Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 October

Lana Rhoades (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Lana Rhoades Has won professional awards notable enough for an article, sources and information is present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse basically technical SNG passes don’t overcome a clear failure to pass the GNG. Source it or lose it is the standard practice. Help us out by listing the GNG passing sources please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you remember when I asked you to show how many sources were needed for GNG, and you couldn't answer the question?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a general sense that this SNG is a bit out of step with the wider consensus. Part of this, IMO, is because some people just don't really like us covering porn-related topics. But some of it is a strong sense that many of the folks that meet the SNG really don't have much coverage from independent sources. I suggest that we find a compromise solution--a set of awards that are fairly narrow that would count as meaningful awards for purposes of meeting the SNG. I'd say something that maybe 20-25 people would win per year (total) sounds about right for the size of the coverage of the field in reliable independent sources. That said, until we finally get an SNG that's in step with the GNG and wider consensus articles like this are going to continue to be deleted at AfD. endorse. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Regarding your statement, some people just don't really like us covering porn-related topics, I guess I'm one of those people, but not for puritanical reasons (which I suspect is what you had in mind). My objection is more a WP:RECENT issue. We have a terrible bias towards things that happen today, and are easy to write about because a google search turns up facts about almost anything and everything that happens. Our goal should be to write about things that are significant, not things that are easy. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably suspect, I lean more toward the "sum of all human knowledge" side. But I do understand that not everyone objecting is doing so for puritanical reasons, though I do think that plays a role for some. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The over-inclusive coverage in this area was even worse in the past--it took quite a while to even get it down to the present level. Before 2010 it specifically included all Playboy Playmates, and it included people with "nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" [1] and [2]. The way to harmonize the SNG with the current consensus is to interpret it strictly, as was properly done in this AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There are mentions in other articles. With an article, this information could be linked; redirecting to one of them hides the other mentions which could be found if the redirect was deleted. The AFD looks like no consensus: according to one editor the sources have been checked with a noticeboard and found to be reliable, according to another editor the sources are not reliable, another says interviews "don't qualify" (but see Wikipedia:Interviews) and others address notability guidelines but not sources. The new article (now redirected) has fewer sources than the deleted article. A "technical SNG pass" would be one that passes, but without enough information for anything more than a stub to be written - with the sources mentioned at the AFD was it possible for more to be written? Peter James (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The original AfD close by Ritchie333 was entirely correct: this was a BLP with no reliable sources. If there are new sources that would satisfy WP:BLP sourcing requirements then Kbq430 ought to show us. A Train^talk 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This may need more discussion on whether the sources are reliable: [3] (or at least a better explanation). Peter James (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was primarily sourced to Adult Video News. Is that a reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I'm willing to be proved wrong on this but something tells me that the answer is no. A Train^talk 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as a source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography but it depends on what is used and what it's used for according to comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those linked discussions fill me with confidence about having a BLP almost entirely sourced to AVN. I mean, our own article about AVN (magazine) cites DFW in the lede describing AVN's articles "to be more like infomercials than articles". None of these feel like sturdy levers with which to overturn this AfD decision. A Train^talk 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this was a BLP with what were at best very dubious sources where the subject doesn't pass the GNG. Closing as Delete is entirely reasonable in that situation. Hut 8.5 22:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A difficult discussion to assess on first glance, given the commitment of a particular group of editors who seek to include in Wikipedia a directory of porn stars who have been industry-recognised. Just like IMDb is the place for comprehensive coverage of films and actors, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternative outlet is http://www.iafd.com. Anyone interested in the directory of porn stars can go there. These deleted pornbio pages without any independent secondary sources are all over there? Why are they trying to squeeze into Wikipedia? It must be for the promotion. I note that no one is trying to write up historical porn stars - a promotion red flag. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The article that editors can see now is not the article that was discussed at AfD.  Neither the nom nor the closer said anything about BLP.  Therefore, BLP is not an issue here.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to speedy keep NPASR wrong venue  This nomination was an improper AfD, as there was no nomination, but rather a request for comment.  In a properly run forum, there would be a process whereby the RFQ would not have been posted, much less allow admin tools to be used.  The fact that DRV may be turning a blind eye to the AfD nomination impropriety here is a measure of where Wikipedia is today, a society whose methods predate the rule of law. 
  The close was further flawed by not taking down !votes that were the politically based "GNG-is-the-only-allowed-notability-guideline", also known as "GNG-centrism".  WP:N is not now a content guideline, much less a content policy. 
  There is also the erroneous notion here that article content is only a special case problem with PORNBIO.  There are no notability sub-guidelines that don't treat content as a separable issue.  GNG does not require prose sources.  WP:N itself does not requires sources...the nutshell says that notability requires evidence from reliable sources.  PROF is well-known as a notability guideline which invokes evidence and not sources.  But all of the notability guidelines and essays are the same (maybe someone should write a notability essay to the contrary).  Unscintillating (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  It is day 6 of a 7 day DRV, and the AfD and closer have just now been notified of this DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The WP:N lede states,

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;

The box on the right of the lede of WP:N includes "People", which in turn includes WP:PORNBIO.

The point here that editors have a reasonable expectation that closers will close in accordance with the guideline, and the guideline allows GNG OR PORNBIO as alternate and equal guidelines.  The statement of the close was, "The inherent notability from winning awards was challenged..."  This was a procedural error in the close.  Also note that editors cannot predict that a closer will move the goalposts, so there was no reason to attempt to satisfy GNG.  Nor is there reason to think that those who claimed that GNG had failed had done more than perfunctory searches.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  There is a second major error in the closing, in that the policy WP:ATD was ignored.  Notability is not an argument for deletion when there is a redirect target.  This is basic WP:Deletion policy.  Deletion when there is a redirect target requires a content deletion argument, at which point the notability becomes incidental as it is WP:REDIRECT that applies.  While there are those in the DRV who want to rehabilitate a content argument, this was not part of the close.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  After reading the entire AfD, I did not find that any search for GNG sources was reported.  There is also a detailed and related discussion at WT:PORNO, but the discussion there was focused on what sources constitute WP:RS, not on this specific topic.  Thus, this is a third major procedural error of the close, that there was never any evidence presented that the topic failed GNG.  As per WP:N, "We consider evidence...".  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per DGG. Vanamonde (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  There were two awards identified as satisfying PORNBIO, the AVN fan award and the XBIZ award.  While the AVN award was questioned as a fan award, there is consensus that the XBIZ "Best New Starlet" award satisfies WP:PORNBIO, and therefore WP:Notability.  But the closer does not confirm this consensus, making this the fourth major procedural error in the close.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed that the closing administrator has left a reply to the template I posted on his/her user talk page:

