Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December

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

After my mistakes with COIN, the article was quickly AfD'ed by @SamHolt6 on November 24th. They repeatedly cited the wrong guidelines, including WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:AUDIENCE. I've repeatedly said that those guidelines are not correct, but SamHolt6 was not willing or able to change their initial reasoning. The only other delete vote was by @Smallbones, who was also involved with my COIN case. Smallbones reasoning came from looking at the brewery's production in 2014 and coming to the conclusion that the brewery's output in 2014 was not enough to merit its own article. I've asked three admins I'm familiar with, @Czar, Sergecross73, and Masem: to respond, Sergecross73 was so kind to do so. While not voting keep, they did point out that the guidelines cited were not correct. @Spartaz closed the discussion on December 9th, commenting "The result was delete. Arguments about COI and suchlike have been discarded. The issue is sourcing and while there are not a lot of bolded comments the nature of the sourcing has been closely examined and the consensus is that they do not meet the GNG". I've asked Spartaz on December 18th to reopen the discussion, but there has been no reply, although Spartaz did reply to other discussions.

As I've said several times in the initial discussion, I don't feel like the article's been giving a fair chance because of my fuck ups with paid editing, which this wasn't. The nominator cited several incorrect guidelines and did not change their reasoning; the only other delete vote was original research. While it's clear I would like the article to stay, I would be okay if there was an actual discussion with valid reasoning. There was no consensus to delete at that point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. (Sorry, wasn't around to comment the first time around.) SamHolt6's source review appears spot-on. We'd need other reliable refs that go into reasonable detail on the brewery. Otherwise, I'm not seeing what source material the article would use to do basic justice to the subject. The rationales might be off, but the closure on the basis of not fulfilling the GNG smells right. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original deletion (is this the proper way to phrase it?) . My reasoning at the deletion was "Delete the only policy I'll quote is WP:NOADS and it sure looks like advertising to me." I did go on to explain that the subject is a nano-brewery rather than a microbrewery. I don't think that Soetermans should hold that against me. Not everything that goes into a keep/delete !vote can be specificaly stated in terms of policy. One policy based reason should be good enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To NOADS I pointed at WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. You based your reasoning of NOADS on "I decided to compare production volume with a microbrewery that I've visited and know (deep in my smallest bones) that is just too small for a Wikipedia article"; to me, that is original research in a deletion discussion. You were the only other to vote delete in the discussion, so I did need to address it, but I don't hold it against you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes VandeStreek is also mentioned in Best Beers by Stephen Beaumont and Tim Webb, released in November 2017 (Google Books link). This finding was a coincidence, as my girlfriend gave the book as a gift from the visit to New York City. If this review does not lead to reopening the discussion, can I still receive a copy of the text? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. SamHolt6 did a good job analyzing the sources that had been presented, and Spartaz did a good job in the closing by concentrating on the sources and ignoring the other ephemera. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I found a copy of the original Wikipedia article and I looked at the sourcing.[1] There is a clear case of the article failing to obtain multiple, independent coverage from reliable sources in terms of substantial articles on the company. The company has also failed to receive any awards. The article does not pass Wikipedia:GNG. desmay (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Desmay, while it looks pretty similar, it's missing the infobox and some additional information. Concerning awards for instance, Dark Roast received the Gold medal for flavor stout/porter, Koper received Gold for best rye beer and BlackBock was picked as best bock beer from the Netherlands at the 2016 World Beer Awards, an international beer competition. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Overturn if it is correct that a commenting admin noted that the reasons for deletion in the AFD nom were not valid then this should be overturned.Egaoblai (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Ho (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I see no reason this page should be deleted other than vandalism and sock puppetry. While those actions are unfortunate, they have no bearing on the article's quality or merits to be included in Wikipedia. It appears the article was recreated under a nickname of the subject (due to sock puppetry) by a user unconnected to the creator of Sabrina Ho, but if you have a look at the deletion discussion, there was actually significant consensus to keep the article based on content Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Chiu Yeng. Sushikim (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus". However, there 7 votes to delete, 3 to keep, and 1 to merge or keep. I believe the keep arguments were very weak and the clear consensus was delete. I contacted the closing admin USER:Joe Roe and he responded:"I'm happy to explain my reasoning. Those in favour of deletion generally argued that the subject didn't meet WP:NPOL and that any coverage was routine. Those in favour of keeping generally argued that WP:NPOL was irrelevant because there was significant coverage. Both of these are good, policy-based arguments. I don't agree that the keep arguments were "very weak". RAN's point about the NYT is perfectly in line with policy, in that an obituary in an international newspaper is a strong indicator of notability under the WP:GNG. On the other hand, several (not all) delete !votes were weak—unsubstantiated assertions of non-notability—which is why I didn't put much weight on the numerical majority in favour of deletion. Overall, my assessment was that opinion on the notability of the subject was split, and that the discussants were unlikely to reach agreement on whether the available sources constituted significant coverage. Hence the close as no consensus."

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The keep arguments were very weak. An editor made a keep argument because "Generally a New York Times obituary is a defacto mark of notability." Several editors (not just myself) have challenged this argument in multiple AfDs. These obituaries constitute local coverage by the NYT and as has been pointed out in another discussion the New York Times even printed obituaries for every person who died in the September 11th attacks (clearly every one of those persons would not warrant an article). Other keep arguments were that the article should exist as long as the content is verifiable and there is more than one source and another argument by an editor who frequently argues that virtually all articles cannot be deleted because they should be merged instead. The delete arguments were based on the fact the article fails WP:NPOL and the coverage of the subject is routine and local. Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer made an appropriate assessment of the weight of the arguments here and concluded correctly. This AfD is one of several dozen started out of pure spite, based on a belief by Rusf10 that "I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." posted here at another AfD. Rusf10 has maliciously followed through on this threat and nominated several dozen articles related to Teaneck and elsewhere in New Jersey; most have failed. In not a single one of these nominations did Rusf10 make any effort to comply with WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation necessary to maintain the integrity of the deletion process. This DRV only further abuses process to destroy Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sir are abusive. You can keep shouting "he hates Teaneck" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this article has absolutely nothing to do with Teaneck. The problem with you is that you assert WP:OWNERSHIP over all New Jersey articles. Rather than make policy based arguments at AfD, you continually attack me at every turn. I did do WP:BEFORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And as explained in the AfD the sourcing is both routine and local. For just once try to make a logical argument that doesn't involve attacking me. Like a typical politician, you believe if you just keep repeating yourself loudly enough, people will believe whatever you say.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if you'd have the bare decency to acknowledge that you made the threat explicitly to attack articles from this one place because of my connection there, admit that you went ahead with the threat out of pure malice, apologize for the disruption you caused and learn to follow policy, rather than trying to keep up the efforts, I'd me a lot more sympathetic about the past bullshit. The problem is that you persist in denying a statement -- "I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." posted here -- that couldn't have been any clearer in showing that you're here to somehow get back at me for voting to keep that article. Sick. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo dude, the comment you keep quoting has no relevance to the discussion here, but please keep repeating yourself. Can you quote that three or four more times in this discussion? The more you repeat yourself the more relevant it becomes.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you want me to apologize to you after endlessly attacking me and insulting my intelligence? Don't make me laugh.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I am the creator of the article, the closer properly gave less weight to the argument that people covered by a New York Times obituary should be discounted. The argument is that the paper covers the New York metropolitan area so anyone covered by the paper, that lived in that same area, is of local interest only. There are over 300 mayors in the New York metropolitan area at any given time, I could only find 5 obituaries in the Times for any that served during the years that this mayor served. The September 11th attacks obituaries are a strawman, it was a one time policy change by the NYT for a one time event. WP:NPOL lists three examples where a politician gets an article, but the deleters appear to be arguing that you have to meet all three, by pointing out that the subject does not meet the criteria in the first example. None of the delete arguments even considered the option of merge-redirect to the list of mayors of this town. Each of the deleters arguments were thoughtfully countered by actual quotations of policy by @Unscintillating:. --RAN (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Comment. I would kindly ask that this article get relisted just so we can have some (civil) discussion on it again. I don't mind arguing a point that was argued again if it means clearer consensus. If what the Endorsers say is true or accurate, then the community should agree with them. I recommend we get a fresh perspective and try to put aside any longstanding agendas we all have for the good of the encyclopedia. Process is important. It is clear on the face of this action, the administrator did not clearly articulate how they followed consensus in this instance. Please no ad hominem or personal attacks or retailations to such that aren't civil. I admire the editors here, and I don't like seeing that kind of behavior from them.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC) PS. All Politicians aren't bad or mean...[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by invoking process is important in this case, Matthew. Process was followed to a T. The AfD was open for 14 days (so twice as long as usual). When the relist period expired, I assessed the consensus (or lack thereof) and closed the discussion. Per WP:RELIST, AfDs should not be relisted simply because there is no consensus; only if there has been little substantive discussion, which is clearly not the case here. If the conclusion of this DRV is that my assessment of the consensus was faulty, then it should be re-closed correctly. Relisting just for the sake of getting more opinions would be contrary to the deletion process guideline and would encourage the misuse of DRV by people who simply disagreed with the outcome of the AfD. – Joe (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll admit I jumped the gun on that one. I didn't review the process as adequately as I should have, but I still appreciate the explanation regardless. Joe, would a renomination still be possible? Since the article in question was closed as "no consensus" and I don't think this would be against deletion policy. Thank you again for your contributions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT: Someone can always renominate, yes. Although it would be best to wait for the DRV to close first. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating an NC in less than two months can lead to real community tensions.  See the essay WP:Renominating for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both (Joe and Unscintillating). I will take what you wrote into consideration as we try to move forward. I hope we can all revisit this issue peacefully down the road after this Deletion review closes. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse or change to keep. Established practice is that anyone with a editorial NYT obit gets an article here. It's true it was a relative brief obit, but I'd not like to lose hold of one of the few consistent principles that we hold. Additionally, Teaneck has a population of 40,000 which is very close to the level (50,000) where we routinely include mayors. I have argued elsewhere that it should be 100,000, but the consensus is that it should be lower and I support following the consensus, not my own preferences. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:- Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming was not mayor of Teaneck (and to my knowledge never lived there). He was mayor of Rumson, NJ, a town of about 7,000 people. Teaneck being brought into this discussion is a red herring by Alan Sohn.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely, unequivocally, no such "established practice" as "anyone with an NYT obit always automatically gets a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Salisbury is a 2007 AfD, in which an editor states, "NYT obituaries are extremely selective, and have always been accepted here as sufficient sources by themselves to prove notability."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating:Again, you are trying to mislead people like you always do, hoping they don't actually read the stuff you've linked to. That editor in the 2007 AfD was DGG! DGG's opinion is clear (and consistent), but I and other people here respectfully disagree. --Rusf10 (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous post I see multiple fallacious ad hominems confounded with the unclear antecedent "again", bundled with a shift-of-topic rebuttal, sugar coated with the word "respectfully".  As for the conclusion, the specific disagreement is not identified.  It is not necessary to agree with DGGs 2007 statement to agree with the closer's statement that a NYT obit is a "strong indicator of notability"; but then, I've never seen User:rusf10 apply the metric of "a significant amount of in-depth coverage" to sources, instead he argues from the lede of WP:Notability (people).  And that is one of the relevant points about this AfD, that only one editor argued that the topic failed GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do nothing here but engage in WP:Wikilawyering in order to cause chaos. Time and time again, you argue that nothing can be deleted because of the existence of alternatives to deletion. And here you are trying to back up DGG's statement with something he said 10 years ago (not a policy or even something based on a clear consensus). It doesn't make any sense, a consensus is not the same person saying the same thing twice. The closer of that AfD did not even mention the NYT in his/her closing statement. Can you direct me to any policy that says a NYT obit makes a person automatically notable? No you cannot!--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diff for your OP here is [2].  The exact words that your post claims were stated by the closer are: "RAN's point about the NYT is perfectly in line with policy, in that an obituary in an international newspaper is a strong indicator of notability under the WP:GNG."

Now regarding the policy ATD, and policy about policy, this is from the policy WP:Civility

Editors are expected to...work within the scope of policies

Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I guess - I don't have a good idea how this review should turn out, but I want to point out that during the AfD, on December 23, after the first relisting, I edited the page, increasing its length by over 50% and adding 6 references (it had 5, now it has 11). Other than my keep !vote, there was one keep and one delete !vote after me and the discussion was closed on the 28th, a day an a half after the last comment. Often when a page grows substantially during an AfD, extra time is given to allow editors more time to consider the changes. I'm not sure if there is a policy about that, but five days usually would seem like enough time, but the holidays may be getting in peoples way. Before my edits there seemed to be a consensus for deletion. Afterwards it was less clear and I could see a case for waiting seven more days or for closing as no consensus, but not for immediate deletion. All that said, there may be more activity if the page is resubmitted for discussion in a different season. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this in the information page, WP:Guide to deletion:

Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep There is simply too much reliance on the numerical prevalence of non-policy-based arguments. Even if DGG is wrong about NYT obits, the fact is that if GNG is met, SNG failure is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse SNG failure is very relevant, because NPOL is treated as de facto exclusionary. We should typically delete an individual who passes the GNG if they fail it. At the same time, DGG's point on NYT obits being accepted as proof of notability is very relevant and shows that we have a tension in our practice (and practice is policy). The point of the AfD is to sort out those tensions, and it wasn't able to do that. As such, no consensus was the correct outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to delete There's no NYT obit rule, and if there were one, it would take the consensus of people who aren't New Yorkers to establish one. And even the NYT describes him as a businessman first. Sure, there are other citations, but when it comes down to it we've done little more with them than fact-check the obit. For someone whose claim to fame is running a lesser business or a minor town, there needs to be more of a narrative than he went to school and then held a bunch of positions, one of which happened to be political, and then he died. The only thing that steps out of that at all is that he was part of the Ballantine family, which I have to think is the real reason he got an obit in the first place.

I'm seeing a pattern where notability standards are being degraded by general dismissal of WP:NOTNEWS as a standard. I see a lot of routine news stories, and they point to someone whose impact in the record of things isn't going to go any further than 14 Aug 2002 (when his wife died). I do not see how the keep arguments amounted to a rebuttal of this analysis; they seem to be essentially saying that the GNG standard, in practice, is lower than what it actually says. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we need clearer rules for when Politicians who don't qualify for WP:POLITICIAN can or should qualify for WP:GNG. It's disheartening. I really encourage you to help develop those guidelines as we move forward.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The position of the GNGs vs SNGs is disputable, and the consensus seems different about most of them. In the case of politicians, I definitely do not think that NPOL is accepted as exclusionary regardless of meeting the GNG. It would take a while to actually find them, but have dozens of recent AfDs in mind that went the other way, accepting even relatively week GNG arguments for inclusion of political candidates, Treating this on its principles rather than precedent, Using the SNG as exclusive this would automatically prejudice our coverage in every competed election in favor of the incumbant unless the non-incumbant had a prior political office. (in general I do think that SNGs should have precedence, but this is one that should go otherwise.)

