Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February

Tottenham Hotspurs FC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Page in question was a simple Redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C., in keeping with such redirections as Liverpool FC, Manchester United FC, and about 200 other FC redirects to articles that end in F.C. While I feel the administrator in question acted in good faith, I see this as a useful redirect and would like to see what the community's feeling is on the subject. Achowat (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination fixed (eventually, it took me three edits because I suck at technical stuff)—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, that's a plausible search term for Tottenham Hotspur F.C., an article which gets a lot of traffic. I suspect the deleting admin has somehow failed to understand. I must say, I found his response to your polite request on his talk page rather obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I said there was little point in it when, for instance, Ipswich Town F.C is a redlink. We could, I guess, spend a lifetime creating redirects for totally incorrect terms, but it seems a little wasteful. However I'm more than happy for this to be undeleted. I need to create my own set of redirects I suppose. With respect to this deletion, in my haste, I neglected to recall that most non-Brits call the club "Tottingham Hotspurs" or similar, so my apologies. I will contact the nominator directly to apologise and suggest this is speedy-closed as I will restore it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was deleted under "section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion". However, I feel that this article represents a very significant organization in the realm of video games. This organization produces several reviews, comics, news, blog, and video segments on video games and is a significant contributor to the video game review industry. I request that this page be reinstated so the history can be maintained. While the organization is not as big as other companies, there's no reason that this organization's page can't remain, as it was written in a fair and objective manner. No, I am not the owner of this website. I find it difficult to have "other reliable sources" listed for a somewhat minor website. How often does a website mention another website? If you look at page IGN, almost all of the references are from IGN itself, and not other websites. stealthrabbi (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion. I don't see any indication of importance in the article to avoid speedy deletion under A7. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 speedy deletion. Article had not even the slightest claim of importance/notability, but it did have every sign of an utterly non-notable website (the webmaster even linked to his high school!), right down to an alexa rank over a million! Nominator freely admits there aren't any reliable sources, so deletion is inevitable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. As Starblind wrote above, no credible claim of this website's importance was made in the article itself. Even here at DRV, no credible assertion of importance has been made; Stealthrabbi's statement that he "feels that this article represents a very significant organization in the realm of video games" is not sufficient. However, it looks like NawlinWiki (the deleting admin) gave the wrong impression when Stealthrabbi brought up the deletion on his talk page, telling him that notability under WP:WEB needs to be shown using reliable sources. I think what NW meant to say is that while the article doesn't have to demonstrate notability to overcome A7, it ultimately could not avoid deletion at WP:AfD without evidence of notability. That's the re 7ality, anyway. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- this could not possibly survive an AfD so I see no point in undeleting it. Reyk _YO! 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weakly endorse deletion I'm not convinced that strictly speaking this satisfied A7. However, I don't see any chance this is going to survive AfD. If there were reliable sources talking about the w 7ebsite even a little bit, I'd change my mind. But right no, there don't seem to be any. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Now full endorse deletion per discussion below. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 8[reply]
  • Why are you unconvinced? What credible claim of significance or importance in the article do you see? Is it buried in previous revisions? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article claims that they have a very different review rule for things from other stuff. Although looking at it again, that's pretty weak, so I guess this may be completely A7able. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just silly. It takes all of 5 minutes to set up a wordpress site, and if I started one today where a good score was "-3", an average score was "a marmoset in an RC car" and a bad score was "the square root of purple", then you'd say it couldn't be A7'd simply because the rating system is weird? Avoiding A7 requires a "credible claim of significance or importance", which is different than simply being odd or unusual. You seriously need to rethink your interpretation of A7, as it seems to be severely out of line with community standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I wasn't thinking. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, in the absence of anything in reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am nominating this userfied version of Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population for deletion review because it was closed as consensus to delete when no such consensus existed (4 delete, 3 keep). This is part of a larger pattern of problematic closes by Fastily (talk · contribs) that led to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily that was mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report with many people commenting that WP:RFC/U would be appropriate. Although many people noted that Fastily is a voluminous closer and a few problems were inevitable for that reason, I did not notice anyone other than the nominator endorse his closure decisions that I pointed out at WP:AN. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. There was no consensus to delete, and no reason to delete. The deleting admin did not explain, and to me the assumption when one closes without obvious consensus is that one cannot explain, because it was a supervote. There is in an instance like this no real policy based reason either way--it's a judgment of whether it is sufficiently useful, which is a matter of opinion and cannot be decided except by consensus. If a strong minority think a navigational device useful, it should be kept unless there's a real argument otherwise (such as being misleading) Not every navigational device is expected to be useful to everybody. Myself, I dislike most navigational templates of this sort, but that is no reason why I should want to delete them if others find them of value. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The userfied version is there: User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Patty's Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (XFD 2)

(housekeeping note: I'm not notifying any deleting administrators because there are so many, and I don't know where to begin, or if it's even necessary)

I'm a little bit surprised this hasn't already come up and been undeleted. This event is huge in State College, and is all over the local media. The students and revelers love it, but the townies hate it because of the uptick in crime, etc. As for proving its notability, I will simply provide a list of the hundreds of mentions just this year in notable media: [1]. Whether or not it was notable 4-5 years ago is no longer relevant (although, frankly, it was notable even back then); what's important is that it's definitely notable now. Magog the Ogre (talk) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit creation. I found that nomination very convincing. I wonder whether it should be a redirect to a subsection of Pennsylvania State University rather than a separate article, but the case for creating something in that space is extremely clear to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a user page draft then come back here and ask again. Mtking ^(edits) 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we here? The last deletion was what, 4 years ago? By all means, write a good article, chock full of those RS'es, and slap it into mainspace. If it gets G4'ed, then come here and we'll trout the administrator who did it as appropriate. DRV is not mandatory for recreation of articles when an editor in good standing makes a reasonable attempt to address all the concerns in the XfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But, you see, there is the small problem of the fact that I suck at writing articles. And that the old version is actually well enough written[2] that I'd like to retain parts of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm much better at copyediting than writing an article from scratch myself, but all it takes is slapping a few references on it to overcome G4. The below note re: userification has merit. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In such cases, where the user wants a copy of a deleted article in order to improve it enough to overcome the reasons for deletion, userfication is the obvious answer. Move this Magog's userspace and then he can move it back to mainspace once it has been updated, cleaned up, and sourced. No need to come back to DRV beforehand. Indeed, if Magg is amenable to userfication this can probably be closed quickly as an uncontroversial request. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

noel ashman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (XfD2)

salted topic- This article was rejected because it was a salted topic and because teh sources were secondary- I have cleaned it up to include only the most relevant sources, and believe the page should eb reconsidered for inclusion. What do I do next? Broodwhich (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)broodwhich[reply]

• Don't quite know how DRV works, but there's more discussion here. The gist of it is that an AfC was submitted, there was a brief AN discussion and no one seemed to want to unprotect it. I declined the AfC simply because there's no way I can create it. All relevant links are at the discussion on my talk I just linked to. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most recent version is apparently the one at AfC, [3]. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could we have a temp undelete of the version deleted in the last AFD. I want to know which, if any, sources have been added to the article since then. If somebody could provide a list that would be even better. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kuo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as "Keep (NAC)", but from what I can see from the discussion, this is not as obvious keep as a WP:NAC should be, especially if you bear in mind that one of the "keepers" are a blocked user. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

though it was certainly not an obvious keep before the third party sources were added--, but now I think almost any admin would have closed the same. The easiest thing to do if you disagree is to wait a few months , and start another AfD The most we are likely to do here really is relist. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It looks like there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Also Mentoz86's only concern is that the closing editor was a non-admin, and not that closing as keep is totally incorrect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the result of the debate, excluding the blocked user and possible socks, was rather obviously "keep", with just a single editor but me arguing for deletion, and that was before the sources in Chinese were added. The closure was entirely appropriate. Huon (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, endorse. Administrators are not authority figures, and the ability to gauge consensus is not confined to those who've passed through the screwed up ritual hazing/popularity contest that is RFA.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close looks correct. No case is made here that the close was incorrect or even ambiguous. Remind the closer to explicitly note that it was a WP:NAC. Doing so in the edit summary is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there's enough going on in that discussion that I would not have recommended a NAC closure in this particular case. With that said, there's nothing wrong with the close and that's the call I'd have made as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Olivia Holt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This actress currently meets notability guidelines – she is a series regular on Disney's Kickin It. Tinton5 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The applicable guideline calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One role doesn't cut it. Additionally, as a biography of a living person, we need independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Five sources were able to found on the actress: [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8], so obviously her career, while still fresh has been covered by other websites. WP:TOOSOON was pretty much the reason why the article was deleted in the first place. The series Kickin' It premiered in June of last year, has a regular role on that show and the show has been renewed for second season [9]. A decent sized article for the actress is not a bad thing at this point. QuasyBoy 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or endorse - if someone wants to write a well-sourced article on Holt I'm all for it, and the deleted version can be userfied as a draft if someone thinks it's a good basis. But if no one plans on actually adding the sources presented here, undeleting a BLP without a single reliable source will do no good. Huon (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Has significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject so meets WP:GNG. WP:ENT is marginal but I consider a second season of being a main character in a television series as as equivalent to significant roles in multiple television shows. Add the sources identified by QuasyBoy as general references and let people work on improving the article. Don't userfy and force one person to make a good article - the point of wiki is collaboration. We have enough for at least a stub. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article now at Olivia Holt shares little to nothing with the version that was deleted. In effect, we didn't need to overturn the AfD (which was closed entirely appropriately), but to unprotect the page so a new, well-sourced article could be created. Since that has been done, this DRV has become irrelevant. Huon (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There was an incomplete debate prior to the deletion which follows:

the entirety of the afd discussion was pasted here

Current debate: My problem with the deletion is that those who want it deleted, in their zeal to be found correct, haven't adequately completed the debate prior to the decision. I've made very valid rebuttals above to each and every proposed reason for deletion without adequate further debate concerning those rebuttals.

For example, the most persistent complaints:

1) That he's not notable. I agree, his life on its own is not very notable. The article is not at all about his life. It is about the strange circumstances surrounding his conception and the minor portions of his life which shed light upon his ancestry. For that reason it is plainly entitled The Ancestry of John of Sawbridgeworth. Therefore, whether or not John of Sawbridgeworth was a notable person in his own right is irrelevant. The manner of, and the circumstances surrounding his conception and early childhood, ARE very notable. Obviously notoriety is a matter of opinion. I would like someone to give me the definition of notoriety and explain point by point how this article does not comply.

2) That it's original research. This is absolutely false according to the Wikipedia definition of original research. It should be fairly evident by the 60+ historical references cited that this is all existing history. The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format. I would like this point addressed as well, which also has not been done in the previously abbreviated "debate".