  :Sorry, my interest in women is only in what's in the head department, not anywhere else. I have said publicly that Hannah Fry is photogenic and nice looking, but that means diddly squat without her bas-ass calculus and pop mathematics prowess, not to mention the brilliant idea of comparing lexical analysis of the Queen's Christmas message to Snoop Dogg. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to tell us why you think this is relevant to the discussion? A Train^talk 07:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means "I'm not interested in this topic or this DRV, here's why, plus a link to an article I'd prefer you to improve instead". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a correct reading of the consensus. This is a BLP, and ties go to deletion, even assuming there was a tie. Jclemens (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The consensus in porn performer-related deletion discussions has developed into a strict construction of the phrase "well-known and significant award", as was done here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holography in fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed as "no consensus", however, there was a clear consensus that it should not continue to exist as an article, regardless of whether it was deleted or redirected. The arguments to the contrary were essentially along the lines of WP:MUSTBESOURCES and not a convincing argument for notability, it was not proven that the material in the article was encyclopedic. Despite the Keep voters' statements, most of the content in here is 100% original research, what isn't is fully ref'd in the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is not kept as a separate article then I would have though that it was pretty obvious that this title should be redirected, with merging of anything that can be reliably sourced, none of which is precluded by a "no consensus" close. This should be dealt with on the article talk pages, not here or at AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment. Probably worth having a look at the pre-DRV discussion between Zxcvbnm and I on my talk page. Zxcvbnm argues both there and above that redirect !votes are functionally equivalent to delete !votes, which is just fundamentally incorrect. As the IP user above points out, if Zx thinks that redirection is the ideal outcome (as s/he suggests on my talk page), then AfD/DRV isn't the appropriate forum to achieve that. A Train^talk 21:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish. I might have closed this as delete, but the NC close is not unreasonable. The thing that bothers me most about the discussion is Timtempleton's comment, We just have to rely on people who have read the books or watched the shows/films to police this. That sounds like WP:OR to me. There's some cleanup that needs to be done here; for example, there's a link of Forbidden Planet, but I don't see anything in that article which talks about holograms. That's not a reason to delete, of course. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't every single plot summary on Wikipedia WP:OR? How about my synopsis of the 2016 State of the Union Address? It's either OR or COPYVIO - there's no third option. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I haven't read it, but if your synopsis is based on what YOU, timtempleton, think is worth highlighting, then yeah, it's OR; if your synopsis is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources think is worth highlight, no. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime someone describes a plot (or speech), and includes every detail, then as long as there's no personal interpretation, I don't see how that can be WP:OR. I think what you're more worried about is if I selectively describe elements and give them my personal interpretation, and that it's incorrect. With the recent state of the union speech, I simply read the transcript and paraphrased it. No bias, no WP:OR. Similarly, when someone watches a movie with a hologram and includes that detail in the synopsis, that's not WP:OR. We rely on the people who consumed the content to write about it. I don't see any alternative short of including quotes and getting into copyvio territory. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, there's never any point in bringing a non-consensus close to Deletion Review. If your arguments were not persuasive enough for a clear cut result, either look for a compromise or wait a month and bring another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument isn't whether there was a consensus, it's whether there was a consensus that was wrongly interpreted as a "no consensus"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (redirect) to Holography. I agree with the nominator here, I read a consensus that the spinout is disapproved, with two definitely discountable keep !votes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Also note that the closing statement was completely inadequate, giving no indication of the consideration of strengths of arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my closing statement was too terse. Admins don't write out extensive closing statements for uncontroversial/unexceptional AfDs (if we did, we'd need a lot more admins) and in my defense, I thought that's exactly what this AfD was. A Train^talk 08:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

😎 That’s ok, I’m not demanding you return your closing fee. If pushed to take a more critical read of the keep !votes, can you see how another might see a rough consensus? (Normally, I would agree with DGG, but an AfD no consensus to not spin out is procedurally hard to re-argue.). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Zxcvbnm's point of view, I just disagree with it. A Train^talk 10:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my extended discussion below with User:timtempleton, where I attempt to explain things to him but which looks like an AfD2 discussion, and due to A_Train's holding of his original opinion, I will explain here more fully my reasons for arguing "overturn":

1. Nominator ZXCVBNM. No spinout. WP:POPCULTURE, which is about when a spinout is justified. Notability explicity mentioned.

2. Merge back Jclemens redirect

3 K.e.coffman Says " indiscriminate collection of information" which implies delete, but then says "fails WP:LISTN" which is consistent with reversing the spinout, consistent with "redirect".

4. TimTempleton "Keep". Discount because his rationale displays a strong misconcentpion of notability. "has been used throughout" ... "long list of well-known titles here" ... "are Wiki-linked" ... "suggests that this is a notable thing" - this is completely wrong, none of these things suggest wikipedia-notability. "The sourcing in my opinion doesn't need to be more than linking to each work's main article" - this opinion is diametrically inconsistent with WP:LISTN. "We just have to rely on people who have read the books or watched the shows/films to police this" - completely at odds with WP:NOR, content must be based on sources, not on what editors think they know.

5. L3X1 "Keep per Tim". Tim's rationale was hollow, incosistent with all notability practice, and L3X1's rationale adds no argument.

6. Relist MBisanz. An expert closer, his relist implies that he judged the above not sufficient to read a consensus.User:MBisanz, did you read the discussion critically at the time of relisting?

7. Mangoe "exile to TV Tropes, er, delete". "a stock device". "visual gee-whiz and directorial laziness". Clearly in the camp of the consensus opinion that the spin-out is not OK.

