Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October

Dinclix GroundWorks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article followed G11 and A7 guidelines, also WAS NOT written in a promotional or advertising tone. A discussion is needed before deleting the article. Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (IST)

• Endorse A7 only, does not explain why the company might be notable or important. I didn't find it to be advertising. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7, as above. Content isn't obvious advertising, but does fail to assert notability in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the A7, the text didn't contain any indication of significance or notability. There were a number of inline citations but all to pages written by the company (aside from one which doesn't mention them at all), so I don't think that is enough to avoid A7. While it has the odd slightly promotional sentence I don't think it was a G11 candidate. Hut 8.5 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. User_talk:DMacks#Deletion_of_Dinclix_GroundWorks was a reasonable discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm not really seeing the G11, but deletion on A7 grounds was certainly proper, and still is, although the article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinclix GroundWorks, which will also likely have an outcome of deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dominick Lazzara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It was turn into a draft by another admin, to allow me to work on it. I should be given that opportunity, or at least move it into my user space. BrianRFSU 00:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• comment I did all that, moving to draft and also deleting the page. So it was the same admin. Since the content was copied from a web site, it was deleted as a copyright problem. Even if you prove that you are the copyright holder the text is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The page was unsuitable as an article. So I suggest that you write the content from scratch in the draft, leaving out promotional text, using independent references to provide information about the content and making it look more like an encyclopedia entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sir. After you moved it, it was retagged for SD by another admin. BrianRFSU 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)

• The page here appears to be Draft:Domenick Lazzara, which was deleted under G12 as a copyright violation of this. After it was restored by Graeme Bartlett User:JJMC89 tagged it for speedy deletion (this user isn't an admin) and then Graeme Bartlett deleted it. We can't have copyright violations anywhere on Wikipedia, including in draft or user space, and the page was indeed a copyright violation of that link, so this was entirely proper. I suggest you follow the above and rewrite the content in your own words using neutral, non-promotional language. The chances of deletion review restoring a promotional copyright violation are basically nil. Hut 8.5 17:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as the name this is filed with is literally the Draft and that will never be restored at all therefore case closed, because I explicitly found it to be copyvio hence my tag; as for the articlespace Domenick Lazzarra, there's nothing substantial there to actually restore either. The best option here is WP:AFC but that will both need actual content and substance for notability and absolutely no copyvio. There's nothing from the opening statement that suggests we need an actual consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Copyvios cannot be on the site. Not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, but do not copy text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

the subject of this page has gained more notability and is now Technology Journalist for an International Newspaper - Morocco World News 43.248.241.248 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the AfD. It was a straight-forward close based on the participants' comments, but it's entirely possible more sources have emerged. Could you please list the best two or three sources here, so people can evaluate them? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source here: https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/author/peer-viqar-ul-aslam/ 196.207.110.28 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally a bio profile, that's not independent news about him, nor is it substance; we will need far better than that for any chances of notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more I found: http://www.kashmirlife.net/of-apps-and-kashmiri-techies-96720/ 196.207.110.28 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.risingkashmir.com/news/excm-failed-to-solve-disappearance-casesapdp this too 196.207.110.28 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion nothing here warrants overturning a community consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

A long time ago, Zoffy's page was deleted and turned into a redirect due to lacking reliable source. I have met the person in charge of the deletion/redirection, User:Mark Arsten and he agreed that if I provide a reliable source, the deletion can be overturned. Here's a draft page of my version of Zoffy's page. User:Zero stylinx/sandbox/Zoffy Zero stylinx (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the AfD was three years ago, wasn't well attended (two participants including the nominator), and the deleted article didn't cite any sources at all. The draft does have some citations and isn't as reliant on in-universe plot summary as the original. While I don't think I can give a proper evaluation of Japanese sources quite a few seem to be to blogs or to fictional works featuring the character, which won't fare well at AfD. I think there is enough here to justify reopening the issue though, even if it's just another AfD. Hut 8.5 08:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only regret is how past Wikipedians endlessly creating articles without proper retribution. Oh and that blog you just watch mostly refers to the Tsuburaya Productions' official blog. I wish things can be considered as quick as possible, whether it's rejected or accepted. Zero stylinx (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The draft fails WP:WAF. If you can make it comply with WP:WAF, while maintaining attribution to sources, then it will be notable, otherwise no. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Ultraman#Zoffy exists and is not very long. Not long enough to justify a wp:spinout. If you disagree, the place to make the case is at Talk:Ultraman. The only discussion about Zoffy, at Talk:Ultraman#Who_is_Zoffy.3F, does not look indicative of a case for a spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The relatively concise treatment at [[1]] is more appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia than the draft, which is really just a pile of plot details and sub-trivia. That level of detail is better for a fan website or a fan wiki. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted as an attack page while an AfD was still on. Better thing to have done would have been to remove any attacks and let the AfD continue. pbp 20:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article pending AfD and keep the current AfD running/relist. Deleting it per a questionable G10 when there were other options and when some editors thought that it was notable enough to be kept just muddies the water. I plan to keep my delete !vote at AfD, but I don't think speedy was the right way to go here at all because it was not clear cut, and anything that was unsourced could have been removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I nominated the article for G10. To be clear, I wasn't trying to disrupt the very legitimate AfD, though I do believe this was an attack page so I felt obligated to report it. Despite its facially serious tone, the article was inherently overwhelmingly a vehicle to poke fun at and disparage a living person, and qualified for G10 per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. No amount of trimming would salvage it, in my view. WP:ATTACK isn't just for false/unverifiable information. It's also for pages that "exist primarily to disparage" their subjects, and the type of humor encapsulated by this page (and by the cited sources) was by and large about laughing at Trump, rather than laughing with him. All in good fun to be sure, but at Donald Trump's expense. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I think a better course of action would have been for you to say what you just said at the AfD. pbp 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, here and here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair to be regularly processed; 41 contributors plus those who contributed to the article did not see the need to speedy it at all, only one single non-contributing Wikipedian who already has an administrative American politics warning rushed to speedy without WP:G10 or WP:ATTACK being the case here. (Certainly NPOV can always be improved - as on any other article relating to the current presidential elections...) --SI 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the warning put on Dr. Fleischman's user page is just a generic warning, and specifically says that it does not "imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." My understanding is that all editors (or maybe new ones) working on articles in the relevant category get that warning. JasperTECH (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try assuming good faith, Schmarrnintelligenz. I could just as well say you're simply retaliating since I just left you the same alert over a different matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - Despite being on the "delete" side, I think this article should get a fair trial, and would not be an inherently insulting article in and of itself, even if it had anti-Trump POV problems. The hair gallery could have been removed, for instance. JasperTECH (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion When I first read the article, something just didn't sit right with me though I couldn't identify it. I concur that the article's purpose was to disparage Mr. Trump and his follicles, and thus meets the definition of an attack page. I would also note that as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, administrators are not allowed to restore the article without a clear consensus to do so, and the burden is on those who want it restored to demonstrate that it does not violate policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and let the AfD run its course, even if I think it should be deleted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion and keep deleted, attack page on a BLP subject, and attack content should be removed on sight. Waiting an additional number of days would not be the right thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse  Two weeks before the election?  Get real.  To whatever extent this was out of process, if any, WP:IAR applies for the rest.  There is probably a valid article to be had on this topic once Trump concedes, which may never happen.  Sounds like it would be a good idea to start from scratch.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and allow the process to be completed. I agree with most here that no need for a separate article was demonstrated, but I had thought the best result for this might end up being a selective merge to the existing section at Donald Trump, with the possibility of later creating a more focused article on something like Public image of Donald Trump (see Category:Public image of American politicians for similar articles). While there's always the risk of attack edits, I don't think the subject is inherently an attack topic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore pending AfD. It is reasonably NPOV. To see it as an attack page requires assuming that anything discussing his personal characteristic must inherently be an attack, which semsabsurd. (I !voted to delete at the discussion, but that's not relevant here.) DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and let the AfD discussion continue, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore pending AfD. I don't agree that this is an attack page, it's about as NPOV as such a thing could be. As others stated on the AfD, Trump himself frequently perpetuates interest by bringing it up on talk shows, rallies, and wrestling shows.LM2000 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't say I would have allowed for G10 deletion, but I cannot fault RHaworth for having done it. I believe, as I said on RHaworth's talk page, that this is kind of an attack page by proxy--I doubt it was created with much evil intent in mind, but the sourcing, these articles on Trump's hair, are tongue in cheek to say the least if not downright satirical at least in some cases, and thus the article, NPOV as it may be in its presentation of the material brought forth by the sources, is itself a kind of attack page. I am very sorry to disagree with DGG and other editors in whom I have great faith, but I do endorse this as within an administrator's discretion. What's more, the real-world triviality of the topic (let's get serious here) doesn't help the case for "regular" process, and while I never thought I'd be defending Trump against bodyshaming (I find it hard to type this very sentence), that's really what's going on here. The Hillary shimmy would be different--but this is negative, even if it is well-written and masked as NPOV.