I won't repeat here all the other irrelevant complaints as they're all plainly outlined above, along with my rebuttals, which also weren't addressed. I'll close by saying that the amount of attention this article has drawn almost seems absurd. The bottom line is that it displays valid facts on a notable topic and should be presented to the researching public in order that they have the opportunity to draw their own conclusions without the censoring by overzealous Wikipedia staff members. 186.99.150.194 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete the article, it couldn't have been closed any other way. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The IP editor who took this to DRV appears to be Pablocombiano (talk · contribs) editing without logging in. This editor has been pointed to every relevant policy, most importantly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2. The AFD discussion and result was unambiguous and in alignment with policy. This is a case of WP:IDHT. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Re-examining the discussion, it confirms my !vote of delete. The articles was original research for the first half, and a general discussion of other people with the same surname, whose connection with the subject is a matter of original research also. (And even considered as research, it was exceeding speculative--and stated as such in the article.) If anyone wants to restore the article for discussion they may, but as nobody but the appellant here supported it, no other close to the discussion was possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclaimer: I've got a personal interest in this as someone who knows Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire rather well, and as primary author of History of Hertfordshire. Was there any content or sourcing in that article relevant to the extremely notable Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford or any of his family before 1675? I note that we do have coverage of the Seymour family and that it could be more complete.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: - article temp-undeleted, mainly for SM to see - there is a lot of Seymour-related material here, and maybe the author could be encouraged to contribute to expanding relevant existing articles. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. There's too much there to assess off the cuff. If this is re-deleted on closure of the DRV, would the closer mind dropping a copy in my userspace?—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't realize that my new argument (yes this is Pablocombiano) would be completely ignored. The whole point of this review is to have a complete debate, which didn't occur in the first round. Why don't you address the rebuttals, rather than simply reaffirm your original statements? I have pointed to the Wikipedia guidelines which state that it is not original research, for example. This smells like a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of DRV is not to rerun the debate, DRV is not AFD2, it's to see if the process was followed properly or not. You seem to have a misapprehension of what wikipedia is, it isn't a god given right that you can put any article you want here and those who wish to remove it have to convince *you* that it doesn't belong. i.e. your lack of understanding of the policies or disagreement are not reasons any given content will stay. However to address a couple of your points, bearing in mind that I didn't see the original article so can't draw on much. (1) Notability isn't a matter of opinion as you state, in order to try and remove the idea that wikipedian X believe it to be notable as the criteria some level of objectivity has been defined - the general notability guideline being the base standard. For this you have to have multiple independent reliable sources writing about the subject directly and in detail - note this isn't sources writing about constituents of the article, but sources about the subject of the article itself - i.e. are there articles writing about "Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth" as the core topic? (2) original research, you seem to be assuming that because there are a bunch of references to facts it can't be OR, however the policy specifically covers the idea of synthesis of sources, i.e. taking sources and munging them together to reach a new conclusion (implicitly or explicitly) not reached by those sources. Indeed your nomination here suggests the same "The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format." which sounds like a synthesis to me. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Later, having looked at this more closely) Please can we incubate this content. Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't want it in its current form, but there is scope to expand our coverage of the Seymour family, which did include a Queen of England and the Duke of Somerset, among rather a lot of other notable people. Some of this particular content is relevant to the first Earl of Hertford, and/or belongs in other articles that we already have.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend incubating. Possible "overturn (no consensus) on the basis of a confused nomination. This article was neither a "genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500" nor was is about his "ancestry". It is about an obviously notable family, introduced as the decendents of the oldest identified member. At the very least it needs a rename. There are OR issues, and it does read like an essay, and while these reasons are rarely sufficient to "delete", in combination I can see why partipants !voted so. I am confident something can be made of it, unless it is substantially already forked content, but until improved it might be better out of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We already have the article in which some of the content would be used, Seymour family, which very much needs expansion, with modern sources, since it's essentially the 1911 EB article. As for merging from the material here, everything in the present article would need to be checked and attributed and updated with references to modern sources. The material on those people who have Wikipedia articles seems to all be internal copyvio, copied from their articles without attribution. The material on the other recent figure seems to mostly be plagiarism, copied from public domain sources without exact attribution. We would need a redirect from this article to maintain attribution also, and it seems a problem, since there is no reliable evidence that the person of this name is the ancestor or relative to any of the notable Seymours so we could not really even include him in the Seymour family article, It would be better to simply add to Seymour family article from the real sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot-checked three articles on individual Seymours and verified that they had been copied. Based on the page's phrasing, I expect that almost all bluelinked individuals were copied. I tagged the page with {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What I really need to do is take a trip to the Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies building, which is essentially a specialist library for local history and genealogy; I'll certainly find the modern sources DGG mentions there. Conveniently, HALS is one minute's walk from the front door to my workplace, but I'm simply not going to get a chance to spend much time there within the timescale of this DRV. I'm going to repeat my call for incubation for the time being, please.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, what I think you really need is a general academic library that gets the major historical journals and databases. The modern sources needed are about major historical figures. And nothing you are likely to find anywhere is at all likely to help the first part of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17

05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but agree to the content being parked somewhere to use as a quarry for material to improve other Seymour articles; the last part might be the basis of an article about the American Seymours. I am not sure the Incubator is the right place, because that is intended for articles being improved to go back into the mainspace; that is not the case here, the article in its present form is not salvageable because its central thesis, that John Semer the cobbler of Sawbridgeworth was an illegitimate child of the aristocratic Seymours, is unadulterated WP:SYNTH and speculation. SM, would you take it as a user sub-page? or we could use the Incubator on an IAR basis. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be happy to take it as a user subpage. The reason I suggested incubation is because other editors might want to work on the material as well, but we could perhaps achieve that by putting a link from the incubator to the userspace page rather than by dropping the article in wholesale.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied at User:S Marshall/Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth. Shall we consider this DRV complete? Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nor I. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was resolved as "speedy keep" by an administrator who called it a "notable album by notable band", yet its notability was never explicitly established/explained in the AfD. It falls under none of the official guidelines, assuming they are official given that they are not being treated as such. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." LF (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - the original AfD, started by the same editor closed as "keep" in mid November. As mentioned in the current AfD, This was kept at the first AfD just 3 months ago, for valid reasons, and no reason has been articulated to change that result.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were no valid reasons. LF (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way were they invalid? "There were no valid reasons" is not an argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Three months ago you nominated this article for deletion and were answered with a unanimous "keep". Now you've nominated it again and got a unanimous "keep", but you're unhappy because Drmies only waited three days instead of seven days to close it. You feel that it isn't notable despite the six references cited in the article, but you've never said which five of the references are unreliable or why. In the circumstances, I don't understand how you think a deletion review is going to help? Would you please fully and clearly explain the reason why you think this album is not notable?—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a notable album (as the references indicate) by a notable band. Here's just one more example of "nominate until you get the desired result"--I'm sure there's an acronym for it. LF, you could of course nominate it again and see what happens. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The acronym is WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.  :-) But I was hoping to generate a discussion about the sources, which seems a bit more productive than repeating assertions we've already made. I think it might help to examine the article in the light of the GNG so that LF can see why this material isn't getting deleted when he nominates it.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with S Marshall; in the absence of some source analysis from the nominator, bald assertions of non-notability aren't very persuasive in light of two unanimously kept AfDs initiated within months of each other. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• AfD was properly closed, and the album is clearly notable enough for an article. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per S Marshall and MikeW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend close to Snow keep, not speedy. Please keep speedies restricted to the SK criteria. This was a poor Snow as it provoked a complaint. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with SNOW vs. Speedy, I think that for a SNOW objection to be valid, someone other than the original nominator would have to differ with the outcome. We can AGF that a nominator may succumb to wishful thinking, and say "I object!" without any real evidence that the outcome of the SNOW'ed discussion would have been any different. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said poor, but not invalid. It was always going to be deleted kept, but the objector needed more convincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you mean, "always going to be kept"? 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, thank you. fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Nomination did not provide a valid rationale for deletion, let alone a new one. The original rationale, that the article was previously deleted, turned out to be erroneous. The revised rationale, that "this double album has never been established as notable for inclusion on Wikipedia," was inconsistent with the result of the first AfD, which did have consensus that the article was notable for inclusion, and no reason was given to suggest that consensus may have changed in the 3 months since the original AfD. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Which reference is supposed to be notable then, guys? The one to the band's own website? The one to Google Books which has no visible mention of the album? The one to an archive website featuring an interview done in 1997, seven years before the album was released? Or the reference to a non-notable website in French? LF (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean "which reference is supposed to be reliable"? Under the general notability guideline, it talks about using reliable sources, not "notable" ones. Being the creator of this article, I have removed the "Google Books" reference as it no longer links to actual page picture shots (where one could see information on the album being discussed) that were used in citing from the book, International Who's Who in Popular Music 2007. As previously mentioned, the reference use to link to page picture shots, discussing the album in question, when I initially did research for the article back in November of 2011. I never actually used any direct quotes or info from said reference, it was used solely for a more updated/contemporary source as regarding information on the album/article. As for the Addicted to Noise reference (archived website), that citation was used in the context of discussing the origins and history of The Black Album. That is the reason the interview is from 1997. That was one year after the original, 1996 demo was made. I understand that the refernce to "DandyWarhols.com" is self-serving to the band/album, that is why the other references were added. I feel that the "Discogs" and "SlabTown.net" references, while dated, are reliable secondary sources. As for the "FroggyDelight.com" reference... Yes, it is in French and also dated, but as one can see under the "Sources" section of the GNG: "Sources [...] are not required to be in English" and also under the "Reliable" section of the same guideline: "Sources may encompass published works [...] in any language. This is why I feel that the latter also falls under reliable secondary sources. I realize that I may be shooting myself (and the article) in the foot with the following statement and I'm fine with that: I understand that this album does not have updated/contemporary references. Again, that was the reason for the "Google Books", but that link is no longer in a working capacity to reference this article. Perhaps, I could just add the book itself as a viable reference with page numbers and publisher included. As I previously mentioned to Lachlanusername/LF in the "Apology" section of the discussion page for the 2nd nomination AfD: "LF, you asked me how this album is notable, maybe it's not. If you really think about it, notability is completely subjective anyways. I understand that Wikipedia has its "guidelines" on such matters though [And I understand and respect said guidelines]. I just thought I'd make an article about this double album. I'm only marginally a fan of the band. I do own this album, but it's not on heavy rotation for me. Feel free to use this information however you'd like to." However, on a more personal note and for the record, I do still think that LF renominating the article for deletion twice within three months and under two different user names (same account, but two different names none the less) was a dirty, rotten, low thing to do. I feel that LF is being disruptive to Wikipedia and is guilty of the aforementioned WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. P.S. I've added some more references for your viewing pleasure. Neuroticguru (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not notable. By the way, I have avoided referencing your accusation that I have actually changed my account name in order to support the deletion of an article due to the sheer lunacy of such an accusation until now, as I am now finding it quite annoying, so please stop, as I feel now you're just embarrassing yourself now by continuing to make reference to it. Totally ridiculous that this page is still under discussion given it violates this website's own policies, but whatever, what more can I do. LF (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say that the accusation is "sheer lunacy" and I don't feel that I'm "just embarrassing" myself either. Trust me, I've done a lot more embarrassing things than this. I never said that you changed your user name for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion a second time. However, the truth is that you did renominate said article twice within a three month span and you did so with two different user names and I find that to be quite annoying. That's my point. So, take that however you want to take that. I feel that your continued actions are sheer lunacy and that you're just embarrassing yourself by acting like a whiny brat. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. That's what more you can do! Neuroticguru (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Broeker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted in 2007 as Scientology cruft. However, last summer the book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion by journalist Janet Reitman was published. I'm currently reading this book and can attest that the book establishes that Pat Broeker was in fact a major figure in the history of Scientology. It makes it clear that he is equally or more important than a number of other figures such as Mary Sue Hubbard and David Gaiman who have Wikipedia articles. Obviously, since the history of Scientology is shrouded in mystery, as more information becomes available, we will have to reevaluate the importance of what were once thought minor figures and reevaluate decisions such as the one to delete this article accordingly. Note: Closing admin is retired. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per nom, and the weakness and age of the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per nom and per SmokeyJoe. The AFD was indeed weak, and the nom makes a plausible claim that new sources demonstrate notability. Editors may want to test notability again in a further AFD, but the 2007 decision is now outdated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that does seem to be a convincing reason to overrule the AfD and undelete.—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Brown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was Speedy Deleted under A7, which states “The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” The article I wrote does make a credible claim of significance or importance, and so it did not meet the standard to be a speedy delete under A7. The given reason for speedy deletion is not true, because the article that I wrote DOES indicate the importance or significance of the subject. After questioning the deleting editor Peridon on his talk page, he now says he deleted the article because it did not meet the standards set in WP:NBASKETBALL - but he should not be the sole judge on that matter. And even if Tyler Brown falls short of WP:NBASKETBALL, he DOES meet the standards set in the general notability guideline. Tourd (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Try userspace first. Given the deletion log entries, this looks pretty dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, this is the first article for this Tyler Brown, so far as I could see. I did check some of them and they weren't this guy. To Tourd, any admin dealing with articles that are in the category of those tagged for speedy deletion has the 'power' to decide the fate of any of those articles. It's one of the things we are here for. If you disagree with that procedure in general, this isn't the place. Try WP:AN or WP:VP to start a discussion on admin 'powers'. As to "he now says", that reply to you on my talkpage was the first thing I did say - there was no 'before'. I checked in NBASKETBALL to be sure - there are so many different criteria over the different categories - and couldn't see this passing. I've nothing against Tyler Brown - if the article is reinstated I won't lose any sleep. I could be wrong on my interpretation - that is why I suggested you bring things to here. The basis of Wikipedia is consensus. Peridon (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Washington Post and the Times Republican ("Central Iowa's daily newspaper") both appear to pass WP:RS and were cited in the article. As far as I can see, this short article made a credible claim of notability for Tyler Brown by listing the reliable sources that had actually noted him. I do see that Brown may fail WP:NBASKETBALL, but usual custom and practice at DRV is that WP:N is deemed to prevail over SNGs of any kind. By stare decisis we should find that A7 did not apply and overturn. I do recognise that this isn't a court and we aren't obliged to follow precedent, but I think that in the absence of any other factors it's best if we try to follow our previous decisions. DRV ought to be consistent as well as sober and orderly.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete largely per S Marshall. Though we are not strictly bound by precedent the way common law courts, theoretically, are we should general respect past decisions. While I would give deference to an AfD consensus that an SNG failure trumps coverage that approaches or meets the GNG, A7 does not enshrine those guidelines for the purposes of speedy deletion. Looking at the sources in the article I would say that only the Times Republican link[10] is really useful for notability. The WaPo page[11] is pure statistics in what looks to be a directory of all Division I college players. Nevertheless, while the GNG requires multiple (i.e. two or more) good sources one should be enough to get past A7 with its lower than notability bar. It might still be deleted at AfD but that will give people time to search for better sources and consider them. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold deletion The only suggestion of possible notability - and it's only there if I read it with one eye closed - is the statement "twice named NJCAA Division I All-American", but this type of assertion is not reliably sourced, so must be discarded. The statement about "top scorer" is only an aside, as it's current, not lifetime, so that does not count as a statement of notability, nor do I percieve it to have been one anyway. As such, meets the CSD. Of course, this point is moot in the long run: it would never survive an WP:AFD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need reliable sourcing to overcome an A7 deletion, just an assertion. Sourcing issues are for AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD there's a plausible assertion of what someone could in good faith have considered notability . I would be surprised if the article survived AfD, but in such cases there needs to be a community decision. A7 does not   mean "any article not showing enough notability to survive AfD" Such an interpretation, linking A7 to WP:N, has consistently been rejected in discussions--and the very term " notability " is deliberately omitted from the guideline. therefore, it is proper to overturn here every speedy deletion on such grounds, even if it adds slightly to the burden at AfD . Otherwise the guideline means "Delete at will" & I trust neither myself nor any other admin to individually make such decisions--and considering the hundreds of active admins, it would lead to a remarkable inconsistent encyclopedia that would be laughed at, both for what it did and did not include. That we maintain a standard of inclusion is important to our public acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Especially per DGG above. The bar for A7 is a claim of notability and that exists here. A7 does not give administrators carte blanche authority to determine notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per SMarshall and DGG. Patently invalid application of A7. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary drug resistance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• NIAID director Anthony Fauci has some rather strident views about HIV/AIDS which are not accepted by most scientists. This deleted page summarized the scientific consensus on HIV drug resistance. It basically trashes Fauci’s theories.
• Both MastCell and Fauci share the same POV on HIV/AIDS.
• My criticisms of Fauci bother MastCell.
• Both MastCell and Fauci are interested in immunology and allergies.
• Please note these comments.
• Fauci controls an annual $4.8 billion propaganda budget and has a number of rather unpleasant followers. My requests to have the article restored have been declined and mainstream criticism of Fauci is essentially banned from Wikipedia.
• The NIH loves Wikipedia and WMF funding is increasing even though editors and readers are leaving.
• I seriously don’t believe that any of the author’s cited in the deleted page would be anything other than pleased that I acknowledged their hard work. However, I would be more than pleased to copy/edit any portion of the restored page upon request. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close As casting aspersions and making accusations of bias aainst an other editor. Remove your aspersions against Mastcell and I will explain why his deletion is correct according to our copyright rules and what you need to do if you want to recreate the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are in error. Stating that Anthony Fauci has killed 24 million people is not “casting aspirations”. It is merely stating a fact. Even if stating facts were to be considered to be “casting aspirations”, it would only be casting aspirations on MastCell if MastCell was Anthony Fauci. In such a case, the page deletion would have been a clear COI. Moreover, you could only know if MastCell and Fauci are the same person if you are one of his co-workers. In which case you would share the COI. I am, of course, making an accusation of bias “aainst” both of you, as per the duck test. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now I am his co-worker? I presume you will continue accusing everybody who disagrees with you of bias, so any discussion here is pointless. Yoenit (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the NIH does not view Wikipedia as its own propaganda site, how do you explain this? --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Somehow, the nominator doesn't inspire trust that he knows what we do here. Please reveiw WP:COI and declare any real world interests related to your editing interests on your userpage. Explain why Wikipedia:Alternative outlets doesn't apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet, this should be closed per wp:DENY. Yoenit (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would like article to be "userified" to allow me to rewrite it according to accepted Wikipedia standards 4850Keele (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: why not simply ask the administrator who deleted it (or any administrator, for that matter)? Deletion review seems unnecessary here. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume the user is confused, he also notified the nominator rather than the deleting admin. Yoenit (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 4850Keele, how much do you know about Wikipedia? Have you edited before? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jocker City (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New evidence, see http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=308949 Acecenco44 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Forum posts are not considered reliable sources. What you need is newspaper articles or mentions in books, not some anonymous contributor on a random forum. Yoenit (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted nothing new here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Providing a link to a forum of absolutely no reliability won't get this restored. (Neither is following up this request with pointless spam, for that matter). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Evidence needs to be in the form of reliable third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mawashi Protective Clothing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Shareitnow (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedily deleted for G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, Mawashi Protective Clothing is an organization that should be considered notable, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

