seems to me that G10 was intended to protect people, and by extension, companies and organizations, not to protect the US Government. That being said, I don't think the userbox belongs in wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to make political statements. There are plenty of other, better, forums to express the opinion promoted by this userbox. But let's delete it through community process, not by administrative fiat. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see the box, but given what Roy says, I can't imagine I'd !vote to do anything other than overturn. Also, did anyone contact @CambridgeBayWeather: before or after this DRV was posted? Hobit (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Sandstein for the complete story. overturn I don't think G10 is designed to protect governments, but I certainly can't blame the deleting admin for following the letter of the rules. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The userbox said: "This user's privacy, safety and liberty are threatened by America's bullshit", and contained image links to Uncle Sam is watching you! (sic, a red link) and to PRISM (surveillance program). The G10 deletion rule covers "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". The userbox did disparage the United States, which is a state and therefore an "entity", and its surveillance program, and serves no discernible other purpose (at least in the context of writing an encyclopedia). G10 was therefore correctly applied. Contrary to RoySmith, I don't see anything in G10 to suggest that governments or states are exempt from its coverage, although I agree with him that the deletion outcome was also correct on the merits because we are not a forum for political speech.  Sandstein  10:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Coomment The appeal to freedom of speech is a red herring and is covered at Wikipedia:Free speech. I'd also point out that there is no evidence that the user in question is located in the US and it could possibly have been a general attack on Americans. There are enough people on Wikipedia with an anti something attitude and there is no need to encourage them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Users are traditionally granted wide latitude in their own userspace. Looking at the guidelines for G10, it's not reasonably possible to stretch the definition to cover this situation. The USA is a nation state and can't be libelled. The provision about legal threats clearly does not apply. It's not reasonably possible to threaten, harass, or intimidate a country. None of our BLP rules can reasonably be invoked. This is stretching G10 way beyond its intended scope and I don't see how we can allow it to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• G10 is not (only) about BLP or libel. It's about content that is more broadly out of scope of our project because it boils down to "X sucks!", which is a waste of bytes because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for our personal views about countries, people or whatever. Replace "America" with, say, "Israel" or "Muslims", and it becomes perhaps a bit more clear why G10's wording does encompass this kind of content.  Sandstein  21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that argument and I do feel its force. I'd reply with two questions. Firstly, should DRV interpret speedy deletion criteria narrowly or broadly? Secondly, should DRV compare the action against the criterion as written, or should it be more elastic and infer novel terms the community has yet to discuss?—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how these questions apply to this issue. CSD, like all policies, should be applied based on its wording as interpreted in the light of Wikipedia's core principles and policies - in this case, WP:NOT a forum or a web host.  Sandstein  22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's two distinct questions here. One is whether this content (i.e. the userbox) is acceptable. The other is whether it's appropriate for a single admin, acting in isolation, to make that decision. My opinion on WP:CSD is that admins should be very conservative in applying it. Once a number of people get involved (i.e. an XfD discussion), it's much less likely that we get it wrong. I'm not saying that XfD always gets it right, just that the failure rate is lower than for any single person acting alone. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, List at MfD, and Delete per WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project
  An over-stretch of CSD#G10, its primary purpose was not per the wording of G10, but to make a claim for political sympathy. If undeleted, I could check the author's other contributions to look for a bigger picture, but "WP:NOT a forum or a web host" is not a CSD criterion. It was not so offensive that routine passage through MfD was inadvisable. It is so clearly "WP:POLEMIC; offensive divisive and not related to the project" that I have zero doubt that it would be deleted at MfD. leave it deleted --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not G10. Needs discussion at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD I suppose this may technically fall under the wording of G10, depending on how you feel about the utility of allowing editors limited political expressions in userspace, but I don't think it's appropriate to use G10 to get rid of negative political userboxes in userspace. I suspect it won't survive MfD. Hut 8.5 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD, per multiples of the above. Jclemens (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD. G10 shouldn't stretch that far. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Useless, but not G10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

DeAndre Brackensick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Apologies that this is so long - I wanted to be thorough in explaining my views)

Tagging editors involved with the original AfD: (AfD Nominator - John from Idegon), Piotrus, CoffeeWithMarkets, SwisterTwister, Bearian, Onel5969, Spirit of Eagle

I'm not entirely sure that this is the proper forum for this discussion, as I don't have any issues with how the closing administrator handled things, and the article was redirected, rather than deleted. But I've been told by those involved with the AfD that this is where they'd like to be having the discussion, rather than on the article's talk page. So I'm opening it here; I hope that's okay.

The article was nominated for deletion all the way back in September of last year. I was unaware of the AfD at the time, and so I didn't participate. A clear consensus was formed in favor of redirecting. The administrator, Samwalton9, properly closed the AfD as a redirect. I have no problem with that.

Rather, my problem is that those who voted in the AfD either failed to discover or neglected to mention several high-quality, independent sources that have been published on the article's subject. During the AfD, votes in favor of deletion or redirection stated, incorrectly, that Brackensick had yet to receive any considerable news coverage, separate from his appearance on the eleventh season of American Idol (a competition in which Brackensick placed eighth). At the time of the AfD though, Brackensick had already been signed to a minor label and released a single, titled "Her Crazy". This single has been the primary focus of articles published by Yahoo! [2], The York Dispatch [3] [4], and The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. [5] In the time since Brackensick first appeared on American Idol, he has also been profiled by SFGate [6], MidWeek, [7] and Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser. [8] These profiles appeared between one and three years after Brackensick's initial involvement with Idol.