  To press the point a bit, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints", and it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that Trump's hair is discussed only, or predominantly, by those with a particular viewpoint. So arguing that this is a BLP violation dangerously close to a page that is "negative in tone" (from the G10 rationale) is not crazy. RHaworth stuck their neck out, and I endorse their action, in the spirit of what I think the BLP should do. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore AfD There's no basis for speedy delete under any of the tests of G10. Trump proudly draws attention to his own hair. He's joked about it and invited supporters to grab and pull it at rallies. He refers to it often. The two deletions were really off-base. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• QUESTION How on earth can an article specifically calling negative attention to a single body part of a living person possibly NOT be an attack page? I'm really baffled by the logic here. An article on, say, Rosie O'Donnell's fat rolls would be (quite rightly) deleted within seconds, no AFD needed. Most of us aren't Trump fans here on Wikipedia and while it's fine to hold and vocalise that opinion, it's another thing entirely to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack, shame, and belittle a living person, even one we don't necessarily admire. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator clearly did not see it as an attack page, even accusing those of us who think it should be deleted as demonstrating an anti-Trump bias [2]. I recognize a page has implications beyond the what the creator intended, but I don't see this page as meeting the description in WP:ATTACK. The intent of the article creator has to be taken into account here, and by all her statements, she seems to be if anything pro-Trump (my extrapolation from the bias claim.) I fully support the deletion of this article because it is probably the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen on Wikipedia, but I don't think it is an attack page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno how much weight we can place on the creator's say-so though. The typical response getting caught doing anything wrong is simple denial. For example, every spammer insists their spam isn't spam, even when it quite obviously is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the diff I cited sounds too much like "it's rigged" for me to think she created the article to disparage Trump. In the end, I hope this article gets deleted, but I'd hate it if Wiki somehow becomes part of the lamestream media and gave more people on and off Wiki excuse to complain, which is a large part of why I think the G10 was a bad idea. It's at best borderline G10, and I think letting it play out at AfD is best, especially with there being a fair amount of support for keeping it there before the CSD tag was placed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Listen, I'm as process oriented as anyone. And I'm no Trump supporter. And maybe, in the fullness of time, we'll have this article. But we have a short-term problem and our regular-speed processes aren't going to deal with it. Just like we deleted Michelle Obama's Arms as an article, this too needs to go. And given the timeframe of the election, it needs to go now. It's a questionable G10 from what I can see, but given the situation I think it's the right one, at least until the election is over. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TROUT the speedy deleting admins. Looking at the cached copy, it was not even close to WP:CSD#G10, and it was not in violation of WP:BLP. It was arguably ridiculous, or in Wikipedia-jargon, a gross WP:DUE violation. Appropriate coverage exists at Donald_Trump#Hair, and the bold spinout is not justified by any talk page discussion, Talk:Donald_Trump#Donald_Trump.27s_hair is clearly not consensus in support. Administrators should be more conservative in using administrator privileges to trump ongoing community discussion. The AfD should be allowed to run its course, but in my opinion the AfD is ready for immediate close of something between "delete" and "merge and redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. I think there is no BLP of G10 reason to delete the history, WP:UNDUE versions are tolerated in page histories, and some of it might be relevant to a hypothetical new proposal at Talk:Donald_Trump in favour of a spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy because "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."[3] and to ignore this rule is an abuse of administrative discretion. Thincat (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:IAR and relist after election day. This is a political matter and Wikipedia needs to rise above it. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The speedy deletion as A7/G11 was in my opinion incorrect and the AfD should instead run for the full 7 days. None of the arguments in the AfD say anything about speedy deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What you are contesting is not the AfD closure, but the speedy deletion that led to the administrative closure of the AfD. You'd need to make an argument for why the speedy deletion was wrong on its merits.  Sandstein  06:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This was tagged for CSD by SwisterTwister after the AFD had started. That is really not good form, but having looked at the text and given the fact that this hasn't a hope in hell of surviving I'd give this a Meh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for CSD ... after the AFD had started. That is really not good form. - hmm, may I ask why? If it was (say) a WP:G1 I would imagine that the AfD nominator must have considered the speedy options and rejected them, hence one should abstain; but for a spam article, I do not see why. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and deletion as the article in fact met speedy A7 and G11, the AfD itself actually had enough comments showing it was not notable so there's nothing to actually contest here. When the time comes that there's enough substance coverage, a Draft can be started at WP:AFC. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag it when it was already at AFD and heading for deletion? Note to closing admin that SwisterTwister was summoned here by my prompt. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Google cache isn't pulling up anything (gave an error for me), could we get a temp undelete please? Hobit (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, it was spam, and not just spam but spam written in near-nonsensical manager-babble (first line: "MacroGeo is the first global independent research provider to organically conjugate macrofinancial and geopolitical analysis by adopting an original heuristic approach, which is systematic and holistic at once."). Completely unacceptable, and there is absolutely zero chance this would have been kept at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Unquestionably valid G11. I will often temp undelete for Del Rev, but this is too blatant . I've sometimes done speedies similarly, but usually a close as speedy or sbow delete within the AfD is preferable. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In addition to meeting WP:A7 ( No indication of importance) and WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), this also meets WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement), with whole paragraphs copy-pasted from the company's web site home page. Sorry, no tempundelete. We should probably be looking at Carlo De Benedetti and Brunello Rosa too. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with Spartaz that speedying something that's already at AfD is bad form, but considering this hits the WP:CSD trifecta, I really can't work up much worse than meh on that score. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD:A7 on something at AfD is bad form. Others, G10, G12, should be applied regardless. G11, not sure. The page was to be deleted. Is there a longer running issue here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Draft:MacroGeo to MacroGeo. I have created a draft at Draft:MacroGeo using two sources:
  1. "De Benedetti punta sulla ricerca e lancia la società Macrogeo". La Stampa (in Italian). 2016-09-15. Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. Retrieved 2016-10-24.
  2. Occorsio, Eugenio (2016-09-15). ""Macrogeo", il think-tank che spiega i legami fra finanza e geopolitica". la Repubblica (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2016-10-24. Retrieved 2016-10-24.
  Cunard (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That draft certainly gets rid of the promotional language, but there's so little left, it really seems like a WP:A7 candidate itself. All the article says is that the company exists, who started it, and what it intends to do. And it cites two sources which (working from the translations) look like press releases. In fact, the article in La Stampa says, The official launch of MacroGeo is scheduled for January 2017, so it doesn't even really exist yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article draft would not be an WP:A7 candidate because it cites two Italian newspapers that discuss it in detail. I searched for quotes from the two articles and did not find the quotes in any press releases. I am fine with publishing the draft in January 2017 or later after the official launch happens when there likely will be more reliable coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse very clear G11 and I think a justifiable A7 as well. This was obviously promotional language of the kind I would expect to find on the company website, and removing the promotion would have left almost nothing. I don't have a problem with someone speedying an article sent to AfD if it clearly meets one of the CSD. @Hobit: the text is archived here. Hut 8.5 12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy and note that it was indeed a speedy deletion and not a deletion following a discussion. The closer's statement made this clear. Anyone should be allowed to create a new article on this topic. Thincat (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy- there is no way this is getting undeleted. The AfD was heading inevitably to a delete consensus. Even if we ignore the fact that this was a valid speedy, what is the point of undeleting temporarily only to re-delete in a few days when the AfD closes? That would be pointless bureaucracy. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy - having accessed the text by Hut 8.5's link, this was an obvious prom-only article so at least G11 stands. I would imagine that a conservative admin on a good day could refuse a A7 but it totally was within admin discretion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse G11 I don't buy the A7 argument (there are a lot of claims of notability), but it's clearly promotional. Thanks Hut for the link. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with moving the draft to mainspace, but I don't think the draft would make it through AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Revolution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Re-proposing a completely new version of the page, due to subject having become more notable. At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution, JohnCD has advised me to request undeletion here that in case the new proposal of the page gets through, this will make it easier to post it. He says, the involved admin is retired. However, I will inform the others involved in the 2009 deletion. Also, Robert McClenon says at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to re-propose previously deleted article we should undelete the 2009 version of the page for comparison with the new, current version. Hence this request.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is actually a request for Requests for Undeletion rather than for deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that I have failed to communicate some details. Can you assist me at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution? Thanks Robert McClenon.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Khemadhammo - I don't think that undeletion is needed, because the merge has done what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the original article is so old, there is no overlapping history between it and Draft:Peace Revolution, and the draft is substantially different and well-sourced, I have performed a history merge, moving the deleted article history into the draft article. This DRV entry may be closed, because it satisfies the needs of the requester. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Amatulić and Robert McClenon. Too bad the draft didn't get through.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Khemadhammo: They often don't get through on the first try. That isn't the end of it. The reviewer explained how it needs to be improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Amatulić!--S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Amatulić is correct: a draft being rejected once does not mean the topic can never have an article. People frequently submit drafts prematurely, but a rejected draft can still be further improved and then potentially accepted if it's improved enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was non-admin closed as keep citing WP:NALBUM point 2. However, the closer did not take into account the rest of the notability guideliner that states that the subject "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The point about the coverage was explicitly called out by user:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in the discussion and even persuaded one of the keep !voters to acknowledge they were okay with a redirect. The close as keep is inconsistent with teh actual guideline cited and seems to be a bit of a supervote on the part of the closer. Additionally, even counting up the !votes, the discussion had 1 delete (nominator), 2 keeps and 2 redirects with one of the keep !voters also being okay with redirect. I am requesting that this discussion be overturned and closed as a redirect. Note that I left a note on the closer's talk page but it appears they may be on vation or otherwise not editting as there has been no response for over a week. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ENDORSE Overturn (my apologies). The closer clearly does not understand the guideline cited. The points listed on WP:NALBUM are NOT automatic indicators of notability. General notability requirements must be met. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you endorsing the close or saying that it should have been something other than keep? Sorry, just trying to be clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NALBUM allows for an article about an album that charted. It charted, so let's keep it. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Also, Whpq put this on my talk page as "closer" for some reason when I was just one person who added an opinion.) NALBUM lists things that would indicate prima facie notability, i.e. would a reader plausibly look for this? It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something. It could have reasonably closed IMO as a keep or a merge-and-redirect, but either way there's no good reason to overturn this close - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top 10 music video (on VHS even), not really close to a Hot 100 equivalent chart. No one in the world talks about these types of charts anywhere except the trade magazines ranking sales. Charting ≠ notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NALBUM Charting does not imply notability; charting only indicates that it may be notable. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject the recording is not presumed to be notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something.--88marcus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and redirect. The consensus was split between keep and redirect, and David Gerard had noted that he would have been open to a redirect. Relisting would also have been an okay option, but I think a keep close wasn't warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and feel free to start merge discussion on the talk page Meets a SNG which is enough as long as there is support in the discussion. I'd probably have closed as merge personally and I think that's likely the right outcome. But close was reasonable given the situation and the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD nominator was apparently mistaken in thinking it hadn't charted. If it made #9 on the video chart, well, there's not a lot left to argue about really. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The WP:SUPERVOTE issue is clear, because discounting the nomination (based on erroneous info) and the first keep (a WP:PERX that could charitably be counted as half a !vote), the other keep agrees with a redirect.

This being said, is there really a consensus for redirecting? I think not, and the discussion above borders on AfD round 2. Relisting would have been reasonable (read: that is what I would have done) and the debate is not dead - so let's relist! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to redirect -- a technical SNG pass does not guarantee a stand-alone article. It gets the subject included in the encyclopedia, but it's generally best to put the subjects that lack sources discussing it directly and in detail on a respective encyclopedic list, which existed in this case and already included relevant information about the subject. Overall, it's not a big deal, although my preference is not to set a precedent of keeping articles where sources are insufficient to build a reasonable article per WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No obvious consensus for any result at the moment, IMO. Not suitable for a non-admin to close this (per WP:BADNAC), and I'd assume if an admin was in the process of closing the AfD, they'd simply relist it at the current point in time. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original article was deleted in 2009 as it was deemed that the artist was not notable. It looks like in the meantime he has had extensive coverage in the international press: Washington Post, Daily Mail and two articles in the Guardian newspaper. Other artists have individual pages with less press coverage. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This artist has had multiple coverage on different occasions from reliable independent international newspapers. He is also notable as he is the founder or the Cambridge Stuckists, a widely known international art movement. see the links for the artist on the page that should be re-instated: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udaiyan&oldid=744127825

I believe that the user who deleted/redirected the page is no longer active - so i can't add the note: DRVNote|Udaiyan

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Modernist 217.33.181.41 (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unless you can cite the exact sources about him here, which should have been offered alongside with this statement, because there is nothing to suggest we can in fact have a convincing article and there is not inherited notability simply because some news sources exist or in that they are simply from known news sources, and how he has founded his own company now. Also, as an artist, the best shots of notability would be permanent museum collections. If these new soufces can be listed, I may reconsider. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus at AfD was clear, and there is nothing new that would need for it to be relisted. Like ST, I'd be open to reconsideration if additional sources can be brought here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation Here is a short list of references post 2009 about the artist Udaiyan. The newspaper articles indicates that he is known in the art world.