As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or overturn to delete: As the discussion progressed, it seemed there was movement towards what the central issue was (the significance of a NYT obit, and whether GNG applied and was met). It just doesn't seem there was any real consensus in the end, though given the better deletes appeared to address not only the issue of NPOL but also GNG (albeit obliquely) I could support an overturn to delete. The keeps on that end mostly seemed to argue, in my view mostly consisting of vague waves to policy rather than analysis of the sources, that the NYT obit was sufficient and that GNG applied and there was enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. But the deletes didn't go too deeply into the weeds either, so my preference would be to defer to the closing admin and endorse the finding of no consensus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse- the discussion probably could, and should, have been closed as delete instead of relisting since that is where both the numbers and strength of argument seemed to be at that time. But since it was relisted, and opinion was split afterwards with good arguments on either side, I don't see much wrong with the final close. Perhaps once the community comes to some kind of agreement about how much routine coverage contributes to notability, this article can be revisited. I disagree completely with the hyperbolic claims that none of the delete opinions were grounded in policy; it's obvious at a glance that they are. Reyk _YO! 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or change to keep as explained well by DGG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per DGG. per JClemens. AfD is not a vote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Wikipedia:GNG trumps subject notability guidelines (SNG). He was a mayor of Rumson, New Jersey and has a New York Times obituary written about him. We also have newspaper clips related to his being an executive at several firms.desmay (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Endorse to Keep - His status as the former Mayor of Rumson, plus the full New York Times obituary is enough. Scanlan (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer appropriately assessed the arguments and found that no consensus existed. I don't see how overturning the decision to close or keep makes sense because both sides of the discussion raise valid policy points. While XFD is not, and should not, be treated as a popular vote, in most cases, if there are multiple editors on both sides on an issue, consensus does not exist, so the proper close is no consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CE Holkar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a very strong consensus that these should not remain as stand-alone articles: mostly to delete, but some to redirect as well. Unfortunately, the closer preferred to close the discussion in line with the result of another AfD rather than the content of this one. On their talk page, the closer acknowledges that the arguments against keeping were stronger and that the discussion should have been closed as redirect if not for the other AfD and the existence of related discussions elsewhere. I don't agree that either of these external factors should be able to override what is a very obvious consensus. Reyk _YO! 16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there was a "strong consensus" to delete, wouldn't there be at least one policy-based delete !vote?  You will see that I even quoted from the edit notice to one delete !vote, and the delete !vote blissfully went on without even trying to review the ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect as nominator. I argued to delete in the AfD. Reyk _YO! 16:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: As XfD closing admin I have absolutely no problem with this review. Would just like folks to be aware of these related open threads Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#An issue with one sentence and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Please clarify confusing notability issue for AfD purposes. --J04n(talk page) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my count it was 25-6 in favour of delete/redirect, and both of us agree that that side had the stronger arguments. If it had been the other way around, with over 80% of the contributors arguing to keep and making the better arguments, would you still have closed this AfD as no consensus on the basis of other discussions elsewhere? Reyk _YO! 20:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always difficult to answer a hypothetical, but I believe that with the open discussions I would have closed similarly. --J04n(talk page) 12:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. I'm still disappointed that the views of 30+ contributors have been completely discarded this way, and I predict that this close will interfere with finding a resolution at the other two threads rather than encouraging a solution. But I can at least appreciate you trying to be even-handed. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome as the nominator highlighted, there are ongoing relevant discussion which are the correct venue to deal with the issues involved in this AfD. This AfD was not the place to overturn long standing notability guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to WP:TRAINWRECK and admonish the nominator to not do it again.  Caveat: I participated in the AfD and also posted on the closers talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I had looked at closing this, but after I realized how much work it would be to sort out the various opinions on dozens of different articles, I ran away. Mass AfDs often seem like a good idea at the time, but often go awry as people start to offer differing opinions on the various articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you in search of proboscatory enumeration, you can read the above as endorse no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it at all possible to have a review by editors who didn't participate at the AFD? No one tried to change policy but rather they applied rationales displaying why NCRIC alone does not supercede other, more essential, guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We have two proper discussions about this going on already, and this AfD wasn't the place to be trying to have this discussion. As the closer rightfully pointed out. Maybe if this ridiculous DRV hadn't been opened, there'd be no need to prolong this AfD ridicule. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect to the respective list articles. As has been pointed out, there was a readily apparent consensus not to keep what are, in my view, unverifiable stubs. The outcome of a different AfD is not relevant for this one, particularly if the other AfD resulted in no consensus. The closer therefore was clearly mistaken in assessing consensus. Although I advocated deletion, it seems there's not quite a clear enough consensus for this, so "redirect" is the best way to implement the "not keep" consensus. Sandstein 22:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse current closure. I was a "keep" in this discussion, but I believe that the open threads cited by the closer will determine whether that is a long-term-tenable opinion and also have potential impact on other wikiprojects. In any case, this was such a ragbag of different articles that "no consensus" is sensible, and if there are to be future nominations of any of these, I'd hope they'd be done in a more orderly way. Johnlp (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect - Looks like editors from the AFD are weighting in despite my plea. The outcome cannot be based on an entirely seperate AFD or discussion, especially when the AFD in question was "no consensus" and the discussion has no forgone conclusion. If the discussion advocates (doubtful) keeping these stubs, a redirect still has the editing history. However, a super !vote by an admin is against the obvious consensus that those stubs should not exist as articles, and the need to reaccess this error in judgment is crucial.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete/redirect. We give a lot of leeway to weigh AFD comments when closing, but that is an overwhelming consensus not to have these as standalone articles. Anyway, perma-substubs aren't good for the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A defensible close. I think they should all be merged, which is not a deletion action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a least bad solution to this mess. AfD is not articles for discussion, it's articles for deletion, and regardless of a consensus to not have these as standalone articles, no consensus existed--nor should it!--to delete all of these. Mass nominations such as this one would be better presented as RfCs: I have never seen a mass nomination of this many anything ever be successfully closed--the proportion of mass nominations that actually achieve anything useful appears inversely proportional to the square of the number of articles so nominated. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I spent some time going over this AfD and was planning to close it as no consensus when I had the time to write a proper summary, but J04n beat me to it. Nominating so many articles at once is almost always a bad idea and sure enough it turned this AfD into a WP:TRAINWRECK. Yes, the majority of participants were in favour of deleting or redirecting, but very little of the discussion was actually about the articles or the available sources. Instead it turned into a quasi-RFC on WP:NCRIC. There is zero evidence that either the nominator or any of the participants applied WP:BEFORE to each individual article, and I think any admin should be uncomfortable with deleting nearly 50 articles on that basis. – Joe (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete- The vast majority of arguments were to delete all of the articles (not even to redirect). The arguements were based mostly on a failure of WP:GNG, but some also mentioned WP:V. The outcome of the other related AfD is irrelevant here. I think using the outcome of one AfD to close another sets a bad precedence.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus. This is fundamentally a dispute over whether the SNG for athletes is stand alone, or dependent on the GNG (there is no dispite that articles on athletes must meet WP:V). This needs a community discussion, as a very basic issue is involved. I have been here 11 years, and therelationship betweenthe SNGs and the GNG have been unclear for 11 years. The choices are whether the SNGs are 1/ a limitation on the GNG (meaning an athlete must meet both the GNFG and NSPORTS) or 2/an additional criterion, meaning an athlete must meet either the GNG or NSPORTS, or 3/ Whether NSPORTS is the only effective guideline for people whose notability is athletes, meaning we ignore the GNG for this field or 4/whether the GNG is the true criterion, and NSPORTS is merely a guide to whether an athlete will meet it (and similarly for the other SNGS, except WP:PROF , where it is long established that the GNG does not have to be met) The "guide" meaning is expressed by the term presumably. But ppresumably in the ordinary definition means it will be assummed to be true unless there is some evidence showing otherwise; the mere failure to find evidence does not invalidate the presumption. However, the word here has often been used in the muh weaker sense of being "suggestive", that unless actual evidence can be found the presumption does not hold. WP of course may use whatever meanings we choose, but there has to be very strong consensus not to use a word in its ordinary meaning. (the most relevant example is notability, which we use --in my opinion very foolishly -- to mean "meets the guidelines that we call the notability guidelines' regardless of any possible correlation with what anyone in the real world would call notability .

Personally, I have a definite opinion on this: not just for sports, the SNGs should be the only relevant guidelines in all fields where there is one, and the SNG is only a fallback a default when there is none applicable.(and in those cases, we should try to establish a SNG to decrease the use of the GNG to the minimum. This could be decided in general for all fields, but in practice the arguments here have usually been specific to the individual field-- and that is reasonable, for the different SNGs have different degrees of acceptance.

This does not mean I approve of the nSPORTS guideline--I consider it absurdly inclusive, but I would argue that if we want to narrow it, we have to debate that specifically, not bypass it by additional "notability" requirements.

We can interpret policy at DelRev, but we can not really establish policy here on a general matter. This has been so repeatedly an issue, with Del Revs coming to opposite conclusions, that it isnt really a matter of interpretation. We need an RfC, and I'd suggest it be limited to NSPORTS--that will be enough for one AfC without confusing it with the other guidelines. Until then, NC is the obvious way to go with disputed articles like these. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer made right decision when two concurrent discussions were open. Störm (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as no consensus, not enough reasoning for delete as offline sources were not properly considered which is not surprising in such a large bundle of articles which is problematic in itself as searching for references even just online is such a task for this number that is very unlikely to have been thoroughly carried out. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Mass nominations rarely go well. Especially when they meet the relevant SNG. Also, this looks a lot more like an attempt at a SNG change than an AfD. So either slowly nominate a few of these a week OR (better) propose a change at the SNG talk page. In any case, as could be easily predicted, this was a WP:TRAINWRECK. (For the record, I don't know that I agree with the closing statement, but I do agree there was NC) Hobit (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editorially, I think most of these are best dealt with by merging them until we have enough information to justify writing an article. Per the SNG we can have an article, but if there is so little that can be verified we cannot get to even a "stub stub" I don't think we _should_ have the article. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse When people don't agree, as in this case, then "no consensus" is a sensible outcome. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I do not agree with the closer's statement, specifically "to be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake will close this as no consensus," but no consensus is the only sensible option. The closer's statement is problematic because each XFD should stand alone and be judged based on the arguments only contained with the discussion. While WP:OUTCOMES may provide utility to nominators, closers, and discussants in "helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practices," --Enos733 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse code cab signaling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I put this through the copyvio detector and mistakenly thought that this work was plagirized from:https://randytown.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/cab-signalling/. The article was created in 2009 even though this page is dated from 2008. However, it appears that the person who created this blog backdated it to make it appear like it was there own. I feel really stupid and feel horrible about this. It is obvious. For instance you can see the ref here: Cab signaling in the United States was driven "by a 1922 ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission that required 49 railroads to install some form of automatic train control in one full passenger division by 1925.[6]" I don't know how I didn't notice this. This article should and has to be restored as soon as possible. @Sturmovik: spent a lot of time and effort on this article and I inadvertantly undid it. Please restore it. @Jimfbleak: Thank you, and I am sorry. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What evidence do you have that, the person who created this blog backdated it to make it appear like it was there own? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all this article was clearly copied from the wikipedia article. It has references like [5] and [6] littered through it.

Other articles on the website also directly copy but here he remembered to take the refs out. https://randytown.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/railway-post-office/ Railway post office. https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Railway+post+office&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Frandytown.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2F02%2Frailway-post-office%2F I don't think that the person on their website if they in fact were the owner of the content would write [5] in it. Finally, the first post was from 2010. [3] "Monatsarchiv: September 2010

Hallo Welt! Veröffentlicht am 30/09/2010 von randytown Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!" This was clearly deliberate. I doubt that Wordpress would send someone a post that it was their first post if it really wasn't their first post. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see the original, but I agree it does appear this looks a lot like a number of articles were copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only does that wordpress site copy Wikipedia (not vice-versa), it doesn't even copy this article. It's from the 04:02, 9 May 2008 revision of Cab signalling. —Cryptic 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now restored, my error Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kiryat Motzkin – Haifa line (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed prematurely (before the full 7 days) and there were only two participants in the discussion. I requested that the discussion be relisted, but my request was denied. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer--The policy states:--The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution and has no likelihood of being used.Coming to this case, at least, a TFD participant, (who isn't the original creator) has displayed potential interest in the template and may choose to work on it.Amos has once displayed a potential interest.Even I or damn anybody else may choose to have a go at it.

About why I avoided relisting, TFD has a reputation of a venue that hardly recieves any meaningful discussion/participation in a huge majority of the template-discussions(which leads to most of the templates being subject to deletion after a treatment equivalent to that of PROD).In these seven days, the sole argument advanced by the nom which has an automatic corollary of no potential usefulness has been quite well-voided.Also, I fail to see any other benefits of the deletion.So, I stand by my closure.Winged Blades^Godric 14:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Looks like a solid Keep decision, no idea where the issue lies. Schracq (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the issue is that the discussion was closed early, and there was only one additional participant in the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at User:Schracq's edit history?  I'd believe the editor when he says he has no idea where the issue lies.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist  No need for an early close, especially by a non-admin.  The fact that the closer now says he/she might use the template, is a statement that the closer should have posted as a !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TFDs don't distinguish between NACs and admin-closes, even minimally, in case of non-contentious case(s).And IMO, you have taken the statement he/she might use the template out of context; it just describes the potential usability of the template.Winged Blades^Godric 08:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This appears to have been closed 3 hours early when there seems a clear reason to keep the template. TFD has been utterly broken for years due to low participation and relisting this serves no value as the outcome should be keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If that outcome is so uncertain that it must be propped up with rumors that the closer might use it, that outcome becomes less certain.  If there were no value to being here, the OPs petition should have been speedy closed as lacking in DRVPURPOSE.  As for opinions that the outcome should be this or that, this is not TFD#2.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I see no benefit from closing a discussion early with so few participants. I have closed discussions a few hours early myself, but I am always willing to relist them if asked. The "low participation" in discussions is not fixed by closing discussions early, since relisting discussions only increases the chances of more participation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "The discussion was closed early" might sound alarming—but if I am reading the timestamps correctly, it was closed just two hours short of the full seven days, which is de minimis. A relisting might have been appropriate but is not mandatory. Since the real question raised in the TfD is whether the template is going to be used in any articles anytime soon, and since the template isn't causing any harm by existing, the easiest solution is to wait for a couple of months and see what happens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the template isn't causing any harm by existing--Precisely.Winged Blades^Godric 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • sure, if you ignore the fact that this line does not exist. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on a mobile and failed to parse your comment.If you mean that it's a hoax, CSD is always available and that will obviously overrule the TFD.Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the two (it's three not two) hours de minimis is only looking at one aspect of the issue, and ignoring among other issues the judgment that went into closing early and refusing to relist.  The community had a discussion in January 2016, and confirmed that 7 days mean 168 hours.  One user there posted:

    168 hours. As a side note, I take a very dim view of controversial non-administrative closures. If an editor wants to engage in controversial closes, they ought to go through an RfA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    The 2009 decision to change AfDs/deletion discussion to 7 days closed with:

    All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion

Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If you think that was a controversial close which shall be evaluated as to the span of the arguments in the TFD, it was not.And if you are fond of quoting established editors you may wish to pay a visit to this and this.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Not all procedural variations are significant, but the 7 day minimum is. Experience in the past was that it inevitably led to creep downwards, and even people trying to get there first to do the closet heyclose they favored. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [typo corrected Unscintillating (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Three hours taken out of the mandated 168 would not have made an iota of difference.Not bureaucracy and all that.Failed to get your 2nd line.Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The whole matter seems vexatious and no further time should be wasted on it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bayliss (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Is now a first team regular and scoring goals for Coventry City in the English Football League. Should never have been deleted in the first place, but here we are. EchetusXe 16:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is definitely notable now, you can just go ahead and recreate it; no need to go to DRV. Let me know if you want the previous version restored to work off of; I'm on mobile right now and will be for most of the day so I won't trust myself to do it for most of the day, but if any passing admin sees this, go ahead. ansh666 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore it, statement above verified by [4]. @EchetusXe:, would you'd add any relevant updates? Cheers, --joe decker^talk 19:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OKay I'll update. Cheers--EchetusXe 20:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Margeli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

deletion discussion was closed too early as soon as the biased editor who marked the page for deletion got one vote in his favor. Delete editor magically ignores sources not based in Anglo U.S and U.K territories. Article should be opened so it can be amplified. Positive votes were dismissed as too late. チェリートップ (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was originally a paragraph in an article being constructed in Sandbox about the activist and musician, Derek Williams. It was migrated in an attempt to reduce the size of the Williams article, despite adding to his notability. However, the article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was not a notable campaign. After that, there was one vote to Keep, one to Merge to Sibelius (software) and another to Merge to Sibelius Software, so it’s hard to see this as ‘consensus’ to Merge to Sibelius Software (different page to Sibelius (software)). Summary of the 4 votes:

• Speedy deletion
• Keep
• Merge to Sibelius (software)
• Merge to Sibelius Software

No option received more than one vote, so the current consensus is 3/1 not to erase the content. Another option is to reintegrate the content back to the Derek Williams article, and see what fate that suffers. If the entire Williams article ends up being deleted along similar lines, then mention could still be made of the Save Sibelius campaign under the articles: orphaned technology, abandonware, planned obsolescence, asset stripping Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the OP seems to have miscounted: two people wanted it merged to Sibelius Software (the company that makes the software), one person wanted it merged to Sibelius (software) (the software itself), the nominator presumably wanted it deleted and the OP wanted it kept. That's three people supporting a merge, one person opposing it, and the nominator who didn't explicitly oppose a merge (the nomination is compatible with the arguments being made for the merge). That looks like pretty clear consensus for a merge and the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary. Hut 8.5 10:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary" - is there a link to "elsewhere"? The 3rd possible Merge option not yet discussed is to repatriate the article to its original place in Chrisdevelop Sandbox article about Derek Williams. It was originally snipped from there to reduce the article's length. Two more snips were planned, depending on the fate of this one. Obviously if the orphaned articles keep getting erased, their original function in supporting the notability of the subject of the article is erased too. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Discussions about where to merge the content can be done on the article talk page or on the talk page of the target article. Hut 8.5 15:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Procedural close  While WP:Deletion policy states that content discussions belong on a talk page, the OP here is asking permission to edit.  Permission to edit is granted in the fundamental principles.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but.... First, it's not clear that you ever talked with the closing admin, so @Drmies: alerting him now to make sure he's aware. Next, it's not quite clear what action you're proposing instead of the stated consensus. If you're proposing a better merge target, I doubt anybody would have any objections if you just went ahead and did that on your own. You mention a Derek Williams article, but Derek Williams is a WP:DAB page. Could you provide the exact title of the page you have in mind? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:An alert was placed here: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:2A02:C7D:2E89:C700:7192:9A5A:91F5:113 at the same time as posting this review request.

The Derek Williams (musician) article has been being worked on for some time in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox, however its creation has stalled because the article has become unwieldy with a large number of links, citations and photographs. Rather than risk having the entire article deleted under initial Review, it was decided to try migrating certain paragraphs to separate articles in an attempt to reduce its length. The paragraphs intended for sequestration, such as Save Sibelius do contribute to the notability of the biographical subject, however it was felt a link to such migrated material reposted in its own article would not ipso facto disestablish notability, unless the content were erased or masked within another page, as will happen as a consequence of the vote to Merge. Since the Save Sibelius article has been deemed to be not interesting in its own right, the question is now whether the concomitant material would better serve its incipient purpose supporting the putative notability of Derek Williams by being repatratiated to the Sandbox, and just accept the risk that the entire Derek Williams (musician) article may itself suffer a speedy deletion once it is submitted for Review.  :Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- a reasonable close and in line with consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, it's ok to repatriate the Save Sibelius article with the Derek Williams article in the Chrisdevelop Sandbox in line with the consensus to Merge and the comments from talk and RoySmith? If this has been understood correctly, then the article will be cut from its present site at Save Sibelius, and reintegrated with the Derek Williams (musician) article currently in preparation, and thereafter, Save Sibelius will presumably be erased by Admin. The fact that there are two pages so similarly named ought of itself to be the subject of discussion. The Sibelius (software) page could be renamed "Sibelius (scorewriter)" for greater clarity.

• Relist Two votes to merge and two votes for totally different things dosent sound like a lot of discussion. Consensus on Wikipedia is not merely a tally of votes but based on policy based arguments and their weight. ElonTesla (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElonTesla: Thank you. Certainly, there are very few comments and a small number of votes. Is there agreement to relist for further discussion? Also alerting closing Admin: @Drmies: Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Endorse I was considering nominating merging the software and the corporation together seeing as how one exists only to produce the other, but I presumed that suggesting that in the middle of the other discussion would be held disruptive. Three articles, however, are at least one if not two too many. Anyway, the proof by excessive verbiage discussion made it difficult to tell how many respondents there were; @Power~enwiki: it would be useful if you chimed in. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: At https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Talk:Sibelius_(software)#Proposal_to_merge_with_Sibelius_Software there was a proposal to Merge the two, but this was opposed, and discussion fizzled out. That was 2012-13, so perhaps this should be reconsidered. FYI, discussion about 'Save Sibelius' campaign has been redirected by Drmies back to the article's Talk page. Chrisdevelop (talk)

Well, I would have suggested the reserve merge, since the software is largely what anyone cares about.

And could you PLEASE indent and sign your responses correctly? Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copied over from article discussion page at the request of @RoySmith:

@Drmies:@Cryptic:@Power~enwiki:@Hut 8.5:@RoySmith:@K.e.coffman:@Unscintillating:@Mangoe:@Raymond3023:@MBisanz:@Sandstein:@Rusf10:@ElonTesla:

Discussion was previously sent to Deletion Review by Cryptic.

At https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Save_Sibelius, ElonTesla voted to Relist. So now we have the following 12 votes:

* Speedy Delete power~enwiki (grounds: "Not a notable advocacy effort")

* Keep Chrisdevelop (grounds given by article creator demonstrating notability)

* Endorse Hut 8.5 (grounds: "...clear consensus for a merge and the exact target can be discussed elsewhere if necessary.")

* Endorse... but RoySmith (grounds: "not clear that you ever talked with the closing admin... If you're proposing a better merge target, I doubt anybody would have any objections if you just went ahead and did that on your own.")

* Endorse K.e.coffman (grounds: "in line with consensus")

* Procedural close Unscintillating (grounds: "Permission to edit is granted in the fundamental principles.")

* Merge to Sibelius Software x 2 Mangoe and Raymond3023 (grounds: "...content can still be useful")

* Relist MBisanz (grounds: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.")

* Relist Sandstein (grounds: "We need comments by people other than Chrisdevelop.")

* Merge to Sibelius (software) Rusf10 (grounds: "sources don't support its own article")

* Relist ElonTesla (grounds: "Two votes to merge and two votes for totally different things dosent sound like a lot of discussion. Consensus on Wikipedia is not merely a tally of votes but based on policy based arguments and their weight."

If Relist on the grounds given above by ElonTesla is not granted, then permission to do the following is requested:

1. Rename Sibelius (software) to 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' to remove confusion with Sibelius Software.

2. Merge Sibelius Software with Sibelius (software) to create 'Sibelius (scorewriter)'. Chrisdevelop could carry out this work.

3. If Merge still stands for the Save Sibelius article, then change the target so as to repatriate the contents of Save Sibelius to the Chrisdevelop Sandbox article currently in preparation, on the grounds that it is more useful in that location. Chrisdevelop (talk)

@Cryptic:@Power~enwiki:@Hut 8.5:@RoySmith:@K.e.coffman:@Unscintillating:@Mangoe:@Raymond3023:@MBisanz:@Sandstein:@Rusf10:@ElonTesla: A proposal to Merge and Rename has been placed in both Sibelius Software and Sibelius (software) articles. Please consider Endorsing the most recent merger proposal. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Overturn to delete, or failing that endorse the redirect, per WP:COITALK. And stop fucking pinging me and falsely claiming I said things I didn't. —Cryptic 02:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the COI, and clarify what you believe was falsely claimed? Chrisdevelop (talk)

I'm on vacation and don't plan to comment on this until about 0000GMT on January 5 (if it is still open). I hope you can resolve this without me. I considered this a fairly standard AfD nomination from the NPP queue and have no further comment about any of the merits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Miyamoto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I actually have no opinion if the subject is notable or not, consider this Deletion review as procedural and a test for consensus. The article was deleted after a deletion discussion, which concluded that: 1. it was unclear if she met WP:ENT, and 2. she appeared to lack coverage in reliable sources. This discussion is to discuss if either of those still apply. She appears to have had two main roles: as Megumi Amatsuka in GJ Club and as Rumia Tingel in Akashic Records of Bastard Magic Instructor. It appears she was also the dub actress for Lilo in the Japanese dub of Lilo & Stitch. Question: are those three main roles (one anime and one dub) enough for her to pass WP:ENT? In addition, I looked around for Japanese sources, and I found some, such as this interview together with the other cast members of Akashic Records, and others like this link and this link; however, it seems that most sources I could find are about her roles as Rumia. Is the coverage available good enough for article recreation to be permitted, or is Miyamoto still a case of WP:TOOSOON? A discussion with the deleting admin was inconclusive, so DRV it is. Note that the AfD nominator was since topic banned from deletion discussions as a result of two ANI discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic ban is irrelevant, as this was a well-considered nomination.  The AfD lacked a QUORUM, so is also not determinative.  I see no reason not to get a WP:REFUND.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She did not meet WP:ENT back when AFD was called up in 2016. Her role in Akashic Records of Bastard Magic Instructor happened in 2017, so that's new information, and could help her meet WP:ENT. Recommend she move to draft so that the sources can be cultivated. It's not clear which Lilo she was for the Lilo & Stitch series. TV show? direct-to-video? and whether that was an important role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Her ANN page suggests that she was Lilo in the Japanese dub of the TV series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review actually has nothing to do with the topic ban, I only mentioned it in the interest of disclosure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- the sources listed are indicative of WP:TOOSOON: interviews and the like. The subject does not meet WP:ENT and restoring the article would not serve a useful purpose. Keep deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reposted several times solid delete opinion. Schracq (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ENT #1 keeps on being a troublesomely worded SNG, it would be my continued preference to see notability established in such cases only by direct, GNG-quality evidence. That aside, I'm in agreement that there's not a WP:QUORUM here (and I'd feel that way short with or without the nominator's topic ban.) --joe decker^talk 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete or draft as there was not a quorom with the nom being topic banned Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted despite numerous sources showing it is notable. The closing admin ignored the sources listed in the Afd in their closing of the discussion, as well as the thread of discussion, especially in the comments, which looked to me like the keeps came out on top. It was argued without much rebuttal that the list would be easy to maintain. There were issues with delete arguments brought up that were not addressed. He/she also ignored the argument by some that the list could be shortened. (Indeed, the admin did not close with an explanation) List of Most-followed Instagram accounts is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. There are sources that show the list is notable as it was: [5] [6] Subuey (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: The request is malformed; the correct links are List of most-followed Instagram accounts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Please refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Sandstein 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per Sandsteins explanation on his talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- the discussion was well attended and the consensus was clear. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No consensus – The close looks like a rushed decision bordering on supervoting. Even in the explanation on their talk page, the closer failed to analyze all arguments for and against deletion. There were actually 6 editors arguing Keep -- the closer miscounted only 4 -- (Subuey's entry was not labeled Keep but was clearly in support), while 12 argued Delete (including the OP). In addition Pontificalibus remained neutral but criticized the Delete arguments in two well-reasoned comments. The closer justified their assessment by stating Only one "keep" opinion argued with sources, which is wrong:
  • I wrote The list itself is sourced, not OR
  • Galobtter wrote (links to 6 sources) documents the set in clearly reliable sources
  • PhilKnight wrote Keep per Galobtter which was dismissed by Sandstein as Per X […] very weak arguments – Actually "per Galobtter" surely means "I've seen the sources exhibited by another editor and I'm persuaded the list is well-sourced." What amount of extra work did Sandstein expect from PhilKnight?
  • Timtempleton wrote the compilation source does the heavy lifting for us and There are plenty of sources substantiating this ranking as notable. Passes WP:GNG.

A fair reading of the discussion indicates no consensus. — JFG ^talk 08:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn unless Sandstein can articulate a valid delete rationale present in the discussion, something that was not done in the closing comment nor in the later justification on their talk page. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on spurious reasons such "impossible to keep up-to-date" yet Sandstein appears to be basing the close on a simple numerical count of such votes.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO many of the delete !votes (at least 4 of them) can be discounted as they argued that the list would always be out of date, which is not in the realm of being a delete criterion. Looking at the other delete !votes, many were weak; and the nom also said that he wouldn't object if it was trimmed to the top 10, and another said that a top 10 could be in the instagram article. Enough for no consensus. Agree with pontificalibus that a valid delete rationale needs to be given. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Most of the arguments in the AfD were either very weak or rebutted. The closer is right that a lot of the Keep arguments were weak (although "per X" is fine if X advanced a valid argument), however the Delete arguments were weak as well:
  • The main argument for deletion was the fact that the article is referenced to primary sources. This is a valid argument, but it was rebutted by people who pointed to secondary sources which could be cited for this content. Whether such sources were in the article at the time isn't relevant, as AfD is not cleanup. This argument was rephrased in BLP terms, I don't think that makes any difference. There wasn't really any attempt by the Delete side to argue that the sources were all unsuitable.
  • Several people opined that the content wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia, describing it as "listcruft", "trivial", "not an encyclopedic topic", etc. These are subjective personal opinions and as such can be easily rebutted by people stating that the content is suitable for an encyclopedia. Certainly we have a lot of articles on similar topics.
  • Several people said that the list changed too often to be kept up to date. Again I think this is subjective personal opinion, and this fact doesn't prevent us from including many list topics (e.g. List of countries and dependencies by population).
  • Quite a few people said that they would be happy with the list if it was trimmed to the first X entries, or merged somewhere else. These aren't arguments for deletion, as AfD isn't cleanup. Deletion is for issues which can't be fixed through normal editing.