I this count 4 justified positions opposing the existence of the spinout (delete or redirect, with no argument "delete and do not redirect", with one "redirect do not delete" proponent), one policy-inconsistent "keep" argument, and one rationale-void "keep. Both "keeps" should be discounted, leaving a unanimity supporting "redirect" with quibbles support and opposing clean deletion. "No consensus" was not a reasonable summary of the discussion. "Delete" would have been a stretch, with "redirect" fully and squarely consistent with a policy-weighted reading of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are crediting the delete arguments with considerably more weight than they earned, as Hut 8.5 argues below. As you yourself point out, MBisanz found that the discussion had not achieved consensus either, and the only argument that followed that assessment was not exactly Lincoln-Douglas material. A Train^talk 11:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to redirect- The nominator and SmokeyJoe are correct. There is a definite consensus against this spinout article. Although in theory a non-consensus close should not be an obstacle to a later redirect discussion, in practice it usually is, so I think it's better to acknowledge the redirect consensus here than trying to re-establish it later. Reyk _YO! 09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse but I honestly think redirect would have been a better reading of the consensus. I agree that redirect !votes can't be read as "delete", but delete !votes are almost certainly happier with a redirect than something that keeps the article. That said, it's probably within discretion as that call isn't always obvious. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep endorse admin NC close - the original objection I remember was that this was fancruft. I don't think it is - holography is a plot device that is very common in fiction, as evidenced by the numerous works where it appears. The other argument against, that this is WP:OR, also doesn't apply, or else all uncited plot synopses would be banned. See my argument elsewhere on this page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are confusing a Deletion review with an AfD. The AfD has already been decided, the issue is whether it's the admin's reading of it that was incorrect. You already registered your keep vote in the AfD, although it doesn't hold any water, as you have presented no proof that the article is not fancruft beyond WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. As I said, any non-crufty material is already in the main article at Holography#In fiction, or can fit there without requiring an article spin-off. And no, an uncited plot synopsis is not the same as an entire uncited article with a list of trivia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you - I'll strikethrough. Haven't ever participated in one of these before. We both have pretty good AfD stats [[4]] so we both have good judgement. I'm just more of an inclusionist than you are. And in this case the delete or redirect arguments didn't seem to resonate. If it was vote counting, a bot could do this. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:timtempleton. WP:OR definitely applies, specifically WP:PSTS, noting the topic is "holography in fiction". Being a common plot device is not a justification for a stand alone article. It is a reason for better mention in Plot device, and a mention in holography. The problem with spinning the article as a navigation aiding list article is that it links to article that make no explicit mention of holography as a plot device. What would be needed to justify this article is a reliable source that has previously cross-referenced works of fiction by use of holography as a plot device.
  There is no question of uncited plots being banned; firstly they are citeable to the primary source, secondly they are well accepting components of the coverage of a work of fiction. What you can't do is spin out plot into stand alone articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just not getting your argument. WP:OR doesn't apply when you simply take a plot summary element and combine it with other similar plot elements. Per the comment below, WP:SYNTH, as I read it, also doesn't apply - there are no conclusions being drawn here. I'm simply describing what happened. To illustrate both of these points, I just added info about the 3D holography scene in Prometheus[[5]]. You can see a weak source here.[[6]] I then added Prometheus to this article, with almost identical information. [[7]] If you reject the new info as OR and SYNTH, you have to reject the info in the original plot synopsis, to be consistent. Then that calls all plot summaries into question, which was my original point. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• . I do reject your new points as just more WP:SYNTH. When reading WP:SYNTH, I suspect you don’t properly appreciate the differences between primary source and secondary source material. There is also a skirting of adherence to WP:WAF. No, your extrapolation to rejection of all info in the original plot synopsis is not correct. Per WP:NOR, balance is what matters. An article can’t be all plot, but a proportion of the article as plot summary is appropriate. The problem of the spinout is that it is too great a concentration of plot, and the concentration is an act of SYNTH. Where is one secondary source describing the topic generally? That’s what’s needed. My advice to you is to look to add sourced information on holography to the article plot device. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse an NC close (which was obviously reasonable) is an opportunity to implement WP:ATD options to improve the material's presentation... so take it. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Improving" in this case implies deleting the vast majority of the article's content. As it is almost entirely WP:OR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but that, and redirection, don't need an admin to hit the "delete" button, so can be achieved without all this faffing around at AfD and DRV. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bingo. AND, if some of the content could be sourced and reinserted from the article history, so much the better. Deletion is for things that need only deletion, and there's really not nearly so much of that on Wikipedia as people seem to think. What's really needed in many cases, including this one, is actual editing--that is improving what's there by sourcing, rewriting, focusing, etc. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and perhaps redirect to Holography, or relist. WP:SYNTH applies – no sources talk about this specific intersection. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Stifle. I don't think it's true that no sources talk about this intersection. [8] would be one such reliable source. [9] has some coverage and there seem to be a fair number of books that cover the intersection. Doesn't mean we should have such a list, but certainly this has been discussed in reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect may more closely represent consensus based on policy, but an alternative would be to accept the AFD closure and look at whether the list entries are verifiable. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD basically consisted of one side saying the article is indiscriminate cruft and the other side saying that the topic appears widely in science fiction. Those arguments are about as strong as each other, to be honest, and the notability argument (which might have carried more weight) was barely mentioned at all. Nobody argued that the article was or wasn't original research, so I don't think you could have used that as a reason to delete it. I don't agree that a merge !vote is functionally equivalent to a delete one in this case. Hut 8.5 22:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "indiscriminate cruft" is a paraphrasing from the policy WP:NOT. "appears widely in science fiction" is a ghit type argument that carries no weight in terms of Wikipedia-notability. The two arguments are of very dissimilar strengths. Notability was a central point of the nominator, repeated in support by K.e.coffman, contested dubiously by TimTempleton. No one explicitly argued OR, but WP:NOR underlies the notability challenges. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT does say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That isn't an objective standard though and determining which pieces of content fall foul of this is very much left up to editorial judgement. The Keep people here were saying that they think this material is encyclopedic. While the nominator did bring up notability s/he concentrated on the notability of individual list entries. I suspect that might be using "notable" in the plain language sense rather than the Wikipedia guideline sense, as the notability of individual list entries hasn't got anything to do with the issue. Hut 8.5 07:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "indiscriminate" is almost always used in diametric opposition to what denotes: An indiscriminate set would be 12, beta, Spiro Agnew, and Aspartame. What people usually mean by INDISCRIMINATE is actually "overly discriminate", which isn't actually covered in NOT at all. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you are both right there. INDISCRIMINATE is just a VAGUEWAVE. K.e.coffman’s Delete argument is therefore to be discounted, leaving only his LISTN that supports merge and redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree with that. INDISCRIMINATE is a valid argument, and I would be happy to endorse a Delete close if enough people had agreed with it. However it's also a very subjective argument and it's very hard to close an AfD as Delete based on strength of argument if that argument is INDISCRIMINATE. LISTN is a more substantial argument and if that had been the main argument for deletion I think the article would have been deleted. Hut 8.5 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I understand WP:LISTN and your point correctly, you are saying that unless the subject of holography in fiction is covered in general, that it isn't a notable concept and doesn't warrant an article. A quick Google search for holography in fiction yields these articles that all mention holograpy in science fiction. [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] The gist is that since 3D holography doesn't exist yet, the only way people will experience it is through fiction. Does that change your opinion of the merits of this compilation? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think those are all great sources, for Holography#Applications, but not for Holography in fiction. None of the four discuss plot devices. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm not saying that the subject isn't notable. That's a question for AfD. What I'm saying is that a notability argument, if properly made and not rebutted, would have been stronger than the arguments made for deletion in the AfD. Hut 8.5 07:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and I will argue for keep if it renominated. Most of the mentions are inappropriate, but there is enough left, and there's an extenssve iterature to search for 3rd party sources. As a start, there are reviews for most of the films. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