My understanding is that a musical artist really only needs to meet the general notability guidelines, as detailed at WP:Notability, in order to have an article on Wikipedia. As such, it's my opinion that all ranking contestants (by which I mean the top 12 or so) to appear on any season of American Idol should have their own articles, purely on the basis that all ranking contestants to have appeared on the show have received significant coverage from professional, third-party publications. I understand however, and respect, that many other editors disagree with me on this matter. There are definitely some who feel that only those contestants who have gone on to have music careers should have their own articles. To my knowledge, no policy or guideline has ever been written to support either of these opinions. So for the time being, it's more or less up to personal interpretation. Although I personally feel that it would be appropriate, and keeping with the policies outlined in WP:Notability, to have an article on someone like, say, CJ Harris, (who placed sixth in the thirteenth season of the show and has never released music professionally), I won't contest the deletion discussion that was held on his article awhile back, because I realize that it would simply come down to two different interpretations of what does or doesn't constitute notability. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over purely subjective matters.

In the case of DeAndre Brackensick however, he has released music professionally, and he's received considerable news coverage for doing so. One of the editors with whom I've already discussed this matter has suggested that even with these sources, Brackensick should still not be considered notable, supposedly because he fails to meet every one of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. This strikes me as a misinterpretation of what WP:BAND is intended for though. To quote that guideline directly, musical artists "may be notable if they meet at least one" of the listed criteria - at least one.

Criteria #9 specifically seems to be mentioned from time-to-time by editors arguing against the notability of reality show contestants - this criteria says that musical artists may be notable if they have "won first, second or third place in a major music competition". Although Brackensick only placed eighth, the fact that he fails to meet this criteria shouldn't be used as an argument against his notability. Many notable artists would fail to meet this criteria, because many notable artists have never even participated in a "major music competition". That said, Brackensick does meet criteria #1, #12, and probably #4 as well. And again, in order to meet the standards of WP:BAND, he only needs to meet "at least one" of these.

None of the above-mentioned sources were included in Brackensick's article at the time of the AfD. All of them had already been published though. It's unclear to me why they escaped the attention of the participating editors. I would hope that everyone who voted did at least a cursory search beforehand, but I realize that sometimes, for whatever reason, this doesn't happen. I also realize that sometimes certain articles just don't show up in search results. I'm not upset with anyone who participated in the AfD discussion, but I do feel that they made the wrong call. Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.
• Is he somewhat notable in terms of being a singer? I would agree, to a limited extent, as multiple sources do mention him. Look... I don't want to sound mean to him as an individual. Of course, my personal opinion of one's music and/or career doesn't matter when looking at things as an editor. Nonetheless, I've got to point out that this looks like a classic 'fifteen minutes of fame' scenario. Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show. It's fine to mention him on Wikipedia. Yet it's perfectly logical to do so in a way that explains things in the proper context, which I think is what's done having his name be a redirect to the specific Idol article.
• Again, it's hard to put these thoughts down coherently without sounding condescending to the man (maybe I just need a good nights sleep at the moment, perhaps), but I don't see the significant notoriety needed that would build a good article. I still support the decision made. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to note that I'm not an administrator or anything. I'm merely commenting to express the disagreement that was made back when the actual deletion decision was made, given that I was an involved party. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Thanks for weighing in. I definitely don't get the impression that you're being condescending, although I do appreciate the civil and respectful tone of your response. All of the points that you've made are valid concerns. I'd like to go through them one-by-one and express why I feel differently:

• In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.

- Brackensick certainly hasn't achieved a great deal as an artist at this point. But success and notability aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm sure there are plenty of musical artists on Wikipedia, who have never charted. Ultimately, coverage in reliable sources should, I feel, be the primary factor in determining an artist's notability, rather than commercial or critical success.

• I've got to point out that this looks like a classic 'fifteen minutes of fame' scenario.

- If Brackensick had only been profiled by reliable sources in the same year as his appearance on Idol, then this might be more or less the case. But he was profiled by SFGate and MidWeek a year after his season of the show had ended - and by the Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser three years after. Yes, these publications are primarily interested in him because of his involvement with Idol. But no-one can exactly say that his fame is fleeting.

• Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show.