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's painting Saatchi & Saatchi 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2014/jun/30/painting-nigella-lawson-throttled-charles-saatchi-art-world-joke

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/paintings-of-nigella-lawson-being-throttled-for-sale-on-charles-saatchi-s-website-9571263.html Article in the Independent newspaper

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/10933550/Paintings-of-Nigella-Lawson-being-throttled-for-sale-on-Saatchi-website.html Article in the Daily Telegraph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673457/For-sale-Saatchis-art-website-bizarre-paintings-mock-Nigella-Lawson-throttling.html Article in the Daily Mail https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/30/nigella-lawsons-ex-is-selling-paintings-of-him-choking-her/ Article in the Washington Post

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's portrait of him in 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/mar/17/art-portrait-stuckism,

Biography of Darren Udaiyan on the Hepatitis C Trust 2016 (Art on a Postcard) http://www.artonapostcard.com/darren-udaiyan/

http://www.stuckism.com/Udaiyan/index.html Profile of Darren Udaiyan on the Stuckism Website

Also the original reinstater wanted this page reinstated which has no mention about any company: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udaiyan&oldid=744127825 (Note: The original article was deleted in 2009, but this page was created in 2016 but was autodeleted as it didn't go through deletion review). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional References Here is a list of exhibitions with references which includes Museum exhibitions and a Unesco exhibition.

Artists's own page http://www.udaiyan.com/profile.html

ATHENSART INTERNATIONAL ARTS FESTIVAL IZMAIL/UKRAINE 2012 at the Odessa Art Museum ref: https://issuu.com/ca4s/docs/ecatalogueizmail/146

An Hero - A celebration of Beauty. Solo Exhibition. Curated by D. Udaiyan, Oct 13-19 2010 Nolias Gallery, London.

Enemies of Art Show - Group show at the XVIII JESUS LANE Gallery - curated by D. Udaiyan, Cambridge, Mar 17 - Mar 24 2010. This is mentioned in the Guardian newspaper. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/mar/17/art-portrait-stuckism,.

Art on a Postcard Secret Auction 2016 to raise funds for The Hepatitis C Trust. Soho Revue, London, Nov 2016, ref: http://www.artonapostcard.com/

Gargling Sky of Gergeri, Unesco's The International Year of Astronomy 2009 - curated by Polyxene Kasda, Chrysa Vathainaki, Pierre Chirouze, Donatella Bisutti. Aug 2009 Gergeri, Municipality of Rouvas, Crete, Greece. ref: http://uraniasgardens.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/gargling-sky-gergeri-2009_01.html

Art In Mind - Group show at Brick Lane Gallery - curated by Tony Taglianetti. Brick Lane, London, Nov 24-Dec 7 2009 ref: http://www.thebricklanegallery.com/Art_in_Mind_NovemberPT2_09.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse regardless of the sources above. The AfD was closed fair and square, without any extra protection (WP:SALT or something). If new sources do establish notability, recreation is allowed by default. Even sources from before the AfD but that were not brought up there would be enough to recreate (if demonstrating notability). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse All the reference and sources listed above are New. The article was originally deleted in 2009 so all the newspaper references in 2010, 2014, 2016 are new. So as Tigraan said: 'If new sources do establish notability, recreation is allowed by default.' But, the article was deleted 'fair and square' 7 years ago maybe that is the end of that article even if new sources appear in the meantime. If that is the case then the deletion should be endorsed. Note: the deletion discussion is here i believe: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Udaiyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Actually, re-reading the newspaper references cited above, I'm concluding that the sources just indicate a minor controversial artist of the Stuckist movement and doesn't merit a standalone article. So leave as it is with the redirection to Stuckist artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N. Balasubramaniam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is true that there is no consensus to grant ambassadors inherent notability. However, it is also true that there is no consensus not to grant them inherent notability. The issue is certainly not cut and dried and the debate on it has ground to a stalemate several times, with supporters on both sides. A number of editors consider that, as top-level representatives of their country, all ambassadors should be treated in the same way that politicians who have sat for one day in a national or sub-national legislature are treated (note that it has been argued by different opponents of this view that this should not apply both because some ambassadors are political appointees and because most ambassadors are career diplomats and are not elected, as though elected politicians are somehow inherently more notable than people with long and distinguished careers! I'm not sure why either should be the case, but that's not at issue here). Failing that, they consider that at least ambassadors to and from major countries or who have had long ambassadorial careers in several different postings should be granted this notability. In addition, this particular individual (as director-general of the foreign office) appears to me to fall into the second criterion given under WP:POLOUTCOMES, which does illustrate a general consensus to keep such senior sub-cabinet officials. Given all this, these AfDs come down purely to a matter of opinion and it was wrong for the closer to give less weight to the keep opinions, as they admit to having done. This was a clear no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: As outlined in the AfD, I think that closers must not only count heads – opinions in this AfD were divided – but that they must also weigh the strength of the arguments made, and that the basis on which to do so is the wider community consensus codified in our policies and guidelines. The issue about which editors disagreed here – whether ambassadors should be considered inherently notable – is one that has apparently been frequently discussed, and my reading of these discussions is that there has never been consensus at the community level to assume such inherent notability. I think that this broader global consensus (or lack thereof) must inform my closure of a divided local discussion among very few people. As to WP:POLOUTCOMES, it is an essay and therefore does not represent any project-wide consensus, and it must therefore be disregarded when weighing arguments. In any case, the non-ambassador aspect of the biography was only peripherally discussed. Accordingly I maintain the view that my "delete" closure was appropriate.  Sandstein  08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just about counting heads, but it's also not just about ignoring views that don't parrot policies and guidelines, especially where there has been so much debate on a subject. To claim that the keep arguments were not as strong on this basis is ridiculous. Re WP:POLOUTCOMES: not true; although an essay, it does illustrate broad consensus, is commonly taken to do so by editors (including closing admins), and should not just be ignored in this cavalier fashion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If the question of inherent notability for ambassadors had never been discussed before this AfD, I would be arguing that the result should be overturned to "no consensus". But it has been discussed, over and over again, and a reliable consensus has been established (and reflected in guideline language) that ambassadors are not inherently notable. The AfD closer was correct to rely on this wider consensus when weighing the arguments made. It would have taken a better-attended, better-argued, and much more decisive discussion than the one we are currently reviewing to overturn that established consensus. Thparkth (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, would love to see this so-called "reliable consensus" that ambassadors are not inherently notable. All I've seen in a number of debates is no consensus either way. If there was such a consensus then I would agree with you. There is none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there's no consensus that ambassadors are automatically notable does not mean that an article has to be kept because of the "lack" of a separate corollary consensus officially establishing that they're not — if there's no consensus that says they are, then that fact in and of itself is all the consensus required. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- When one side of the debate relies entirely on "inherent notability" (which does not exist), and the other side discusses the lack of sourcing, it's clear which side should be given more weight. Reyk _YO! 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I completely agree with Necrothesp that ambassadors to major states should be considered notable. But unfortunately the consensus is otherwise. It is not wrong to bring up the argument again from time to time to see if consensus is changing, but it seems clear that this is not happening. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there is no consensus that diplomatic officers posted in "major countries" are automatically notable. You might think there should be, but there's not, and such a proposal would be highly controversial. Arguments appealing to this non-existent agreement, as well as argumentatum ad inclusionism, were properly ignored. Perhaps this person is notable per WP:N, but nobody in the discussion made that case. Good close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse not the outcome I'd prefer, but I agree with DGG here. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As I've always said in AFDs on diplomats, ambassadors are accepted as notable if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG — but they are not accepted as "inherently notable" in the sense of getting a special exemption from having to be properly sourceable. (No class of topic ever actually gets that type of exemption.) As I noted in this discussion, diplomats are still real people, whose lives and reputations can be harmed if we get stuff wrong, and Wikipedia badfaithers have created WP:HOAX articles about diplomats who never actually existed at all — so just like any other class of people, diplomats have to be reliably sourced to media coverage to earn their keep, and cannot be given an automatic "keep because diplomat, sourceability be damned" pass. But the "coverage" here wasn't about him in the substantive manner necessary to properly support a Wikipedia article about him — it was sourced entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, and that is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person over GNG regardless of their occupation. And while there may be a valid case that ambassadors should be treated as senior sub-cabinet officials for the purposes of WP:NPOL, that argument actually backfires on its proponent in a way they didn't expect: senior sub-cabinet officials are also accepted as notable if they can be properly sourced over GNG, but they are not given a "keep because existence, no sourcing required" freebie either — we quite regularly delete articles about "senior sub-cabinet officials" if they can't be sourced properly. (And even for the elected legislators, they're kept because they're sourceable, not because serving in a legislature grants them an exemption from sourceability — it's the sourcing that gets them in the door, not the unsourced claim of serving as a legislator.) Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec Endpoint Protection (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article doesn't meet with wikipedia guidelines for the long time. The article is promotive, we need to consider this page for deletion WikiGopi (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC) -->[reply]

Gloucester dory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Salvidrim closed an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gloucester_dory, to merge, against the little consensus present, and adding an unrelated article, not discussed at all to the mergers. Could you have a look?

This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. was posed to Swampscott dory's page; which you can see at a glance was not tagged for deletion, and which you can see at an only slightly longer glance, is not a close relative of the subject he wishes to merge it to. —S Marshall T/C 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If it stirs less shit to overturn to no consensus and open an actual merger discussion I frankly DGAF (and I've said as much in my AfD closure). I don't think the AfD needs to be overturned for a subsequent merge discussion to happen anyways though. And I certainly don' think we need a AfD, an AN thread, an ANI thread, and a DRV discussions when a simple merge discussion would've been better upfront but we are where we are. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What's really being contested here anyways is the addition of a merger tag to one of the sub-articles (which Anmccaff has reverted many times and which I can't be assed to edit war forever over, so it's now gone). He doesn't even recognize that the AfD ended up being about the three sub-articles, let alone formulate a coherent argument against the closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you DGAF, then you certainly should not be doing drive-by AfD closures. That, and your cavalier edit-warring, was why this started at ANI, not here. Based on your actions since, I suspect this is a competence question rather than malice.