• overturn to delete The main objection was hardly answered: that real holography has essentially no presence in fiction, and that instead it's a trope-name for anything involving three-dimensional images, even those which are not utterly visual. That's a short paragraph in the main article. Nobody really addressed this or the parallel objection that it is too common to be remarked upon. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse--Whilst IMO, redirect with a scope of selective merge would have been the best closure, I don't find much wrong with the NC close to support overturning it.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close was reasonable. Only one !voter did not indicate that they would support a merger of at least some content back to the parent article. Given the varied positions, a NC close is reasonable, and merging/redirecting does not require an open AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Ganern (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Jo-Jo Eumerus incorrectly closed AFD as redirect to It's Showtime (variety show). So 11 editors voted Delete to want to delete Pak Ganern as well. So I will ask the admin to renominate AFD for the third time. 99.109.85.105 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse- eh, consensus probably should have been found to be "delete", but redirect is not completely unreasonable. Overturning and deleting now would only result in a new redirect being created in its place anyway. There's no indication that the existence of the page history is being misused in any way. Not sure what overturning would accomplish. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I honestly don't remember this one. I do not terribly object to deleting it after all although I note that nobody specifically objected to a redirect and some people stated that the topic should be covered elsewhere. When closing an AfD I do not just count the bolded !votes but also the rationales submitted. In addition, I wasn't certain if RioHondo's and PogingJuan's sources had been addressed - if they weren't, that would be a sign that recreation should be allowed which is easier after redirecting than after deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the possibility of redirecting was mentioned in the discussion, it's consistent with the consensus not to have an article about the subject, and nobody offered any argument against it. I suppose we could delete it and redirect it if that would make you happier. Hut 8.5 16:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closing this as delete would have been fine too, but if there's a reasonable redirect target identified and there's no specific objection to redirecting (i.e. blatent promotionalism, copyvio, WP:BLP problems, etc), a redirect is usually preferred over a delete, so I can't find any fault with the way it was closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse although I'd word it stronger than RoySmith: since WP:ATD is policy, a consensus to not redirect would need to be found in order to delete the content entirely--that is, just saying "delete" isn't enough to overcome an expectation that, except for narrowly identified problem content as RoySmith notes above, we want to lead our readers to the best, encyclopedic article closest to what they were looking for. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think that was probably the best possible close given the discussion. delete would have been a reasonable close too I suppose, but then someone would just create the redirect and we'd be in the same place (but now we have history which is great, should this ever become notable. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There's consensus to delete, but there's a valid redirect target and suitable content, although not enough for an article. The relevant content, still visible in history, can be merged to List of It's Showtime segments, which is where the redirect should point to - the current target doesn't mention it. Peter James (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge to Pak ganern game. Just not a well-enough-informed, well-argued discussion to base a close on. Some IAR here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ONYC Hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Undelete Per my check the subject is notable, and the deleted administrator said the reason for speedy deletion is because the article has been deleted before, per my check i wasn't the one that wrote the article in 2015, i believe overtime articles should be improved and if there's any issue with an article it should be stated on creating admin's talk page or article talk page considering the stress one has to go through finding sources and an writing an article from a neutral point of view while avoiding Tabloid Journalism, for this reason the deleting administrator's point doesn't seem valid, per Neutral point of view the article should be allowed for more improvements in this case. Is Nutin 06:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted for two reasons : first, as recreation of previously deleted article, second , as purely promotional article (in addition, there's no real evidence for notability.I suggested that the place to try again would be as a Draft. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:CSD. This is such a blatent advertisement, I'm not inclined to tempundelete it, but here's one example sentence: On 25th September 2017, The hair company released a new Luxury Beach Wave Hair product in celebration of its CEO's birthday and 10 years in business.. Barf. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse definitely blatant advertising and I would have happily deleted it under G11. The recreation did have more sources than the original but at a glance I don't think they would have overcome the notability concerns. Hut 8.5 19:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, G11 is right. Note that this on its own doesn't stop anyone recreating the article (although the concerns raised in the AFD still ought to be addressed), so long as that article isn't purely promotional in nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• A redirect could be created, but the related article is currently at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Okoro) and looks likely to be deleted. Any new article would have to be created as a draft. Peter James (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grigory Granaturov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed while still going on, the last comments less than 24 h old. Some people used the wrong definitions of notability: notability is not decided by the issue of if there are sources or not; verifiability is. Also, not knowing a subject yourself is not a valid reason for deleting it. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the closing admin has already backed out their AfD close, so this DRV is moot. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crawley (headmaster) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted at AfD in 2011 so I'm obviously not appealing the decision, but rather asking for recreation to be allowed on the basis that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" on a subject that was already borderline notable (see keep votes at the AfD). I am filing this largely at the behest of Castlemate who asked me on my talk page about how to proceed to get this article undeleted. They noted on my talk page that "Crawley has continued to be a notable as an educationalist and has now retired as a Headmaster. This article in The Australian and this one about his Honorary Doctorate suggests that his notability is now above dispute." and I agree with this assessment. The deleting admin was contacted in August but unfortunately they are largely inactive and have not yet responded. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. On the one hand, the standard answer to requests like this is, With a 6 year old AfD, there's no need to ask DRV for permission to recreate if new sources have appeared; just go ahead, be WP:BOLD, and do it. On the other hand, we don't have articles about every person who gets an honorary doctorate. I suggest reading WP:NACADEMIC and seeing if this person meets those criteria. From what I can see, I'd suggest they don't, but other editors may have other opinions. While not required, I suggest going through WP:AfC to get some review. By the way, I couldn't see the article in The Australian; it's behind their paywall. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there's already Peter Crawley and Peter Crawley (cricketer). If this does end up getting recreated, I would re-organize Peter Crawley as a WP:DAB page. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the DRV instructions be updated to reflect this standard practice?