- This is perhaps the crux of the issue. Should we discount certain coverage from denoting individual notability on Brackensick, just because we feel that this coverage is directly tied to Brackensick's involvement with a single event? Some editors seem to think so. Personally though, I don't feel that we should hold reality show contestants to a higher standard of notability than any other kind of musical artist. If a new artist, without any affiliations to a televised reality series, showed up on the scene today, with a non-charting single, yet received significant coverage in the above-mentioned sources, then that artist would almost definitely be considered notable enough for his or her own Wikipedia page. Shouldn't the fact that Brackensick was heavily featured, over the course of several months, on one of the most watched television shows in America only make him more notable than such an artist? --Jpcase (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents: if he passes WP:NMUSIC because of his single, he is notable. Otherwise, I lean towards the fact that any coverage of his single is related to him being on that reality show, which still falls under WP:ONEVENT. Do note that coverage of one event can be spread over years and it does not make it less one-eventish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: True, multi-year news coverage could potentially still be seen as pertaining to a single event. But keep in mind that individuals only notable for a single event are allowed to have standalone articles, as directly stated in WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Here, we're starting to get into subjective territory. How is a "significant" event defined? How is a "large role" within that event defined? Different people may hold different standards. Personally, I feel that a nationally broadcast, 14-season television series, that topped viewership ratings for several years, and was called by the head of a rival network, "the most impactful show in the history of television", [9] should be considered a "significant event". And I feel that being heavily featured over the course of multiple months on that show should qualify as "playing a significant role", regardless of where Brackensick actually placed in the competition. Others may differ in these interpretations though; again, it's somewhat subjective. I feel that the most objective way of defining these terms is to simply look at sourcing. A significant event should be defined, I feel, as one that has received considerable news coverage from many reliable, third-party sources - by this criteria, American Idol unambiguously qualifies. It would follow that a significant role within an event should, I feel, be defined as one that has been the primary focus of several, individual articles pertaining to that event - likewise, Brackensick would unambiguously qualify, as he has been the primary focus of considerable news coverage both during, and several years after, his involvement with American Idol. Does this seem like a reasonable, objective standard by which to define these criteria laid out in WP:ONEEVENT? --Jpcase (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My sense: if a musical artist tours (inter)nationally, as a headliner or "special guest", and it is documented by significant coverage in two or more reliable sources, then that is sufficient to make the musician notable. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: By that standard, Brackensick would seem to qualify. In 2012, he was a part of the American Idol tour, which not only spanned across the United States, but also held a show in the Philippines. Here are a handful of sources - Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, SanJose.com, The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Brackensick also continues to perform professionally. According to this 2015 article by the Honolulu Pulse (The Honolulu Pulse is a division of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser), Brackensick has not only held occasional performances in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but has also traveled to the US East Coast for several shows, and has even toured (probably on a small scale) in New Zealand and Australia. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't changed my position. Regarding the new sources: Yahoo is brief blurb, The SF article is a PR piece, the York pieces are not an RS (it appears to be a forum, not a news site), the Milwaukee piece is an article about someone else in which he gets mentioned. On the whole, not enough to meet the significant coverage requirement, and he did not headline a national tour. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: It's certainly fair to analyze the quality of each of these sources. But the York Dispatch articles don't come from a "forum"; they're essentially editorial pieces and should absolutely qualify as RS. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article is about the founder of Brackensick's music label, a man named Kevin Sucher, but talks about Sucher primarily within the context of his work with Brackensick. In fact, the Milwaukee article barely even mentions Brackensick's involvement with Idol, despite mentioning and quoting Brackensick several times - which should, I feel, display that Brackensick has attained at least some amount of notability separate from his appearance on that show. Also - what about the MidWeek article, and the one from Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser? Or the Honolulu Pulse article that I linked to in my response to Bearian above? --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When did we reach the point that AFD-spurred redirects must go to DRV even if not substantially identical to the original article? If the original article had been flat-out deleted, the added material here would be significant enough to prevent speedy deletion. Why is a less stringent outcome more rigorously enforced? What is the policy basis for this anomalous practice? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick was clear. The consensus was clearly for "delete or redirect". It was a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, and so may be challenged here at DRV, but here at DRV there is no case to argue to overturn the AfD. The nomination here does not seem to challenge the AfD process or close, but is rearguing the AfD. DRV is not AFD2. You might try negotiating with the AfD closer for a re-open to make new points, or try userfying to improve the article with better sources that demonstrate wider notability, but you need sources to back up the statements made in the nomination here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: You're right - I'm not looking to challenge how the AfD played out, other than to note that key information went unnoticed and deserves to be part of the discussion. I agree that the consensus was clearly in favor of redirecting and that the AfD was properly closed as such. But I do feel that the sources I've linked to above make a case for restoring the article. If this isn't the proper forum for having that discussion, then I'm entirely willing to move it somewhere else. Initially, I tried restoring the article on my own, with better sourcing and a note on the talk page. I wasn't entirely sure that doing so was the appropriate course of action, but WP:Redirects for Discussion gave me the impression that I could just Be Bold and give it a shot. I knew that if anyone opposed the decision, they would always be free to revert me - which is exactly what happened. You can still see the better sourced version that I created a couple days ago in the article's history here [10]) though. Admittedly, I didn't put a lot of work into it - all I did was improve sourcing for statements that had already been included in the article (and slightly rephrase a sentence or two). A lot more could have been done, but I felt that what I did was at least sufficient for displaying notability. Clearly, some of the AfD's initial participants disagree. I've spoken with the AfD's closing administrator, Samwalton9, on his talk page. He knows that I've opened a discussion here at Deletion Review, although he hasn't offered an opinion on whether the sources I've offered up establish notability. If Samwalton9, or you, or anyone else feels that it would be better to continue this discussion somewhere else, or to reopen the AfD, or to simply start a new AfD, then I'd be open to any of those possibilities. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found even more sources:

• Here's another 2015 article from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (accessed through HighBeam). Like the other article from this newspaper (that I linked to in my response to Bearian above), it's about a performance that Brackensick held with an artist named Raiatea Helm, who doesn't seem to have her own Wikipedia article, but probably should, considering that she has apparently been nominated for multiple Grammys - see Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album - and is the niece of George Helm. The article also briefly indicates that another Grammy-nominated artist, named Makana, was a part of this performance.