Now there were plenty of dodgy arguments on the other side, such as the claim that the article should be kept because it gets lots of page views, but in order to get an article deleted at AfD the burden is on you to demonstrate that it isn't suitable for the encyclopedia, and I don't see much of that in the AfD. Hence no consensus is probably best. Hut 8.5 15:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy on request  There is a solid consensus here that the topic is not appropriate for multiple reasons when presented as current news.  However, it was also shown that with restructuring, the topic can satisfy inclusion requirements.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already to the article "as of xyz date" was added. That should be enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that implies that we won't have a stable article over time.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be mostly stable, being counts in the millions. It won't change too much over 6 months, especially if shortened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with shortening, but how about lock it down and leave it and add another table once a year?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate close  Upon further review, I see that the point has been made that the closer was unable to explain why the article was deleted.  The closer implies that there was a policy-based keep argument, and one keep !vote is all that is needed to keep an article.  The only possible conclusion is that this was an improper !vote count.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus. Rereading the discussion there clearly was no real consensus to delete-- too many of the delete arguments there (and atthe discussion here) were so incorrect that they amount to DONTLIKEIT, such as the discussion about a stable article. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a no consensus I stand in direct agreement with those above me. ElonTesla (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC--One of the rare bad-closes from Sandstein.Winged Blades^Godric 06:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the outcome of the discussion was within the permissible range of outcomes, given the level of participation. bd2412 T 18:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC - the oppose arguments were primarily IDONTLIKEIT. This is a clear NC. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Raymond Boulle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The above article has been speedily deleted before I could vote. I would like to overturn the vote based on the following comments. I was about to vote, had written my comments and when I was about to paste them, I found that that the article was already deleted. I sent my comments to the admin but they disagreed. Furthermore, there were definitely too few votes.

What has given rise to the deletion notice is that the BLP has been characterised as

(i) a '''run-of-the mill metals trader'''. (ii) a Plutocrat. (iii) having 'staggeringly vulgar products'.

But the BLP

(i) is not a 'run-of-the mill metals trader' as anyone can see because he has discovered revolutionary new heart valve technology (Citations 31,32,33,34,35), discovered a $4.3 Billion mine (Citations: 4,5) and been decorated by Sierra Leone’s President. (Citation : 12).

(ii) A Plutocrat is a strongly negative word and is in and of itself a BLP violation (The Wikipedia Guidelines also apply to discussion pages). In addition, I think there's no source saying that he's one and that makes the ‘plutocrat’ argument doubly invalid.

(iii) "staggeringly vulgar products" cannot be used as a basis for a deletion notice. Perhaps editor concerned can provide a source for his argument.

The ostensible basis on which the deletion notice was created therefore has no rational foundation, nor does it offer a 'tipping point' of any kind because its foundations, per 1-3 above, are not based on rational fact or are not relevant or are a BLP violation.

What needs to be done per the third editor is to improve the article where and if there are indications or perceptions of 'promotionalism' or COI, if that is the case. Please can they give substance to these perceptions.

AFD is not clean up and if a notable person's page has hints of COI, that COI content should be edited by neutral uninvolved editors. It does not automatically become a reason for removing. The reason for removing an article is notability and the notability standards are met here. Furthermore, the !votes are betrayed by the logic they claim to be backed with and are therefore not accurately summarized by the closing admin. Consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote but here it looks like only the votes were counted and the weight of arguments was not considered.

And again, especially based on my discussion with the closing admin, he had an opinion of his own on the matter too as seen in his response. This and the fact that he just counted votes, didn't weigh up arguments means that he closed this with his WP:SUPERVOTE, something which is utmost basis of overturning such a closure. If he had an opinion, he should have added his own argument as an editor instead of acting as an admin to close the debate.

I request that the deletion be overturned. If there are any problems with the content or COI, sure, edit it and amend it to more neutral text. 197.226.250.43 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this was not a supervote: The point was made and not contested that all references appear to be about the company and not about its owner, so they can't justify an article. Nobody offered an argument to keep and the one you offered on my talk page is 2/3 irrelevant (the wording of the deletion nomination does not impact its merits) and 1/3 not supported by the references, which as far as I can tell are in fact mostly about the company. Three votes is the minimum I accept for an AfD close (other than a softdelete), but it's pretty normal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The process and the nub of all that is going here is that, again, you are reviewing the references. This means you are arguing for the deletion side which means that you must put a vote /comment into the debate and not close it. Further, the deletion was absolutely contested and this is ongoing and empirical evidence on the record that it was. What is important here is that the argument and the basis under which this delete was perpetrated was flawed as pointed out in this deletion review. That's why closing in favour of these flawed arguments alone was a supervote combined with the closing admin's own analysis of references. 197.226.250.43 (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I did not examine the references when closing the AfD since that is the voters‘ task, the closing admin has to examine the arguments given and the relevant policies/guidelines. But if you ask for the close to be overturned and point to the references, then yes I am going to examine them at that point - I do not overturn a close just on you say so.JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This wasn't a speedy deletion, it was open for the normal 7 days, and with three opinions to delete, could not have been closed any other way. To address some specific point (1) The references for the heart valve 31,32,33,34,35 are the company itself, a broken link though declared to be a press release, two other press releases and this (which is also a press release, but given it's a release from the hospital rather than hoplessly linked to the companies themselves I'd give it more weight) - this latter doesn't mention Boulle at all, let alone him "picking up a rock" and discovering a heart valve. (ii) and (iii) I would doubt have any impact on the deletion or otherwise. The references are the problem the ones I've looked at are PR pieces, source closely linked with the subject or not about the subject of the article himself - one (9) which seems to be broken has a title apparently of "wikipedia republished" which suggests it's a circular reference. That such a short article has 50 references suggests WP:OVERREF. Note this is based on the google cache of the article (which has the AFD headers on still, so I assume to be a fair representation of the article as it was) --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment : "This wasn't a speedy deletion, it was open for the normal 7 days, and with three opinions to delete, could not have been closed any other way." is equally flawed because while there were three opinions to delete, they were not wiki-policy based. That makes them votes, not true consensus and the debate needed more editors who used wikipedia criteria of notability and not their opinion as standards. 197.226.250.43 (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the deleted history (admin only) the page wasn't edited after the 16th December and the Google Cache version I can currently see dates to the 19th December, so if that is the cached version you are seeing it should reflect the state of the article when I deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It looks a run of the mill delete, one of dozens every day. Just because it was a fair close doesn't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. The principal editor is free to recreate the article - however take advice from other WP editors before doing so to ensure the subject is notable and referenced accordingly or next time it actually will get speedily deleted. Szzuk (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add. At the time I wrote my previous comment I suspected their were credible references but did not know for certain, Hobit has identified some references that most likely push the subject above gng. So I'm moving to Endorse and Relist. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close, relist anyways close was correct given the limited discussion (both quantity and quality), though a relist might have been better. But [7] and [8] are both fine sources. There are many many books that discuss him (e.g. [9] where he is in the title of a chapter and [10] which is more typical of these books). Now given sources like these, this will end up being a fairly negative BLP and we tend to want darn strong sources for such a BLP. But I think we've got them. Forbes and the Globe and Mail are solid sources. This guy is certainly notable. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I was going to say the same as Hobbit, but there was an edit conflict. The discussion was not really adequate and a good case could have been made for keeping. There do seem to be some references about the person, the person has been involved in several companies so it can't simply be redirected to the company, and the article is not overly promotional and is within the range of what can be fixed by normal editing. Of course, the necessary work could be done in draft space . It's fairly rare that I'll support a coi article in this field, but this one dos have possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but relist. There's nothing wrong with the close, given the comments that existed at the time. I suppose this could have been relisted, but I almost certainly would have closed it the same way as Jo-Jo. I think the core problem here is that the carpet-bomb of references in the article actually acted to the detriment of the reviewers. Faced with a mass of such references, I generally spot-check a couple and base my opinion on that. Had somebody at the AfD pointed out a smaller number of the best sources for people to review, that would have focused attention on those and perhaps we would have had some serious evaluation of them. As it stands, we had three people give rather cursory hand-wave reviews. Now that we've got a couple of specific sources mentioned in this DRV that look plausible, it makes sense to re-open the existing AfD and get people to evaluate those specific sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the discussion lasted for 7 days as normal, not commenting in that time against 2 deletes isn’t the closer’s fault. Mabye try to remake your article and have new people look at it through AFC.Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  [preceding unsigned WP:SOCKSTRIKE added by 197.226.250.43. 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

  • See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Not a single editor in this AfD reports looking for sources.  As noted by the OP here, there are objectional BLP violations.  Why does a deletion nomination have no admins enforcing BLP policy?
  The deletion nomination took less than four minutes.  The first !vote was prepared in 49 seconds previous edit at 2017-12-13T04:33:08.  The third !vote was done in 7 minutes and 10 seconds.  The close was performed in 17 seconds.  Total invested time in deleting an article with 50 references: 12 minutes.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've begun drinking for the Christmas festivities too! I plan on sobering up for boxing day. You may want to check this post :) Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I reviewed it.  The word "objectional" is an alternative listed in mw.com for the word "objectionable".  Anything else?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You're wikilinking to a different AFD. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, ok, I've added the timestamp in the description.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an editor who had watchlisted the article for over a year, I believe the subject is conclusively non-notable- and yes, I did search for sources. The article stands out in my mind- the article was overly promotional, along with COI issues. Jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC) (later: @Jcc: Hobit (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Could you address the sources I've listed above? They seem remarkably solid. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- there are no indications that the discussion, if relisted, would have closed differently; the subject is nn, and the relisting would not fix that. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Result and close looks solid, good close. Schracq (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  [preceding unsigned WP:SOCKSTRIKE added by 197.226.250.43. 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

  • See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Speedy Keep NPASR  This was a policy-free discussion.  One editor mentioned the word "promotionalism", but the closer did not state that this was a WP:NOT deletion, either in the close or in discussion since.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, thanks to the other editors involved, that these are fake accounts and their concerted votes should accordingly be discarded. These fake accounts and related IPs should not impact the whole process.197.226.59.81 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Catholic Parish SA (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The 10th December 2017 I wrote an Article about the Salisbury Catholic Parish, but Jimfbleak deleted it arguing advertising and promotional content. I explained to him that my intention was not to promote anything at all, but to insert historic information from the Salisbury area, but even because the Article was deleted before I had finished loading all the information. I wrote it again and the 17 December 2017, it was deleted again because of copyrights' infringements. The allegedly source with the problem was a Heritage survey that is in the website of the City of Salisbury Council, which is the local authority. The Survey basically recognises that the old church of St Augustine is a Heritage Building. The information that I referred to is historic and basically refers to dates. The website of the council is an .gov webpage. However, the 17 December both the Article and the talk page were already deleted. I did not have time to comment further; there were no more alternatives explored and no time for more people to post their opinion. as I said before, my intention was not to promote anything at all, but to disclose public historic information, because everybody in the vicinity has an idea of these facts. I am more than happy to edit or delete any content that is promotional, as well as any content that may cause a problem of copyrights, but I believe that the survey from 1991 is not a problem as it is of public access on a government site and everybody can consult it, but also because is only referring to the fact that the government has considered the old church as a Heritage Building and to some other historic facts that nobody can own or of public domain. Overturn - If any problem in this Article I am happy to work collaboratively to amend any error in this Article that is causing all this grievance about advertising and copyrights. Arangel1970 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, I can find no indication that the material in question is released to the public domain. Just being on a government website, or accessible to the general public, does not render something public domain. Even the US federal government, which releases all its own work to the public domain, sometimes uses copyrighted material on government websites. Regardless of any other considerations, we can't restore copy-pasted material without explicit evidence that this particular document is unquestionably in the public domain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion - Thank you for your comments Seraphimblade; however, the Survey is in the following webpage, please have a look to this: https://data.environment.sa.gov.au/SearchCenter/results.aspx?k=Salisbury And at the bottom of that page, there is an emblem/logo which states that the content of this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. All other rights are reserved. If you click on the Creative Commons logo, it takes you straight to the following website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Therein, it is asserted that: ... "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." "Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." And in the page 2 of the Survey, there is the following legend: "The heritage survey should be publicised to increase interest in the preservation of Salisbury's character and heritage". Thank you and regards, Arangel1970 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

While it's true the site says that, the report itself ([11]) states that it was "commissioned" from private consultants. Unless the agreement with the consultants provided for CC-BY licensing, or assigned copyright to the same people who posted it on that website, they lack the authority to license it that way. The document itself does not say that it's CC licensed. The best we can say is that it might be freely licensed, but "might" isn't good enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, allow re-creation. One big non-problem. A beginner mistake of copying or too-close paraphrasing, it is not OK and must be deleted. Just start again, ensuring that you are using multiple independent sources (at least two). We can discuss the overly-promotional issues of the page once the copyright infringement issues are gone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore clear and unmistakable case of compatible license. A site that says it is licensing itself by ac compatible license is believed , it is taken that it has the rights it asserts to have. Many such sites, (such as US gov sites) have a small number of non-freematerial, copied by permission from others. For us.gov , these are mainly photographs used by explicit permission, or copies from elsewhere, used as documents or inserted by members of Congress into the Congressional Record. These are almost always identified as such. The government has a disclaimer that the might be others, because it cannot claim that all are actually free anymore than we can claim that everything in commons is free. In the absence of knowledge otherwise, we trust what people tell us. In this case if they say it was commissioned but also say it has a free license, we assume they have the rights to give the license. If the person they commissioned it from had not given them the rights, we assume they would say so :I can understand how we might sometimes not believe this is f we have reason to thing the person making the statements is irresponsible, such as known pirate websites, or a claim on a personal website for material that would from its nature be very unlikely to have such a license.