I suppose I should have been a bit clearer in my nomination. I think undeletion would be preferable to simply allowing recreation in this case. Why go to the effort of rewriting from scratch when the bear bones are already there? I considered just undeleting it myself but considering I voted keep at the original AfD I thought I might still be considered involved and it is better to be safe than sorry in those cases.

Regarding the actual notability question, NACADEMIC explicitly does not cover people associated with secondary education, it is only for higher/tertiary education. I'm not sure if there is a SNG for people in secondary education, but I don't think it matters much anyway – my argument would be that Crawley passes the general notability guideline with an entry in Who's Who in Australia and the reasonably in-depth article in The Australian. If you want to view that article, a handy trick is to paste the URL into a google search and then click through the first link provided, you will nearly always be able to dodge the paywall that way. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to undeletion. I'm still not convinced there's enough here to demonstrate WP:N, but if people don't like it, they can take it to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete to allow article improvement (and thank you for the trick to reach a fascinating article!). Thincat (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete to allow this bio to be improved and updated. The reasons given by Griffith University for awarding a high school principal an honorary doctorate appear to address questions of notability: Griffith University has honoured St Hilda's School principal Peter Crawley, one of the pioneers of using computers and tablets in the classroom, with an honorary doctorate for services to education ... while computers and education are so ingrained in schools and teaching institutions today it was Mr Crawley who opened the eyes of technology giants Microsoft and Toshiba to their potential in classrooms in the early 90s. His use of notebook computers at Trinity Grammar School (Victoria) was ground-breaking and Microsoft produced a distributed a film documenting how computers could be used in teaching environments. He also spoke at conferences around the world letting educators know how they could integrate computers. His passion for using technology in schools led to a personal letter from Bill Gates thanking him for showing Microsoft staff and educators worldwide what could be achieved. He was also invited to address the Toshiba board in Japan on the potential usage of computers in education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlemate (talk • contribs)
• Restore to allow improvement. Six years is a long time and The Australian article is much better than anything in the article at the time of deletion. Hut 8.5 06:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the restoration. The Australian article is really solid evidence of notability. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. New claims of notability overcome the old AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnecessary You don't need to stop by DRV just because something has been deleted before. WP:REFUND or ask an admin, add the sources, and WP:BOLD. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been a bizarre experience. I ask again, do the instructions for when to use DRV need to be updated or clarified? This article would not get undeleted at REFUND, at least according to the instructions there and a quick perusal of the page where several requests were declined for being deleted at AfD. The admin who closed the debate was asked. Should I really have undeleted this myself despite being a keep vote in the original AfD? Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard line at REFUND is to decline to restore pages deleted by deletion discussions and refer them to DRV or the closing admin. I don't think there's anything stopping you from restoring it yourself if you didn't take part in the discussion but it is something of a grey area and for a recently closed AfD it may well be seen as inappropriate. If you want to write a new article from scratch with these improvements, rather than restoring the old one, then you definitely don't need to ask anybody. I think DRV is probably the best place for these requests in the absence of anything better. Hut 8.5 11:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could have gone to REFUND first, and then come here if someone hesitated there. Undeleting yourself would be bad form, but not wrong. These sort of requests have come to DRV as long as I have been around, and the amount of procedural comment fuss today is unusual. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV Purpose notes appended, for this sort of thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks both. I honestly wasn't trying to make a fuss, I was just a bit bemused because I really thought I was going about things the right way here. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Dijon attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am applying purposes 1 and 5 in my request for deletion review. Note, I did have a discussion with the closer here. I believe Sandstein misinterpreted the consensus of the AFD, given one of his reasons was opinions were roughly divided. As we all know, we do not do a head-count but rather make a decision based on the strength of the arguments brought forth. Editors E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz, Greenborg, and Coretheapple, for example based their rationale on a recent "expansion" by Gregory as well as the existence of continued coverage and impact. However, Pincrete, Drmies, and myself found Gregory tainted the discussion by misrepresenting the sources and exaggerating the extent of the coverage which was mostly passing mentions beyond the initial news wave.[14][15][16][17] (more at Talk:2014 Dijon attack). Some editors either blissfully or willingly were unaware of these gross inaccuracies and voted keep. Regardless, the in-depth analysis by Pincrete and Drmies nullifies these arguments. That is where I believe Sandstein misinterpreted the consensus; he still gave weight to these !votes when clearly those editors' judgments were lacking in this case. One can hope he also simply ignored these "!votes". [18][19] I asked Sandstein to either relist the discussion so new editors, aware of the misinterpreted sources, could !vote or delete the article based on the arguments for deletion. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comments: I've attempted to address these concerns at User talk:Sandstein#AFD.  Sandstein  19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep While Sandstein's close was certainly diplomatic and not objectively unreasonable, the delete arguments were completely beside the point: an article on an incident doesn't have to result in a death, nor meet NCRIME, if the GNG is met, which it clearly is. NTEMP is likewise used inappropriately by those arguing for the article's deletion. The argument over what is or isn't terrorism is a content dispute, and not a valid reason for an AfD in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jclemens you are joking right? One editor based their deletion rationale solely on whether this was terrorism or not while keep voters based their votes on one editor's misrepresentation of sources and the extent of coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reread the discussion, I reread a few of the sources, and I am convinced that nothing about the content dispute rises to the level of supporting an AfD. Even if the sources don't say what they keep !voters say they do, there is still multiple, independent, RS coverage (enduring in time, if it matters--which I do not believe it does) which means that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I retract this review - I had hope DR would be more objective but I did not foresee this is just a rehashing of AfD and isn't worth the trouble. Sandstein I apologize for wasting your time; it certainly will not happen again, at least not at this venue. I do not believe I can close it but anyone else can with any argument from me. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse opinion in the AfD was pretty evenly split on the question of whether we should have an article on this or not and I don't see any particular reason for the closer to prefer one side or the other. This is about more than just whether the topic meets the GNG, as a major argument for deletion was WP:NOTNEWS and whether the topic has has enough lasting coverage to get over that issue. As Sandstein said this is a rather subjective judgement. Hut 8.5 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We ask closing editors to make reasoned judgments, then we accept them because that is how judicial systems work. Empowering Noms who DONOTLIKE a particular decision to ask to have it overturned is damaging to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lý Thuần An (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I assert there was not a consensus to "keep" as only one editor posited a GNG claim; it's unclear if the other made a NPOL argument or INHERITED. The lack of keep rationales seems to point to a delete outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse or if you want, weak overturn to no consensus. There was not a consensus to delete. Being posthumously declared king is arguably ANYBIO1, and while no one appealed to that, it was the gist of what those arguing keep were saying. I saw this on the first close and thought NC would be a better option, because Chris' best argument was the verifiability claim (WP:DEL7), which was slightly addressed, but participants didn't come to a conclusion on. Why weak endorse? The outcome is the same so I don't see the point in overturning to NC, but wouldn't object to it. I also think it'd be reasonable to hold a merge discussion or boldly redirect it and see where that goes. I don't see a consensus to delete in that AfD, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -

Some background: I closed this AfD as keep, then at the request of Chris troutman I reopened & relisted as it was a non-admin closure. It was then closed as keep by the admin Kudpung.

Note: the article which was originally titled Lý Thuần An has been changed to an alternate romanisation of Li Chun'an.

Subject: The subject is a chinese merchant and politician who lived in the 9th century, he was the son of a prominent 5 dynasties period official and father of emperor Lý Công Uẩn, the founder of a Vietnamese dynasty. (Note: A dynasty is roughly what we would call a country or state, an 'official' is the equivalent of prime minster or cabinet minister/senator, however they hold the position for life.) After his death, his son, then the emperor, granted him the rank of 'King', although he had not been one in his lifetime.

Sources: The subject is discussed in two reliable sources which Wikipedians have been able to read. The Chinese official history confirms his existence, as do several reliable western works cited in the article. Other sources are cited in the article, which I have not read. Due to the lack of people who speak Chinese and Vietnamese, finding more sources is unlikely at this stage.

Claims to notability.

A. WP:NPOL Criterion 1. As a politician who held a national post equivalent to transport minister.

B. WP:GNG With two reliable sources, this deceased person from a time-period in antiquity meets the general notability guideline.

C. WP:ANYBIO Criterion 1. as the recipient of a highest honor bestowed by the leader of an independent state. This award was both well known and significant, the award of which is still known 1100 years later.