• http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=654729&crtr.tp1D=1
• https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives-and-programs/canadian-innovation-commercialization-program-cicp/pre-qualified-innovations
• http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/finances-personnelles/consommation/201006/21/01-4291917-g8-g20-jai-mal.php
• http://www.designlaunches.com/gadgets/personal_cooling_system_that_keeps_you_cooled_on_the_go_by_jeanmarc_sheitoyan.php
• http://transportail.com/pi2011/index_en.asp?id_page=194

Thereby, if you consider these external source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting this page? I will be waiting for your comments, and thank you for your consideration. Shareitnow (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ' DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article was not deleted by lack of a claim to importance, though it could have been; it was deleted as being exclusively promotional, and incapable of improvement through normal editing. I delete a great many promotional articles, and usually a promotional G11 speedy deletion is an article making purely advertising-style or Press-release style vague claims supported only by flowery adjectives, rather than giving information; as is obvious from inspection, this one is different: it's a mere product list making no claims at all besides that the company makes the products listed, and their plainly stated suitability for certain uses. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there is no encyclopedic information present. I'm not entirely sure this meets the usual understanding of the G11 Promotional criterion. But I am sure that in its present form it could not possibly stay in Wikipedia--the need for this sort of material is adequately served by the company's web site. Of the references given, the only one that could be used for showing notability is the 3rd, which is a full article in a reliable news site about one of the products; the others could be used, but do not show notability : the 4th is too unsubstantial; the first two merely show the product was considered by the Canadian government for development support; the 5th is a listing of a presentation at a trade show. I think the article could be rewritten and might have a chance at AfD--but not in its present form. It might be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Understood. Could I have the opportunity to rewrite the article by giving substantial information more suitable for the Wikipedia encyclopedia? Shareitnow (talk) 8:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy to Shareitnow to give him the chance he seeks. The article should be brought back to this page for re-assessment before it can be moved to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I started a draft of the revised article on my sandbox, could you please give me feedback on it? The draft page is accessible here: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=User:Shareitnow/sandbox Thank you! Shareitnow (talk) 9:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am very tempted to nominate that draft for deletion right now. Unless you rewrite it completely to remove all the sales nonsense (for example, you do not "offer solutions") it will not be accepted. Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Shareitnow, do you have a personal interest in this subject. Please review WP:COI, and post any relevant declarations of conflict of interest on your userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_J._Alessi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was speedily deleted for CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.". The description of the criteria required for deletion via this rule are as follows: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."

I would like to appeal this deletion. The original cause of the deletion of this article was CSD G12: "Unambiguous copyright infringement.", as the prior author of the article had only copy/pasted information from other websites. I did a major revision so that the article had no such violation; all of the writing was original, no copy/pasting. Yet it was still deleted under CSD G4. I have both the original author's old and my new scripts saved to my computer, if anyone would like to confirm and review that they are indeed substantially different.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trismosin (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The CSD G12 was in 2009. It was deleted at AFD in 2010 for not establishing notability.[12] Was the version recently deleted different from the 2010 version? I see you have informed the deleter, Fastily, of this DRV. I think you should have also tried to discuss the matter with him before DRV. Thincat (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I have both the 2009 scripts and 2010 scripts on my computer. Mine was a substantial rewrite. It included a rewritten bio, reference links, a full filmography, etc... As for discussing it with Fastily first, I was following the instructions on his talk page. There's a section at the top that says "Are you here because I deleted your Article or File? If so, please click here.". For the reason for deletion provided, he gave the following instructions -- [13], which told me to talk about it here. --Trismosin (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are absolutely right. My apologies. Despite Fastily's seeming reluctance to have people raise such matters on his talk page (unless he made a "mistake" etc.), very many people raise issues there and he sometimes reverses his decisions. Anyway, in this case you were indeed referred here directly which I think is a shame. At present I am more persuaded by what you say than by Fastily's deletion rationale. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that. I had put a fair amount of effort in to fixing that article so that it would comply with Wikipedia regulations, and was rather disappointed when I saw that it had been taken down this morning. I hope the decision will be repealed. I'm willing to fix any issues in that article that may have warranted its deletion. It seems a shame to throw the entire thing away for small discrepancies. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. --Trismosin (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored the entire history for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As said above, the most recent AfD in 2010 was for lack of notability , not copyvio. The career is not in a field where I can judge, but there seems not to be significant additional accomplishments in the current version as compared to the one deleted in the 3rd AfD. The material has been moved around, and some of the excessive early bio shortened, though an non- encyclopedic section on personal life remains. But it does meet the requirements for G4--I cannot see that the notability concerns were addressed. Here's the comparison: [14] Possibly the career would be judged notable if the AfD were done over. Possibly there is something additional to say. It would help to say now clearly what it is. (Of course, Fastily should have explained this in the first place; usually his deletions are well-justified, and when he does give a full explanation, they are usually both convincing and helpful). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, how would I go about improving the notability? I don't mean to seem impertinent, but there appears to me to be a fair amount more verifiable information on this page than some of the others here on Wikipedia. For example, this one. --Trismosin (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's not just verifiable information, it's verifiable information that shows notability according to WP:MUSIC]], which is the applicable part of the notability guidelines. Normally, what does it best reviews or articles about the person in references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. There are a good many articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guideline adequately, and the appropriate thing to do is to try to improve them and delete if not improvable, rather than adding another to the list.71.125.252.218 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm willing to make whatever improvements are necessary. I just need to be pointed in the right direction. What sources are acceptable references? I had a few from IMDb up there, but an administrator removed them citing that "IMDb is not a reliable reference". --Trismosin (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

articles in newspapers and professional magazines are best. IMdB is not considered reliable. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Is there anything else I should work on fixing, or is that the article's only issue? --Trismosin (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to consider. Why should there be an article for Alessi. Is he a notable actor. Are multiple editors with single purpose accounts trying to use wikipedia to promote him. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you would have that concern, but I've worked on Wikipedia before. I was going to post it from my other account, but I can't find the login information anymore. That account is Ludwig Tartini. I'd composed an article about a musician by the name of Chris Flores on there. As for whether or not Paul J. Alessi is a notable entertainer, obviously that's subjective. I would think some of his roles as a producer are more significant than his acting positions, though. Especially The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day, which has a rather large cult following. So wouldn't that he accurately be categorized under creative professionals? (Legitimate question, I'm not an expert on categorization) --Trismosin (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a reasonable challenge. The request it a strawman about a copyright violation when it was actually about a repost of an article deleted at afd. No claim has been made that the article is not "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" to the afded article, just to the irrelevent copyvio article. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Looking at AfD2 and AfD3, the page was deleted with consensus that the subject fails WP-notability, WP:ENTERTAINER specifically. Copyright issues weren't even mentioned. Allow userfication so that improved sourcing for demonstrating notability may be actively worked on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how to I get it userified? And also, once I address the present issues in the article, would I need to go through some sort of approval process to propose it get reposted? Forgive the newbish questions. I'm still a little new to this. --Trismosin (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the administrator who closes the discussion will userfy the article (that is, move it to your userspace) for you to work on. If that isn't done automatically, request it on the closing admin's talk page; I'm sure he or she would happy to userfy it for you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. :) --Trismosin (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for Trismosin, per SmokeyJoe. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the article that was in the userspace User:Mimimovie/Paul J. Alessi may be the same one as deleted at the last afd and it sat there untouched for a long time (WP:FAKEARTICLE). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'll be sure to actually try to fix it. I take it that the address for the userified article would be something like "User:Trismosin/Paul_J._Alessi"? And once I do edit it, would I need any approval before trying to repost it? Again, thank you all for your time. --Trismosin (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Tercero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion as G7 (author requests deletion). In this particular case, I believe the article was a useful article on a notable recording professional, and that the subject of the article pressured the author into requesting deletion (edit summary read "deleting bio due to unauthorized info"). It would set a disturbing precedent if we allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, without any discussion. (Note: I did not discuss this with the closing administrator because I want to establish a broader consensus around the issue of G7 cases similar to this one, although I did invite them to participate in the discussion.) Dcoetzee 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with no prejudice against immediately recreating the article, just as G7 would, in almost all cases, bear with it no similar prejudice. G7 lets the author of an article request deletion of his/her article so long as no other editors have made meaningful contributions. The article's author retains that "right," as it were, until the article's deletion would involve deleting someone else's work. While I certainly agree that biographical articles shouldn't be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, in this case the biographical article is being deleted because the author's article requested deletion. That should be a cut and dry distinction with no room for subjective judgment or inference, just like G7. If someone else wants to write an article on Salvador Tercero, that's fine and dandy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy because the terms of G7 were met (I am assuming what has been said about the history). The risk of deletion due to improper pressure is mitigated because anyone is able to recreate even using the material verbatim, with proper attribution. The licence to do this is still in effect. The article visible in the cache could reasonably have been speedied as "no indication of importance". Thincat (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that what is meant by "in good faith," in the G7 description? Otherwise, I can't really see anything in G7 that backs up making the kind of judgment call you're describing, DGG. But my question is a sincere one: if that's what is meant by "in good faith," then perhaps you have a point. Also entirely possible there's some other factor I'm not considering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also certainly respect what DGG says. I doubt that any action here can be said to "do no harm" so we are left wondering what would do least harm. Like Ginsengbomb, I do not really know what might be behind this. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's certainly possible that the scenario Dcoetzee suggests was right, i.e. that the subject had a way of putting pressure on the author. It's also possible that the information in that article wasn't in the public domain; maybe the author was a friend, relative or employee of the subject. In such circumstances, we definitely do want the author to be able to retract something they come to view as their mistake. The risk is that someone could suffer negative consequences as a result of their editing activities. We can't eliminate that completely, but I think that we need to protect our contributors to the maximum extent we can.