the wrong decision was initially made here, and it'sabsurd to pick at unlikely possibilities to justify it. I think we usually call it copyright paranoia. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn  If copyright was the problem, why was the entire article deleted?  I found a Google cache, and the one thing I saw to remove is the "vision" statement in the third paragraph, and there is a BLP violation (uncited material) further down.  Beyond that, this is an interesting collection of organizations dating from 1851.  Among other things it has a named cemetery, a college, two schools, and three mass centres.  I am not sure why they have the duplicates, so that aspect of the article could be improved.  It is also pretty much never the case that such a topic if non-notable would be deleted, as in this case the parish is part of the Archdiocese of Adelaide.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if the source wasn't compatibly licensed, I don't see where any revision of the article infringes it. It's a 417-page document, and searching it for likely phrases from the article hasn't turned up anything. A page number would've been nice.
  In any case, if restored, this is going to end up right back at AFD, and I don't see this surviving as a separate article there. You'd be better off putting the information directly into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, where it'll eventually end up anyway. —Cryptic 04:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow recreation per SmokeyJoe. I searched for some specific bits of text from the article. Searching for In 1882, £80 were set aside for the purchase of a bell and Bishop Reynolds bought it from Murphy's Foundry in Dublin. led me to this flickr page which quotes a 1925 publication. Also, searching for Andrew O'Leary and other early settlers carted with his bullocks the first stones for the erection of the church from the neighbouring hills got me to another flickr page which in turn quotes a 1926 publication. There's enough similarity of text here to make me uncomfortable that we're on the right side of the copyright question. I don't know if this is a notable topic or not, but I think the right thing to do would be to allow another attempt to write an article, but make sure the new version is scrupulous about having good sources, is written in a non-promotional style, and doesn't copy or closely paraphrase any existing text from those sources. Also, User:Arangel1970 should make a clear statement about any WP:COI they may or may not have. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be no consensus but closed as delete without a reason given. The article was relisted 3 times due to a lack of opinions and closed with little discussion while few of the opinions were policy based. Rocckker13 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment - I most certainly closed the AFD with a reason given: "Notability failed to be established by reliable sources (provided sources do not meet requirements of WP:RS nor WP:V)." The closing rationale is fully based on a complete review of the discussion compared to the wording of our policies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the grounds of no established consensus. The close was made after a number of relists with no clear consensus and one sourced opinion, all in the span of at most 4 minutes of deliberation according to your contributions page. There were 3 opinions present, a redirect, a delete, and a keep, and the page was talked about by a total of 5 unique persons. This does not constitute a delete. Further nobody on the page ever talked about which sources were bad. Was there not 1 of the bunch that was of any validity? What about the other several counts of Notability the page entity meets? Why after 3 relists with no consensus or substantial conversation did the page just get spiked? Rocckker13 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate vote from nom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an official opinion, not a duplicate. You don't count the deletion review statement as a vote do you? Rocckker13 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse--Good close.Pretty excellent evaluation.If anybody wills, I can provide a detailed analysis of the sourcing and why it's crap.Winged Blades^Godric 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I disagree with some other users here. The sources were good and the discussion went on for too long without getting anywhere. Where was the consensus? MagicBlade31 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn No-Consensus Long and iterative relist period, lack of policy based argument, lack of general discussion. The close should have been No-Consensus under WP:NPASR. ElonTesla (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. There was so little discussion, this could have reasonably been closed a number of different ways. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not haggle over process, so I think the best way forward would be to restore the article to draft or user space and let somebody work on cleaning it up. It needs major editing to get rid of the trivia and promotional language, and finding better (better, not more) sources. Then, get some review via WP:AfC to verify that it really has been improved. While I've tempundeleted it for review, I'd recommend it not be immediately restored to mainspace because the writing is terrible.

BTW, in response to, nobody on the page ever talked about which sources were bad, well, this edit does go into detail about why some of the sources were not acceptable.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think that this reaches a reasonable compromise and at least brings back the article to a communal space. I'd be more than happy to run it through an AFC review to get it the changes it needs to be considered widely acceptable. Rocckker13 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, reasonable reading of the discussion and very much within admin discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus with WP:NPASR With respect to my colleagues above, I don't agree that "provided sources do not meet requirements of WP:RS nor WP:V" is a valid summary of the discussion. Since after the last sources were provided, there was no more discussion, this is either the closing admin's own assessment of the sources - making it a supervote - or a misreading of the discussion. Either way, the close does nto reflect the discussion. It's unfortunate that more discussion of the sources provided were in Rocckker13's second comment were not discussed but that alone is not a reason to close the discussion as "delete". Those arguing to endorse this close as "good" or "reasonable" should explain why ignoring a keep !vote that provided 31 potential(!) sources that were all not discussed afterwards (the comment Roy linked to above was about the first batch of links) is either "good" or a "reasonable reading of the discussion". I don't see it. And before anyone starts to discuss those links here: That's why I advocated WP:NPASR. DRV's job is only to assess the close based on the discussion, not to rehash the discussion here. Overturn it, take it to AFD again and hopefully next time around there will be more discussion. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I’m sympathetic towards SoWhy’s stance, and likely would have no consensus closed this myself, but I think Coffee’s reading was reasonable and within his discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There may have been quantity on the "keep" side but only from one contributor and no sign of significant coverage by reliable sources. The Google News search was enough to doom the article. This band is not even the most notable thing with this name, losing out to a non-notable song by another only barely notable band. Strip away the non-RS coverage and the passing mentions. What is left? Little enough that it justifies both the result and the closing comment. What else could anybody do? Relist it yet again? The lack of interest in !voting shows the lack of interest in this non-notable subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of votes does not a delete make, we have a no consensus close for a reason. I would have loved to talk to you on the AFD page about this but you never posted there after making your initial post on November 25th. I did appreciate your opinion though, it was well reasoned and thoroughly stated.Rocckker13 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I agree with the user above, no consensus would have been a better fit for a close. This is such a large discussion, the deletion one was so much tinier. Schracq (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Rocckker13 has canvassed users to this discussion from #wikipedia-en ^connect. Nihlus 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to #wikipedia-en ^connect with this exact statement "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close." in an attempt to garner discussion so that this review wouldn't relist 3 times with little participation like the AFD did. Full transparency, no result ask, just a link to the discussion so that more voices might be present. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see general agreement from everyone except Rocckker13 (the page creator, whose canvassing on IRC I am responding to) that the references don't demonstrate notability, and no specific link is mentioned as refuting that. The massive list of references includes mostly crap like iTunes listings, ticket-sale pages, and pages that don't appear to mention Monotronic at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Nominating user has now erroneously brought this to the attention of the stewards. Nihlus 06:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking to find any reasonable governing authority to come in and analyze this discussion, the AFD, and the fact that you've followed me across wiki's. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've directed Rocckker back here. Since quite a few people involved in this seem to have forgotten, Rocckker is a relatively new user with under 200 edits here who doesn't understand why his article was deleted. Instead of leaving menacing comments and accusing him of canvassing, maybe just explain why the article was deleted and show him the relevant policies? Wikipedia is a strange and magical place for new people, and I think that it's worth extending some courtesy and politeness to our newer users. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note A user has brought this discussion up in WP:DISCORD; I'm not sure if it's the nominator. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Coffee's closure simply draws the necessary consequences of policies. BTW in my experience "little discussion" is a generally a sign of lacking of notability, never the opposite. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case where does a no consensus ruling have its place? The AFD was posted for 33 days, if there was no major support on either side how does that turn into a definitive ruling? Isn't the job of the admin close in AFD to rule on the consensus of the discussion rather than super voting in favor of personal opinion through policy? Under the "How an AFD discussion is closed" section on Wikipedia: "An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI." and "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion." the second of which happened an uncommon 3 times. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I checked 5 of the refs at random - they are a sea of nonsense. Typically in these cases the rest are similar and intended to obfuscate. The key overturn argument is that there were new references provided in the AFD that weren't taken into account, however they were presented in such a way as to make me think they are a part of the sea of nonsense. Fair close. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you didn't check the references and cast an opinion anyway? The key to the overturn isn't new references, it's 33 days of low participation discussion with exactly 3 separate opinions culminating in a delete. Rocckker13 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was responding to the only meaningful overturn vote in this DRV. This isn't a rerun of the AFD - I don't need to check any of the references at all! I did so to get a sense of the discussion and why it was closed as delete. Your reasoning that this was a bad close because of low participation is faulty - it could have been closed fairly after 63 days with one vote. Szzuk (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you make a meaningful opinion without checking out the merits of the discussion? If the lynch pin was the new references you didn't even check through them to judge their validity. The AFD ran for 33 days with a total of 3 opinions stated. It was relisted 3 times by 3 separate users specifically due to a lack of participation. My reasoning isn't made up, it comes from the "How an AFD discussion is closed" section on Wikipedia. Again, "An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI." and "If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion." the second of which happened an uncommon 3 times. What part of that suddenly twisted into a delete rather than, by protocol, falling under a no consensus? Rocckker13 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • My response was very pointed but you haven't responded to any of them - so I don't have anything else to add. Szzuk (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • And mine was specifically policy based, as in the standard by which these things run. There is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the same applies to Wikipedia and accusations. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on those who accuse the article of something to justify their opinion. Further, I posted a point by point case for the sources and other ways the article achieves notability, but you admitted you didn't read it. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. You'd do very well to step back, stop arguing with every person !voting endorse, and try to understand why they are saying what they are. To summarize, the result of an AfD is based on both policy and consensus for it to be applied. The key policy issue at question was whether the article in its current form meets our criteria for inclusion (WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:NBAND here). The closing admin thought that the delete argument was stronger in this case, and so closed the request as delete. It's clear from this discussion that most of the community members commenting believe the close was appropriate. Take that information, and try to find a way for the article content to meet the criteria for inclusion rather than arguing over procedure (especially when it is clear that the community supports how procedure was applied in this case). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Ajraddatz: I am 100% of the time, every time, going to try to talk with someone who wants to make a decision based off of partial information. A little bureaucracy might actually help this site, majority rule is great only if the majority is unanimously informed and benevolent, otherwise historically you end up with things like the witch hunts. There are at least 2 Endorse decisions that were done spitefully as the result of an IRC conversation, and then this one where the user publicly stated that they didn't fully look into the merits of the case before posting an opinion. As for the key policy issue in question for the article, I was the only participant to use the any of the policies that you listed point by point to make a case. Specifically WP:NBAND, you can check the AFD or I can post that opinion in full here. There were no responses grappling with that information except for one user who asked a rhetorical question, which I responded to, who never posted again. Further down the path of policy, it is against general procedure to relist an AFD discussion 3 times to try to gain more participation, get more striated votes, and then close it in a Delete after getting very little more participation. Rocckker13 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Discussion was bad, not enough parties and there wasn't a consensus. Bad close. Azamyth (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The correct close. Elaborate array of references, none of which had an ability to indicate notability. No relisting would give any other result unless there are some actual references or evidence of meeting the specific requirements in NMUSIC.. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
• overturn no consensus on a page that went way past the normal relist period. It’s supposed to last 7 days. Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus There wasn't a consensus in the discussion, should have been closed No Consensus because it lasted longer than the 7 day waiting peroid. Magimarf (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — Magimarf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment- be aware of the sock farm flooding this DRV with spurious overturn votes. The socks have started placing their votes earlier in the discussion to appear less conspicuous. Might almost be worth insta-endorsing this discussion to put an end to the ongoing disruption. Reyk _YO! 20:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- reasonable close given the state of the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate of Westarctic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Found new sources in the

• Bloomberg L.P. Westarctica Raison d’être: Nonprofit awareness To meet the enterprising leader of Westarctica, you'll have to travel to West Hollywood, Calif., where he works as a recruiter for a media company and advocates for climate change awareness. To reach the actual country—620,000 frozen, uninhabitable square miles of western Antarctica—you’d need a boat and a really good reason (think: climatology research, penguin films). "I have never been there myself, but we want to occupy that region," says Grand Duke McHenry, who founded the country (pop. 300) in 2001 when he noticed that the land hadn’t been claimed by legitimized nations. McHenry registered Westarctica as a nonprofit in 2014 and nationalizes “citizens” who electronically pledge allegiance to "freedom with the goal of creating a new country in the frigid ice of Antarctica"—and sign up for his newsletter. Custom-made metal and wooden Westarctican coins might have no real value (other than the U.S. dollars they might garner from curious collectors on EBay), but the Grand Duke hopes their sale will eventually allow him to colonize. "If we put people there permanently, we'll have a better platform to advocate for that melting ice," said McHenry.
• Haaretz Another world leader coming to MicroCon is His Royal Highness Travis McHenry. As grand duke of Westarctica, he rules over 620,000 frozen, triangle-shaped square miles (1,600 square kilometers) of Antarctica that no real country ever bothered to claim. Although his nation is nearly the size of Alaska, none of its 300 citizens actually live there. But then nobody else does either. "When I discovered there was a piece of Antarctica unclaimed by any country, I was just really inspired by that," said McHenry, whose day job is recruiting coordinator for a Burbank, California-based media company. "I just sort of took my imagination and decided to see if I could turn it into a legitimate country." He made it a nonprofit last year that advocates for protecting its native penguins and studying climate change's impact on Antarctica's ice sheet. He'll give a talk on "micronations that matter." "It's just sort of encouraging other micronations to become nonprofits so they're actually doing something rather than just walking around wearing fancy capes," he says. and
• Reader's Digest Westarctica Raison d’être: Nonprofit awareness To meet the enterprising leader of Westarctica, you’ll have to travel to West Hollywood, California, where he works as a recruiter for a media company and advocates for climate-change awareness. To reach the actual country—620,000 frozen, uninhabitable square miles of western Antarctica—you’d need a boat and a really good reason. “I have never been there myself, but we want to occupy that region,” says Grand Duke Travis McHenry, who founded the country (pop. 300) in 2001 when he noticed that the land hadn’t been claimed by legitimized nations. McHenry registered Westarctica as a nonprofit in 2014 and nationalizes “citizens” who electronically pledge allegiance—and sign up for his newsletter. Custom-made metal and wooden Westarctican coins have no real value, so the grand duke has turned to corporate fund-raising, hoping donations will eventually allow him to colonize, building “a better platform to advocate for that melting ice.”.,
• The Independent Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica and  :*In 2004, he exploited a loophole in the Antarctic Treaty to name himself Grand Duke of Westarctica on Marie Byrd Land – but the US Navy, which disapproved of its lieutenant's territorial claims, forced him to abdicate.,
• Lonely Planet [12]