> Dysklyver 20:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse We don't judge arguments simply based on whether BOLDED links are used, and none of the keep !votes were sufficiently contrary to existing policy or common sense such that they would have had to be discounted by any admin. A no consensus close would have also been well within the realm of admin discretion. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No acceptable argument for deletion was ever presented. Presumably the nom. was on the basis of very scanty information for historical personage., and that is alweays been considered not justification to delete--in this or in any other encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Please explain how my rationale that the subject "fails GNG and ANYBIO" is not an acceptable argument for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because it passes one of the presumptive bio ctcriteriaieria. "presumptive" means that it imeets it unlelss you can provide evidence that there are no sources discussing it. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I don't understand. I took another look at WP:BIO and WP:N and I can't find what you're referencing. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse or Overturn to NC:--Per TBallioni.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could have been closed as "no consensus". Too many argued "keep" and "merge" !votes for "delete" to have been a reasonable close. I note that notability is far less a test for 1000 year old topics, verifiability is basically enough, unless there is a modern promotion angle. Short of it being deleted as a hoax, or lacking reliability, or being puffed by some modern movement, I don't see any article like this being deleted. Options to Merge remain on the table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. SmokeyJoe is exactly right about notability of 1000 year old topics. In today's internet-everything world, even the most banal and meaningless things get enough coverage to eke by WP:GNG, which is why wikipedia has turned into crapopedia. Anything from 1000 years ago which was documented sufficiently that we can find evidence of it now, surely meets our standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Perez (football) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have found several sources that I don't believe were in the article at the time. I think it may pass GNG. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the perfect example of why the sports specific guideline works much better than the GNG. None of this coverage meets the standards of NCOLLATH, which contains a section on sourcing that is a significantly stringer requirement than the GNG. The only sources here that come close to meeting it are primary, and thus excluded by WP:N. In short: if a subject doesn't meet the sourcing requirements their SNG says to look for, we should also assume it doesn't meet the GNG. Also, my standard complaint about DRV not being AfD 2.0 and asking us to reassses sourcing less than a year after the original discussion not being an appropriate use of deletion review when there was a strong consensus in the original discussion. If you think you have enough sourcing to write an article that passes G4, you don't need permission. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse mostly per TonyBallioni: If sourcing has changed, ask for the article back to improve it, and then make your notability improvements through the new sourcing to assure that G4 doesn't apply, but realize that anyone can AfD it if they disagree that notability criteria are met. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, undelete, allow re-nomination after a week or two. I'm seeing in WikiOriginal-9's proffered list of sources are large number of new sources that appear to be from quality reporting, and including serious secondary source content, far too much for me to quickly agree that the sources are all primary sources. "Texas A&M-Commerce's Luis Perez is the most interesting man in DII football" Sep 7, 2017, for example, is not easily rejected. These new sources are sufficient to demand a fresh run through AfD. Give WikiOriginal-9 at least a week to work them in, and then allow anyone to renominate at AfD. I see no reason why this should go through draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @TonyBallioni and Jclemens: I went to close this, but as I read both of your comments, I'm not sure what you're advocating. On the one hand, you both say endorse, but on the other hand, it sounds like you're arguing to restore the article, which doesn't sound like endorse to me. Could you both clarify your points of view? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with restoring to user space to let them work on it before submitting to main space. My endorse was making the point that a deletion review is not needed to recreate the article, and that it shouldn't be used as a way to G4 or AfD-proof the article, especially when it's likely it'll be deleted again anyway. The Holly Neher deletion review and subsequent 2nd AfD were a mess, and I think show the reason why deletion reviews should stay away from making judgement calls as to whether sourcing has changed on relatively recently deleted articles. If the claim is that the subject's notability has changed to the point where an uninvolved admin won't G4 the article, then there is no need for a deletion review to review the sourcing, just ask for userfication from any admin and restore to main space to let the article be judged by a much more diverse crowd than shows up here. My suggested close would be a simple "endorse" and let the OP know that they can ask for it to be userfied. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse means the February deletion discussion was fine. DRV is not to reargue an AfD in light of new sourcing, only that the sourcing in the AfD was considered poorly by the closing admin. DRV is not appropriate when the sourcing has changed, in general, but it doesn't mean we can't say both "the AfD was correct at the time" and "Sure, go ahead and recreate it". Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Anissimov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article documented Anissimov's work using reliable sources and made a credible claim of importance without being spammy. Therefore, I don't think it met speedy deletion criteria. Smooth alligator (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not worth arguing about a challenged speedy, so I've sent it to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Anissimov (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Bards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Whiskey Bards are a band. The article about the band should be evaluated according to WP:MUSICBIO, which reads Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

I have four published works referencing this band. Two of them were music reviews.

WP:ALBUM/SOURCE says Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc.

One of my reviews is from rambles.net, an online arts and culture magazine. Here is a link to their editorial and writing staff page.

The other reviewer is Gerard Heidgerken, a professional DJ who uses the handle "Bilgemunky." For six years, he hosted a pirate-themed radio show. It was a Dr. Demento styled show, with an emphasis on sea shanties and pirate music. As part of the show, he reviewed pirate movies, pirate books, nautical-themed music albums, and even clothing and rum brands. The radio show no longer airs, and Bilgemunky only performs at pirate-themed special events now. But the podcasts of his show are still available on iTunes and his reviews remain active on the website for his broadcast.

In addition to the reviews, I had an article from The Arizona Republic, a well-established newspaper, more than a century old. The article was about pirate-themed music. Two members of the band are mentioned by name and one of them is quoted.

The fourth source is an article from the Arizona Star, another newspaper, also more than a century old. The article title contains the name of one of the band members.

That makes four non-trivial published works, as required by WP:MUSICBIO. The reviews were professional according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. The newspapers are unquestionably significant. Cybotik (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is possible for an article on a notable topic to be so poorly written that it provides no indication of importance and so can be properly deleted via WP:CSD#A7. In the discussion at User talk:Deb#Whiskey Bards (recreated) and User_talk:Cybotik#Whiskey Bards both parties seem to have engaged in a discussion about notability which therefore bypassed the speedy deletion issue. I think Deb should address the issue of lack of indication of importance (and not WP:Notability) to defend the speedy or undelete the article (and send to WP:AFD if appropriate). Thincat (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you say that "They are regular performers at Renaissance Faires" is an indication of importance? I can't see anything else in the article that is. Three earlier drafts of the article have been turned down by Jytdog and others. The deleted version is slightly better, but it was not I who brought up the question of notability and, as you rightly say, this is not directly relevant. Deb (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see the article, of course, but if that is all it said then "no". Unfortunately I have a very poor opinion of the general standard of reviewing and guidance at AFC so I tend to disregard it. However, I know that some AFC reviews are done satisfactorily so this may be one such example. Thincat (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not all. I've put the article text here so non-admins can view it and make up their own minds. Deb (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator had agreed to put the article through AfC before it was deleted and in my view it would be fine to restore it so they can do that. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• ;Endorse' I see no reason that it would possibly make an article, and AfC is meant for topics that have some potential,. Øf the four references in the article, two are local stories about a local band, which are indiscriminate unreliable sources for the purpose of notability, and the other two are blogs. Their recording is self-produced. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the "blogs" appears to be an on-line literary magazine with both a long history, an editor, and a large number of contributors over time. Hobit (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as (barely) within discretion but I think speedy deletion was a poor action to have taken over something where so much analysis for notability was required. I am very sceptical that the "most obvious cases" requirement of CSD was really met. Also, the deletion should have been undone on reasonable request. I don't think AFC review is limited to "topics that have some potential", an assessment of potential is the result and not the prerequirement of AFC. There is no pre-review stage and anyway DRV is not pre-review. So, I think the article should be undeleted (particularly per Jytdog) and put in an AFC submission state. The weak status of references would be pertinent considerations at AFC or any XFD. Thincat (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Sources appear to be arguably above the GNG bar, making this not a great candidate for a speedy (multiple, independent, in depth and 3 are reliable). It should be allowed to stand at AfD. My guess is it won't make it, but it meets the letter of our notability guidelines and so it shouldn't be speedied. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that my difference in opinion with others is that I'm treating rambles.net as a quality source and others are dismissing it entirely. If it's a blog, it just barely appears to predate the word "blog" and it clearly has editorial oversight. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft as it has sources that counter A7 Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help please, why was my article got deleted?