user:Salvidrim added a peripherally involved, undiscussed article to the AfD, which is the question at hand. Swampscott dory was not part of the discussion, except in passing, and was not tagged to notify interested parties. There was, and is, no reason to delete Swampscott dory, and next to none to merge it to Banks dory While it's certainly an ancestor of the bankers, it has a separate notable -and far longer -history of its own. Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm down. AfDs are supposed to be closed by previously uninvolved people, so I don't understand the objection to a "drive-by closure". Salvidrim's actions in enforcing his close are normal and proportional because a discussion close is an administrative action; unilaterally overturning the close using the "revert" button is a pretty extreme thing to do, and questioning his competence is definitely beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour here.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly calm, thanks. There is a real difference between disinterested and uninterested. The closer needs to see that the issues raised have been discussed -as opposed to simply voted on. The closer should also not widen the discussion, inaccurately tagging articles as subject to a successful Afd. As to the other issue, we'll have to agree to disagree. Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but... The AfD close was proper. However, it may have overstepped its bounds in suggesting that un-nominated articles should be merged as a result of the AfD. I suggest reducing any tags on articles other than Gloucester dory to being just merge-to tags, rather than the merge-as-result-of-AfD tags. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with that, but the only reason I didn't do it this way is because the merge-to tag implies that I AM proposing the merge, which is false: the AfD is. Plus, I agree the AfD didn't start out as a multi-nom, but I argue that as you scroll down the discussion it becomes crystal clear most commenters see it as a group discussion about the three sub-articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Merge to}} says "It has been suggested that." It doesn't really ascribe who made the suggestion; all it says is the suggestion has been made, so here's where to talk about it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse in the same vein as C.Fred. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why, exactly? There is, so far, a single member of the AfD discussion proposing this...or rather a non-participant in the discussion, since this was a bit of a drive-by closing. There isn't a consensus to merge Swampscott dory; there was barely even a mention of it. It should not be tagged in passing at all. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you literally joking? How can you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory and seriously tell me Swampscott dory wasn't part of it? Are you trying to be funny or just stubbornly refusing to look at what's in front on you? AGF prevents me from assuming you're actually stupid so please stop trying to demonstrate it. Your claim that nobody argued to merge all three subarticles in the AfD is beyond comprehension. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Can you show a single bit of substantive discussion of merging Swampscott dory? Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Where's the discussion? Just some voting, closed shortly after its proposal. If the other articles deserved seven days, so does this one. Anmccaff (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we can agree it would've been better if the AfD was a multi-nom from the start, with tags on each of the three pages, but I don't think this flaw would've resulted in significantly different consensus, hence my closure. But this is specifically why I urged, in the same closure, further discussion to take place on the target page specifically about the merge of the three articles, with the understanding that a different path than the initial AfD might end up being agreed upon at a later time via said talk page discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there is a very real possibility discussion might have led to a different result. Outside of Wikipedian OR, the Swampscott boats aren't terribly related, as discussed on the article's talk page. Anmccaff (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I've done my best to avoid commenting on the content itself so far, there's a small point I hope you realize: "merging" articles doesn't mean the three subarticles are about the same topic, it can mean that they are related topics best covered under a broader article. A concept article can easily cover variants in subsections which may better serve the reader than a series of related short stubs all with the same single reference anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The broader article is Dory. It can easily encompass both the Bankers and the Swampscotts. Banks dorys diverge from their round-sided ancestors, and have a separate history that intertwines with river bateau. So do Cape Ann/Gloucesters (as the terms are used in these articles). Swampscotts don't, and reading the sources cited makes that abundantly clear. Anmccaff (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent and coherent argument to make in a merge discussion as to what should be merged where. It is thus unfortunate that instead of discussing the consensus to "merge the subarticles upstream" you preferred opening threads at ANI then DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close was fine. Yes, technically the other pages weren't "AFD merges" if we strictly go by the nomination. But the discussion in the AfD implied that the other articles were considered to be merged as well. The merge templates were clearly added in good faith. A chat with the closing admin and a simple talk page discussion would have sufficed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Swampscott dory page should have been tagged, and the clock reset to give it its seven days, I should think. The conversation hadn't even touched on it yet, really. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close properly assessed the consensus. If anything, maybe there could have been notifications put on the talk pages of the articles added to the discussion and the discussion relisted for another 7 days, however I don't think that this would have changed any positions or the end result. I have to disagree with Anmccaff - I think having an admin who DGAF is the perfect one to close a discussion - it adds precisely zero of their opinion into the discussion and keeps the close focused on what they assessed the consensus of the participants to be. PGWG (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yupp, an newly mentioned article should be discussed, rather than just nuked in passing...so how does this equate to Endorse? I'vw raised the point about disinterest above, I think. A closer should not have a dog in the fight, no, but he should take the discussion seriously enough to close it correctly. Anmccaff (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Endorse because, a) this was an accurate representation of the consensus on the AFD, and b) while the process wasn't perfect, I am thoroughly unconvinced that improving the process would have resulted in a different consensus being reached - so, in the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, why re-do the process just for the sake of the process? As for disinterest, I don't think that Salvidrim was saying that he DGAF about the article or the result, but rather that he isn't firmly set on the label that is placed on the close, as his intent (evidenced by the text of his close) is not to chill discussion regarding such a wide merge. I read the situation exactly like his close statement says - the consensus from this AFD is to merge all those articles, however further discussion regarding such a wide merge could/should take place on the appropriate talk page. PGWG (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, surprise, surprise, one of the articles has already been summarily merged before this review is even over, a very predictable outcome of pasting inaccurate Afd tags on an article. Anmccaff (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - An appropriate consensus read by an uninvolved party. I see no issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Like above I too would've preferred notifications to have been posted on each talkpage and relisted for another week but doing all of that now would be moronic (and In all fairness had the notifs been posted it may not have made a blind bit of difference), All that aside consensus was to merge them all and so I see no issue with the close. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - reasonable read of consensus in a complicated situation. A good close. Thparkth (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Sergecross73 above. Miniapolis 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good close. It was a weak AfD nomination that should not be encouraged, but the discussion happened and the conclusion was clear. Further discussion, including proposals to reverse the decision in re-spin out this variant article should be held at Talk:Banks dory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh probably right outcome, but an ideal thing for the closer to have done would have been to tag the new articles with a link to the AfD and relist for one more round. I dislike having articles go away when it's possible someone would have been able to explain why it shouldn't go away had they merely known of the existence of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that someone has already merged one of these articles, Cape Ann dory, without any prior discussion on either page, before this review was even completed. Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion has now run for over a week, and has a 10 to 1 consensus to endorse the Merge closure. And as of today, there haven't been any new comments in 4 days. I mean, it would have been nice if they waited for an official close of this discussion, but there's really no other way this discussion could be closed other than to endorse the merge. A better focus would be on how to best merge things at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the discussion ended as no consensus, this article has been deleted from Polish Wikipedia (which usually has much lower crtieria for notability): pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2016:09:08:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska. Closing admin there concluded that a minor/local parish magazine and an obituary are not sufficient. Over a week ago I asked closed admin at English Wikipedia (User:Sandstein) what he thinks of this argument (which was also raised in our AfD) at Talk:Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska, but he has not replied to this (nor to my question about which arguments for keep made him take this call). As I feel that the deletion arguments (the subject is not notable either as an architect - all she has here is a short online bio at professional association she was a member of - and as an artist - her work is only mentioned in a local, niche, parish magazine) are significantly stronger then the votes to keep (one of which argued that said parish magazine is a sufficient source, the other that women architects are marginalized so we should keep this article to reduce our gender bias in coverage), and as there is no discussion on article's talk, I believe DRV is the next logical step. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: I did address this issue on my talk page in response to another user, and refer to my statement there. I seem to have overlooked the ping by Piotrus; to be sure I notice your question please ask me on my talk page the next time.  Sandstein  13:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that it was No Consensus and a new argument has been presented I think you could reasonably renominate it. The fact that it was deleted in Polish does rather undermine the view that there might be Polish sources, which was one of the main Keep arguments. Hut 8.5 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The view that there might be Polish sources other than a parish magazine and a very short routine death notice was undermined in the deletion disussion by at least three editors who read Polish fluently - Piotrus and Electron have userboxes to that effect and I indicated such in the discussion. If a discussion about an article about someone in the anglophone world had come up with such a total lack of reliable sources it would (or at least should) have been closed as "delete", so this should have been too. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. I must add that the way this deletion disussion was conducted on the Polish Wikipedia, without people putting bolded "Keep" or "Delete" before stating their opinions, seems a much better way of conducting a discussion than our adversarial system. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the original nominator, I felt there were not enough sources to constitute keeping the page. I also felt the keep votes were undermined by the delete votes at the English Afd, and the fact consensus was "delete" on the Polish Wikipedia only strengthens my stance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but new AfD. There was a deletion discussion. There was no consensus at the deletion discussion. An administrator closed it as "no consensus". So far so good :) There is no reason to overturn the discussion outcome. But now we have some information about another Wikimedia project deleting their article on the same topic. Sometimes DRV makes decisions based on new information, but this time the new information isn't really strong enough for us to say "OBVIOUSLY an AfD would now result in a delete outcome, so let's just skip to the 'delete' part". So I think there should probably be a new AfD to see if maybe the community could now reach a consensus on this article, in the light of the new information. Thparkth (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. Divergent opinions, and edits to the article were made during the discussion. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The logical step, User:Piotrus, was not DRV, but a fresh, and better, renomination at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: DRV was recommended by one of the two people who replied at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#What_is_.22a_reasonable_amount_of_time.22_for_AfD_renomination.3F. If there are no objections to renomination (I wanted to avoid complains that a renomination would be too quick), I am fine starting AfD 2 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SmokeyJoe, there were divergent opinions, but neither of the "keep" opinions came with anything like a valid argument. One was that, because the subject is not anglophone, there might be sources in another language, but didn't actually point to any such sources beyond a routine death notice, and the other was by someone who does understand the subject's language and couldn't find anything better than a parish magazine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Those points prevent a close of "keep", but are not strong enough to discount the keep arguments. Reasonable arguments that there could be difficult-to-find sources are valid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or relist - a NC close is certainly within the margin of discretion here. Electron wrote that the source says also that her paintings have participated in over 30 collective exhibitions and 3 individual (...), and none contested that - yes, the source itself was not enough as a support of notability, but that gives some indication of WP:NARTIST that none seems to have investigated. The result at pl-wiki is irrelevant, because it was not used as an argument in the en-AfD (all there is is a mention of "we should watch this"). Now, I do not think anyone would object to a relist, not because the close was premature, but because it is the logical next step. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Commet. I fully intended to relist it upon closure, as nobody seems to object to this, through if the closing admins relists it instead, I'd appreciate it. If not, a ping that this has been closed would be nice, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse with leave for a new AfD Close seems okay, but a new Afd in this case seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but relist seems the logical thing to do. Close was within discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that deleted revisions of the article should be restored. Lava03 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, why? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, now that User:Yngvadottir has provided a rationale, I agree that this was not a valid G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close, as the page was well discussed, and the nomination makes no substantive points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unless nominator provides reasons why they should be restored. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This activity exists in animal. This article was deleted because Wikipedians did not know its existance. They thought autocunnilingus is hyphothetical sex activity. This article had many references. Lava03 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Please can we have a proper discussion rather than a pile-on dismissal of this DRV, because it's genuinely arguable that G4 shouldn't apply to discussions that happened 9 years ago ago. Pinging @Yngvadottir: who I know took an interest in this article.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator gives no indication that he even read the last deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not "pile-on dismissing" anything out of hand; I just asked for an actual reason to be provided why undeletion might be warranted beyond a summary "undelete because I said so, the end". It changes things if an actual explanation is given that can be discussed, but the original nomination statement that I was responding to offered nothing but "undelete because I said so". Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What? Wait a minute. I wrote an entirely new article, and it looks as if it was speedy deleted because a preceding article at the same title had been deleted after an AfD? You bet your brass buttons I advocate restore; the rationale was entirely inapplicable, as a glance at the history would have shown, and I was not even informed the article was nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks for the ping, S Marshall, and I'm going to ping Drmies, since my creation of the new article at this title arose out of a discussion on their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Lankiveil and Bearcat: Requesting temporary undeletion for this review.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for undeleting it for the purposes of this review. And pinging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who made the mistaken nomination for speedy deletion as a re-creation. This is what the article looked like immediately before it was deleted as per the outcome of the third AfD. This is the redirect that was deleted on 1 September 2013 following the MfD that is linked there. And this is my new start; note the edit summary clearly stating that I am creating an article with sources. This was not a re-creation of the deleted article, and despite a lengthy history of editing since then, it did not resemble the article that was deleted following the AfD. The speedy deletion nomination and the execution based on that nomination were errors; the evidence of that is now visible. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as clearly two different articles in substance; previous AfD's only apply to a particular version, not the topic generally. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so we need to have a complex outcome here:- (1) I endorse WJBScribe's accurate close of the third AfD in 2007. (2) I endorse Ruslik Zero's accurate close of the RfD on 1 September 2013. (3) I feel we should overturn the G4 deletion in 2016, because G4 was misapplied. The deleted versions were not substantially identical and were in fact almost totally dissimilar in content and sourcing. Therefore (4) the outcome of this DRV should be that revisions from before 22 September 2013 should be re-deleted and the subsequent ones restored.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the G4 speedy deletion. The articles were completely different, the recreation cited many more sources which weren't in the deleted version, and the AfD is nearly a decade old to start with. Hut 8.5 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What Yngvadottir says, and anyone who chimed in with her. Y's version bears no relationship to earlier versions whatsoever. Overturn quickly please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4. Article is sufficiently different from that deleted at AfD in 2007 that G4 should no longer apply; the length of time also argues for reconsideration at a new AfD. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4, as the new version was not substantially similar to the one previously deleted per discussion.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow recreation, never should have been deleted a notable sexual act similar to autofellatio, clearly passes GNG, and may biases be damned. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that this version of the page should be restored. This is an article about an ethnic group. It definitely exists; People of India: Rajasthan has a chapter on them. All the rationales given at the AFD are invalid and it was poorly attended. The nominator made no statement at all, one of the only two other participants said they could not "tell what thing it is" despite the first sentence of the article saying "Kumawat is community of the people living mainly in [list of places]", and the other participant suggested that there were "notability questions". Certainly the article has many problems, but if there are policy reasons that it can be said that an ethnic group is non-notable then there is something seriously wrong with our criteria for inclusion. It seems more like a bad dose of US/Euro-centrism to me and an unwillingless to do simple checks like look up Gotra on Wiktionary which would have immediately explained to the participants why the "rambling" list they complained about was actually relevant to the article.