  However, there's a balance to be struck. Some editors, such as me, choose to use their real name for editing Wikipedia. Others, also such as me, put personally identifying information on their userpage and unequivocally indicate that they are adults. By doing so we are voluntarily accepting the consequences of their edits; we're effectively waiving the right to retract. But some editors are children, some are vulnerable people, so if we don't know who the editor is, our default position should be to assume that we need to protect them as much as we can.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Using G7 is not a safe way of satisfying do no harm, because it is too easy to re-create the article, deliberately or inadvertantly. If there is a true BLP problem, the article should be deleted under an appropriate reason, (either G3 vandalism or G10, abuse of the subject). The reason for this does not need to be made public on Wikipedia-- WP:OTRS exists for the purpose of dealing with these matters confidentially, and those of us who work there will always do what is necessary on a genuine case (although the majority requests there for deletion of material are not justified by WP policy, and the request is declined, with a full explanation). DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, did you fully understand me? My remark was basically about protecting the author, not protecting the subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was intrigued by Ginsengbomb's question above about whether G7 lent itself to the "judgment call" DGG described, so I dug up the history of CSD#G7 to see if I could come up with an answer. The collapsed text below is pretty long, but it informs my opinion in this DRV, so you may want to read it.

Dcoetzee is concerned that this deletion "would set a disturbing precedent [to] allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them." No such precedent is being set. Any editor is welcome to create a new article on Tercero if they see fit to do so. The precedent that this discussion will set is whether or not G7 can be used as relief for users who do not wish to be associated any longer with their sole authorship of an unwanted BLP. At this point, I think it would be unethical to undelete this version of the unwanted biography and forcibly tie its creator to it. Before the article on Tercero was deleted, any editor could have invalidated the G7 request by substantially editing the article, but now that the deletion has been carried out, we should let sleeping dogs lie. I strongly endorse the speedy deletion, and I think that this deleted version of the article should stay that way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Stop at Willoughby is I think correct about the history of the guideline. But I think he is totally wrong, as diametrically wrong as possible, about the desired result. Even temporarily removing an article because the subject does not like it is a corruption of the concept of NPOV, and thus opposed to one of our foundational policies. In any case, no discussion at a single DRV sets precedent for anything. Wikipedia does not follow precedent in that fashion. The long continued series of consistent consensus can set precedent to a certain extent, at least temporarily. There are too many DRV results at variance with each other on almost everything conceivable for us to say that we set precedent here. In any case, endorsing a speedy is meaningless when anyone can re-create it, though anyone who does ought of course to independently check the material. Of course, if there is a true BLP issue, I count on people to tell me, but nobody has done so. If nobody does, I will assume there is not, and it is just personal preference. If we honor that, we descend to the who's who level. In the context of making an encyclopedia , it's unethical. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, sorry for being a little misleading. I didn’t mean to use the word “precedent” to imply something binding; as you said, no single DRV sets that kind of precedent. I only meant that when situations like this arise in the future, users can look back and see how a similar situation had been handled previously. As for the merits, I guess we should agree to disagree on how this G7 tag should have been handled, given our diametrically opposed positions. We do have some common ground, however. Like you, I think that Wikipedia shouldn’t allow biographical subjects to “opt out” without unusual reasons. (I want to be clear that my vote was not based on an inclination to let Salvador Tercero opt out. My vote, again, is to grant an editor his request to no longer be associated with his sole authorship of an unwanted BLP.) I think we also agree that this would best be resolved by simply waiting for an interested editor to recreate the article. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just recreate the bloody thing already This whole discussion is silly. What happened already happened and whether the G7 deletion was valid or not doesn't matter, anybody is allowed to recreate the article. Just do that and we can get back to the discussion at hand: whether this guy is notable. It seems like a good A7 candidate to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoenit, respectfully, some things on Wikipedia are clearly bureaucratic, and deletion reviews interpreting our overly legalistic criteria for speedy deletion are at the top of that list. But I agree that this should be resolved by simply allowing any interested editor to recreate the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete on the basis of another editor in good standing being interested. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted but allow recreation. I'm of the opinion that G7 is a courtesy that may or may not be granted by the community and that in almost all cases any article deleted by G7 should be restored upon any good faith request. However, in this case I believe there is a good possibility that the creator of this article has some connection with the subject and has received some guff about creating this article. Therefore, as a courtesy to him, we should leave this version of the article deleted but such cases should be rare exceptions and not the rule. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AFD as delete per no significant coverage in sources. Two users, User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 (not blocked at the time) requested that I restore it. I suggested they create drafts of the page in their userspace. I had an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines review the sources and the article and confirmed that it met en.wiki guidelines and I restored the article. Later, User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv have all approached me with concerns about restoring the article ranging from article does not assert notability, users must be socks, and sources are not reliable. This has become a bit of a mess now so I'd appreciate it if I could get a wider review. v/r - TP 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't the simplest thing be to just nominate it for AfD again and discuss it there. ? DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• TParis is specifically requesting review of his undeletion. I for one don't see anything wrong with it. The new sources weren't discussed at DRV before TParis restored the article, but TParis had a Spanish-language editor confirm the adequacy of the sources. I think that's a perfectly fine substitute, so I endorse the undeletion. I offer no opinion on the notability of the subject. Any editor who thinks thinks that this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines may nominate this article for deletion at WP:AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse TParis' undeletion as perfectly reasonable. Encourage User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv to renominate at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a non-admin: Let me point out that the sources provided in the "new" article were the same (if I'm not wrong, I'm not admin and I can't check the old article) that were provided previously, and which had been already discussed in the AfD. In the AfD, no one (but the sockpuppeter) defended these sources and thus TP closed the discussion accordingly. After some weeks, the sockpuppeter asks TP to undelete the article, and TP asks a user who didn't take part in the AfD to evaluate the sources. She says they are reliable and he unteletes it. IMHO, I think the opinion of a single user should not turn back a whole AfD decision and perhaps TP should have asked her before he closed the AfD. But anyway, now the article is undeleted and I feel a bit tiring having to spend our time to open again an AfD with no new sources, but I'll do it again... Best wishes! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enable twinkle under gadgets under your preferences. It makes xfd nominations easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The history's been undeleted; the last revision before being deleted at afd is this one. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • True! Thanks! I hadn't thought about it. I'll check it later, now I have no time. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• — Angelaquency (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment from a non-admin: I confirm the adequacy of the sources and the evident notability of the subject. I think that's a perfectly fine substitute, so I endorse TParis undeletion. --AGQ (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone close this so we can move on to AfD, as seems inevitable? EEng (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the support here for an undeletion not sway your opinion?--v/r - TP 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• — Jorgelopest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I support TParis. That's a fine substitute verified , so I endorse the undeletion! JoLo.te (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're not referring to:

• "wouldn't the simplest thing be to just nominate it for AfD again and discuss it there?"
• "I offer no opinion on the notability of the subject. Any editor who thinks thinks that this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines may nominate this article for deletion at WP:AfD."
• "In the AfD, no one (but the sockpuppeter) defended these sources and thus TP closed the discussion accordingly. After some weeks, the sockpuppeter asks TP to undelete the article, and TP asks a user who didn't take part in the AfD to evaluate the sources. She says they are reliable and he unteletes it. IMHO, I think the opinion of a single user should not turn back a whole AfD decision...I feel a bit tiring having to spend our time to open again an AfD with no new sources, but I'll do it again..."
• "Encourage User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv to renominate at AfD."

Probably you're referring to...

• "I confirm the adequacy of the sources and the evident notability of the subject. I think that's a perfectly fine substitute, so I endorse TParis undeletion
• "I support TParis. That's a fine substitute verified , so I endorse the undeletion!"

...which of course are from just two more in the long line of SPAs related to this article.

As I've urged you to verify for yourself, TP, there's nothing in the article, or the sources, that even comes close to notability. He's a psychiatrist who's (1) been director of a local clinic; (2) testified (along with two others) at a murder trial; (3) reported a violation in abortion procedures which led to a scandal; (4) been agitating for some years to get Spain to recognize child psychiatry as a specialty. On (1) his photo and some short quotes appeared in two local puff pieces. On (2) he is mentioned in passing in a story on the trial. On (3) he is mentioned as the person who made the complaint, and his affiliation with the hospital under investigation is explained. On (4) he was quoted as spokesman at some kind of protest by parents, plus he's one of a score of signatories on a petition, and he's written some advocacy pieces. Oh yes, he's also an "Ambassador" for Save the Children, which we know via jpgs (posted by the subject himself to his own blogpage) of an ID card with his photo, and a certificate of appreciation identical to one my mother received when she donated $100.

So, since you repeatedly declined to undo the burden on the rest of us you created by undeleting an article on a still-not-notable subject, we're going to have to move on to AfD. What a waste of time.

EEng (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• roll eyes* You do whatever it is that you want. If you think it's a waste of time, then why are you spending so much time on it? There is no gun to your head forcing you to do this. It is of your own free will and your determination that this article be deleted that is wasting your time. Don't blame your time wasting actions on me.--v/r - TP 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By undeleting without (as seems quite obvious, despite your later claim to the contrary [15]) reviewing the new article, and stubbornly refusing to consider reversing that action (which you are in a unique position to do) you have forced others re-engage the sockpuppet army which is already massing at the border (see above and below). Your "no gun to head" argument is a sad defense for causing unnecessary work for others and, I do not hesitate to say, further evidence that you're really not ready to be an admin.

So please someone, does this need a formal close before an AfD nomination can be made, or not?

EEng (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• — Jorgelopest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment: Defamation (International laws)

Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

VERIFIED: Platform for Child and adolescent psychiatry in Spain - Dr. Jaume Cañellas Galindo. [16].

VERIFIED: Ambassador Jaume Cañellas Galindo - Area de Movilización Social // Save the Children España (Madrid) // T. 00 34 91 513 05 00 [17].

"Xtv and EEng" or know how to be neutral position or are grappling with slurs written on this living character.JoLo.te (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This user-space list of diffs seems to have been speedy-deleted without discussion. DGG, the nominator, had elsewhere stated that he was not neutral and "too involved"[18]. The list was less than a week old. I was gathering the diffs to have a more objective answer to a question asked to me at WP:COI/N.

I understand that a non-neutral admin might not like what the diffs conveyed, especially when viewed collectively. I also understand that since they are diffs, not RS's, what they convey should not be edited into mainspace articles. However, I believe this user-space list about a Wikipedia-related matter does not require deletion, much less speedy-delete without discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just take a look at it. (If you're not an admin, I can email you the contents). Accumulation of material for attack on another editor. Does anyone thinks I should send it to MfD to call attention to it,which I suppose is what BG is trying to accomplish? Does anyone want to take the responsibility for blocking the person who's been accumulating this? As BG says, I'm too involved to do that myself, and certainly too involved to act as a mediator. But I'm not too involved to delete an attack p. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, would you care to detail why those diffs are really so dangerous? Diffs keep us anchored in what really happened. Regarding "accumulation of material for attack on another editor," this is an assumption of bad faith, a violation of WP:AGF. An admin should know better.

Also, please provide diffs for your comments on my talk page, DGG. I'm pretty sure you've made at least two errors[19], but can't be sure since you didn't provide any diffs.