• Here's another article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This one is about a 2013 music festival in which Brackensick was a featured performer. Although not the primary focus of the article, Brackensick does receive a brief critical review. And while the article does mention American Idol, it directly states that Brackensick's involvement with the festival likely stemmed instead from connections made through his professional music career.

• And here's an article from Metroactive that likewise, isn't about Brackensick, but mentions him within a context that's separate from his American Idol involvement. The article's focus is another small-time (but professional) artist named Molia, who (I didn't know this until just now) recorded two singles with Brackensick in 2013.

So to recap - in addition to the dozens-upon-dozens of reliable sources providing significant coverage about Brackensick within the context of his initial American Idol appearance and his involvement with the international American Idol tour, we have sources discussing how Brackensick signed (at least temporarily) to a professional music label and released a single through that label, continues to perform professionally - not only in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but also throughout the continental US, New Zealand, and Australia - has been featured in at least one significant music festival, has performed alongside two Grammy-nominated artists in at least one of his concerts, and has collaborated with another somewhat notable artist on multiple singles. All of these articles mention Brackensick's involvement with American Idol, which is to be expected, as that's undeniably a significant part of his bio. And some of the articles are clearly interested in Brackensick, primarily due to his reality show fame. But several other articles are clearly discussing Brackensick within a context that is primarily separate from Idol. As stated in my response to SmokeyJoe above, I'm happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else, if it's determined that Deletion Review isn't the proper place for it. But I would be curious to hear what the editors who had been involved with the AfD think about these newly discovered sources. --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add this 2015 news feature from New Zealand's primary state broadcasting network, TVNZ1, onto the heap. Admittedly, it's not a perfect source - the coverage is split pretty evenly between Brackensick's Idol fame and a sold-out concert of his in Auckland, New Zealand - the latter of which, could perhaps be interpreted as PR-ish. Still we shouldn't discount the source entirely. It shows that Brackensick has sold out a concert in the largest city of a foreign country three years after his run on Idol and received coverage from one of that country's major news networks for doing so. Regardless of whether this is deemed somewhat PR-related (not that it's an official press release or anything - an independent news network was still responsible for the content), that shows some pretty long-lasting and far reaching-notability - right? --Jpcase (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, with reference to WP:BOLD and talk page discussion  The OP is requesting permission to edit the encyclopedia.  One of our WP:5P fundamental principles is that editors have the right to edit the encyclopedia. 

  A non-deletion notability dispute is a content dispute.  WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT specifies, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I thing we've discussed this before? The AfD amounts to pseudo-deletion, as described at Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. With no content merged, and the AfD strongly implying that no content is to be merged, an isolated editor is in a very poor position to revert the redirect, or to start merging content from behind the redirect. Two or more editors may well demonstrate a consensus to recover material for merging through discussion on the redirect target's talk page, but should they wish to allege procedural problems with the AfD discussion or close, neither the redirect nor target talk pages are appropriate. Short of a bold revert of the redirect with sufficient new material to overcome the deletion reasons (eg sourced appreciable achievement beyond Idol), the only recourse the editor has is DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: @Unscintillating: Again - I'm not necessarily alleging "procedural problems with the AfD". Nor am I looking to merge anything. But I do feel that the many sources I've linked to above display "appreciable achievement beyond Idol". So do either of you have recommendations on how to best procede? Would it be best for me to discuss the matter further with the closing administrator? --Jpcase (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedurally, this is a content question, so the advice to come here does not follow what I quoted from WP:Deletion policy.  The reasons for doing so IMO have to do with a long time power struggle in which editors who like deletion discussions want to bring content disputes to where articles can be deleted.  Sometimes AfD closers will decide to take on a content issue, and other times they will refuse, but you can ask.  If the admin declines to become involved, the AfD is out of scope and not binding.  Given that your un-redirect was reverted, even though the argument was fallacious, you still have to deal with it, as you have been doing.  There is other text at WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT which suggests Template:RfC to bring additional editors to the talk page.  Having said that, I'm also going to add a HOWEVER...  I also skimmed some of your issue, and I typically avoid popular music content articles.  The sfgate article is marked "blog", so might not have any value as a reliable source.  The article is filled with fawning, which violates NPOV.  This could be easily enough corrected with editing, but as it stands will be irritating to reviewers.  Besides the TV show, the only thing I see that people in 100 years are going to want to know about this topic is the record, and all of this content is appropriate to slightly expand and update the existing mini-bio.  The topic is still in college, so things might change.  Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, it is awkward for you to come here and to ask about source quality and whether they overcome the deletion reason. Did you ask the closer, or ping the participants? Can I suggest you try to use the AfD talk page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick for that discussion. I think the answer is no, but the AfD participants should be invited first. And it is not the proper use of DRV to deny that your sources are good enough, because such a statement from DRV might be misinterpreted as a binding decision from a higher court. DRV is not AFD2, and you are asking AfD questions. That said, no, I don't think your new sources suffice. I suggest that you wait a year, then consider writing a userspace draft, then asking the closer and participants, and people at Talk:American Idol (season 11) for their opinion. In the meantime, my usual suggestion is for you to try to add sourced content to American_Idol_(season_11)#Finalists, extending the paragraph beginning "DeAndre Brackensick (born October 21, 1994) is from ...". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: @SmokeyJoe: Thank you both for responding. First of all, let me just note that the AfD participants have already been invited to take part in this discussion - I pinged them at the top of this page. In fact, aside from the two of you and myself, everyone who has so far responded in this thread was also involved with the original AfD. It sounds like neither of you consider DRV to be the proper location for figuring any of this out, which has always been my own opinion as well. I'll probably contact the closing administrator one more time for his thoughts, and then perhaps I'll open an RFC, if that would be a more appropriate avenue.