Minori Suzuki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After a discussion with the AfD closer Music1201 a few months ago ended without resolution, I am once again taking this to deletion review. During the original AfD and subsequent deletion review, consensus was that coverage in reliable sources was still lacking at the time. Since there, there have been coverage specifically about Suzuki in both English in Japanese sources, such as this interview with Anime News Network, and Japanese coverage on her solo career such as this, this, this, this, and this. At the very least, it seems that Suzuki may now pass at the very least WP:GNG, but that's for this discussion to decide. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, are you asking to revive the article in a draft, either in the general drafts section or your userspace? I think it needs to be reviewed again by someone else for AFC. She only has the Macross Detlta notability at this point as the major character. The other roles are in large ensembles so she isn't really headlining those. Music career was supposedly charting so she might meet WP:MUSICBIO. If the article can't be revived, I suggest starting a new draft where it can be filled in the way you want it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: The article text was moved to my userspace (see User:Narutolovehinata5/Minori Suzuki) in the event that future discussions determine that she would by then pass our notability guidelines, in which case the userspace page would be moved back to the mainspace. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow move to mainspace with no opinion as to the actual notability of the subject. If someone wants to test the consensus at AfD again, they can do so, but if an editor feels their draft should be moved to mainspace 6 months after an AfD sent it there, they should be able to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow move to mainspace  I found that the topic appeared at a concert at a large anime event in Los Angeles this year, and the performance at the concert was reported in English in Tokyo: [33].  So notability continues to increase.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of scope for DRV. Like the Oct 9 case below, this isn't really a good use case for DRV. This editor doesn't have any beef with the original AfD close and doesn't need DRV's blessing to take the article back into mainspace, or to submit it at WP:Articles for creation. A Train^talk 00:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of scope for DRV, per A Train. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Bring to WP:AfC Note: I closed the previous DRV. A agree that bringing this back to DRV again was out of scope for this forum. And, in fact, when the nom asked about this a few months ago, they were advised that bringing it to WP:AfC was the right process. Unclear why the nom chose to ignore that advice, but it's still the correct advice. The issue at the DRV I closed was that people didn't see any improvement in the sourcing since the article was deleted. The goal of userfication is not to park an article somewhere so every few months you can bring it back and try again. The goal is to wait until something substantial has improved. I don't see that anything has. But, AfC is a better place to figure that out than DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. This is within DRV's scope, not WP:AFC's scope.

  This is within DRV's scope. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

  The nominator wrote:

  During the original AfD and subsequent deletion review, consensus was that coverage in reliable sources was still lacking at the time. Since there, there have been coverage specifically about Suzuki in both English in Japanese sources, such as this interview with Anime News Network, and Japanese coverage on her solo career such as this, this, this, this, and this.

  With the new sources presented here, it is very clear that the DRV nominator is advancing the argument that "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", so this meets WP:DRVPURPOSE. I agree that this is significant new information, so I support restoration.

  This is not within AfC's scope. Wikipedia:Articles for creation says:

  If you don't have a Wikipedia user account, consider registering an account now. If you choose not to register, or you have a conflict of interest, but have an idea for a new article and some references, you can create one here and it will be reviewed and considered for publication.

  DRV nominator Narutolovehinata5 is not an IP user. And Narutolovehinata5 does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, WP:AFC is not the proper place for uninvolved established editor Narutolovehinata5 to seek review.

  Cunard (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiranraj K (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article now have enough references. Wikieditorksd (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wikieditorksd: you'll need to give us some pointers to the references you think make the article suitable. Hut 8.5 18:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hut 8.5: In last discussion while deleting the page was, 'he was non notable person and once he directs feature film then the article can be restored'. Now his film is announced and which has enough references.

Here is some of the references.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/636567/a-pawsome-story.html

https://www.lehren.com/news/regional/kannada/interesting-storyline-of-kiranraj-k-s-next-film-20171003/amp

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/777-charlie-requires-3-months-of-training-for-aravinnd-iyer-and-our-dog/articleshow/60855868.cms