To be clear, I don't care about the current prod of the recently recreated page as a surname page. That aspect can be taken care of by adding a list of notable people called Kumawat to the article (we currently only have one article in that category). SpinningSpark 14:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears a reasonable request. Did you ask the closer? Support restoration, allow Spinningspark to work on it and then allow any editor to renominate at AfD. I removed the PROD note on the current version, replacing it with a pointer to here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Either that, or delete the current page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: Sorry, I did not approach the closer, perhaps I should have. I did not because it was a very old AFD and the close was unarguably in line with the discussion. SpinningSpark 08:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at DRV? Seems more like a thing for WP:UND. Anyway, I don't see anything in the history worth restoring. The deleted article begins "Kumawat is community of the people living mainly in Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and other part of India.They are simple, spiritual and karma oriented people", and goes on in the same vein. The content seems to be of no use, and no sources are cited. If this topic is notable, the article will have to be rewritten by someone competent from scratch, which I have no objections to. And the recreated surname stub is also unsourced and appears pointless; I've redirected it to M. L. Kumawat, which seems to be the only article we have that could be in scope of a list, disambiguation or redirect.  Sandstein  10:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced page doesn't have to be deleted. It is much easier to expand/improve an existing page than to start from scratch. Yes, there is a lot of language that needs cleaning up, but there is factual information there too. SpinningSpark 15:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASwings Flight 3002 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Received coverage in multiple reliable sources [4] [5][6][7], also, an investigation into the accident has since been released [8]. I believe that there is enough content to be worthy of an article. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak undelete and allow renomination. The nominators case is plausible, though not convincing. I'm not seeing new independent secondary sources. The report http://www.mot.gov.my/SiteCollectionDocuments/kemalangan%20udara/9M-MDM-FINAL%20ACCIDENT%20REPORT%20KUDAT%20CRASH%2008072015.pdf is an excellent new source, but in itself not evidence of notability. Lack of ongoing coverage was the major criticism at AfD in my opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold result. DRV is not a venue to relitigate an AFD discussion just because you happen to personally disagree with the conclusion; it is only for discussing and reviewing situations where there might have been some impropriety, such as a closure that ran explicitly counter to the consensus of the participants. These sources are not wildly convincing that this incident is a notable one — since the relevant transportation safety agency will always come in to investigate every plane crash that happens at all, the existence of an investigative report into the accident is not in and of itself evidence of notability, and the volume of news coverage you've shown is not all that strong. We cannot feasibly keep an article about every individual aviation accident that happened at all (there's no feasible path, for example, for the twin-engine Cessna crash that just killed Jim Prentice two days ago to get a standalone article as a separate topic from our existing biography of Prentice himself) — and the sources being shown here are not making a particularly strong case that Flight 3002 actually crosses the bar that separates the kind of incident that would warrant a real article from the kind that just warrants mention in the article on the airline. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the new information should be added to the section first, and then it would be easier to decide on the split. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family Home Entertainment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was redirected to Artisan Entertainment last month because someone stupidly decided that the company isn't notable, but it is notable because it was a big name for VHS and a lot of its VHS's are collected by buffs. Most of the reliable sources found for the article came from Google Books, mainly the Billboard magazines, so it barely has reliable news sources. But here are more sources I found: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Draft:Family_Home_Entertainment#More_references 89.11.210.35 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist We usually do combine material under the latest title, but when there is extensive information as for entertainment companies, there's good reason to make an separate article. In this case I think the discussion was closed prematurely and should have been relisted, because it seems so contrary to common sense. The only way we have of recognizing what is or is not common sense is to have greater participation in a discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, what do you feel was contrary to common sense? The article's sources are particularly numerous, but most of them serve to support film-catalog style information and the rest is mostly unsupported by the cited sources or entirely unsourced (like the acquisitions section). The little information there is (like the brief paragraph history sourced to Veni, Vidi, Video: The Hollywood Empire and the VCR) is much better merged to the latest title, where it can be better placed in context. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting as the closing administrator that the IP did ask for a review on my talkpage as well yesterday and has been discussing it with a different IP too. I did ping the other participants in the discussion on my talkpage to see what they have to say on the new references provided in the draft. As for relisting, I didn't perform a relist because there seemed to be barely enough input in the AfD and there is nothing that jumps out as improper or against common sense that I can see - the discussion did explicitly argue that there is not extensive information that would justify a separate article. I have no objections against re-discussing the new sources provided, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No evidence has been presented against the arguments advanced in the deletion discussion: that the company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or other relevant guidelines, as most coverage is limited to single-sentence or catalog mentions. There's just not enough well-sourced content to justify an independent article, and the numerous bad sources added to the draft show a deep misunderstanding of reliability and the fact trivial mentions don't help notability. The little properly sourced content is much more appropriately merged to Artisan Entertainment instead of cobbling together an article based on unsourced content and directory-style mentions. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At least merge more of the contentLooking again at the original material and references, I see that it was in essence just an earlier name, and there is no reason why it cannot be incorporated. I don't think enough was merged. Though I doubt we should list every film a distribution company distributes, we should include the most important, and they were the original distributor of such series as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). (Looking at the added references, they seem to be meaningless mentions of the name). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, all of you, I'm TRYING to PROVE the company's existence as a DIVISION with those dang sources, so it HAS to deserve a separate article! 85.196.227.118 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A lot of the content is actually present in the Encyclopaedia (See here and here). My suggestion to 85.196.227.118 would be to selectively add a bit more of the info if required and improve the target article. It doesn't deserve a separate article on its own. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care! It does SO deserve a separate article! There are LOTS of VHS's and others released by the COMPANY ITSELF up until 2005! If you keep saying that it's "not notable", then just get someone else like Ryanasaurus0077 to do the bloody research! 5.151.220.5 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have certain rules on Wikipedia - we don't create standalone articles on each topic unless absolutely necessary. However, if you still want to create the article, I suggest you to try other venues such as this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted in January because of so-called "copyright infringement", which is untrue because TVPaint deserves a Wikipedia article for being a popular raster-based animation software. If someone wants to fix the article to avoid violations, then they need to rewrite the article based on sources, along with http://wiki.tvpaint.com/index.php?title=TVPaint and the other links here which I found, instead of deleting it altogether. 89.11.210.35 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Copyright violations have to go, immediately, by whatever means are necessary, and "topic deserves an article" is not a valid counterargument to a copyright issue. A new article can always be created if someone can write and source it properly, but that does not require the restoration or undeletion of the copyvio. Submitting a new version through the AFC process is the correct approach here, although I can tell you right now that nothing in that version is a reliable source that can support notability in a Wikipedia article — a company's own primary source content about itself, press releases, user-generated discussion forums and blogs are not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a topic into Wikipedia. But there's nothing for DRV to discuss here, because nothing about the process requires restoration of the first version. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This now has a peer-reviewed citation at [9]; although that paper has not yet been published, it has reportedly gone through a full process of peer review and been accepted for publication by the journal "Voting Matters". Homunq (࿓) 02:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we agreed to redirect this title to Voting_system, where it is covered under Voting_system#Evaluating_voting_systems_using_criteria? This new paper looks like a good source to use there, but is not nearly enough to justify a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right. But since we made that agreement, the article has acquired an "explanation needed" tag on the criterion in the table. Obviously, somebody who wasn't a party to that deal feels that this criterion is insufficiently explained. Expanding the explanation in the article itself is not optimal; it should be a separate article, like all the rest of the criteria in the table. The basic reason for deleting this article was that it was not cited in WP:RS; now that it is, it should be treated like every other criterion. Homunq (࿓) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I know, the journal "Voting matters" has become inactive. Its website says [10]: "Publication of Voting matters is suspended at present and is not receiving submissions." Markus Schulze 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have specific knowledge of the details of this situation, but cannot say how without blowing my anonymity. (I suspect MarkusSchulze can guess my identity, and that's fine, but I don't want to make it explicit.) The article has in fact been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, but I cannot prove that at this time, so I'm withdrawing this request for deletion review until it is in fact published. Homunq (࿓) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historically this page has had a history of being deleted. The most recent case I believe to be a misunderstanding and unjustified. The page for the same company has existed under two names Spotware Systems Ltd and Spotware. Most recently deleted was Spotware which I believe has been discriminated against because of the history of Spotware Systems Ltd.

When Spotware Systems Ltd was deleted over 4 years ago, most of the points were the companies lack of notability. After 4 additional years of existence and growth I think it is reasonable to reconsider their notability. The page Spotware has existed for a couple of years and was recently deleted due to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spotware_Systems_Ltd.

I would like Spotware to be considered for un-deletion and at the very least for the page to be unprotected so it could be created by a user along with the page talk:Spotware which can be used as a guideline for anyone who decides to recreate the page.

Furthermore, many of the companies competitors are profiled on Wikipedia. They include: MetaTrader 4, Leverate, ZuluTrade, EToro.

This discussion has been initiated after a discussion with the most recent admin to take action on the page, RHaworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Greene (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Greene (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you list the 3 or 4 best sources that you have (being sure you've read and understood WP:RS and WP:N as best as possible)? Hobit (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The companies profile, created and managed by S&P Global and publicly displayed on Bloomberg Businessweek here http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=312504626. This source validates the companies existence, location, an overview of the business activities and highlights the companies key people.