As for attack pages, DGG, I notice you haven't deleted these two[20][21].BitterGrey (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since diffs are often, and reasonably, demanded for dispute resolution, it can be appropriate to create relevant lists. However, precedent seems to be that some such lists should not be kept on-wiki and I can go along with this. In this case a second admin performed the deletion. If BitterGrey has now lost his work, DGG should be (and I think is) willing to email it to BG for maintenance offline. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three seconds. Fastily made 42 deletions in that two-minute period and is currently being discussed at ANI. Regarding this diff list, there was no discussion, and no indication that he gave more than 3-seconds of thought to the deletion. He probably went just by DGG's conclusion, not realizing that DGG wasn't neutral. Unlike DGG, I won't assume a hostile intent: Fastily's deletion was probably in good faith, but not given enough thought.

My preference would be to keep the list on-wiki, if only to keep DGG and friends from calling it an 'off-wiki attack.' Of course, this history should be available: I think attempts to hide this history are indications that someone has something to hide. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • At this point, after the attack on my neutrality above, I agree that I should not take any further admin actions. Like many others involved in this subject, I started out neutral--not just neutral, but initially ignorant of the issues. Having learned the issues, I remain sympathetic to all parties involved. But having dealt with the people, and tried as hard as I could to keep a matter that involve not just on-wiki but RW charges affecting personal and academic integrity, I have remained I think on the whole neutral until now, though not from now on. Now experiencing the attitude of one of the people involved, it is clear that my efforts at urging restraint have clearly not succeeded. (I should explain that this is not a case of people resorting to off wiki action to support editing here, but the opposite--a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here). I therefore suggest to BG that I will restore the page if BG wishes to promptly proceed to try for a proper resolution of the matter, presumably via RfC, though I expect it will go further. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You brought this here."[22] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[23]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG removed[24] my request that he support or retract these and other specific negative statements, after deleting my comment[25] to give himself the last word. Clearly, he was too quick to make accusations and now can't be bothered to support those accusations. How common is this type of behavior among admins? BitterGrey (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete- No discussion. Nominator has been "too involved"[26] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith. Deleter did so in 3 seconds.BitterGrey (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of WP:CSD#G10, that they could be taken to MfD under WP:UP#POLEMIC, but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reverted my deletion, and have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above, they will not commit to using it promptly) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I still expect you to support or retract your negative comments, specifically "You brought this here."[27] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[28]. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content, and admin powers do not include license to hit-and-run. BitterGrey (talk)

• Question DGG has started another deletion discussion while this one hasn't formally closed yet. Could I ask a _neutral_ admin what the likelihood of an "undelete" closure would have been? Given DGG's mishandling of things, his diffless insinuations, and that he is now outside even the letter of Wikipedia procedure[29], I'm getting a really bad feeling about the upper authority structure at Wikipedia. Specifically, I'm hesitant to let him dictate a less favorable "relist" outcome. BitterGrey (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Undeleted and listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion as a WP:POINTy nomination. This discussion needs to be completed first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at MfD. The page is not a clear attack page. It may, however, violate WP:UP#POLEMIC or be otherwise undesirable. XfD is the place for discussion of the merits of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The list of diffs was only three days old when first deleted, and I'm not a full-time Wikipedian. My concern is that DGG and friends (who are full-time wikipedians) will try to keep me bogged down in multiple deletion discussions and equally pointless deflections to preclude me from doing any good in a timely manner. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Either endorse outright or move speedily to MFD and delete it there. User is clearly less interested in dispute resolution than in keeping this publicly viewable for as long as possible (see his edits to the MFD, or the current header on this userpage). There's nothing here that couldn't be edited just as easily offline. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the intent there was to synchronize the concurrent speedy and non-speedy deletion nominations, to try to reduce the amount of debating. Given that the list has only existed for three days (excluding time deleted) and already has two deletion nominations, I had hoped to discourage new nominations for deletion, at least for the next couple days.BitterGrey (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would others approve of offline development? I'm willing to do so, but (as stated before) would prefer to develop this on-wiki, if only so that DGG and friends can't label it an 'off-wiki attack.'BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. While there are some procedural oddities here. I regard the page as a clear example of an appropriate G10 deletion. If you want to start an RfC you may do so, but you may not gather and present accusations in userspace this way. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I agree with DGG and Eluchil404. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG acted to implement relist[30].

• Endorse. I commented above. G10 deletion looks appropriate to me and nothing in this DRV changes my view. Had the page been only an annotated series of diffs I would have thought MfD appropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Might I ask what changed your mind? It is still an annotated list of diffs that an involved admin is trying to delete. Were DGG's "procedural oddities" that persuasive? I'm also curious about the sudden chorus. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BG, I did what I thought would satisfy you. it was my intent that this be closed since I relisted it elsewhere. I apologize for not making that clearer, but I didn't want to close this, since I've agreed to do no admin function respecting you. I'm glad someone closed the MfD, since it shouldnt be at two places . DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, When is this 'now-I'm neutral-now-I'm-not' dance ever going to end?

You've been non-neutral in this issue since some time in 2008. When I got involved in 2011, you "banned" me without due procedure[31]. (You retracted that suddenly too[32].) Are you concerned that a real truthtelling will find out something you don't want known? Now I regret that, in the little time I had to spend developing this list, I didn't spend more time documenting your role in this tangled mess.

Again, support or retract the growing list of undiffed negative comments you have made against me. BitterGrey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to BG "what changed your mind?": I can now see the page in question, previously I could not. My change has been from uncertainty to "endorse", not from "overturn" to "endorse". Thincat (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sudden chorus of editors and IPs voting to endorse a position DGG no longer supports[33] seems to be due to my edit at the other discussion[34]. It has been described as a "boldfaced, all-caps rant"[35], perhaps rightly so. The truth is I've never had one of my user pages deleted, much less double-delete proposed by a "too involved" admin (his words, not mine[36]). The procedure I read said this shouldn't happen, and so didn't give me any guidance about what to do. (Attack pages against me have been let to fester for months, with one nearing its first birthday. Not sure if any of those ever got deleted.) I don't enjoy arguing and was hoping to head off multiple, active deletion debates. BitterGrey (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Bittergrey, the diff you provided seems to suggest that DGG still thinks the page should be deleted. Also, for what it is worth, my endorsing deletion of it had nothing to do with the second diff you provide. It is best not to make assumptions about other editors' motives. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to other explanations as to why all the votes to endorse in this week-long debate came within a two-hour period. BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm confused. The DRV was opened because it was felt that DGG deleted something out of process. DGG admitted he may have been in error, reversed his speedy deletion, and put it up at MFD to obtain consensus on whether or not deletion was warranted. And that nomination was then closed as pointy? I don't get it. Once he reversed his decision and allowed it to go up for discussion, why was this DRV not closed and that MFD not allowed to continue? If the page was worthy of being kept, the consensus at MFD likely would have reflected this. Close this DRV and re-open the MFD, and allow it to proceed for the full time, is all I can really say here, based on what I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been less problematic if this discussion had been closed before the other discussion had started. All we know for sure is that procedures were not followed. This fiasco was, at best, poorly handled by an admin who is, in his own words, "too involved[37]". "Pointy" is putting it mildly: I would consider any use of DGG's administrative powers authority against me since he declared non-neutrality in 2011 as abuses of that power authority. BitterGrey (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the MFD was opened, this DRV should have been closed as moot. Period. There is no need to keep thwacking at this dead horse when the admin admitted he made a mistake and turned the deletion decision over to the community. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BitterGrey, to be fair, DGG did not use admin powers against you in this case: he did not delete these pages, he tagged them as G10, which any user could do, and left them in the CSD list for another admin to decide about. He used admin powers to undelete them in order to take them to MfD, but you can't say that was using admin powers against you. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Technically the "ban" didn't involve admin powers either - it just would have been laughable if a non-admin did it. I seem to have missed the admission of wrongdoing, or the retraction of any of the wrong statements he's made in this discussion. As for the renomination, it seems to have brought a chorus for 'Endorse', while before the trend seemed to be 'relist' or maybe even 'undelete,' so it wasn't necessarily an act in my favor. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bittergrey, there are good reasons why you don't get to make a laundry list of diffs and accusations in your own userspace. You're publishing dirt about someone in a place they may not see, and/or may not feel they have the right to reply. Your laundry list of diffs and accusations belongs in some kind of text document on your own computer, or any other kind of unpublished state, until you actually lauch an RFC. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on multiple points. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". As for inviting others to contribute, the only invite I was able to get out before the deletion is here. Please note that there is no "except you" statement, and assuming one is yet another violation of good faith. That is also an example of my use of the list. I had hoped to use it conversationally on talk pages instead of building it up as some massive out-of-the-blue "attack". Less disruptive for Wikipedia, and less work for me. Given the multiple undiff'ed accusations that I had not planned to use the list above, I'll add a redundant and boldfaced link to that instance where the list was already used. I regret that others don't take the time to gather diffs like I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage. Wikipedia's general policies about content that's defamatory towards a named person do apply in your userspace, and everywhere else on the whole site. (Famously, Gwen Gale once deleted an entire AfD on grounds of BLP violations.)—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quote from Wikipedia policy (although the link needed fixing). Disagreements with it should be discussed there, not here.BitterGrey (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a quote from a guideline, actually. BLP is policy, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reading of BLP makes it a form of diplomatic immunity: A living person would be able to produce an endless stream of sockpuppets, using them to promote himself and demote their competitors. Wikipedia readers would know only that Wikipedia agrees fully with that person. Wikipedia editors who knew better would be barred from ever mentioning the truth - it would be a BLP violation. Of course, this too is based on the mistaken assumption that this diff list is some attack against Cantor: It was actually started to explore the promotion of Cantor by another editor (who, to the best of my knowledge, is not Cantor). The only reason it might look like such is because that is what I found when looking into who was promoting Cantor. BitterGrey (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Its interesting that nobody has yet commented on the validity of the assertions. If it is true that Cantor's name cited in large part due to self-citations, then he might be guilty of a pretty severe WP:NOT violation; using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. The proper thing to do with this evidence is to discuss its validity and whether or not he breached WP:NOT. Deleting the page without discussion of the evidence on it just serves to bury what might be legitimate criticism. FWIW I think the undeletion was a good move and the early closure of the MfD unjustified. ThemFromSpace 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the province of Del Rev? That all disputes come here to be settled?. (Given the ARS template and its relatives, it does sometimes seem that way.) But FWIW, it seems WMC's recent edits have been to propose his work as sources on article talk pages. As I understand it, that's just what he's supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Didn't you say something about not discussing this further[38]?

Themfromspace: The complication is that James Cantor couldn't have done it alone. There were others who noticed the pattern and could have kept Marionthelibrarion's edits in check if he did not have the assistance of others, including DGG. An example of the two "librarians" engaged in an edit war against a common foe is here[39][40][41][42][43]. That written, I don't know whether DGG's multiple nominations for deletion were to protect himself, Cantor, or the more involved editor who's recent edits triggered the list development. (Yes, all those who assumed the list was intended primarily as some attack against Cantor are wrong. Since Cantor's current behavior isn't bad and closely monitored, I'm not expecting any disciplinary action against him due to these past edits. A skeptical review of the fruits of what is now known to be self-promotion, perhaps, but not disciplinary action against Cantor.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: To avoid the appearance of an attack, I excluded the name of the editor who's edits I was looking into from most comments on the list and most discussions about this list. (It was in the first version of the list, however, for 26 minutes[44]). He has not extended the same courtesy in the _two_[45][46] pages he is maintaining against me. Should I put it back in? BitterGrey (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well if I'm essentially being involved now, I might as well endorse deletion. The page had a collection of diffs mostly from 2008 and 2010 regarding conflict of interest in citing one's self. I fail to see their relevance now, particularly when the editor in question (James Cantor (talk · contribs)) is now scrupulously adhering to the kinds of guidelines found in WP:COS, [47], [48], to the point of bringing up his own conduct on COIN [49]. I'm frankly not sure what I'm doing there, since I have no conflict of interest regarding James Cantor or his organization. I don't see how the page can go anywhere seeing as it seems to be little more than either a list of people who, in the past, have cited James Cantor's work (and as Cantor is an expert in the areas his publications are added to, publishing in reliable sources - this is laudable, not a problem) or a list of people against whom Bittergrey has a grudge. Certainly there's nothing that would be useful in a RFC/U for a user's current conduct and many of the diffs in question are utterly unremarkable (such as James Cantor noting he is the current editor of a journal [50]). If the purpose of the page is to prove that James Cantor cites himself, that's also obvious, and no longer an issue (since he now obviously complies with WP:COS). If the purpose of the page is to prove that people cite James Cantor - that's obvious and unimportant unless there is somehow an assumption that citing James Cantor's work is inherently wrong. It's not, Cantor is a known expert in the field publishing in reliable sources. The page can never go anywhere that I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Kettle, WLU. You've been nursing attack pages against me for nearly a year[51][52]. As for Cantor, you responded to his post only after I commented on the article, and then only to express that you had not read the article but were determined to cite, even though you had not yet read it. Your exact words were "I'll read and integrate it." You didn't engage in the discussion (which was trending toward not to cite at all[53]) but edit warred to insert the citation in multiple places[54][55] with a new paragraph dedicated to Cantor[56]. Multiple editors needed to get involved to restrain you.