Wikieditorksd (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. He has a short IMDM bio [34]. But I was unable to find substantive articles on him from reliable sources.desmay (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse making a feature film does not in of itself make someone notable. The links above could certainly be cited in support of a claim that the film is notable, but they don't give much coverage to the director itself. Hut 8.5 18:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hut 8.5:, @Desmay: In India it's like that only. They highlight only actors. Directors and asst directors are underrated most of the time. So with the help of wiki we can help to those directors who does really good job. Thank youWikieditorksd (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Our purpose doesn't involve highlighting good directors though. We document things which have been recognised and covered in the sources, we don't aim to increase the recognition of subjects. Hut 8.5 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse nothing here that would have changed the result of the AfD or that makes me think its conclusion might need to be revisited. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This is not what deletion review is for, and it's not a good use of anybody's time, either. Wikieditorksd, you would be much better served at WP:Articles for creation. A Train^talk 00:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouse High School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The non-admin close reflected a specious SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus. Since that argument is invalid and no keep arguments addressed general notability, I think the correct close would have been delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a specious filing, it fails DRVPURPOSE, NOT #5. Also WP:POINT, see this. The only thing addressed in the last of the innumerable series of RfC regarding school notability was that OUTCOMES was not to be accepted as the sole arguement. Note this, which shows that OUTCOMES was not ever cited in this discussion. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments for keeping school articles again, ad nauseum. I've heard them all, so have you. Suggest the OP file yet another RfC, but that too is a waste of time. WP:STICK. And with that, I'm out. There was absolutely nothing wrong with an NAC closure here. The only one seeing this as controversial is the OP. It ran the full period, plus and there were no delete !votes. All the !keep votes were solidly argued and in keeping with the notability standard for schools, which only requires meeting GNG and allows an assumption of hard to find local sources. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• John says that no one claimed OUTCOMES as a reason because no one linked to it. Perhaps he should re-read the reasons provided by the keep voters because he must not understand what they were saying. I think there is a procedural problem; the NAC rested on an invalid argument and a NAC closer might be apt to close a discussion where they see unanimous keep arguments assuming that consensus was valid. If I was trying to be POINTy, you'd see evidence of me nominating hundreds of school articles or HOUNDing a particular editor; neither is the case. Indeed, I will agree that if there was a consensus that the subject passed GNG, I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place, let alone asked for a repeal of this mistaken close. John has also CANVASS'd all those keep !voters, so I expect them to repeat here how what they believe stands above what an RfC has determined. I have no political friends; I stand alone on policy, guidelines, and essays. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see a consensus for deletion here. Despite plenty of participation nobody agreed with the nominator's position, and their arguments went considerably further than "it exists". The nominator's argument was that the media coverage isn't sufficient to meet the GNG because it's local or routine, but nobody else agreed with that and not much was cited to back it up. WP:LOCAL is an essay and WP:ROUTINE is part of a notability guideline on events (which this isn't). Hut 8.5 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The RfC is question said there was no consensus to change the current practice that all genuine high schools are notable . It did confusingly said that just quoting schooloutcomes wasn't enough, that something other than that need be said. Personally, I think it's a close that makes no sense whatsoever; the RfC ended up saying nothing with any practical effect. At any rate, the prior situation still holds--every AfD of high schools since then has closed saying that they're notable, except when real existence was doubtful or uncertain. What we do consistently is the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "every AfD of high schools since then has closed saying that they're notable, except when real existence was doubtful or uncertain" Please see Korea International School (South Korea), Seoul American High School, Gyeonggi Suwon International School, Busan International Foreign School, Gyeongnam International Foreign School, Busan Foreign School, Korea Kent Foreign School, and International Christian School Uijongbu. It was never about if the school exists; it was about notability. I don't see why you'd lie to yourself about that. The point of DRV isn't to re-legislate the RfC. I'm here to make a procedural note that the keep !voters were insufficient. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Correctly decided based on the merits. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse and forbid Chris Troutman from making any more frivolous DRV's. Consensus was unanimous to keep, I don't know how else it could be interpreted. Even if all the keep !votes were invalid, which they're not, nobody except nominator !voted to delete, so there's no plausible way to close it as such. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse . 'Specious' is a appropriate description. AfD and DRV are not backdoor venues for trying to squeeze a consensus out of an RfC that didn't have one, by people who weren't happy with the outcome. Standing back from the fact that I had voted on that AfD, what we have with schools is a long and firmly established system of consistency one that should spare us all these time wasting discussions about them - or do we want to start sending every article about a train station or listed building to RfA AfD? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically endorse, but.... Clearly, there was no other way to close this with the discussion that happened. But, I get where User:Chris troutman is coming from. The arguments to keep were all basically, For secondary schools, WP:V is enough to infer WP:N, so we don't actually have to find sources. I know that's long-standing practice, but it's a terrible practice and should get changed. But, DRV is not the right place for that battle. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nor is AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, but, pretty much in the same vein as RoySmith. The close is clearly defensible and within admin discretion, but we need to be sure that AfD participants understand that substantial amounts of referencing is not optional. As to the question asked by Kudpung, yes, every train station, listed building, etc., should be evaluated individually, not in the interest of "consistency". Some will have enough reference material to sustain full articles, others will not and will be better off as brief entries in lists or parent articles. The individual article subject should have enough reference material for an article about the subject, and that should always be beyond "It verifiably exists and it's a _________". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Consistency is important, not only because every single football player who has never contributed to society or education, gets an article based on a single primary source entry in a squad list, which is the consistency practiced by WP:FOOTY, but AfD itself is flawed. Depending on who turns out to vote, many almost identical articles can go one way or the other. AfD is largely populated by new users who are not aware of our practices and guidelines, deletionists, and in the case of schools, users who just don't like schools. As DGG states: At any rate, the prior situation still holds--every AfD of high schools since then has closed saying that they're notable, except when real existence was doubtful or uncertain. What we do consistently is the guideline. It's probably indeed time to revise our notability laws, if for no other reasons, to apply egalitarian guidelines for all topics, and if it were done, at least admins and experienced users would comply whether they like the new rules or not. However, as several have mentioned, neither AfD nor DRV are the venues for the discussion.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contributed to society" is not, nor should it be, a notability criteria. If it were, people who were notable for "bad" reasons - serial killers, terrorists, etc. - would not qualify for articles no matter how significant their bad deeds. Not to mention the fact that how one has contributed to society is in most cases subjective, and saying "So-and-so has contributed nothing to society" violates WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP as well. If you don't like the relative weight given in reliable sources to athletes compared to academics, then complain to the editors of those sources. The fact of the matter is that they get significantly more, whether they should or not. We measure notability based on how much coverage subjects actually receive in reliable sources, not how much they should receive, which is purely subjective. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a correct statement of actual practice,. We generally do take some account of the amount of coverage to be expected in various fields and in various parts of the world--both a subject to culture bias. We cannot compensate for this completely, but most discussions involving people in fields where there is relatively little accessible coverage have taken account of this to some extent--not to an unlimited extent. The use of amount of coverage as a sole criterion only makes real sense for comparisons a single field and cultural area--given the amount of coverage of X people, does this person meet the standard.? This is not just a recognition of the amount of coverage, but the reliability of the sources. There are many sources more reliable in covering sports than than are in covering politics; there may be more sources covering contemporary popular as distinct from Western classical music, but a higher percentage of the ones covering classical are reliable--tho neither is altogether free of PR. Some fields such as street art are covered almost exclusively by sources which would not considered reliable for mainstream painting, but we use them where it makes sense to do so, or we would have very little coverage (at least until very recent years) Some fields in technology are covered almost entirely by trade-related sources. We have been quite flexible in considering adequate sourcing for the culture of areas that lack a formal written tradition. This could be continued in detail for 100s of cases, and the archives of WP:RSN have done just that. And in practice we do take account of contribution to society as people hee see it--I note the difficulty in eliminating even the worst sourced articles on organizations that the great majority of people here see as positive. (we've covered local branches of animal welfare organizations, for example, but almost never of any other type of organization). Years of observing AfD have made it pretty clear that the true situation is that almost all of us makes a global decision on whether an article is justified, and then looks for rules to support their view. All we really require is that it be within the framework of our basic principles--and WP:N is not one of them, unlike WP:V and WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per RoySmith. I continue to find the notion that a high school is notable just for existing, even if sources cannot be found (as we demand for every other article), to be absurd and dangerous. That being said, some editors actually brought sources to the table rather than just handwaving and asserting that they must exist (!), and with no dissent the closing admin could hardly have done anything else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The first attempt to create the page was made too soon when the company was a startup itself. However, it has now completed two years, acquired several smaller startups, expanded to 7 cities in the country and received different rounds of funding. The recent round of funding was by Tiger Global. The company has been written about by independent authors in leading publications - The Economic Times, TechCrunch, Fortune (magazine), Businessworld. There has also been a significant increase in the user base since then and a chance to allow recreation for the same.

References

• "NestAway: Reshaping online realty, one brick at a time". The Economic Times. Author: Anu Thomas.
• "Indian home rental platform NestAway gets $30M led by Tiger Global". TechCrunch. Author: Catherine Shu.
• "Term Sheet". Fortune (magazine)
• "Nestaway, 'Managed Home Rental' Player". The New Indian Express. Author: Praveen Bose.
• "Comeback Kid Award: For the founders of Nestaway, it's about trying and retrying". The Economic Times. Authors: ETBureau.
• "‘NestAway’ comes in handy for bachelors". Telangana Today.
• "NestAway: Helping you rent a home". ET Now. RajkGuj (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted

Ref 1 above was already in the article at the prior afd.

Ref 2 is a notice of funding, which doesn't count towards notability .

Ref 3 is a general article on startups that just mentions the firm in a few words among many others.

Ref 4 was already in the article

Ref 5 is a short press release about a minor award

Ref 6 is a pure advertorial

Ref 7 is a self-serving interview with the firm's CEO.

So there still is nothing useful. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per DGG's analysis. There is nothing here that would have impacted the outcome of the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OP is not requesting a review of the XfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be appealing to the purpose #3 of DRV, which means the question of whether the sourcing would have changed the outcome of the AfD if known is a valid one. It wouldn't have, therefore I see no reason to allow recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV#3 needs "significant new information...since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"  The focus is on the requirements to create the page.  Information that was available in the edit history was available at the XfD, but there is no benefit to restoring the edit history for DRV#3.  This particular deletion included deletion on content issues, so comparing that deletion with the notability-only consideration here I think is an apples and oranges comparison.  I think you might also be opening up the issues of the weight to be given to individual editor's opinions, and getting the closing admin involved.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  I don't agree that notices of funding don't contribute to GNG.  The sources show WP:GNG, but in terms of WP:SUSTAINED, two years is little for a startup.  While there are no set numbers, I think that seven years might be a better length of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here's why they don't: Every actual organization becomes one only after it gets funded. Unless the funding is for some reason desired to be concealed, at that point there is always a notice in the appropriate business press, normally giving the name of the funders, who at this point will be better known than the new business. As it progresses through the early stages of formation and capitalization, there will be similar rounds of funding, every one of which will be announced. These notices are an intrinsic part of the process. They do not appear only if there is somethingspecial about the company, or about the funding, or about th efunders. They appear always. They therefore do not show notability , only mere existence. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We (meaning whoever was here ten years ago) quickly realized that we couldn't use the opinions of Wikipedia editors as a benchmark.  I can't tell your statement from the opinion of an individual editor, and what concerns me the most is the rejection of the components of GNG notability.  I think that WP:SUSTAINED provides a better explanation of why we as an encyclopedia aren't interested in early stage startups.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]