As far as sourcing goes (and I understand that this might not be the best place to discuss this - if you (SmokeyJoe) would rather respond on my talk page or not respond at all, then that's fine) - could I ask specifically why you feel that the above sources are insufficient for displaying Brackensick's individual notability? onel5969 has raised valid concerns with a few of the sources, but has decided not to comment on most of them. I then offered my own take in response and would certainly like to know if I erred in any of my assessments. Some of the sources, I'll readily concede, are not ideal. The Yahoo article [11], as onel5969 pointed out, is a blurb, while the SFGate article [12] does indeed seem to border on being something of a PR-piece. Those are only two of the twelve sources that I've linked to though.

The York Dispatch articles [13] [14] were written by a professional blogger on staff with the newspaper, so onel5969 was mistaken in saying that they come from a forum. Three of the articles that I've found are primarily focused on topics other than Brackensick, [15] [16] [17] but they all display notability that Brackensick has attained separate from Idol. And the TVNZ1 [18] news piece is perhaps somewhat PR-ish, but was nonetheless produced by the primary state broadcasting network of New Zealand and shows that Brackensick has not only managed to maintain his notability for three years following Idol, but that his notability extends internationally. That still leaves this article from MidWeek [19], this article from the Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser [20], and these articles from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. [21] [22] If you have issues with any of them, then I genuinely welcome your critiques. --Jpcase (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happiest to see a list of sources and respond in detail at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick. Here is not a good place. The decision to delete based on the discussion as it was was fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V05 (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Multiple instances of incorrect information used in deletion discussion + new information: 1)editor states: "MTVu is not the same as MTV, as it is only available on 750 or so college campuses" & "only 1-week"

 VO5 had a song with 8 week heavy rotation on MTVu, available on most digital cable subscription (like Charter Cable) nationally with millions of viewers not just on college campuses. The song has 2 videos with over 600,000 worldwide total views on the VO5 youtube channel [1] 

2)"unsigned cover band" - with "only local coverage". Sample article about original music from out of state: ^[2] also "Unique Album of the Year" Madison Area Awards and multiple out-of-state reviews listed in article (Obscure Sound, Milk Crater, votd.tv, World Music Cental listed. ^[3] 3) "Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"

  Front-page & multi-page print article in Wisconsin State Journal, the major state-wide newspaper with daily printed circulation of 100,000 : "V05 still shaking it at age 10, with first original album"
  [4]

Likewise, long articles in The Isthmus (print circulation 50,000 weekly)) and Maximum Ink (print circulation 25,000) mentioned and are not student newspapers or blogs and have state-wide appeal. 4) "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" notable style: nu-disco. Featured on Wisconsin Public Television's acclaimed "30-minute Music Hour" Aired: 11/17/2015 on 12 stations covering the entire state of Wisconsin. Ten-piece disco music revivalists from Madison, WI playing original songs from their new album titled "Dance Originality" with funk, jazz and Latin influences.

 [5] 