Let's consider a more blatant example, Cantor's chapter in the Oxford textbook of psychopathology. It is a general article on the paraphilias, cited ten times in all of Wikipedia. WLU cited it NINE times [57][58][59][60][61]4x[62]. If this reference were truly that important, it doesn't make that no one else was citing it. (#10 is at Courtship_disorder, added by Cantor[63]).

I would ask those reviewing the list to note that (unlike WLU's attack pages against me) I only had a few days to work on the list before the first deletion. I also focused initially on promotion away from the pages I was familiar with. One of the possibilities I was exploring was that WLU was only promoting Cantor to get revenge on me. It does seem that he only promotes Cantor in articles I've edited. BitterGrey (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page to discuss whether your subpage should be undeleted - not user conduct. Feel free to bring up my conduct at the appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You argued that my list could never amount to anything, I countered by demonstrating that there was much I hadn't had a chance to include (it was effectively three days old) and that you had a conflict of interest in calling for its deletion. What you did not argue is why it is somehow wrong for me to spend a couple days on an objective history survey (so objective that most probably thought it was about Cantor instead) while you have been nursing two laundry lists of my every perceived wrong for months. These perceived wrongs include, among many many other things, my asking an admin for advice regarding your laundry lists[64]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: At only 71 hours old before the first deletion, that the subject of my survey was WLU[65] was probably not clear at first glance. Now that it has been stated explicitly, could I ask all those who have not yet voted to restore my list of diffs to review the lists WLU has been maintaining against me for nearly a year[66][67] and restate their position? If he didn't want people gathering history on him, he shouldn't be gathering history on other people. BitterGrey (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. The relevant section of our userpage guideline states, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Assuming that BitterGrey was using this page to compile evidence for an imminent DR filing – and I don't see why we shouldn't – the page falls under a specific exemption from WP:ATP and therefore should not have been deleted under G10. Firstly, there is no indication that this was intended to remain in userspace for the long-term, as the page only existed for three days before it was tagged for deletion. Secondly, the content of the page is not blatantly inappropriate for being kept temporarily in userspace. S Marshall wrote above that "there's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage." While that may be, my judgment is that this page is far closer to falling in the first category than in the second.

  However, BitterGrey should take note that the same guideline I refenced above also states, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." So BitterGrey should be given a period of time to compile his evidence and use it to initiate whatever DR process he has in mind; if he fails to do so during that time, the page may be deleted at MfD. If I recall correctly, the unwritten rule used to be that editors had to use the evidence within six months or else the page would be deleted. Six months strikes me as too long. In this case, I think the page should be deleted in two months if BitterGrey has not used it in a DR process by that time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pitera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Based on coverage in mainline media outlets since 2008 (when three deletions of this page were done), this Living Person is clearly notable. I have added one source, from the Pop Music Critic at the San Francisco Chronicle, on the Nick Pitera Talk page. FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no connection whatsoever with this musical artist. I had just read about the guy in several places and was surprised Wikipedia had no article on the guy (with multiple albums and coverage in notable media), when Wikipedia has music-related articles on half the garage bands that ever released 50 copies of a self-burned CD. Would appreciate administrator review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks reasonable to me. Usually drv asks for a draft to remove creation protection, but there was never an afd and the a7s were long enough ago that I think this can be dispensed with. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• remove create protection Not sure why the nominator thought it necessary to engage in hyperbole, but I would advise to refrain from doing that in the future. I find it quite annoying. Looking past that, I see no problems with recreation as independent sources have been presented on the talkpage, adressing the initial reason for deletion and salting (a7 speedies). Yoenit (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove protection - reasonable request. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove create protection. Valid sources presented by a non-COI editor are more than enough to justify removing protection when the last deletion was an A7 over three years ago. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)~[reply]

My Brother (book) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non admin closure, it appears the closer quite simply counted votes and looked at the link bomb which was supplied by a keep vote. There are but one review for this book, as such it fails WP:NBOOK which is quite clear. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor has messaged me regarding the closure. Although xe accused me of "counting !votes and looked at the link bomb", that is not true at all. FYI. --Bmusician 11:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT review, the nominator has made many previous unwise nominations (as one was termed by an uninvolved editor). I can give those diffs if action need to be taken. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. --Bmusician 11:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are nothing "pointy" about this whatsoever. The article quite simply will never be expanded beyond the stub it currently is due to the lack of sources. It should be merged to the authors article and become a redirect if it is to survive at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one agreed to that argument in that nomination and explanations were given to you (since it is a review of that). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist This wasn't ripe for closure as the only detailed analysis of the sources suggested that we had one decent source and the keep side were falling to assertion rather then quoting policy. Further detailed analysis for uninvolved editors would have helped establish a clearer consensus and the involvement of wikiproject Pakistan should have been sought. This was absolutely not an acceptable NAC and at the very least this should be voided and reclosed by an admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record, I'm a WP:PAK member and came to the Afd through that list. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, can you find us one really decent second source to make the need for a relist moot? Its fine if not an english language source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous references I pointed out was a drive by look at the sources which I added to point out that multiple sources were available. I'll take another look and see what I can find online. But the book is really popular here in Pakistan (for me it would be common knowledge - but I'll see what I can find to back it up further). One of the point I wanted to make from the news sources provided was, that many many authors take quotes from that book... that itself should count towards the notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately its not something that counts but having worked in Pakistan 15 years ago I'd agree by assertion that very little about Jinnah isn't notable but we don;t work by assertions. If it helps, my reading of the AFD was that it should be a keep but that it wasn't there yet so that extra source will make all the difference. If its a frequently quoted book then someone somewhere has written something substantial about it and we are, after all, only one away. Urdu commentary is fine if that's what is available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's quick search of the title [68] which gets us multiple sources specifically referring to this book. These for instance [69] [70] [71] [72], cover some details which can actually be used to add to this article. Also to note, that this topic covers the point 5 of the Wikipedia:NBOOK criteria where the author is of exceptionally high significance and can be accepted as notable on that alone. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st source unable to tell due to snippet view only. 2nd source does not mention the book. 3rd source a single mention in passing. 4th source brief mention in passing. Again none of the sources go into detail. This is what you did on the AFD, a load of links which lead to exactly nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rather that other editors review this because you do this without actually reading the content (and later claim it was not available to you only). I added them here after checking out contents that specify that this book is a notable biography specifically referring to this book as well as the author. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This source is relatively detailed and dedicated to the actual book. And as TopGun said, and I said at the AFD, I feel point 5 of NBOOKS may apply as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was opened once and closed within an hour-and-a-half per WP:SNOW. It was re-opened at my request by the closing admin, but an hour later right as I was composing my delete vote it was closed again. For the sake of convenience I will just put here what I was going to put there:

To add on to that there was a vote by another editor without any real reason just the comment "you've got to be kidding" who also previously voted for keeping the rescue tag. Another editor who previously argued for keeping the rescue tag left a keep vote in the MfD that suggested alternative ways to use the list so it would be "harder to justify" accusations of canvassing, suggesting this was not an impartial vote. When the MfD got re-opened two additional comments were made with one being from yet another ARS member and one saying there was no valid policy reason for deletion, something I was going to address. Furthermore, I should note that while the MfD was clearly a result of and linked to from the first ANI report, the nominator did not make any mention of that ANI report that can be seen here, which would have provided another editor, specifically an admin, who clearly believed the list was inappropriate. Upon the relisting I was intending as can be seen above to link to the second ANI report that had several more editors concurring that the list was being used in at least one instance to canvass. Looking further into it, I realize that the most recent closing admin, User:Reaper Eternal, left a comment on the first ANI discussion suggesting support for the list and thus was clearly involved with regards to the deletion discussion. At the very least Reaper should have considered that if an editor wanted it re-opened there was good cause for doing so and let it stay up until that editor commented.

My preference here would be that we just get it relisted so there can be a new discussion, with some clear note to admins about the likelihood that this issue is liable to get a lot of votes and so there should be some reasonable time allowed for editors to comment, at least a day if not more in my opinion. An hour-and-a-half or an hour is clearly a bit faster than normal. Given that this DRV is liable to be subjected to the same flood of editors I will be listing it at the village pump. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• DA, you need a new hobby, seriously. If you don't withdraw, I will opine further during the discussion time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Milowent. There must be something else happening on the Wiki somewhere. I just hit 'random page' ten times and got eight different deletion discussions for the rescue list.(this totally did not happen) pablo 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original closure If it closed already, then don't start a new one just to try to drag things out. Its over. Please stop this nonsense already. Not even bothering to read any of that you wrote this time around. Dream Focus 01:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Yes. DA, this is ridiculous. Drop the stick. Walk away from the carcass. Do something useful instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup. Still snowing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone must have been canvassing--all the usual ARS suspects are here, especially that well-known inclusionist Pablo X--no less than 4.4% of their recent AfD edits were keeps. Yes, DA, expect the usual suspects, since you've tried your hardest to piss all of us off, and I expect a couple of others as well. Oh, in case this is necessary: endorse whatever this editor seeks to overturn, at least in this case. And vice versa. Bah, humbug. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and that accusation about Reaper's involvement, pshaw. You're involved with just about everything here, to the point that maybe you cannot objectively edit anything but maybe an article on grasshoppers. What is the proper place to bring up a topic ban of some sort? Drmies (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to look at your responses to me on your talk page and at ANI to judge who may or may not be cool and objective about this question. Reaper was clearly involved in the ANI discussion about the list so closing the AfD was inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I have no doubt that this was a good faith WP:SNOW closure. With 12 editors recommending that it be kept, and nobody except the nominator supporting deletion, it seemed that there was indeed not even a snowball's snowball's chance in hell of a consensus for deletion. However, despite that judgement about the outcome I suggest that it was unwise to snow-close a discussion where a previous snow closure had been reversed; that looks rather like wheel-warring, and is almost guaranteed to create drama. That's why the snowball test warns

  If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.