2. Finance Magnates is one of the leading industry news sources in the Business to Business area of FX trading, they have been covering news in this sector since 2009 and now provide investigation and analysis services for businesses. It is a very niche sector and they have been covering it extensively. Finance Magnates contacts the company to fact check all press releases and asks a representative for comment. A good example for this; http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/spotware-adds-ctrader-order-trigger-side-choice-volatile-markets/

3. A filling from the London Stock Exchange regarding a purchase made by LCGH plc from Spotware Systems Limited.

4. Finance Feeds is a leading source of investigative new within the industry and pride themselves on squashing PR fluff and getting to the real story. This is a good example of that; http://financefeeds.com/day-history-june-3-2013-metaquotes-takes-swing-third-party-software-ecosystem/. I believe sourcing from this site should done carefully by any author, the site performs very detailed investigations but also has some opinionated articles, those article styles are rarely merged. Jim Greene (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above seem to me to be the level of substantial coverage envisaged by WP:GNG. 1 and 3 are simply proof that the company exists, which does not say anything for notability. 4 is mostly a requote of a press release. 2 is much the same. And neither 2 nor 4 seem to me to be especially high-quality news sources. Keep deleted.
  If it is the case that other articles exist about companies which are of a similar level of (non-)notability, this would normally be an argument for deleting those articles rather than restoring/adding others. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing, however the main dispute is that of Wikipedia's admin teams view and opinion on sources which cover this industry. The company does have notability, especially within the sector but that can only be proven by sources which are a clear COI, for example a substantial list of clients which provide their services to the general public on an international level, promoting clients websites is of course a violation. Here is a list of other sources for the record. SMN Weekly e-forex, fx-mm, Leaprate.

Final Note If it is still the opinion that these sources do not meet WP:GNG then I suggest the following articles should be reviewed since they at best use the same sources, otherwise far less credible are used. MetaQuotes Software, MetaTrader 4, Leverate, ZuluTrade, EToro. In particular the first two since they are largely edited by the CEO of the company user:Renat.Shafigullin and must violate WP:COI. Jim Greene (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse First, every source in the last version of the article was a press release or advertorial, in various narrowly focussed trade newsletters . Such newsletters are valuable sources for those in the trade wishing to actually see potentially interesting press releases, as people in a trade often do; but they are useless for an encyclopedia. Second, for the sources added here, no.1 is just verifying existence, not showing notability; no.2 -- you are admitting that it's just a press release. A fact-checked press release is still a press release, not independent coverage; no.3 is a clear example of what is not substantial--it is just a notice; no.4 is also a press release. My earlier comments about the usefulness of press releases for those in the industry apply, but it is still not independent coverage. Third, at least two of the other articles you mentioned will probably be deleted. As Stifle says, a lot of junk has gotten into WP over our 15 years, and though it will take us a few years to remove it, at least we can avoid adding to it. We probably have been too tolerant earlier not realizing how strong the desire would be for companies to promote themselves here. (I consider that applies to me also) DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. To put it simply: given the sources above I don't think there's a serious chance an article on this topic would be kept at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Veracruz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Mostly copy-pasting comments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from the closer's Talk page:

• "Most of the keep !votes were pro forma, either "per X" or similarly cursory. Of the two others, one had no grounding in notability policy or guidelines; the other made the often-rejected claim that a contested/technical pass of the PORNBIO SNG overrode the failure to satisfy GNG standards. The nominator and most of the delete !voters stressed the failure to meet GNG standards, an argument never substantively addressed by the article's proponents.

Consensus and practice therefore call for deletion of the article, even though the headcount may have been close. See Deletion review: Karla Lane for a very recent discussion on this point, as well as Deletion Review: Jayden James, as well as such AFDs as AfD: Kristina Rose, AfD: Keira Nicole, and AfD: Nicole Aniston (2nd nomination)." (link])

I concur and believe the close focused exclusively on the award, vs the complete lack of sources brought to the AfD, nor available. The article as it stands is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. The article is also completely free of secondary RS, which I believe is not appropriate for a BLP. Suggesting Overturn to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to delete, Arguing that an award not notable enough to have its own article is grounds to meet pornbio is perverse and the closing admin could only have found keep by giving no policy based votes and assertions equal or greater weight then the clear evidenced fact that this is an inadequately sources BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. This presents almost exactly the same issues as the Karla Lane DRV, where the overwhelming consensus was to delete. A slightly edited version of my comment there: The delete !votes in this discussion were better argued, and better grounded in policy and guidelines. The keep !votes, to the extent they had any grouding, pretty uniformly rested on the argument that meeting any part of PORNBIO "automatically" guaranteed the subject an article. This contradicts express language in WP:BIO, which PORNBIO is part of, saying that technically passing an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". !Votes which contradict the governing guideline should be discounted, especially when they are in the clear minority. Finally, the keep !~voters made only trivial attempts, at best, to rebut the argument that, as a BLP without adequate reliable sourcing, the article should be deleted. BLP policy overrides a marginal pass of a dubious SNG. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26 (Jayden James), which presents essentially the same issues, where the community strongly endorsed deletion, as well as the similar, quite recent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose. Clear failure to meet GNG and BLP sourcing requirements overrides a heavily disputed claim to technically pass an SNG, especially one the community shows little confidence in. While the close here was made in good faith, the closing admin had been essentially inactive from 2011 until recently, and may not have appreciated the strengthened consensus rearding BLP sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - As much as I would love to say keep .....There wasn't any consensus to Keep the article, The entire AFD focused on a non notable award and there was barely any sources presented, –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete as there has been noticeable consensus at AfD as it is that the one award listed is not actually convincing for what we list as a substantial award and otherwise convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete; please see my comments in the Karla Lane DRV for my reasons.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Reasonable close. I think delete is also a reasonable reading, but that NC better reflects the discussion. I can see the closer concluding that there was no consensus if this award, unlike the one for Ms. Lane, was enough to meet our SNG. I continue to worry that these AfDs, DRVs and RfCs keep attracting the same people who always line up in the same way... Hobit (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete- this is undoubtedly one of those times when weight of argument defeats a mere snout count. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer 1) I am not "essentially inactive", how rude. 2) I similarly note Hobit's concerns around DRV. 3) I was trying to help by closing a complex and protracted discussion as best I could, but have no objection to my closure being overturned. fish&karate 11:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean you no disrespect, but you've only made 97 edits since 2012, and your user log is similarly sparse. If that doesn't count as "essentially inactive," I'm not sure what would. Rebbing 21:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why it matters so much to you, but while I read a lot more than I edit these days, I keep up with things. And you could frame it as 48 edits in the last 3 months. BOOM. Super active. fish&karate 12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially is promotion. No independent reliable sourcing. No secondary sources. No content. Won a non-notable award is clearly not an indicator of there existing enough material to write a biography. "Keep" was not the consensus of the discussion. "No consensus" may be defensible, but as an under-sourced BLP, the default is to delete. If the award were notable, the content could have been merged to an article on the award and its winners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SNGs cannot trump GNG. The idea behind our notability guidelines is WP:WHYN - there should be enough reliable sources independent of the subject so that we can write an NPOV article. Over here there simply isn't. Simply passing PORNBIO doesn't guarantee an article, that too a BLP. To be honest this was a bit close, but I personally think the delete !votes were slightly better argued here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck her right in the pussy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the 2nd AFD in November 2015, new sources are available that discuss this topic. Please see (unfinished) Draft:Fuck her right in the pussy for some of those additional sources. (note: 2015 closing admin is marked as "mostly retired", and the 2014 AFD closing admin seems to not exist anymore, so posting here first) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, do not recreate. Occasional mentions of the meme do not change the thinness of the coverage or justify an independent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as I will confirm what I said at my comments and there's simply nothing to suggest otherwise. Draft is actually no different than what the article was and therefore it's not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- not notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with no recreation at this time. Some idiot yelling a crude catchphrase on live TV isn't a reliable source, and doesn't address in any serious way the concerns raised in the previous discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Note - Now that we got the knee-jerk reactions out of the way, how about we step out of the shadows of willful ignorance and actually base this conversation on an examination of the new sources available since the last AFD? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you list the 2 or 3 best new sources here in the DRV? Hobit (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. But I don't want to stop others from joining in also. Everyone should be invited to highlight sources here. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Personally I'd prefer to see it deleted however consensus was to redirect, The filer deserves a trout just for wanting this vile article to exist!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean that in jest and good humor, and your endorse is based on review of the existing and new sources? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust me I'm not joking in the slightest, I absolutely couldn't careless about the sources - It doesn't belong on this planet nevermind the project, Shove it on Wikia or better still withdraw this DRV and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Davey2010: But the sources are the point. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability? Whether an article should be on the project is dictated by that policy, not by whether "it belongs on the planet". Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop baiting and go and do something productive, Or better still just !vote, I simply disagree with the articles existence that's it, Yep WP:IDONTLIKEIT but anyway that's my opinion, Ofcourse if you wanna !vote then !vote. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Having read the discussion below I would happily allow recreation if it was FHRITP phenomenon or something similar, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For review, first sample of new sources from Draft:Fuck her right in the pussy:

• First Monday (journal) (2016) ^[1] discusses social media #FHRITP responses.
• Christie Blatchford (2016)^[2] discusses FHRITP phenomenon and resulting debates.
• Toronto Sun (2016)^[3] - example of coverage of the resulting events from FHRITP incidents.