- scanned pages

• 2 pages,
• else 2 pages

I propose, in the light of new sources, to reconsider the possibility of restoring the article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Note  I have added bullets and indents to the above post.  User:Vyacheslav84 should revert if desired.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close no one should be expected to wade through the sea of blue above. Come back with a solid rationale and your best three sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the first 3 sources are the best - [13], [14] and [15]. Also 2 pageselse 2 pages from [16]. This is enough for a separate article with a margin. For example ru:Вестарктика - except for 4 lines the article is written only on these 4 sources. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, essentially the same topic is concurrently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not one - in one about a person, in another about micronation. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. You copy-pasted exactly the same 4kb of text as an argument in both places. It seems odd to make exactly the same argument to two different discussions if they're not the same topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • One person asked me to write there. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis McHenry has been closed as NC, thus retaining that article, this DRV should be closed as endorse. Having Travis McHenry is marginal enough; there's absolutely nothing to say about the "country" which can't be said in the article about the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are completely different topics, and on the micronation of sources more than him.--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Unacceptably presented review nomination. Come back with no more than three sources that you argue demonstrate notability. They must be reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the topic directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presented above 4 new reliable independent secondary sources for these requirements. Is it strictly prohibited to provide 4 sources? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation new sources show that the topic is notable and fix the issue that lead to the previous deletion. Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No change from the last DRV. —Cryptic 18:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources were not in the last DRV. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. These sources don't convey notability for this imaginary country. (Also, the third source from Reader's Digest is just a reprint of the first source from Bloomberg.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you do not see the information in the sources is not a source problem (the remaining 3 sources still have more than enough for a separate article). --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The new sources fix the issue. Writer did everything asked of him. Schracq (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't a vote, and creating yet another new account just to vote at DRV isn't fooling anybody. —Cryptic 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Metropolitan90. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  The OP here is also the editor who initiated the AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that time, I did not have these sources. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  The AfD deletion was rescinded on 5 December 2017, diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a rescinded of the deletion, but an article replacement by redirection. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Metropolitan90 and others. There's a fundamental notability issue with an imaginary country where nobody actually lives and the imaginary "ruler" hasn't actually even visited. More sources saying essentially the same thing aren't going to change that one bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Döner Kebap (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Appears to be no consensus but closed as delete with no reason given. There is no real policy here; it's a matter of opinion, as it has been with other such chains recently (one cited in the AfD). Opinions have been given on both 'sides' but more weight seems to have been given by the closer to delete opinions than keep opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we had differing views on that AfD, you are right that the closing admin should at least offer a comment. Two keep and two delete votes is not sufficient for 'result was delete' without anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse--The worst vote was from the nom of this DRV (some sort of hand-waving) and the reason-less close was nearly equally bad.But, the delete arguments seem to have more weight in the situation.Winged Blades^Godric 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea what you're talking about. And no idea why you feel the need to leave some sort of meaningless personal attack (maybe you'd care to explain "some sort of hand-waving"?). All opinions were just that: opinions. Given that, it's the closer's responsibility to go by the majority opinion. Which was most certainly not delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that, you do not seem to be much knowledgeable either about realms of personal attacks or about why discussions aren't votes! See this section for something related to your vote quality.IMO, arguments in the likes of:--That must be damn notable! I (practically) don't care about the existence and/or quality of sources should be always ignored.And, to note, AllylD's, DGG's and nom's rationale were pretty good!Winged Blades^Godric 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Do I not? Maybe you'd like to examine my record on Wikipedia before you make assertions like that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all, we should almost certainly have this article. Given the international news associated with "Kebap" places in Germany, this should at least be a redirect to somewhere. Plus, I really can't believe there aren't enough reviews in German to support an article (though I can't find them). That said, I endorse the close. No strong arguments made for the sources counting toward WP:N. The keep arguments were just not policy-based and at least some of the delete ones were. If good sources show up (and yes, I'd put "local" Berlin reviews as enough) the article should be recreated. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm somewhat confused, since I don't know what this international news associated with "Kebap" place in Germany is, nor why you'd expect reviews in German, let alone local reviews in Belin. This appears to be a franchise operating in Poland. Indeed the opening line of the XFD states "A small/medium Polish fast food chain." - is there something you know that we don't? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  #1, I'd assumed this was in Germany from the name (can't see the deleted article, not seeing it in the Google cache). #2 [17] [18] is the issue. Given how popular these are in Germany and the sense of the (proposed and thus far failing) ban being "anti-Turkish" I feel it has a wider relevance. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the AFD nomination seems pretty clear about them being Polish, and I'd rather assume you'd have read that. The two articles you link are quite clearly based on the same AP base material with the quote on the "anti-turkish" being from the same person. The estimate is of 16,000 shops in Germany. The "international news" for what it is seems pretty thin, with apparently a single quote "playing the race card" so to speak. The bill failed in the EU parliament a few days back, so at present this seems a two week rather vague controversy. If that means "we should almost certainly have this article" or redirects from the shop names of all 16,000 of them in Germany, then I guess the standards I though Wikipedia followed are substantially weaker than I thought. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Valid points all around. Not sure how I missed the Polish part in the nom statement (though I missed it twice) and I'd no idea these were quite so popular in Germany. I do think the fact that A) the bill very nearly passed and B) the same preservatives in other meat would be acceptable means the issue isn't just made up. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the two Keep comments here just said that the chain is big. That doesn't address the notability concerns of the nominator and the Delete comments, and the closing admin weighted them accordingly. Hut 8.5 21:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantina Laredo has just been closed as keep, despite being a very similar outcome. Same goes for several other recent AfDs. Hmm, consistency? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's mass-sourcing (whose quality I haven't evaluated) made the difference esp. when it was not rebutted.And there is a term called closer's discretion.Anyways, provide some good sources and I will be more than happy to change my DRV !vote.Winged Blades^Godric 16:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorditas Doña Tota (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Appears to be no consensus leaning towards keep but closed as merge and redirect with no reason given. There is no real policy here; it's a matter of opinion, as it has been with other such chains recently. And this chain is particularly large (over 200 restaurants). Opinions have been given on both 'sides' but more weight seems to have been given by the closer to merge opinions than keep opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy is sources. What are the 3 best sources you have for this? Hobit (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse--Only viable option.I think 5 out of the 7 discussants would be perfectly content with the merge.(Don't tell me that JPL and the AFD nom wants this closure to be overturned to a NC or something of the sort:))Necrothesp's argument, as usual, carried nil weight. BeckenhamBear's expectations about corp-promo-efforts are clearly wrong by a mile and the problems in one of his sources were well-rebutted by the AFD nom.Winged Blades^Godric 09:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Necrothesp's argument, as usual, carried nil weight". Well, thanks for that. Nice to see that courtesy isn't dead on Wikipedia. Especially not for this editor (see the comment in the DRV above). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual came from my observations of your !votes at recent AfDs including those about schools et al.Anyways, that's not relevant and I have struck out the part, over here.On a side note, I stand by whatever I commented on the above DRV.I appreciate your long experience, dedication et al but with that comes a responsibility to !vote in AfDs, rather than cast a plain vote.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse looks like a reasonable call to me, 2 participants explicitly wanted a merge and another one was at least happy with it. Two more wanted the article deleted, I also think these people would be happier with a merge closure than a no consensus or keep one. That leaves Necrothesp and BeckenhamBear. Necrothesp doesn't actually cite any sort of policy or guideline so that just leaves BeckenhamBear, who did at least mention sources in the middle of a load of irrelevant considerations. Given all that the merge looks like a fair reflection of the discussion. Hut 8.5 18:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Merge  Supervote.  A Redirect is scored by SnottyWong's AfD counting tools the same as a delete, but no one !voted to redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss And merge?Winged Blades^Godric 06:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.  Did you miss that only the "Redirect" is bolded?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed as a merge but on my table I can't cut and paste the target into the tool. Redirect and Merge is the same as merge. Talk about difficult tools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are six written statements that show that the result was "redirect":

1. This edit comment on the talk page says "redirect".
2. The result on the talk page is "redirect".
3. This edit comment on the article says "redirect".
4. This edit physically redirects the page by adding, "#REDIRECT", instead of removing the AfD tag and posting a merge tag.
5. The edit comment for the AfD close states "redirect".
6. The common AfD Statistics tool reads the close as "redirect", [19]

Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There's nothing to stop you from merging even if the result is Redirect. Hut 8.5 15:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that that is a proper edit, covered by WP:Editing policy.  It sounds as if you are supporting ambiguous AfD closes, confusion at DRV, erroneous AfD close reports on talk pages and in edit summaries, and erroneous AfD tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. You're making a mountain out of a very small molehill here. The close explicitly says that that merging is OK, the closing admin has said that merging is OK, and you agree that common sense/general principles say that merging is OK. There's nothing else to it. Hut 8.5 14:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  It has only been one week, since 16 December that I reminded User:Spartaz that closers "should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement".  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes we all get that you have a problem with me. That’s ok because my opinion of you is equally low but don’t feel like you have to keep parading your predjudice’s and (charitably) misinterpretation of reality to try and keep scoring points that just reveal your lack of understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait... this guy thinks antagonising you to the point that you have to ask him to leave you alone creates a topic ban that prevents you from closing AfDs he's commented on? Wow. Reyk _YO! 07:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as keep even though the only keep vote was from a sock of the nominator (as weird as that sounds, it's true), and there was a non-sock delete !vote. I propose overturning the keep close and relisting so that an actual discussion can take place on the merits of the article in question. Iffy★Chat -- 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mu. The whole AfD was a bad joke. with the exception of one legitimate (delete) opinion, every comment, and the nomination, was from socks (and the same socks created the article to begin with). I suggest we close this DRV and just pretend the whole thing didn't happen. If any legitimate user wants to immediately nominate this for deletion, go ahead. That'll be quicker than than wasting a week arguing this in DRV and then going back to AfD again. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Label the whole AfD as sockpuppetry trolling. Allow renomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it per RoySmith. The fact that one person left a legitimate Delete comment doesn't really outweigh the fact that all the other participants were socks talking to each other. Renominate it and invite that person to participate. Hut 8.5 10:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure of that one as a hopeless mess, and treat it as no prejudice against speedy renomination if someone legitimate wants to nominate it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The nomination seemed to err only on the subjective: subjective, one person used three accounts to try to support his own argument for deletion. WP:SOCK. Ventric (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Impossible situation. Moot discussion. It can go back to AFD at a later time if nominated. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Canada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The keep votes weren't very sufficient, as the page is just a substantial duplicate of a very short list already found in a section of Postal codes in Canada. Therefore, I propose that we overturn this to either delete or redirect. ToThAc (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• reopen the current discussion, but if we have to do the discussion here, then delete The first discussion was grossly inadequate; when real issues with the article were brought up in the second discussion, the response was bureaucracy in the face of a discussion that was headed towards either deletion or redirection. That direction should either be honored now, or the discussion let run its course. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this is basically a subjective editorial judgement: do we have this information as part of a larger article, as a standalone page, or some combination of the two? As that is just a judgement call I think the closer was right to go with the majority opinion. You don't need an AfD to redirect something, you can do it through the normal editorial process, and I don't think anyone's likely to dispute that this is a reasonable search term. Hut 8.5 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse basically, because the difference in doing it in a separate page isn't worth othering about. Considering the amount of junk we need to remove, and --equally important -- the amount of time we need to spend encouraging promising new editors, dealing receptively in detail with things like this is counterproductive DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Elsamni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page should not be deleted based on A7 notability criteria because this person is very notable as a media personality in his own country. He is a regular guest in TV shows and often in newspapers. He has been chosen by EU to write about his country affairs. He is also a poet who publishes in press and a lecturer in the most reputable university in Egypt. The A6 claim as hoax has no evidence. 216.218.131.171 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a copy of the deleted content at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Abdulrahman Elsamni. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy with a WP:TROUT Looking at the Google cache version, that was in no way an A7. Published author in newspapers, a faculty member, and publication with the "EU" were all claimed. Now that said, I'm not all all certain this has a chance at AfD. I'm not seeing sources _on_ him in any detail. So likely to be deleted IMO. But well over A7 as there is plenty of assertion of notability. Also, can't tell _who_ was recreating it, but they too deserve to be trouted. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The A7 reason given for deletion is clearly irrelevant and inconsistent with current policies. Doing a google search in Arabic, I believe there are some other sources on this person and editors could userify more. 194.187.249.141 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Couple of comments. First, I did look at the references. Some of them indeed cite work by "A. Elsamni", and this work is unpublished master thesis. Second, it was repeatedly recreated, not only as Abdulrahman Elsamni, but also as AbdulrahmanElsamni and Abdulrahman elsamni, if I remember correctly, by at least two different accounts (I had to block the first one, and the other one was thus evading block) and also a couple of IPs contributed. They also uploaded a photo of the subject which was speedy deleted as copyvio. After I salted all these articles, I had several attempts to break in my account. The article was actually speedy deleted before me on notability grounds and it was identical to the version I deleted. One of the accounts just acted like a robot and reposted the same text immediately after the last one was deleted. Technically speaking, this nomination is done in block evasion and must be speedy closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And the beginning of the story was here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abdulrahman Elsamni--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparenty there was an edit war between two users, then you've received a complaint from a user who was tagging the page as A6 hoax. I think we all agree it is not a hoax, so you should have removed the A6 tag and trout the editor for removing tags. Deleting the page based on A7 was irrelevant. For the other wikis deletion, the reason was machine translation done by supporters, but this enwiki was the original wiki. Please review your decision regardless of users' actions.82.145.59.232 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain first why you continue evading the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. Regardless of the above, the article doesn't qualify for A7 as it makes a credible claim of significance, and it doesn't appear to qualify for G5 as the original version was not created by a blocked/banned editor at the time (the re-creations might well be, I haven't looked at the timeline). In the end though, the best way to deal with these is to send them through AfD because then any recreations can be completely correctly deleted as G4. As an aside, I don't think he's notable either. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Author is evading blocks in an attempt to put his resume on Wikipedia. I note at User:AbdulRahman14 he is fraudulently claiming to be an admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparenty, they just copied my homepage.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply trout illegal users and keep the page. 82.145.59.232 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse That a Masters student co-writes a report on behalf of a government agency is not a claim to significance, it's pretty much WP:RUNOFTHEMILL depending on which academic subject he studies. (An engineering student might have written a report on the request of a major company, which would be exactly as significant). It may be borderline, but when the outcome of the AfD is obvious it's a little silly to take up volunteer time and effort, while at the same time providing a free platform for self-promotion for the user. The many different IPs removing speedy tags and badgering the editors involved doesn't exactly make it easier to feel sympathetic, though obviously that shouldn't be a factor when judging the article. But this DRV is of course block evasion, too. --bonadea contributions talk 09:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm the one who tagged it as A7 the second(?) time it was deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy? Sympathy with users has nothing to do with the topic itself. Simply trout the users and keep the page. I see the A7 tag is not consensus. 82.145.59.232 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about trouts, it is about blocks. Why do not you wait a week until your block expires (I am willing not to restart it now if you stop editing as IPs) and then reopen this DRV? Or even recreate the page nd immediately send it to AfD? There is still not a single user here who is not you and who said the subject has any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block, don't trout. You cannot accept the fact that this person have followers in his country who support him and you are keeping on addressing me as one person. I can write my opinion and I am not supposed to wait for the block of the original editor to end. Users like Hobit think the subject has notability and users like Black Kite (talk) agree it does not qualify for A7. 82.145.59.232 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, blocked for a week for block evasion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There are two separate issues. There are users and pages. We are here to review the deletion of pages not to discuss blocked users. We cannot punish users by deleting the pages they contribute to. We cannot use false tags to promote deletion. This person is not a regular master student but an active faculty member whose research in a certain topic got cited internationally. We cannot compare EU to private companies , but to notable Institutions that give credibility to those involved. You cannot compare engineering students to journalism faculty members who are contributing to public opinion through media stations and press. In addition, as per his bio written by EU, I think he is mainly a journalist and a poet too, so he has a lot of reasons to be significant and the page should not have been deleted IMO. The page should return and I see you have already trouted the illegal accounts. 82.145.59.232 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there is massive block evasion on this page going on, and the page should not have been created to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, some admins are mixing up between users and pages, instead of reviewing the deletion of the topic itself. You cannot delete the page of a media personality, based on the acts of fans and supporters. 82.145.59.232 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn The subject has notability and is way past A7. user:Ymblanter is taking it personal and abusing his rights. I think other admins should intervene as of now. WorstKing (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  User blocked indef for obvious block evasion. I will indeed now ask other admins to intervene.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Filed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, and take to AFD. I can see what made this look like a hoax, starting with the "professor" claim - I can see nothing that supports professor status, just one source that uses "demonstrator". I can only read the English sources, so there might be something elsewhere, but Ain Shams University and The American University in Cairo have web sites in English and I can't find any confirmation at either. And there's the issue of that quoted work of his being a Masters degree dissertation, which would make it of little or no encyclopedic value - even I've got one of those. So, I can see the reasoning behind seeing no credible claim of importance. But I think it's weak, and really the presence of any non-sock editor who thinks a CSD deletion should be overturned is good enough to do so, seeing that any editor in good standing can decline a CSD (and not just admins). I doubt there's sufficient notability and I think it's likely it would be deleted at AFD, but I think that's the correct route now - and if the result is to delete, that will settle it and allow non-controversial application of WP:G4 in future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note to the closing admin that a review of a CSD deletion should not require the same consensus as a review of an AFD deletion. As CSD is supposed to be only for clearly uncontroversial deletion candidates, any opposition from any disinterested editor in good standing obviously means it is not uncontroversial, and that should be sufficient to overturn the deletion. Had I been the deleting admin, any such appeal to me would have been sufficient for me to restore the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, also, just a reminder that this is not a discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted, but only on whether speedy deletion was correct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD the article claims that the subject is a faculty member at an actual university and cites plenty of sources, I think that's sufficient for A7. If you have to start digging around in the sources and drawing conclusions from them to show that the article isn't appropriate than that is best done at AfD. The article author is obviously an abusive sockmaster who edit warred to try to prevent the speedy deletion, and the second and third creations qualified for G5, but AFAICT the first creation didn't. Hut 8.5 19:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as transparent vanity spam - the creating username matches the subject, and they appear to have emptied their sock drawer over Wikipedia in order to preserve their advertisement. No prejudice against an independent editor in good standing creating a new article untainted by this COI. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. I can't see the article myself, but due to the preponderance of socks, I suspect that G11 would apply. Through a Google search, I agree that while A7 may not be met, he certainly wouldn't survive at AfD; even the "overturn" votes acknowledge that. This article is not long for Wikipedia, if we agree on that it is best to leave it deleted and move on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No disrespect, but if you can't see the article then you can not have any idea whether it meets A7 or not (which is beaten by a credible claim of importance with no sources required). And there's clearly no WP:SNOW here (although there's snow outside my window right now ;-). Also, you don't appear to understand WP:G11 (and you're not alone in that), which requires that the article content be unambiguously promotional - and you obviously can not have a valid opinion on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, it's not hard to assume what the article would have said, based on the Simple English wikipedia page and the references that the author would have obviously included. Based on the version in your userspace, A7 is indeed not met, as I suspected. I still think this is a waste of time and the article will surely be deleted at AfD, but that's technically the right thing to do. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "transparent vanity spam", would have been SNOW deleted at AfD, etc, are not valid CSD#A7s. The same article has appeared on several other Wikipedias (en, de, fr, it, it, pt, nl, sv). A procedurally correct decision is appropriate. There is no imperative to delete it quickly. Clearly, there is a knee jerk reaction to delete (spam, A7, hoax have been alleged), but it looks more like a low level academic and journalist article that is best treated properly the usual way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trouts for the deleting admin and the endorse !voters above. Per the above: that's now how speedy works, that's not how this should have been handled, and no, self-promoting spam isn't a reason to A7 anything. G5 if the creator was previously banned, G10 harassment, G3 if a hoax, or G12 if copyvio... sure. G11, would likely have been the least inapplicable speedy deletion criteria, but G11 only looks at what is said (which I cannot do), and not who was saying it. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because if there's one principle Wikipedia values above all others it is giving spammers due bureaucratic process. By transparent vanity spam I mean that if not an A7 it is a G11. Why give aid and succour to a sockpuppetting spammer, just because "process"? It makes no sense. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the article content, and it's clearly not "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" (as per WP:G11). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for "process", a restore followed by an AFD deletion would give a far more sustainable result. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to decide whether it should be eligible for G11 because it has been Wikipedia:Reference bombed. The first four references (translating two) are by the subject,or are featuring an important refugee topic with mention of the subject as the researcher. These do not speak to notability. If that is all the sources are, then it is just promotion of a journalist/researcher. I have a suggestion recorded at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_60#Paid_editing,_Advertorials,_and_Reference_bombing that I think should be tried. Drafters should not be told to reduce referencing, but should be told to explicitly list the notability attesting sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's hard to decide, then it's not uncontroversially promotional, and CSD is for uncontroversial deletions only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, spammers have an incentive to Wikipedia:Reference bomb. A problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's what AFD is for (not CSD). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This should not be admin-only, so I have made a temporary copy of the article at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Abdulrahman Elsamni so that all editors can see it and make an informed decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that. I reviewed the draft and agree that NO speedy criteria apply. Due process is due process, and if the editor hasn't been sanctioned sufficiently that G5 applies, those desiring this be speedily deleted are entirely free to seek such sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Unless being a university professor is now a CCS, I see nothing here meriting an overturn. Being published, even being published a few times, is not a CCS. And having citations to your work in other academic literature is definitely not a CCS. Especially in the public policy disciplines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but you're entirely wrong on both counts. They may not be credible claims of notability, but both those things (professorship, publication) are credible claims of significance, which is a much, much lower bar. WP:CCS is an instructive essay. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read the essay before. Merely being a university instructor isn't a claim of significance, nor is having academic publications, nor is having those publications cited in other academic publications. None of those are, or ever have been, claims of significance within A7 practice. DRV is not the place to litigate the dimensions of what a CCS is, nor to bureaucratize CSD, nor to Monday morning quarterback the discretionary aspects of admin decisions that are otherwise within tolerance and should receive deference. If you want to change the dimensions of what meets or does not meet A7, you are welcome to start a policy discussion. If you want to request a REFUND of this article and then add a CCS, you are welcome to do that as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is the place we discuss if deletions were done correctly. And yes, I'd say all those things taken as a whole is a solid claim of significance. Hobit (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and take to AFD Ignoring the self-promotion and sockpuppetry, the subject clearly isn't A7... AFD will result in a more final deletion per WP:G4. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Being a university professor is and should be considered enough to pass A7, because from the contents of some of the very sketchy articles it is impossible to even guess whether they might or might not be notable, and therefore would require AfD. Havingwritten a paper is much broader, as is being an instructor--I don;t necessarily regard these as enough to pass A7. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, send to AFD only if someone can make a good faith nomination. Also, some trouts to the admins who thought this met A7. Looking at the deleted article, there are multiple claims of significance, from teaching at a notable university to being a published poet in multiple newspapers. The article Ymblanter thought met A7 also contained links to half a dozen scholarly works that cite the subject. As far as I can tell, this article not only did not meet A7, it also met WP:NPROF and there should be no automatic AFD unless someone can actually demonstrate that notability does not exist. Regards SoWhy 10:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it's not an A7, but how does he pass NPROF? Which criteria? Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have concerns that this is a WP:VSCA violation; however, the deleted article cannot be said to be a speedy deletion candidate and must be sent to AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD for a more clear consensus over whether this person is notable or not. That was in no way whatsoever eligible for Ä7, given that there are many clear and credible indications of importance, even backed by sources. Reminder that notability =/= importance. As for why I'm voting to take to AfD, it's because many voters above have been arguing whether or not the subject in question is actually notable or not. --TL22 (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There is no way this is a valid A7. No prejudice against anyone taking it to AFD if they want the community to take a closer look. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn No way in all the miracles of Wikipedia that this is an A7. Nope to a G11, IMO. However, I don't think this will survive an AFD. But we have processes and I don't think IAR here is a good idea. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Ymblanter above and endorse per G5 and NOTBURO. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd like a "Speedy close" five days after the discussion started? Yessir. Also, this is DRV, not AfD. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is still a page created by a blocked user in violation of a block or ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, we're not going to ignore a discussion including a number of good faith editors for a technicality, especially as even those that are suggesting overturn to AfD are doing so because that is the best way of removing the article permanently. More to the point, "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates", which this is. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The best way to remove the article permanently is WP:DENY.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. DENY is an essay - something you as an admin should know. The best way is to remove it per correct policy. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And this is not really what is going on this page, which you as admin should know. I do not think continuing this conversation would be productive though, the result of the discussion is more or less clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the CSD page, G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others". There's a good number of substantial, valid non-sock votes by many editors, and many have suggested that this article be taken to AfD. If the article itself had no substantial edits by others before being deleted, then that's another thing and it may justify endorsing the deletion, but I have no access to the original page history so I myself don't know for sure. --TL22 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was created (for the second time at least; three recreations afterwards were block evasions) before the user was blocked and thus does not represent a block evasion. However, this page was created after the user was blocked, and it should have been deleted before it received a number of substantial edits by others, many of whom are administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I pointed this out above. Which bit of "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates" are you having problems with here? This deletion review is a transcluded template. It's not a page. If it was an article or other standard page, you'd be correct. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not serious, are you? Any blocked user can create a page, transclude it somewhere and - oops - it is not amenable to speedy deletion anymore? As I said, it is now clearly too late to delete this page as G5, but if we are going to discuss it seriously let us see why this has been added to the policy and what exactly problem it was supposed to solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we're talking about transcluded templates not pages - not for the first time, you're not reading carefully enough - but if you want to change the policy, obviously WT:CSD would be the place to go (incidentally, as far as I see, the part about transcluded templates has been policy since 2010). Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Found it: Edit, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#G5 templates. This is not about the case we are discussing. Nobody prevents any administrator from first untranscluding it here and then deleting the page (or, well, template). This is the spirit of the policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am btw fine with the policy and I do not want to change it. We should just not forget that every policy is adopted to solve a very specific problem. Specifically, this part of the policy was proposed because administrators were using G5 to delete templates which were transcluded into visible (or less visible, does not matter) places such as WikiProject pages. The idea of the policy was that one needs first to check whether the template is transcluded in order not to make any damage by deleting it (such as distorting pages etc). If it can be easily and painlessly untranscluded, it should be untranscluded and then G5-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Quaid School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This appears to be a clear no consensus. However, the closer has discounted opinions which contravene a narrow interpretation of what has been a very controversial RfC. The fact is, the RfC was not designed to override existing consensus, established over many years of AfDs. That was not its wording. That was not, I (and others) contend, its result. Many editors consider that secondary schools are notable and that a consensus exists to back this up and we refer to consensus as a shorthand for this, without trotting out the same extensive arguments every time. To discount our opinions in this way is not, I believe, in the spirit of AfD. In addition, the basis of the nomination appeared to be that for-profit secondary schools are treated somehow differently from state secondary schools, which is in no way the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the RfC, surely the fact that no sources could be found verifying the existence of the school should be the overriding concern here? I'm not sure why anyone would favour keeping an article whose subject cannot be verified. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources: [20], [21]. I think they're sufficient to verify its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The first of those carries the disclaimer "The information displayed about this educational institute comprises a institute advertisement. SCHOOLINGLOG.COM makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the advertisement or any linked or associated information". The second looks like it is based on user contributions. It's not just a case of demonstrating that the school exists, but having reliable sources that can actually be used to base even the most minimal content on. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• But nobody brought up those sources in the AfD. In fact, none of the keep !voters even mentioned sources. Disregarding the RfC, I would still weight source-based arguments over keeps based on procedural problems or unsubstantiated assertions of notability. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would take consensus into consideration. That is, after all, usual practice on AfDs. It's not usual to discount opinions that state consensus is to keep certain categories of article, as long as they're not outweighed by opinions against. Which was not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that there is, or ever has been, a consensus to keep articles when reliable sources cannot be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been a consensus to keep secondary school articles when sources can be found to prove they exist. I think the sources found are perfectly sufficient for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither source you have provided is reliable. See the disclaimer I quoted above and this from the other site. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The first of the two sources, the one for the girls school, has a reference number 23921 BISE L, where BISE L is Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore.  This source lists many of the BISE LAHORE secondary schools.  The second source seems to be inconsistent in stating that it is a "school in Chitral", but has an address in Lahore, Punjab.  I think it is more likely to be a database error than anything useful.  The list of BISE LAHORE schools shows several besides the girls school that could be the school for the article.  However, the article uses both the names "The Quaid School" and the "Quaid Foundation High School".  The BISE LAHORE lists shows that the Quaid Foundation High School is in Sheikhupura, not Lahore.  So I suspect that this article is a Frankenstein of Quaid schools.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a strong believer in the consensus that secondary schools are notable, for reasons discussed ad nauseam. And I absolutely don't accept the rationale for closing this AfD. I think it should have been closed because of a lack of verifiable information. I don't think any of the links offered above are reliable. It is possible that someone in the country could find local sources, in local languages, showing that the thing exists - but I don't think any of the rest of us have a hope of doing so. Therefore it seems to me that the page can only be deleted until someone is able to show with decent sources that it exists - and so the discussion about SCHOOLOUTCOMES is moot anyway. JMWt (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to delete Yes, I know it was deleted. But the reason given for deletion by the closer was irrelevant. So nix the closing statement and delete for lack of verifiable sources. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus It was an error to say that " I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school.". The result of the RfC was that there was no consensus to just quote SCHOOLOUTCOMES as the reason to keep, but also that there was no consensus to change the practice that we always kept if a secondary school could be verified as actually existing. This was therefore an unmistakable supervote against the opinion of the participants, by adopting a perspnal interpretation of a guideline that that was found not to have consensus If there is another reason fordeletion there can be another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: If this is the case then I'm scratching my head as to what the RfC did establish. The keep !voters did not cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES by name, but they put forward an identical argument, viz. "we always keep schools". At WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the close is summarised as "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist", and the close itself states that SO-based rationales "may be discounted when the AFD is closed". If these are not the rationales they're referring to, then what is?

Also I'd strongly refute that my close was a supervote. Maybe I've misunderstood the RfC, but what guideline am I supposed to have enforced my personal interpretation of? – Joe (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I am not accusing you of a supervote and I understand the points you've made above. However, I do think that given the highly controversial nature of the RfC and continuing controversy over its close and interpretation, it is unwise to close a secondary school AfD by explicitly discounting anyone's opinion. That will simply court further controversy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm afraid that is your quasi-personal interpretations of the closure, in contrary to the explicit clarifications by a closer.Clearly there's some contentions with the RFC and if anybody don't like the RFC Closure, a better option would be to challenge it and get it overturned/vacated at AN.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nobody has provided a single third-party reliable source covering the subject. The only source cited by the article was [22], and even if it is reliable it says literally nothing. Both of the links posted above make explicit disclaimers that you can't trust anything on the site, which is pretty much the opposite of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and the first one labels it as "a institute advertisement" (so it isn't even third party). No sources of any kind were presented in the AfD. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability says that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is core policy and overrules any notability guidelines, general practices, RfCs, etc. Hut 8.5 22:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hut 8.5: And if that's what the closer had _said_ I'd be 100% on-board. I think deletion was correct, but the reason given for deletion was something different. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the closer should have picked up on this. I don't think there's any point in having a discussion about school notability standards until we've cleared this initial hurdle though. Hut 8.5 22:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Note that I was a participant in the AfD.  See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2, which states, "Most...high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."  So when the closer at User talk:Joe Roe#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) states, "WP:V trumps ancient precedents", he would have been making a simpler argument to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, instead of using the closing as personal WP:SOAPBOX to discount it.  See WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which states, "Arguments that contradict policy...are...discounted... and

  Wikipedia policy requires that articles...comply with core content policies (verifiability...)... These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies.

    Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than a 100 editors participate in a community-wide RfC (I wasn't one of them, by the way, nor have I ever expressed an opinion on the notability of schools), three experienced admins help close it, yet somehow my attempting to put its recommendations into practice is getting on my "personal soapbox"? I give up. – Joe (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the fault is not yours, but rather the way the RfC was set up, and the diversity of opinion. All parts of it could indeed be seen as no consensus, but having that as the result of each point yielded a contradictory result, which the closers did not really summarize in a way that was useful going forward. I would suggest another RfC, except that we may have a similar result once more. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no-consensus I am suggesting overturning it to no consensus, as the responses here show clear replication of the AfD and in retrospect this echo the how real the whole community is heavily divided on this matter. I will suggest in next RFC, more definitive terms be used and also delete WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME section completely; because this section is causing unnecessary drama and it is not solving anything. Personally, I think the entire page WP:OUTCOME is creating more problem than it solves. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, clearly within admin discretion. The RfC over schools showed that there is clearly no consensus to keep school articles just because they are about schools. Given this, keep arguments that did not actually show the subject is notable were properly discounted. "It's about a..." is not sufficient reason to keep any article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A close call between admin discretion and WP:Supervote. I don't care for the minimal explanation, the closer should have first said some more obvious things, when the only sentence of explanation does not reflect the content of the discussion, it looks bad. Participants questioning the verfiability of the school was a bit odd, as it is easily verified. Non-independent sources are not required to meet verification. I do, however, agree, that there are no non-independent sources, and the school fails WP:N, but more importantly, fails WP:CORP. If overturned, a new discussion should draw better explanations for why the page does not belong, I have little doubt that it would be deleted. Mention of of WP:Supervote is warranted because if the closer had !voted, the subsequent close would have been a much easier close to defend. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is "easily verified", why was no one in the AfD able to provide sources?  If it is "easily verified", where is the evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a number of non-independent sources, and existance is not seriously disputed. The few exchanges going on, were, odd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay, but if they're "non-independent", how can we be sure that it isn't a fake. The existence is disputed. I dispute it. Prove it exists with independent sources. JMWt (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability requires at least one third-party reliable source about the subject. Non-independent sources aren't enough. Unreliable sources aren't enough either. Us being convinced of the school's existence is not enough, it does also need to be verifiable for us to include it. Hut 8.5 13:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to be a low bar: it doesn't have to be extensive, it just has to be evidence from an appropriate independent source in any language showing that this is more than just a fake school made up by someone-or-other with a cheap website and a facebook page. Which, need it be said, is something that happens all the time all over the internet for scamming and other purposes. If we can't do that, then we've got no business arguing about whether or not it is notable because we can't be sure it even exists. JMWt (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a very low bar, well below the threshold for inclusion. It was not productive to start discussing whether it meets the lower edge of verifiability, when it fails the important test of WP:GNG and WP:CORP. WP:V is to be the test on a claim by claim basis, WP:CORP for whether the for-profit company gets an article at all. User:Unscintillating suggests a Frankenstein of Quaid schools, which is entirely possible given the very poor sources. I don't doubt that Quaid schools exist, but neither do I doubt that they don't belong in Wikipedia, not on the basis of the sources I have seen so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is though, SmokeyJoe, that some editors consider that, for schools, verifiability is all that is required to demonstrate notability. These two things have therefore become conflated. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse--Why not? A supplementary rationale would be for lack of verifiable sources.I also note the regular school-AFD-folks calling for an overturn to NC/Keep!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The School Outcomes RFC found that a secondary school is not automatically notable, and the closer was correct to discount arguments which were not grounded in any further argument. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the Keep votes were weak and were correctly discounted from the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus Noone in the discussion said "keep because its a school."L3X1 (distænt write) 19:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an appropriate closure based on policy and the AfD discussion. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace School System (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This appears to be a clear no consensus. However, the closer has discounted opinions which contravene a narrow interpretation of what has been a very controversial RfC. The fact is, the RfC was not designed to override existing consensus, established over many years of AfDs. That was not its wording. That was not, I (and others) contend, its result. Many editors consider that secondary schools are notable and that a consensus exists to back this up and we refer to consensus as a shorthand for this, without trotting out the same extensive arguments every time. To discount our opinions in this way is not, I believe, in the spirit of AfD. In addition, the basis of the nomination appeared to be that for-profit secondary schools are treated somehow differently from state secondary schools, which is in no way the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I generally agree that schools are notable and I have made statements about SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The problem with this collection of AfD is that we can't verify that the schools exist. It'd be great if there was someone who had access to local sources and could show that these schools existed with reliable sources - but at present despite our best efforts we can't find evidence that they do. And therefore the risk is that someone, somewhere is gaining some material advantage from scamming people by claiming that a fake school exists simply on the basis that it appears on wikipedia. So, in my view, until or unless someone makes a decent fist of proving that these schools exist, the only option is delete. JMWt (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get a temp undelete here please? I'd like to see what sources there were at the time--the AfD doesn't really discuss them. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus It was an error to say that " I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school.". The result of the RfC was that there was no consensus to just quote SCHOOLOUTCOMES as the reason to keep, but also that there was no consensus to change the practice that we always kept if a secondary school could be verified as actually existing. This was therefore an unmistakable supervote against the opinion of the participants, by adopting a perspnal interpretation of a guideline that that was found not to have consensus If there is another reason for deletion there can be another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would mean keeping an article that fails WP:VERIFY. As JMWt notes, we don't have access to sources to even demonstrate that the school exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What sources do we have? Any? Hobit (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to speak of. The only source in the page since shortly after its creation was http://aceschoolsystem.net/. The only other one ever there was "[https://www.facebook.com/pages/ACE School System/108311525857663 '''Become fan of ACE at Facebook''']".
    This could have skipped the afd and just been speedied as a G5; the only substantial edits are by socks of Mr Hamza (talk · contribs). —Cryptic 22:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [23] lists it with a brief description. Site appears to be reliable. So it probably exists. But yeah, same as the other one: reclose with a valid deletion reason. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- one might argue that the closing statement was a little lacking. But when one side looks at the article, inspects the sources, and finds them not to be sufficient while the other side merely points at WP:MYPETSSG it's clear how the debate should be closed- even if the vote count is numerically close. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, clearly within admin discretion. Keep arguments did not show any actual notability by providing sources, and were accordingly discounted. The closer was correct to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, there is little dispute about the deletion. It is the closing statement. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, I'm explicitly endorsing the closing statement. "It's a school!" isn't enough. Notability needs to be demonstrated via references, never via "It's a...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And without the RfC it _still_ would have been deleted. WP:N never entered the picture--it wasn't over WP:V. So the RfC was irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely a non-exemplary AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Hobit. The participants have less responsibility than the closer, who should have made a better closing statement. Closing was at the boundary of admin discretion, it is uncomfortably close to a supervote for a decision that is very likely to be precedent setting. Personally, I would have !voted "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse--Echo my comment at the prev. DRV.Also, Hobit has got this correct.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my comment at the other DRV. "Keep" arguments were weak and did not even try to address the failure of WP:VERIFY. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse as an appropriate policy-based closure. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Tamplin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was really a 50/50 split down the middle which in essence is no-consensus reached, however the closing admin deleted the page stating that the delete argument was more solid, I really didn't understand the logic, because the delete argument was just spouting wiki policy without a clear argument for deleting the page and didn't seem to really read the article or the citations. I gave the closing admin half an hour to respond to me before I posted this, so I was rather disappointed not to get a reply. Also, why is a German admin deleting an article about an English man in the English media. Logic would dictate that an English wikipedia page about an English man in English football, British business, be reviewed by an admin from this country, who would have some insight into the subject. Govvy (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all A) half an hour isn't enough time to give a volunteer to respond. At work I give people at least 24 hours and they do this for a living. B), the issue of notability doesn't really require a clue about the subject. The closer could be Thai or even (gasp) American closing a discussion about "soccer". OK, that said, I don't see a consensus for deletion. Some of the sources were from tabloids, most of them weren't great, but there was no real discussion of the sources and some of them seemed quite on point (e.g. [24] is a personal-interest thing, but still in a RS and solely about this guy). I'm fine with a relist or overturn to NC though think a relist is the better way forward (hopefully getting a discussion of the sources). Hobit (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I do not really disagree with either a relist or a NC close. For me deletion was slightly more in-line with the strength of the arguments provided but I can see why others would prefer a relist or a no consensus close given that it was only "slightly". I am also not German, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed opinion; see below. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think No Consensus is a better reading of that discussion. Although the earlier Keep arguments were weak, AlessandroTiandelli333 did rather better by proving sources. Although some of them look a bit dodgy to me there wasn't any attempt to rebut them in any sort of detail and some of them look better. The discussion was relisted twice so a third might be a little excessive. Hut 8.5 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't really put enough time into reading the AfD to form an opinion on the close. I just wanted to comment on a few points made in this DRV nomination.

First, giving somebody a half hour to respond is absurd. Nobody punches a clock on wikipedia. Giving somebody 24 hours is more reasonable. And even then, if I haven't gotten a reply back from somebody in a day, I usually just check their contribution history to see if they've been doing anything. If they have, I might ping them again. If not, I give them more time. It's not like anything this DRV might decide can't wait another few days.

Second, I have no idea where you got the idea that Jo-Jo wasn't an admin on the english-language wikipedia. Every wiki has their own set of admins (I think there's a exception for the smaller wikis, that have some kind of shared-admin functionality). Being an admin on one wiki (say, the German wikipedia) gives you no rights on any other language's wiki. I imagine there are some people who have admin rights on multiple wikis, but they were granted those rights individually (and under processes which may differ from wiki to wiki). You can check to see if somebody is an admin on any particular wiki by going to their user page, and clicking the User rights management link in the left-hand navigation bar. For example, here's Jo-Jo's.

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 1: He was online for two hours from that time he deleted the article.
• 2: de-N indicates his native language is Deutsch (German)! Go figure!
• Govvy (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We have plenty of admins here who aren't native English speakers, that is absolutely fine and doesn't affect their ability to close discussions like this one. Nor do you get to insist on an admin from a particular cultural background as the standards are the same in any case. Half an hour is far too short a time to wait for a response on an issue like this, you can't assume that people will drop everything to respond to you. Incidentally being a native German speaker does not make you German, any more than being a native English speaker means you are English. Hut 8.5 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realise this is down to subject guidance, I would like a closing admin who has some knowledge on the subject, we don't always get what we want. Tell me, if you went to court and the judge was from China and this case is about a dispute in England and the judge hasn't done any homework on the case and you feel the judge is under-qualified for the trial at hand where does your faith lie? Govvy (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a very good comparison: England and China have completely different legal systems, completely different laws, and that person wouldn't be an English judge in any case. Here the notability guidelines are the same whether the subject is from England or Tahiti, the closing admin has been through the process the English Wikipedia has for vetting potential administrators, and the closing admin's role is to assess the consensus of the participants rather than to decide everything themselves. Hut 8.5 17:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I voted delete early in the AFD, then a load of refs rolled in and it became such an obvious keep that I left the discussion. This should be overturned to NC. The closing admin shouldn't have closed as delete without reading a firm rebuttal of the extra refs included in the AFD. There was no rebuttal - just rather blithe statements of the kind I made. Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to wrong venue  A careful read of the nominator's followup post in the AfD shows, "I would suggest a subsection on the Billericay Town page focusing on his time with the club - but only as much as that."  As this is a merge proposal, AfD is not the correct forum, and this AfD is yet another example of the damage to the encyclopedia that can occur by allowing editing-policy disputes in AfD.  Further, we know from the closer's talk page that the closer didn't know that Billericay FC was a club with a Wikipedia page.  So the closer could not have been able to read the nominator's comment, just as I was unable to do initially. 
  Before proceeding, let me first thank the closer and the DRV nom for providing comments on the talk page of the closer, as well as the closer's comment here, as this clarifies the review.  I am bewildered by the statement of the closer, "In this case the several people who addressed the sources in some detail and called them insufficient win out..."  I read and repeatedly reread the delete !votes.  Calling BBC's area of coverage a "small pond", is that what the closer is seeing?  That is not even a valid GNG argument, as GNG treats local sources the same as non-local sources.  WP:ROUTINE is a guideline on events, so citing WP:ROUTINE for a bio is a clear sign of a confused !vote. 
  As a doublecheck, I looked at one of the BBC articles, [25], and one from essexlifmag.co.uk, [26] , and also saw good coverage on Google web and Google news.  Google books was not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closer has indicated he's not interested in arguing this one so my guess is that all we're really discussing is whether this should be relisted. In my opinion no. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the delete camp was arguing a little more about whether the sources were suited or not. I am increasingly less convinced of this now (also because of the points raised about some of the sources here) so I‘ll officially recommend ‘‘‘overturn to no consensus‘‘‘. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending an early close to DRV. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tough call for sure. There are a lot of sources, some OK. Listed sources in the AfD mixed OK and bad sources randomly. Disappointing to see that a merge and redirect to Billericay Town F.C. was not on the cards, this should have been explored per WP:BEFORE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate of Westarctic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Protectorate of Westarctic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of Westarctic Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• [27][28], [29], pages № 2008, 2009 and 2010 and pages 516-517, 6 books, page 730-731 - even Class 15: Private Mint Issues since 1960 -- American Numismatic Association (for all numismatic material issued by a private mint of any country, including philatelic-numismatic covers, except that no denominated coins may be exhibited in this class) First Place -- Oded Paz for "The Coins of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica", 9 news - example Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica, and Travis McHenry, the grand duke of Westartica, will also be in attendance at MicroCon 2015. Westarctica is a much larger nation than Molossia, with more than 620,000 square miles in Antarctica to its name. None of the nation's 300 citizens live on the frozen land. No one does. McHenry, also a recruiting coordinator in a Los Angeles media company, said he was 'really inspired' when he found out there was a piece of Antarctica that had never been claimed. But Westarctica is not just an empty country. It's also a nonprofit, advocating for the protection of native penguins and researching how climate change is impacting Antarctica's ice sheet. ... Grand Duchy of Westarctica. One of the world's largest micronations, it encompasses 620,000 square miles of the Antarctic, but nobody actually lives there. It was founded in 2001 by His Royal Highness Grand Duke Travis McHenry after he learned no other nation had laid claim to the area. McHenry says he would like to eventually make Westarctica a real country. If he does, he jokes that he'll probably promote himself from grand duke to king. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]