  I still believe that deletion is a highly unlikely outcome, but the DRV nominator wants to make a further case for deletion and there may be others who follow. Given the controversy around the ARS, I think it is important that we take this chance to let a consensus be formed. If (as seems likely) there is a consensus to keep the list, the discussion may have a further value in helping the ARS to identify and avoid problems in the use of the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- there was enough snow for a blizzard. Repeatedly bringing this up is growing tiresome. Can someone take the nominator's stick away please? Umbralcorax (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure of the discussion. There has to be some way to address the accusations of canvassing towards the ARS that doesn't require deleting one by one the preferred tools of this wikiproject. If the canvassing was to be demonstrated, which I doubt it given the current dynamic, it should be done in a way that is binding to editors as a whole, not through deletion of one particular page in some remote corner of the wiki. Diego (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't even time allowed for discussion. A day after the rescue tag got deleted, North created this list. If there is to be a comprehensive discussion about the activities of the Article Rescue Squadron it is best to allow that discussion to proceed before creating tools like this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, so you could have preemptively forbidden them from making a simple list? Northamerica had every right to make this list, at any moment in time. Going to read that list is an act of volition on the part of the reader, so it's not canvassing in the ordinary sense anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closure as keep. The rescue list is intended to be transparent, and to avoid any misunderstandings, guidelines for posting there are very clear. It's a discussion and list of content for rescue consideration, not !voting. Importantly, when editors post to the list, they should not be accused of canvassing based upon the actions of others who may respond to the list. No editor has control over other editor actions. Also, if users who view the list then !vote in AfD discussions listed on it, that is their right regardless of the presence of any list. AfD is not a vote count, it's based upon rational analysis. The intention is to improve Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia itself. Hopefully people will work to actually improve the articles, rather than just "!vote and scoot." In some cases, articles may already have been improved, but an editor may feel like contributing to the AfD discussion, which again, is their right regardless of any type of list. The point is to improve Wikipedia for all, which seems to be a concept that most can agree upon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a deletion review, not a rerun of MFD. Your comments are irrelevant to DRV, because they completely ignore the merits or otherwise of the snow closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. I strongly recommend The Devil's Advocate knock it off before someone decides to file a RFC/U. This has clearly gotten into WP:IDHT / disruptive editing territory. ---Tothwolf (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I direct all readers to the ARS talk page for some of Toth's more choice comments about me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are also some diffs there which show a clear pattern of admin shopping. Your contribution history pretty much speaks for itself and shows a clear pattern of disruptive behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I went to more than one admin over a specific closure it was with the first ANI report on this list and of the two admins I went to, one of them was the closing admin who was clearly not impartial on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this is the fourth time The Devil's Advocate has tried to get rid of the ARS in less than three weeks. Enough is enough. He has been repeatedly told to drop the issue, yet he continues to start discussions on getting rid of the ARS. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is clear harassment of the ARS wikiproject. Yoenit (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse pointless leaving that MFD open for a week with no support at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? It wasn't left open for a week. The first time it didn't even stay open two hours and the second time an admin who had previously expressed support for the list closed the discussion an hour after I asked it be re-opened right as I was preparing to leave a delete vote.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking hypothetically that it it would have been pointless to leave it open longer than the time it was. The default time is about a week. Anyway you have stated your vote here, and more people want to state they would have liked to delete they too can state that here. I did not get to say any thing at the MFD since it was over too fast. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as keep. I am learning how procedures can be carried to an absurd extent, but also how many editors endorse the work of ARS as currently done.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good faith closure which reflects consensus. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good faith closure. Nominator is bordering on abuse of process and would be well advised to drop the whole thing, and get some advice so he doesn't eventually get himself banned. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not see any credible argument that the outcome could reasonably have been expected to be different had the process been allowed to continue. That is necessary, in my mind, for an assertion that a SNOW closure was inappropriate: not merely that there might have been additional contrary input, but that such input stood a chance of influencing the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the comments on ANI about the list and compare them to the keep votes. Most of the keep votes were variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF saying other Wikiprojects have AfD lists just like this, which is misleading at best.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There was a clear consensus to keep this page. WP:SNOW was applied correctly, even if the The Devil's Advocate doesn't like it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Relist 2 hours is hardly enough time for a snow keep. Had I seen it, I would have agreed with deletion. ARS differs from any other project because they have a specific interest in indiscriminately attempting to keep articles. Other projects simply group people together by interest in a subject. They don't have an inherent goal of keeping every single article ever created related to that subject. Per WP:CANVASS that's a direct violation according to the table under vote stacking. Its' time the blinders came off.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your reasoning at all. While DRV probably isn't the place for this discussion, in the spirit of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy and in keeping with tradition of DRV itself, I'm going to address your comments here.

    While there may be a small minority of individuals who !vote "keep" on questionable articles, the majority of editors, including those whom work with ARS, do not. Even with those who do !vote in this way, may still genuinely feel that keeping whatever material they are discussing is in the best interests of Wikipedia and helps improve our coverage of a subject. Even with the former {{rescue}} template, there were many people, including myself, who used it appropriately to call attention to specific articles so others could help look for sources to expand and cite material.

    The outcome of the TfD for the {{rescue}} template itself is even a very visible case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, simply because a few editors misused the template, either intentionally (perhaps trolling?) or unintentionally (not understanding how to use it?). In the case of the former, we already have mechanisms in place to deal with such disruptive editors, and in the case of the later, this would have been a strong case for improving the template's documentation so editors could better understand how to use the template. Neither of these really make for valid reasons for deletion.

    As for claims of "canvassing", both with {{rescue}} and now being made towards the new list, many "deletionists" formerly monitored the tracking category used by the template, and no doubt will be monitoring the new list, so the whole notion of "omg the evil inclusionsts are going to get everything kept and ruin Wikipedia" is ludicrous at best.[*]

    While I don't see the new rescue list in any way violating WP:CANVASS any more than our other deletion sorting mechanisms do, I have begun to witness a small minority of people attempting to game the system and manipulate the facts in order to target their perceived "ARS enemies". While perhaps not The Devil's Advocate's intentions, his actions have actually managed to make this entire issue much more visible to the larger Wikipedia community.

    Given the above, if someone really wanted to take the issue of the {{rescue}} template to the larger community, perhaps via RFC, there could even be a very strong case made for overturning its deletion along with improving its documentation and usage.

    While my comments here are long and I'm sure there will be a few who disagree with me, I'm simply tired of the battleground mentality that I've been seeing over these issues. The "OMG the evil ARSers are going to RUIN Wikipedia" meme is simply tired and dated and needs to be retired.

    [*]For that fact, given the massive downturn in AfD participation over the last several years (which is actually affecting XfD in general and not just AfD), a strong case could even be made that AfD itself has now become (or is becoming) mostly obsolete and a historic relic and needs to evolve to better suit the community's current needs. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tothwolf, please please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The rescue template is gone, and its deletion was upheld at well-attended DRV by a numerical count of about 8:1 or 9:1. It is not coming back, so let it go and move on.

      The attempt to delete the rescue list is just hot air, and whether it is relisted or not, it's plain as a pikestaff that it ain't gonna be deleted. All that's happening is a bit of mildly tedious splashing, the effect of which is precisely the opposite of what its instigators intend: it is demonstrating that there is quite a lot of support for an ARS without the rescue template.

      As to the "the battleground mentality" which you rightly deplore, I agree that there is too much of it. But one of the places where it is most prevalent is at WT:ARS, where wild rants about zomg evil deletionists are posted frequently and without apparent sanction. If you really want to end the battleground, one of the things which would really help is support a crackdown on the ranters who abuse WT:ARS as a soapbox. The ARS's apparent tolerance of that noisy minority taints the whole of ARS, and generates more drama which obscures the good work being done through the new rescue list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Just worth noting that this is actually my first mention of {{rescue}} in these discussions, so I think the WP:STICK comment might be better applied elsewhere. Other than that, we appear to agree on some points, although there are clearly a few things we don't agree on.

        Perhaps all the drama and fighting we are seeing now just a symptom of a much larger problem though -- it is much less work (and maybe more "fun") for some people to troll and stir things up between say ARS and those whom don't much like the idea of ARS than it is to actually edit and improve an article. (This isn't just limited to ARS of course, but I think this gets the general point across.)

        The way I've come to see things is the community failed long ago to deal with many issues of editors not here to improve Wikipedia. Instead, we've built up all sorts of overly complex rules, policies, guidelines, etc which in turn give some of these individuals a very large assortment of things to cherry pick from in order to justify their actions, all while they are really just trying to create drama for the sake of drama. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Regardless of the merits of the page, this was clearly a SNOW close and properly done. MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting compliment to WP:SNOW I just discovered is WP:STEAM.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I hadn't seen that page before. pablo 11:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, and I'm the one who nominated it. Consensus was pretty overwhelming here, the SNOW close was justified. Robofish (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse /yawn ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There was no reason to close this with such haste, and several reasons not to have done so. Speaking generally: Consensus can shift pretty quickly, and two hours simply isn't enough time for a reasonable cross section of opinions to be represented. More specifically to this instance: The re-closing admin, in my opinon, should have been a bit more cautious in doing so, given the comments he'd made in support. An out-of-process close is a lot like limiting discussions, so better to be lilly-white about it. Both those admins might have taken the, ah, highly persistant nature of The Devil's Advocate before doing so. Good on Salvio for re-opening it, though. I'd also not the poor nature of both the XfD itself and the contributions here:
  • None of the first six comments address the XfD at all.
  • The next two endorses again fail to discuss the actual deletion discussion.
  • Then the next four endorses fail to address the discussion.
  • Good on Graeme Bartlett for finally mentioning the XfD in his endorse, but then he says explicitly " I did not get to say any thing at the MFD since it was over too fast."
  • After that I got tired of looking. Regardless of the outcome, a Trout is to be given out liberally.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Endorse CallawayRox (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close, but not second speedy keep It was clear that it had been reopened by request, and that the person who had requested the reopen had not responded yet. Relist. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen This is nothing but a protest vote, I suppose. Closing a valid deletion discussion when it's been running for less than two hours is inappropriate, and it short-circuits the discussion unfairly – even if there was a massive pile-on vote. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Maybe it could have been left open a little longer, but consensus was clear so the SNOW close was not incorrect. Rlendog (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Musatov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is zero proof I created this page so the idea of self-promotion is not applicable. Also, the removal process was spearheaded by people who for their own personal reasons dislike my activities in the realm of computer science, something completely different> 66.173.8.54 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)`[reply]

• See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Martin.musatov --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The self-promotion may not be proven, but per the sockpuppet investigation it is probable. The fact that this review is sought by an IP claiming to be Musatov can only reinforce that case.
  Even if the self-promotion aspect was set aside, the article would clearly have been deleted on notability grounds. As noted at AFD, the only reliable source which could be considered against WP:GNG is a brief article in Variety magazine, which namechecks Musatov once. The lead author Dan Myrick gets multiple mentions, but there is no way that article counts as "significant coverage" of Musatov. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese archipelago (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Votes and comments after the article was significant expanded (i.e. from 01:00, 27 January onwards) show a slight inclination towards keeping the article. Further, most of the votes and comments were cast/left before the article was renamed, and some supported the deletion only because the article was improperly titled. The AfD should be relisted/extended, with the article restored for the time being. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I don't think the closer is at fault here, as that AFD is a total mess. Leaving out the IP votes as obvious wp:Meatpuppets there is a large numerical majority for delete/redirect. However, all of the delete votes rest on the basis that Taiwan island group is original research as it is not used in reliable sources. Searching for Taiwanese Archipelago I immediately found two reliable sources discussing the islands ( [73][74]) and a few more mentioning the term. It is still quite meagre, but it is clear that there are reliable sources making a distinction between the geographical Taiwan archipelago and List of islands of the Republic of China, so this needs more discussion. Yoenit (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the talk page has to be temporarily restored too, since it contains the move request discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quite right; I've now done this. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as nom. Of the 10 "votes" that did not support outright deletion, 6 were IP voters who did not provide a detailed rationale. Of the remaining 4:

• Two (Huayu-Huayu, Deryck C.) said that the archipelago / island group exists as a notable concept.
• One (Dmcq) suggested merger because they think it is an identifiable topic, just lacking in sources.
• One (Peterkingiron) suggested merger as he considers the scope of the article to be the same as that of List of islands of the Republic of China because recent discussions suggest that ROC's common name is Taiwan.

In the last case, the "vote" does not amount to an endorsement of the article—which makes a distinction between the islands controlled by the ROC, and the islands in the "Taiwanese archipelago". Aside from that one, the question of whether the keep votes were valid thus rests on whether reliable sources talk about a Taiwanese archipelago. The list of references in the deleted article and searching on Google both suggest that while there are a few, there is almost no direct discussion in sources dedicated to geography, and the number of sources is very low for what one would expect to be a more major concept. Therefore, my assertion is that there are not enough sources to support the existence of such a concept, and the deletion should be endorsed.