Cheers. -- -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse and restore deletion discussion was closed correctly, but the three new sources, by themselves, are nearly at or over the WP:N bar by themselves. Combined with the other new sources and all the old ones, clearly over the bar. Hobit (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per Hobit. Sources in the Draft article are new and would make a stronger case for notability that was the case a year ago. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion with no recreation and remove redirect (but beyond scope). Not notable enough for a search hit out of the list of other memes. Doesn't deserve special attention for sophomoric sexual reference. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing the sources don't meet our inclusion guidelines? Ignoring the sexual reference part, it seems well above our standard inclusion guidelines from a RS viewpoint. It's fine if you disagree, but could you address the sources or provide some policy/guideline based reason for deletion? Hobit (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus was correctly determined and the article was deleted properly for the policy reasons discussed in the deletion discussion. It doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion and that determination of consensus was properly made. This isn't "deletion do-over" and the only arguments being made to recreate don't indicate why the original deletion was procedurally improper. The arguments to delete were stronger in the original deletion discussion and the arguments to endorse it are stronger in the review. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You ignore the new sources, and ignore the reason for this DRV is to review those new sources in light of WP:N. Your comments are willful blindness and an attack on the foundation of wikipedia. You should be ashamed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the above is beginning to border on badgering the participants. I suggest that it's best to keep the discussion civil. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some more coverage of the article topic, from after the previous AFD: The Toronto Star published a list of their Most-read stories of 2015^[1], and #1 was the coverage of the resulting events after an FHRITP incident: Hydro One firing employee involved in vulgar incident at Toronto FC game^[2][3] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation with the new sources described above, which would make a much stronger case for meeting WP:N. The "vileness" or sophomoric nature of the subject matter has no bearing on policy. Pinguinn 🐧 16:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• These sources, just like all the sources, while they retell the prank, do not provide secondary source coverage of the expletive itself, no direct secondary source coverage. It is all mere repetition, perpetuation of the prank. These sources do not demonstrate notability of the topic, the topic being the expletive. Therefore, there should not be an article covering the expletive. It may be covered within another article, but not in a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An extraordinary crass occurrence, repeated by sensationalist tabloid journalism, does not make suitable content for an encyclopedia. There were no reputable secondary sources. It could be fit into a list of expletive words and phrases, but it is not a topic worthy of an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian[11][12], Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[13], Ryerson Review of Journalism[14], and First Monday (journal)[15] don't seem like tabloid journalism to me. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, 1-4 are tabloid journalism, just repeating repetition of the phrase. 5 doesn't seem relevant. Your draft is not covering the topic with secondary source content, it is just repeating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the 3rd source is the CBC, which isn't known for tabloid journalism. The 4th is an award winning journal from a journalism school. The 5th is an academic paper that spends a paragraph on the topic and cites around a half-dozen reliable sources with the hashtag in the title of the source. That's more coverage, in better places, than 90% of all our articles. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What they are known for can be different to specific examples. And is, in this case, with respect to the topic of the expletive. There is no serious coverage, beyond repetition, of the expletive. Where the coverage achieves quality, it is not covering this specific expletive but broader topics. Redirect was the right call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the specific expletive belongs at www.urbandictionary.com/ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you've read the article in question, but I'm really unclear how you could come away with that opinion. The journal addresses the question of how reporters should deal with this. Which makes sense as it's a journal for journalists. The CBC talks about the impact on the journalists and how people have been fired from work and/or disciplined at school for their behavior. Per our sources, this is a case of sexual harassment. We aren't doing the world any good by leaving coverage of this to the Urban Dictionary which is more likely to result in it being covered as a harmless joke rather than as sexual harassment. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hobit. Always interesting when we disagree. It is about "what is the context". "how reporters should deal with this" indeed. And by "this" I think it means "public harassment of women", or more specifically "public-workplace harassment of female journalists". The topic is not the specific acts of harassment, let along this particular act of harassment. The repetition of the act of harassment, by repeating it in the story, or by embedding a video, is repetition of a primary source, which does not speak to notability, and is tabloid journalism sensationalism. This particular expletive phrase act of harassment should be covered, but in context. The expletive does not belong in the title of an article, or as the focus of any article. The topic of the expletive in obscene, continued harassment, and with this article Wikipedia was perpetuating it. And on a hard reading of WP:N, the topic of the expletive fails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While we do disagree from time-to-time, this is the only case I can recall where I just can't get my mind around it.

• As far as the expletive goes, WP:NOTCENSORED is really the only response--it just doesn't (and IMO shouldn't) matter.
• As far as the notability argument goes, WP:N looks at sources. We have the Toronto Star, the CBC, the Washington Post [16], and many other inarguable reliable sources covering the topic. These sources are in-depth coverage talking about more than just the events, but also talking about the fallout of these events (the Washington Post one I linked to discusses a person losing a 6-figure job over it). This one is, IMO, so far over the WP:N bar I just can't understand any argument to the contrary.
• And finally, from a societal viewpoint, I think we'd be doing a lot more good than harm by having the article. It clearly focuses on the sexual harassment nature of the enterprise. And I think the people likely to do this are the type that just think "it's a joke". Pointing out that people are hurt by this (both the reporter and hurting themselves) might reduce the rate of this stuff. With an article on it, a search for it or the abbreviation would show up on top of a Google search.

Well, them's my argument: NOTCENSORED, WP:N, and general societal good. I feel like those are pretty strong arguments. In any case, thanks for taking the time to discuss. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The expletive" is a phase I use to emphasis how narrow the topic as titled and deleted/redirect was. NOTCENSORED is fine.

My main line is that the topic fails WP:N. The topic, as narrowly defined, is not the subject of secondary source coverage. Secondary source coverage is the most important test of notability. Topics that are covered only briefly in secondary sources do not meet the test. You are correct in noting that several sources mentioned are quality, reliably secondary sources, but for the narrowly defined topic the coverage is too brief. The sources are covering a board topic that is not the topic deleted. See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. On careful analysis, all coverage of the expletive is primary. Mere repetition of primary source material doesn't transform it into secondary. There is now qualitative discussion of the expletive. No one is saying that it is clever, succinct, etc.

The societal viewpoint is subservient to notability. On many topics, plant species, asteroids, historical figures, geographical features, we don't press the WP:N line. On societal sensitive issues, BLPs, offensive topics like this, it is more important to do things right. Allowing the encyclopedic test of WP:N to be influenced by sensational excitement is a societal problem, so it must be taken seriously, and that means a more thorough analysis per WP:N.

The solution to this is not to have no coverage, but to not have the coverage in a stand alone article. The coverage belongs elsewhere. The closer got it exactly right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm following that. So would a title which is broader, like FHRITP phenomenon or something similar be something you'd agree we _do_ have sufficient coverage of? To me, that and the currently proposed title are more-or-less the same, but I can see an objection to coverage of the phrase (due to narrow coverage) but the whole phenomenon (including the harassment and fallout) is what these news stories are about. To me, it's a distinction without much of a difference, but I can see how others might find a significant difference. In any case, thanks and good night. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph in 1Wiki8's 5th source ("As an example, consider the social media activity that arose following a vulgarity yelled...") would be supportive of content for an article Public harassment of women, the specific expletive is an item of passing mention, mentioned as a trigger of a social activity being used as an example. That is not direct coverage. It is no justification for coverage of the original hoax or for pointing to the many copycat occurrences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that it is not "1Wiki8's" sources, nor is it my draft, as I vehemently refute any attempt to claim WP:OWNership over any draft or an article. All editors in good standing may edit the draft or resulting article, and at least one other already has. Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• note - if this page is recreated, I suggest it be named FHRITP phenomenon to more accurately reflect the article topic, with redirects from FHRITP and Fuck her right in the pussy. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per Hobit and Pinguinn. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Editor SmokeyJoe makes a very good point. In addition, the existence of this article could be considered Public harassment of women and thus falls under WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage of sexual harassment isn't itself sexual harassment. In fact, done well, it will hopefully reduce sexual harassment. And I've no idea what part of NOT you feel applies here. The closest I see is "not censored" which would push toward coverage rather than against. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this should be an article but I agree that covering acts of sexual harassment is not harassment and by that logic we would need to remove both the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy and Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations articles.--76.65.40.153 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the above articles are titled neutrally, and not I groped her crotch etc. Even the nom appears to agree that the title of the deleted article is inappropriate, as they are suggesting that (if the article is revived) it should be called FHRITP phenomenon to "more accurately reflect the article topic". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue that this _is_ the name of the thing and thus neutral, but I'd certainly prefer to have the article under the name you propose than not have the article at all. If that's the compromise needed, I'd accept it (with some sadness directed at WP:NOTCENSORED). Hobit (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, good luck with this line of argument ("this _is_ the name of the thing and thus neutral"). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we've got a different definition of neutral. It's offensive for certain, but I'm not sure how calling something by the name it is known as isn't neutral. In any case, I think your proposed name change is acceptable. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not my proposal. I hold the view that this subject is not notable and that the article should not be recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation per Pinguinn and Hobit. I especially agree with the second sentence within the comment by Pinguinn.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with no recreation Viral phenomena requires significant coverage about the phenomena as a whole (instead of examples of the phenomena) and these diverse sources need to demonstrate WP:LASTING effects and WP:PERSISTENT coverage. This one is close but just not yet. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If not an article on the meme, I'd support an article about the harassment of female journalists, of which "FHRITP" seems to be a part. For example: [17] at the The Toronto Star, [18] from Georgia Straight, and [19] from CBC.ca. This meme would be a significant element of it but not the only part. Other stuff: [20] from the The New Zealand Herald (female journalist got groped) and [21] from The Toronto Star (female journalist got kissed). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it doesn't appear that this phrase/meme is significantly more notable than it was during the AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have discussed this deletion with the closing admin, and was recommended by the closing admin to submit a DRV: User_talk:Kudpung. I am proposing that the decision to delete the page be overturned or that the page be rewritten with better information. The main (and only) concern by participating editors who advised for deletion (not all did) was that the subject did not meet Notability guidelines. Since notability is not limited to the sources listed in the article -- I think these further details must be brought into consideration: the subject's works are maintained at repositories such as UCLA's Film Archive, the ONE Archive, and such records are maintained by the Online Archive of California, the showing of his films at festivals such as Outfest and Toronto's LGBT Film Festival, the subject being featured as one of 30 filmmakers in the book: Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors, and Authors By Sean Abley. It was noted that his films have been reviewed in Variety - as it was listed as a source, but unknown were reviews from the NYT. His films have also been included in short film collections, one being a collection of award-winning short films, and that collection was reviewed in the Library Journal: Johnston, Lisa N. "History Lessons / Queer as F**k: Bizarre Short Films". Library Journal127.13 (Aug 2002): 165. Thank you in advance for your consideration and thoughts on this -- and hopefully, I am following procedures correctly here. Pclibuser (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but restore to draft. The AfD discussion seems to have been closed appropriately. However, if there is new information that was not present before, the best route forward is probably to restore the article into Draft: space. There the article can be worked on and, when/if it is ready, moved back to the main encyclopedia space. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: I have no objections to this article being restored as a draft. Drafts are subjected to a further review either at AfC, NPP, or both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think having the article updated with additional references seems fair - as the article probably hadn't been fully updated in 5 years or so. I would be happy to update it with those additional resources once it is available to do so. How would I find out when it's restored as a draft? Pclibuser (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Football on ABC results (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that undue weight was applied to several arguments in the discussion that were inadequate--specifically the arguments of NOTSTATS and TV Guide. The requirements placed out in the discussions were clearly met but the closer still considered them valid. Arguments that have been refuted should not be considered. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the closing editor but have not met with cooperation. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: As far as I can tell, Paulmcdonald's argument here is basically that he disagrees with the arguments of the editors who supported deletion. But mere disagreement with the outcome of an AfD is not a sufficient basis for requesting deletion review. I don't know what "The requirements placed out in the discussions were clearly met" is supposed to mean. And arguments for or against inclusion of an article are normally a matter of editorial judgment, not a matter of black-or-white policy, and as such the closer can in most cases not simply consider one set of arguments "refuted" if editors disagree in good faith - especially not, as here, the arguments of a very strong majority of participants.  Sandstein  19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response This is more than just a disagreement with the outcome, I believe "the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" which is reason #1. The reason I believe that it was interpreted incorrectly is because I believe that undue weight was given to arguments that were falsely raised. 8 of the 10 editors who took the position of "Delete" did so specifically stating either TV Guide, NotStats, or NotInfo--and these issues were directly addressed as not being valid arguments in light of changes in the article. Just having a "majority" of the comments supporting NotStats does not actually mean that NotStats was violated or not. Even in the closing editor's brief comments on the talk page, these reasons were cited as primary drivers in the closing decision. Since that would leave only 2 editors taking a "delete" position and 4 taking a "keep" position, that should show that consensus is far less clear. The closing editor's refusal to discuss the matter also seemed to introduce an angle of potential bad faith, so I brought it here for an independent review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we should have this article (and in fact !voted to keep it). I think NC maybe could have been a reasonable outcome, but given that discussion, delete is hard to argue with. I won't formally endorse because I too disagree with the !voters to the point I just think they are wrong. But even if that is so, the majority was strong enough an IAR outcome would have held. So I can't fault the closer in any way. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm no admin, but I have a concern with this close. I just noticed that the closer of this AfD had !voted literally 1 minute earlier on what is basically the same topic (list article of football game by broadcaster)[22]. I'm really not comfortable with an admin moving between an editorial view and then an admin action quite like that. I think any admin would likely have closed it the same way, but I feel like that's not an ideal situation and I'd like to hear other's opinions as I think I generally have a stricter idea of what it means to be uninvolved than most. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Like many editors, I'm active at all stages of the deletion process: nominating articles for deletion, expressing opinions in AfDs, closing AfDs and closing DRVs. I've probably done each of this more than a hundred times, and there is no requirement either in policy or practice that one who participates in AfDs may not close other AfDs. If I participate in an AfD, I'm expressing my personal opinion, and if I close it, I'm putting my own views aside and am assessing the consensus established by everybody else. I would consider myself involved if I first expressed an opinion about an article and then closed the discussion, but not if I comment on one article and close the discusion about another. Because AfD tends to focus on the same kind of arguments and differences in editorial approach over and over again, it is impossible for any frequent AfD participant not to close a discussion that does not touch on an issue they themselves have not previously expressed an opinion about. Whether these discussions are years or minutes apart is, in my view, not relevant. So I don't consider myself involved here, and if fellow editors think that I am, they would need to find consensus to change deletion policy such that admins who close AfDs may not participate in others.  Sandstein  06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, we even accept that editors who expressed an opinion in an AfD may go on to voice their opinion in the DRV about the very same article - and so it is that Hobit and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who both advocated "keep" in both discussions at issue here, may offer an opinion in the same vein (that is being taken into account for consensus) here. That makes it even more odd that they expect administrators not to close AfDs if they have previously expressed an opinion in a similar AfD.  Sandstein  06:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? First of all, HW hadn't voted in the underlying discussion--you are just mistaken there. I did. And I disclosed that fact so any closer can weight that appropriately. Secondly, commenting on a discussion doesn't trigger WP:INVOLVED where closing a discussion does. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