Fantartic (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, while there is arguably "new" information here, it really just backs up the primary finding of the AFD: specifically, that this is an unsigned local band of considerably less than encyclopedic notability. Meanwhile, from way, way, way out of left field comes the bizarre claim that V05 is "one of the most prominent representatives" of nu-disco music. Presumably this was put in as a joke, because surely the nominator isn't seriously considering this unsigned local band equal in prominence to worldwide hitmakers like Daft Punk and Scissor Sisters. Hilarity aside, with no apparent significant change in notability since July, I endorse the unanimous outcome of the AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said when I was asked to restore this, there isn't anything particularly new here. The Wisconsin State Journal, The State Times, The Isthmus and Maximum Ink citations were all in the article when it was deleted and the people who commented in the AfD weren't very impressed. Granted, the YouTube channel, press clipping page and clip from Wisconsin Public Television weren't in there, but I don't honestly think they would have made any difference. Hut 8.5 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• what is the source of the claim found by Starblind that they are "one of the most prominent representatives" of nu-disco music"? Fantartic (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Information Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus, but I believe most of the Keep !votes should have been disregarded. Specifically, it was asserted that meeting a criterion in WP:NJOURNALS conferred notability even in the absence of any reliable independent sources. The journal is indexed and has an impact factor (0.3, which means that the vast majority of papers are never referenced - it would be rejected as a source for most claims on Wikipedia), but the fact of being indexed is sourced directly to the index, in the form "foo is in bar index, source, foo entry in bar"; and the journal descriptors in these indexes are all supplied by the publisher, who also, naturally, applies for them to be indexed. So we have no reliable independent sources that allow us to validate that the article is neutral. Is it a good journal or does it publish firnge rubbish? We don't know. Well, we know it's not good with that impact factor, but the point is we cannot verify that the self-description supplied to the likes of SCOPUS by the publisher, is neutral. The major problem here is that editors who are fans of journals, are using inclusion in an index as a sufficient condition for notability rather than a necessary but insufficient criterion, which is how subject notability guides should be interpreted. That's fine if you want to compile a directory of journals, but WP:NOTDIR, and we must be able to WP:V the WP:NPOV of an article from reliable independent sources. Here, there is no independence. The delete !votes correctly referenced independence, whereas the keeps went with "it ticks box X so it is notable regardless of the absence of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although in well-contested cases such as these I wish the closers were required to to include some explanation. To my reading, the vanity press allegation was well rebuffed. The lack of "reliable independent secondary sources" was not. The essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion applies.
  The failure of "no reliable independent secondary sources" to persuade the participants to agree to deletion is no surprise to me, fitting my long standing observation that WP:Notability (the source of the reliable independent secondary sources language) applies different thresholds for different fields. The natural world, non-fringe science, and distant history get an easy run. Profit-making and advocating organisations, and recent events in the popular media are tested more critically. Is this page of scholarly value to the project, or is it surreptitious promotion. I think participants recognised that the 23 year old scholarly journal is not here as surreptitious promotion. And this is why WP:N is only an essay guideline.
  I also think that User:KGirlTrucker81's !vote to merge to a list of journals (my reading) is underappreciated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. (It is however true that it is not applied as strictly in some domains as in others.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse as "no consensus" is easy. Agree that another admin might reasonably have closed as "keep", but as the question remained divisive, I think "no consensus" was the better result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this AfD basically comes down to "Delete, fails WP:GNG" versus "Keep, passes WP:NJOURNALS". Since the former is a widely accepted guideline and the latter an essay with no particular official status I don't see how we can treat these equally. There was very little attempt to argue that the subject passes the GNG - the only person who did was Kingoflettuce. Even if the one source s/he provided is independent of the subject (JzG argued that it wasn't) it's clear that the only "coverage" in it is a few citations to articles published in the journal, which hardly qualifies. Hut 8.5 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I set out detailed thoughts on this subject several years ago in WP:SJ.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's reasonable to expect (or even require) people to pay attention to our notability guidelines but after that they should be permitted to form a view as to whether a topic has appropriate notability for an article. We have different considerations for different aspects of knowledge and S.Marshall's essay is apposite. WP:V and WP:NPOV are different matters and we should not decide to abandon these policies for particular articles. This article makes few claims, none seem to express a point of view that might require to be "balanced". The claims seem to be referenced reliably but if there are other sources giving conflicting information the matter should be reconsidered. I don't see this article as making WP into a directory and it is reasonable to regard the article within itself as not infringing WP:NOTDIR #4 or #5. In short, I wouldn't seek to exclude any of the opinions at AFD. Perhaps after further consideration the nominator could launch a new AFD with a careful rationale (such as presented to this DRV) in place of the earlier rather inappropriate AFD nomination. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The consensus was to keep, based on the standard interpretation of notability criteria in this field. Certainly if people think a separate article is not warranted for a notable subject they have the right to say that, & if that is the consensus in a given case it's still the consensus--the notability guidelines are guidelines and we can make whatever exceptions to them we please, and WP:N says so right at the top, that they do not always apply--and that can be in either direction. But the consensus in this discussion was to use the regular standard, and the view not to was idiosyncratic, DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took me quite a bit of clicking to work out that your "overturn" and my "endorse" are pretty much on the same side of the fence. I think a close of "keep" would also have been within discretion. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. I wonder if the closer (User:Northamerica1000) was ever contacted to explain/expand on the closing comments. In any case, there seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:GNG here - it merely provides a path to notability - it doesn't say when something isn't notable. So if a journal fails WP:GNG but passes WP:NJOURNALS I think it should be kept. That, moreover, has been the position of the community in recent years. To the extent they were played off against each other in this discussion indicates that there was certainly no consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, per DGG and StAnselm. I have just tagged the article to notify editors that it is at DRV and also notified the closer, Northamerica1000, that this discussion of their close is taking place. --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from AfD closer – I'm a bit surprised at how contentious of an area academic journal articles are at this time, as evidenced in this DRV discussion and at the present deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) (WP:NJOURNALS). My basis for the no consensus close was based upon several variables. WP:NJOURNALS is an opinion essay, rather than a guideline, and as such should be considered as it states atop the page:

This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the topic of notability. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Some users at the AfD discussion stated that the topic passes notability guidelines, but provided no sources providing significant coverage in the discussion to back up the claims, others did not address the presence of lack thereof of secondary sources at all, and others stated that secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG is not available. Several users stated that the topic passes WP:NJOURNALS, but provided no rationale as to whether or not the topic meets notability guidelines, which was part of the rationale for deletion in the nomination. Overall, the presence or lack thereof of independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage was only partially addressed in the discussion, with a user who stated in part that the topic "...passes WP:GNG..." and another that stated "Notability is not that bad...". Two other users for deletion stated that significant secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG is not available.

Of note is that sources in the article itself do not provide any significant coverage. In cases such as this, it would be nice if users who claim that WP:GNG is met would provide sufficient evidence to qualify this notion by providing sources in the discussion itself. Only one source was actually provided in the discussion ([23]), which only provides a passing mention. Of course, on Wikipedia it's important to assume good faith in such matters. Users sometimes find sources that others are unable to locate, and users sometimes don't post sources within AfD discussions.

While WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, its points are often referenced in AfD discussions. Journal of Global Information Management being indexed by selective citation indexes, such as Scopus, and other reputable citation indexes, and having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports comes across as carrying some weight relative to the frequency in which the WP:NJOURNALS essay is cited and considered in AfD discussions (see the following custom searches for AfD examples demonstrating this frequency: [Custom search 1], [Custom search 2]). In my opinion, the essay has some merit, but at the end of the day, it remains an opinion essay. However, and conversely, it does state atop WP:N that "occasional exceptions may apply". Overall, I feel that the no consensus closure is the most accurate relative to the overall arguments presented and input received at the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the no-consensus close. WP:NJOURNALS may be an essay, but I think in this case its usage here (especially in view of the parts of NJOURNALS that were cited) is easily readable as a shorthand for "I think that inclusion of this journal in these selective indices meets the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple independent reliable sources about the subject." Such shorthands are exactly what essays are for, and should not be discounted for the fact that their reliance on guidelines is indirect rather than direct. On the other hand, although it would have been within the closer's remit to call this a keep, I don't think the keep opinions had such a high preponderance to justify the suggestions above to overturn to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novelists from Shanghai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The category was deleted eight months ago (along with other "Novelists from..." categories based on first-order divisions of China). However, I would like to request that the matter be reopened. Category:Writers from Shanghai is a sufficiently large category that it really should be diffused by genre, I think, and many other Chinese provinces/special municipalities will also face that situation eventually. I think novelists are a sufficiently distinctive category that it would be a good way to diffuse to start with. (Further geographical diffusions are going to be difficult and not particularly useful, so I think genre diffusion has to be the way to go, unless we want to go for era diffusions, which I also think will be unhelpful given that Shanghai is a modern city and therefore the vast majority of writers from Shanghai will be of PRC origin.) I also think that analogous categories for other first-order divisions (provinces and special municipalities) should be restored, but let's start with discussing about Shanghai, as that category is, as I just mentioned, large and cannot be diffused by geography. Nlu (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion. Categorise them separately under Category:Novelists (subcategorising as required). See Wikipedia:Category intersection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Beware overcategorization. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn Until we have a easy to use and easy to find generally available category intersection system ,we should have whatever prebuilt ones are useful. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (CFD closer). I closed the discussion, and I don't have an opinion really on what the best way to structure this category tree is, though I can understand the nominator's concerns here (as well as the concerns of those who nominated the category for merging in the first place). However, I'd just make a couple of points: (1) The category, as it stands now at least, is not that big. Right now it contains 119 articles, which is what I would regard to be of middling size. It's definitely not too unmanageable: you can still see all of the articles on one categorization page, so it's quite convenient in that respect. However, I recognize that it could potentially grow larger, so this is by no means as large as it's going to get. It's more like as small as it ever will be. (2) User:DGG's opinion that the discussion should be "overturned" pending an easy-to-access category intersection tool makes no sense to me in terms of what happens every single day at CFD, sometimes dozens of times per day. We are not delaying the implementation the consensus-driven results of CFDs until we get a category intersection tool that everyone knows how to use. It's not a result that's even close to being on the table. I'm all for promoting and speaking in favour of dream outcomes, but I think actual outcomes might need to be a bit more pragmatic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I cam to WP I expected to work with categories which are similar to carious library-related devices, but I quickly stopped, because I disagree with the principles used. I see no real prospect of changing them, but when a question comes within my usual work, I give my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Riley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am not sure where to go but this seems as good a place as any. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if I am incorrect. I am here because I keep being told (see below) that this page has a consensus to redirect yet I cannot locate any discussion which from what I read, would have been part of a deletion discussion.

• On October 6, 2016 I removed a redirect for a page and created content instead [24]. In less than 2 hours, an editor named Rayman60 removed my edits and redirected the page to Shazam (service). [25] No rationale was given for reverting my edits; however, the editor left a warning on my talk page stating “Please do not attempt to create the article for Rich Riley as it has been recently decided by consensus that he is not notable enough to warrant an article.”

• Fair enough. I looked at the talk page of the article to find such an agreement amongst editors and saw none. I did further searching and believe – correct me if I am wrong – that a consensus to redirect a page would come from a discussion on deletion. I was unable to find any deletion discussion and nothing on the talk page that would lead me to believe there was one.

• On October 11, 2016, I again added the content to the page [26], leaving an edit comment of “I can't find the consensus you reference on my talk page. Please refer to the talk page here as I'm not sure it should be deleted without such consensus.”

• TWO MINUTES LATER, an editor named Lemongirl942 reverted the edits [27] with an edit comment of “consensus is to redirect this page.”

• Again, I had already asked to see the discussion, but none was provided. Only reverting of my content and then leaving warnings on my talk page [28]. One warning says “You made a bold edit, it was reverted by Rayman60. Now you need to discuss.”