It's clear you have a strong feeling about this--you'd expressed that one minute before--it's not like you'd forgotten. And even you actually don't have a strong feeling, WP:INVOLVED makes it clear that being seen to have a conflict is also a problem. And I don't think it unreasonable that most people would assume you had already formed an opinion of the right outcome before you looked at the AfD in question. I find it unlikely you'll agree with me here, but I would very much like it if you'd withdraw your close and let someone else close it. Not because the outcome is likely to be different--quite the contrary. Rather because I believe you are hurting our system of governance by taking an action, and then standing by that action, that is so clearly contrary to how things are, and should be, done around here. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Which kind of articles are worthy of inclusion either in general or in a specific AfD is something editors do have opinions and may disagree about, as with any editorial issue. But it is not normally a "dispute" in the sense we use the term in dispute resolution, but rather a routine editorial process. Except for special cases giving rise to very inflamed discussions, I do not consider the mere fact of an admin offering an opinion in an AfD to be an expression of "strong feelings" such that they are (forever, according to the policy you cite) disqualified from closing other similar AfDs. Otherwise, again, no admin who ever commented in an AfD would be able to close any vaguely related AfD, and that is certainly not the practice we see at AfD. In addition, I don't see the practical problem with this application of the "involved" policy because, as one sees here, any disputed closure can easily be reviewed at DRV, including by partisan editors such as yourself.  Sandstein  08:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'm having problems interpreting the "partisan editor" thing as anything other than an ad hominem argument. Could you clarify what you actually meant here? And yeah, using the bit to close a discussion one minute after you participated in a discussion on what is essentially the same exact case is an admin action and triggers WP:INVOLVED. And again, I'd hope even if you don't think you held "strong feelings" it's not at all unreasonable for others to believe you did--in fact it's common sense. And per policy that's enough to be a reason not to close it. You could have simply either !voted there or let someone else close it. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A simple list article where the expressed consensus is clear, and should be accepted absent an erroneous application of policy or a contrary established practice (one that is not reasonably distinguished). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share Hobit's concern here. The AFD in which Sandstein !voted shows significant current disagreement over the governing principles, and despite the closer's good faith his actions unnecessarily raises questions about his involvement in the matter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relistclose Personally, I think the article falls under WP:NOT as a list entry better suited for a stat database somewhere. Secondly, I think the right close was to delete. However, the close was inappropriate when the closer had just voted on a very similar article. Pinguinn 🐧 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, a clear reading of the consensus. The consensus here was clear enough that I'm not particularly concerned about what User:Sandstein might have done elsewhere. If you want articles closed only by admins with no biases whatsoever, then they're never going to be closed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Basically, the correct decision in turnms odf our consistent policy for these articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: Do you see any issue with WP:INVOLVED?

Mandhir Singh (Chahal) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted under the category G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.... and according to the deleting admin, Nabla he also quoted for this article - "I deleted the article, because it adds nothing to the one that was previously deleted." and he also quoted the previous deletion discussions and its facts and figures on his talk page when I appealed for the undeletion of this article on his talk page. Thanks to Nabla for taking out his precious time. So here is my appeal to restore this article or to undelete the article -

The deletion started with the reason g4 and then i gave explanation of it that does it mean that once an article gets deleted from Wikipedia, will it never can be created again, even if it is being improved and worked upon ? The main thing starts right from the deletion of the previous articles, as the reason is g4. I have seen the previous articles which were written and the editors of those articles have written too much about the subject of article but had not been possible to provide any proper reliable sources for it, or say only social media presence sources was there, proving the notability. It means it considers notability but no proper references. Coming to the article which i tried contributing on - this time i have not written full flagged things, facts and his biography about the subject of the article because though i am new on Wikipedia, but i have read before creating the article that it need reliable source to create an article or to prove the saying of the fact in article. So that was the reason that I have written less in this article, so basically, we can't say that I have written same to same as previous articles, those who were deleted. and as it is said in their reason by admin that - "I deleted the article, because it adds nothing to the one that was previously deleted." , its true but one thing - what is point to add on when a proper citation is not there for the saying. taking it on the other side, whatever was written and also less than those previous article was sited with a source, a media and primary source.

And also during the deletion, the requesting person for speedy deletion as taken help of the thing which general ization has said for PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab on the date 13 march 2016 which was - "Comment Considering that the Mr. Punjab contest itself is not notable at the English Wikipedia, it's a safe bet that the first runner-up in the 2015 contest, with no other credible claim to offer, will not be notable here. General Ization Talk 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)". That was true in those days as the principle network PTC Punjabi was not having significant media coverage, media resources and primary resources for PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab whom the subject to our talk, Mandhir Singh is first runner up in second season i.e. 2015. But when this speedy deletion was requested, i.e on 4 October, 2016, there was significant approach to media and resources etc. of PTC Punjabi Mr Punjab. I also tried contributing for it on Wikipedia at PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab. So a wrong assumption was taken by the requesting personnel during nominating/requesting this article for deletion. Even, there was no explanation was requesting user when i put my opinion in the second reply.

Basically, crusk of reasons/explanations for deletion of this article - g4, nothing add upon, and less source found, no notability of Mr. Punjab at that time which also played an important role in the deletion of the previous articles.

For all the reasons and beyond these - g4, nothing add upon and less source, no notability of PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab, I have tried with my earnest efforts to answer all the reasons. I am adding some more to the explanation. The time at which the previous article was deleted with the consent of admins, the subject of the article was not that notable on Google search not even the PTC PUnjabi Mr. Punjab was. At that time, no news was there for him in News tab of Google search, but now when this current article was made, the subject was having his notability in the google search, it's news tab also when searched with the following keywords - Mandhir Singh Chahal, Mandhir Singh Chahal Mr. Punjab and Mandhir Singh Mr. Punjab. At my appeal for undeletion to Nabla of this article on his talk page, he quoted - "The article's content are nearly identical. The first deleted article - Mandhir Singh Chahal - had 7 references, while the one speedy deleted - Mandhir Singh (Chahal) - had 3 references. 2 were the same, the 3rd one adds nothing as much as I can understand it." For identicalness of content and article, i have already explained. For references, I have checked that the earlier articles made on the subject of the article were not containing the references in the name of him, as they were in the name of winner of the 2nd season of PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab who is Aman Singh Deep/Amandeep Singh for whom, no contribution till now has been possible on Wikipedia, though he has very reliable source for him. 2 were deleted in his name. But this time all the references were in the name of the subject of the article. About adding, i have also explained. It was made with stub but with citations. Samdeepsinghone (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 with no prejudice against listing immediately at AFD. The new article is clearly an entirely new text, and contains better sourcing than the previous incarnation, although not being familiar with Indian sources it still may not be enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Based on the blocking of the creating editor, I'm happy for this to stay deleted under CSD G5, although I still feel it's not valid CSD G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• (closer) comment - Samdeepsinghone correctly quoted (part of) my arguments to him when he contacted me and the deletion summary. You may see it all if you look at my talk page - Nabla (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User Samdeepsinghone has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of AwardPunjabi. GSS (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Hopkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page, which represents a plausible misspelling, was deleted without RFD, and has not even been recreated yet to talk about another person. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to have my ducks in a row, before creating the article. I was just clearing way for my edits, once they're ready.

While this is a plausible misspelling, doesn't such a redirect simply lull someone into believing that their mistake in another article isn't a mistake?

Should we not also create Sara Hopkinns, given that's a legitimate spelling of that last name? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply -

1. It is possible to create an article without deleting the old history outright, the latter of which is bad practice, especially without an RFD. Just create the page in draft space, then delete the article.
2. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, WP:R#KEEP bullet 2 talks about "redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling".
3. Be Bold!

--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• restore Out of process deletion with no clear purpose stated. Even if you are going to create a new article, there is no reason to delete rather than just start a new history in place. Almost certainly doesn't matter either way, but _if_ someone has an external link to this redirect, they at least have a chance of figuring out what happened if the history is intact. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirects for common mis-spellings are, well, common. They exist mostly as a navigation aid for people typing into the search box. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Out-of-process and without sound justification. Redirects like this serve a useful purpose as interim measures, both navigating to appropriate articles and guiding Wikignomes to misspellings to be corrected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore  Out-of-process deletion, personal use of tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - Out-of-process, We always keep misspellings of names and although it may not be linked to anywere it's probably still serving a purpose. –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore But this should be a redirect to a hypothetical Sarah Hopkins DAB page for Sarah Hopkins, Sarah_Winnemucca, Sarah Hopkins Bradford. Given that real people use the name "Sara Hopkins" (including some covered in Wikipedia articles) and it's an incorrect spelling of a person charged with a serious crime, there's also WP:BLP issues at play. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've editorially recast Sarah Hopkins as a disambiguation page about the abovementioned women.  Sandstein  17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a deletion review for https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DeviceAtlas I believe that the discussion wasn't substantial and that the participants didn't know or check the sources thoroughly. There are plenty of references of various length and depth which can be found here. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas Saying that all these publications are unreliable or not independent is unfair to the authors some of which are well known names in the industry. If some of the sources actually used in the article are questionable, the vote should be improve, not delete, because clearly the notability guideline is met here. Pawelpiejko (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]