• Lemongirl942 then left a note on the article talk page threatening to block me – “Multiple editors have agreed to redirect here. That is consensus. Now please refrain and stop POV pushing, otherwise you will be blocked.” [29]. The problem? I did discuss it on the talk page. Twice. [30] & [31]. The only discussion came after Lemon girl redirected the page and threatened to block me for what I believe is simply disagreeing with her. [32]

• At this point, I am confused as to how an editor can revert content based on statements they cannot show me (despite asking multiple times), then threaten to block me for not discussing the edits (which I have tried by others have refused to take part in). How do I add content back without the threat of being blocked? Is this considered a deleted page? Has this gone through a deletion discussion where the consensus was to redirect? I would appreciate any answers I can get, hopefully without getting blocked by Lemongirl942 for disagreeing with her. --CraigOv (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be a recent registrant and a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. You are therefore suspected of having a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please declare any conflicts of interests, such as association with Rich Riley or Shazam, on your userpage, at User:CraigOv. Even if no conflicts of interest, it would be nice if you told us something about yourself. You will then be taken more seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Riley&type=revision&diff=733358260&oldid=733358025 07:39, 7 August 2016 User:Lemongirl942 BOLDly "Redirecting to Shazam (service). BLP1E and subject is best known for Shazam". I think that was a good edit by Lemongirl. It was not a pseudodeletion as the material all has a place at the target, Shazam (service). I recommend denying this DRV request, and instead recommending using Talk:Shazam (service) to seek consensus for a spinout article. An important reason for doing this is to avoid content forking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This discussion is not about a deletion and the appropriate forum for a discussion is the talk page, as SmokeyJoe suggests. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are two reasons.

First, there is significant new information that shows the subject is notable. After the original article was deleted, NBC News ran a primetime special on the subject.

Trailer: https://www.instagram.com/p/BMnDkslA3wi/ Full Episode: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode-the-man-who-knew-too-much-812427331656

Second, the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted it incorrectly. There was no consensus reached that the general notability guideline was not satisfied.

Two users said "Delete" because there were no reliable independent sources. Then a user said "Keep" and posted nine sources. These were very strong sources, such as the BBC.

After the sources were posted, nobody responded, so the admin "Sandstein" relisted the discussion. I said "Keep," and so did other unregistered users.

The only new support for "Delete" came from a user who said he "tried his best" but couldn't find the sources. He must not have read the beginning of the discussion, where the URLs were all posted.

Nobody ever criticized the sources that were posted, so no consensus for "Delete" could exist. If anything, the consensus was to "Keep."

I explained this problem to the admin who deleted the article, and he told me to create a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_20#Afd_Clinton_Ehrlich

I hope this article can now be restored, like the rules require. Thank you. ReinhardStove (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't know what's the play here. I am the editor who said she "tried her best". All keep !votes were spammy. The current source(s) mentioned are a waste of time, whether BBC or NBC (sorry for saying that, but as volunteers, it's frustrating to see our time wasted on clicking links that don't even have a mention of the subject). Might I suggest that you first read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specially the verifiability policy and the guideline about reliable sources? Please don't hesitate to ask me for any assistance on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• When you analyse that debate in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and disregard those !votes which are inappropriate, you've got an absolutely crystal clear consensus to delete. I endorse MBisanz' accurate reading of the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per WP:ROUTINE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:109PAPERS. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: There is no valid basis to overturn the outcome of the AfD, which clearly followed valid consensus. Many silly things such as twerking and planking and phonebooth stuffing become notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the news coverage died down when Fidel Castro kicked the bucket. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @KATMAKROFAN: Well, "whatever liquid was in the bucket must've been wiped clean by the trend" ^∞ Target360YT ^∞ (talk · contribs) 15:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the Delete side argued particularly badly here, but ultimately all the places the OP links to above boil down to judgement calls and the judgement of people in that discussion was overwhelmingly that we should have an article about the subject. Hut 8.5 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse not news is a potential argument here, but consensus went (strongly) the other way. Correctly IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear consensus. Even if not kept, it would be a merge and redirect, "delete" is not plausible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was clear, and the profile of the challenge has only gotten higher and more notable since that !vote, with Presidential candidates, First Lady, White House, Taylor Swift, etc. participating. Questionable judgment to list it here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, for most of a week, it had more than 100,000 pageviews per day, showing people were seeking out this article and reading it. [33]. It also links to seven other languages, giving some indication that other language communities have found it notable. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ru.wiki article has two tags at the top that look like Russian versions of {{notability}} and {{refimprove}}, and most of the other 6 are either stubs or translated from the en.wiki article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that at least six other individuals from other language communities deemed it significant enough to have an article. I don't understand this crusade that you are on, that has now spread to you nominating an entire navbox on Internet challenges for deletion - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_1#Template:Challenges Can you please explain your disdain for everything related to this article? You are very much in the minority. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, close was in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh, but endorse. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first. There's no way this could be closed any other way given the discussion. The job of the person closing a discussion is to summarize the consensus of the members of the community who showed up to express an opinion, and in this case that consensus was clearly to keep. But, this article is a poster-child for WP:RECENTISM. I realize the horse is out of the barn already (and miles down the road, in the next county), but our job shouldn't be to record the latest internet memes and trending social phenomena. Yet, that's where we seem to be these days. It's a sad commentary on the state of the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bit dramatic to say that just because Wikipedia records Internet memes as well as art, culture, science, traditional areas of scholarship that it is "sad." If the White House and presidential candidates have participated in it, isn't it just fine to say, "Seems goofy, but it's notable, and I'm glad people 50 years from now will read about it and the possible cultural impact it's had?" -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant endorse. The discussion could not have reasonably closed any other way. As User:RoySmith says, this is recentism at its finest. The concept has created an internet meme, and just like the ice bucket challenge and the range of other things that go crazy on the internet for a few weeks, nobody will care about it in a year's time. Suggest renominating a little down the road. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: As per discussion above. Goharshady (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Per majority of views on this discussion. ^∞ Target360YT ^∞ (talk · contribs) 15:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per lack of reasoning. Simply linking to two guidelines and an essay isn't something that's going to overturn consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]