I should note that some editors may consider the dispute political in nature, and I would concede that had I not been Taiwanese, I might have stayed out of such a contentious issue. However, even disregarding my own political views, I still don't think the subject is recognised in reliable sources beyond unintentional mentions and fringe views, to the extent that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As the existence of the concept is not well supported by sources, we run the risk of creating or publicising a fringe geographical entity should the article be kept. wctaiwan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source put forward by Yoenit clearly demonstrates that the term excludes Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu from Taiwanese archipelago. I suppose this fact has to be emphasised and observed in the AfD discussion. Taiwanese archipelago doesn't include all the landmasses of the contemporary ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: both the DRV nominator (218.250.159.25) and the article creater (Huayu-Huayu) are sock puppets of different sock masters. Neither has standing to start a DRV or have their thought counted in an AfD. There isn't any reason to continue this discussion unless Deryck wants it and I think that's unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please provide the evidence for your claim. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand SchmuckyTheCat's concern that 218.250.159.25 may be a sockpuppet (and the corresponding sockpuppet request was declined by CU clerk), but calling Huayu-Huayu a sockpuppet without formal allegation of such is simply a personal attack which is outright unacceptable. Deryck C. 17:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I respect Fram's judgement of the AfD. Deryck C. 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Huayu-Huayu, is not a personal attack. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thanks. Huayu-Huayu's block has expired, so they're free to contribute to this discussion if they so wish. As for 218.250.159.25, since the link to banned user is inconclusive, I think WP:AGF applies. Deryck C. 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What a mess. Its pretty clear that the AFD was severely tainted by meat and sockpuppetry. The outcome in such cases depends on how the closing admin chooses to weight votes and whether ip commentry is discarded - which the closing admin is entitled to do. Its impossible to decide whether the closing admin properly weighted the votes in such circumstances without a proper closing rationale but from my own reading of the discussion I wouldn't find fault with the closure based on ignoring the non-policy votes, discarding assertions and discounting ip votes. But worse, the article discussed was Taiwan Island Group but the page was moved to Taiwan Archipelego during the discussion, which is surely a different subject with different referencing possibilities so the discussion is such a mess I can't see that we can rely on the AFD as any assessment of consensus. I suggest we relist the discussion but semi-protect the new discussion to reduce the amount of abusive socking. It might also be worth asking a CU to review the discussion before closing... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read from the edit history of the article it was an IP editor (not me) who first expanded the article significantly to give it an unambiguous subject, and suggested a more proper and accurate title for it, and provided the sources to support the new title. Further, as exhibited by the AfD discussion, and as Wctaiwan had already pointed out above, many registered editors didn't actually understand the differences in territorial extent between the Taiwanese archipelago and islands of the ROC. If the relisted AfD is going to be semi-protected, IP editors will no longer be able to contribute to the discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent what I said. wctaiwan (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have informed the closing admin of this discussion here. wctaiwan (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as Spartaz says, the previous discussion is inconclusive and cannot be relied on to show the true consensus, but there is a reasonable chance that a new one might come to a resolution. It would be better done there at AfD2 than by arguing the merits here. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nomination. 175.159.193.30 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)— 175.159.193.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at This SPA has identical !voting record as 218.250.159.25 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A further exchange with wctaiwan has convinced me that while several sources refer to "台灣諸島", they do not all agree on a well-defined geographical entity; the use of it as a geographical term is also unheard of within the said islands. Therefore, piecing the loose fragments of evidence together in the article was WP:Synthesis. (As I also said above, I wouldn't support a direct overturn because Fram acted appropriately as the closing admin.) Deryck C. 09:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sources invariably show that this term doesn't cover the Fukienese islands and the South China Sea islands of the ROC. (The only difference is on whether or not the Pescadores Islands are included. But the Pescadores are, anyhow, geographically, culturally and historically tied with the Taiwanese Archipelago.) This term is a well-defined one, but the point regarding the exclusion of the Fukienese and SCS islands was basically ignored all through the AfD discussion. The sources also show that the term is used in academic publications from within and outside the ROC (both in Chinese and in English). The closing admin should be supposed to have the duty to weigh comments based on their understanding of the subject matter. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 218, could you back up your claim that "this term is a well-defined one...used in academic publications from within and outside the ROC (both in Chinese and in English)" with a list of sources? Relisting this AfD might be appropriate due to procedural problems, but I have misgivings about doing so because Deryck Chan, one of the editors who previously voted to keep the Taiwanese Archipelago article, has now called it a misleading synthesis of sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Yoenit has submitted two sources above. The first one (a paper in the International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy) defines the term rather unambiguously. There are also various sources included in the article (see #References). The first one there, from Encyclopedia of the peoples of Asia and Oceania, defines the archipelago to be the main island and 79 other islands. The sixth one defines it as the main island and 15 other islands, and talks about the 64-island archipelago. The seventh one says "In addition to the main island of Taiwan, Taiwan comprises 15 islands in the Taiwan group and 64 islands in the Penghu (Pescadores) Archipelago.". The second to fifth ones reveal the actual application of the term in Chinese-language publications. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Deryck C, and procedural issues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist While this article could be a "synthesis" as Deryck contends, 218's response to my query above demonstrates that there is a case to be made that "Taiwanese archipelago" is a legitimate topic for an article. That's enough to satisfy my concerns about restoring the article for a relist. And per Spartaz, I think that relisting is a good idea because of (a) the page-move while the AfD was in progress, and (b) the apparent sockpuppetry. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? →Στc. 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TamoGraph Site Survey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted by Fastily; the reason was G11. The article text was factual and, in my understanding, contained no "unambiguous advertising". Adequate outside sources were quoted, including Lisa Phifer, a leading networking professional. The article described a software tool by a reputable software company, the products of which are featured in vendor-neutral WLAN books, study guides, training courses (see, for example http://books.google.com/books?id=CBPnytQp7q8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=cwna+tamosoft&source=bl&ots=&sig=u1hhN_JB5L3l45N6INmrwLFPBfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mHcyT4O8LZTb4QT_yMmsBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and magazines. I tried to resolve this issue on the Fastily's talk page, but Fastily simply restated the G11 reason without any explanations. WiFiEngineer (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. G11 seems to have been appropriate here. WP:NOTADVERTISING states, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Half the article touted the survey's features without referencing a single reliable source, while the other half discussed functionality with support from two sources, only one of which is reliable (Blogger is user generated). If you think these issues can be addressed, request that an admin move the deleted text to your user space, so you can work on it before creating the article again. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Fastily. I also spent some time checking the deleted article and its sources, and support Fastily's description. If the nom takes up the suggestion of requesting a move to user space, then I suggest that the nom also takes some care to check that the resulting article clearly demonstrates notability per WP:NSOFT, and particularly per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Restore (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the comments below that there is a case to be made that a) this topic meets the notability criteria and b) the article to be fixed to be less promotional. I don't agree with that case, but restoration will allow the case to be properly considered at AFD (if somebody wants to open one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit restoration Oddly , I was the one who marked it for speedy G11 in the first place, But looking it over, I was wrong. The sources are [75]. [76] [77], and I think they are reliable enough and sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG, that was unexpected and is much appreciated. If it is relisted, I will add more sources. BTW, just found another one that will probably be considered reliable and independent: TamoGraph Site Survey receives the PC Magazine/RE - Best Software 2010 Award. WiFiEngineer (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Looking at the cached file I had thought the article was not excessively promotional and would have probably got a "keep" from me at AfD even if others had thought otherwise. However, I also saw DGG had originally flagged it and I know his knowledge of sources is better than mine (and, frankly, he is more thorough). So, I am here to make up numbers and say the speedy should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a reasonable contest of a G11. List at AfD to discuss if desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion. This appears to be a case where fixing the article's problems through editing is a better approach than outright deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Razmjoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please re-check the sources new I think delete this is not right deleting admin Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The AFD looks like a straightforward close, and the discussion on the closer's talk page confirmed the decision. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Can you show us (or at least quote) some of the new material from Chelcheragh and Nezafati's book that you tried to cite?   — C M B J   13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough.   — C M B J   13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on these new sources here.Farhikht (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment As part of the post-AFD discussion, User:Farhikht (a native speaker of Farsi) wrote:

I verified the new sources in the "Further reading" section. The first one is from Chelcheragh, a tabloid weakly which its primary target group is young higher educated people. I can't verify the depth of coverage but I think that Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles. The second is probably a history of music in Kermanshah, published by a local book publisher and written by a local journalist born in 1976 according to his bio here. The writer claimed in his biography that he is head of the "current event" service in Kayhan newspaper which do not make him an expert on the topic. So I think that the article still fails WP:MUSIC.
— User:Farhikht 03:48, 31 January 2012

Based on his statement, "Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles," I don't believe it should affect the close. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelcheragh is described as a "reformist periodical" that is "popular among youth for its articles on culture, art, and sports, and its cartoons and satire" by Payvand, and we're more or less relying on conjecture to evaluate "Kermanshah Music" because no one else has actually seen the book. Farhikht may very well be right on both counts, but I'm still willing to hear Farkoh out if he's able to produce that material for our viewing or otherwise substantiate it.   — C M B J   22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Endorse as deleting admin. I have tempundeleted the article so that versions can be compared. The one deleted at AfD is here. The article author pointed out on my talk page that he had added references after the two delete !votes were cast; I therefore told the nominator and the two delete !voters about the new refs, and asked whether they would alter their opinions. The additional references they considered included 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998' and user Farhikht (talk), whose user page shows he speaks Farsi, explicitly commented on them here. The other two also said that their opinions were not altered: WikiDan61, Spada2.

The new version Farkoh has produced is here. It actually has fewer references than the one deleted at AfD. The only new one is this, given as a reference for "Yar" instead of this. I do not think any case has been made to overturn the result of the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per Farhikht's comment vouching for the inadequacy of the sources held up here as evidence of verifiable notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference - Hello and thank you dear friends.

nezafati "Kermanshah Music"

Chelcheragh and Abdolreza Razmjoo

persian wikipedia

Official Website Abdolreza Razmjoo Farkoh (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The file was deleted and the discussion was closed without giving any reason. When asked, the closing admin gave a reason that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The photo is verifiable and notable, and was sourced as the most prominent example of its class, thus making it not replaceable with a free image with the same encyclopedic purpose; I want to take the image to an RfC to gather wider consensus for its intended use at Power-up, and also reuse it at Mario_(series)#Recurring_gameplay_elements where the Supermushroom is covered. For that I'd need to retrieve the fair use rationale that was in the deleted file page. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing the process to close a FfD, and none of the criteria listed to build a rough consensus was met (no bad faith !votes, no sock puppets, no addressing of policy in the reason for deletion, no copyright violation since there was a fair use rationale). So, given that:

1. There was no consensus for deletion
2. The reason given for the discussion closure was one of personal opinion
3. The discussion was closed without attention to procedure. First the file was deleted without notice, then I asked at the deletion discussion why the file had been deleted (see my comment at the bottom) and asked the administrator to undelete it, and only after that would the administrator a bot close the discussion without giving a deletion summary; he couldn't be bothered to close the discussion himself.

Diego (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons I think the deletion process was invalid. The administrator has shown muchh less than the needed attention that a contested deletion requires. There's an open administrator noticeboard discussion showing that this behavior is usual for this administrator. Diego (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Update: the administrator has since agreed to abstain from closing this kind of discussions. Diego (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – Being a longtime fan of Nintendo myself (full disclosure), the deletion was valid. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. --MuZemike 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability alone doesn't, but having a non-replaceable encyclopedic content does meet the non-free content policy, which was the case here.

In any way, that's irrelevant to this DRV since its purpose is not to reassess the arguments in the discussion but to examine the behavior of the closing admin. What's relevant is that the admin deleted the image without being aware of the discussion that was going on, and that he wouldn't provide a valid reason when asked for it, which is against the spirit if not the letter of the deletion process. Diego (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he wasn't aware of the discussion, how did he manage to link to it in his deletion summary? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of today he hasn't given proof that he has actually read it beyond the first sentence. And the link was likely created by the bot or automation tool he's using. Diego (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Notability may not override the non-free content policy, but there was insufficient participation in this discussion to substantiate its reading. The deleting administrator's rationale explicitly stated that the uploader failed to make a convincing case, which is tantamount to a supervote because that view was never expressed by anyone other than the nominator.   — C M B J   13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If it is relisted I will drop a note at WikiProject Video games to get wider feedback. Diego (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (as nominator)—I've noticed at FfD that there is a trend of administrators deleting images at the conclusion of a deletion discussion (with a log entry referencing the discussion)and leaving it to AnomieBOT to close the discussions. When the deletion is uncontroversial or the rationale is straightforward, this is understandable. However, with regards to this deletion discussion (where only two users participated), the administrator should have closed the debate manually with a specific analysis of the arguments brought forth. While this is moot now (because Fastily has now provided a rationale for deletion), I do agree with Diego that Fastily should have manually closed the discussion before deleting the file with the rationale provided. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Being the "most prominent example of its class" does not make an image non-replaceable. NFCC does not specify that a free replacement must be at the same quality of the non-free image. If the education value can be portrayed by another free equivalent, then this deletion is valid.--v/r - TP 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's not relevant to this deletion review, which is not about the arguments in the debate but about how it was closed. Second, "being notable" was not the argument for keep but "being used in a non-replaceable encyclopedic way". The article still shows "The Super Mario Bros. Super Mushroom has been described as the quintessential power-up (source)". Exactly which free image would you put to illustrate that sentence? You may want to think about it if this discussion is relisted. Diego (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - The arguments as to whether the use of this file constitute fair use/dealing are complex, and I think more participation is needed to determine consensus. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• relist in hopes of getting wider input (due to this DRV if nothing else). I suspect this will end up deleted, but as "He to Hecuba" says, it wasn't clear where consensus was and a new discussion might get us there.

File:JaxNatlCemeterySite.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A photo of a PD-Gov map at a national cemetery. The photo was released by uploader as CC-0. Shouldn't have been any problem with the image. GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for more attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can be closed; the deleting admin's restored it and moved it to Commons. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Popcorn deelites.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Speedy deleted under CSD F7 as replacable with a free image, which I disputed, as the subject's residence in not a public place, and therefore a free alternative cannot be obtained. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I'm missing something the subject's residence claim to offer 2-5 tours daily, can't see that as a bar to getting a replacement image. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed something: "He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia." — Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I think you are misreading that, our article and the bio on Old Friends refers to "Rich In Dallas" residing at Linn Farm, not this horse. The full quote being "Another Seabiscuit star, 10-year-old Rich in Dallas, was also retired through the combined efforts of Old Friends, Robbi Meisel of Flashpoint Photography, and The Exceller Fund. He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia and still makes public appearances to raise money for The Exceller Fund.." - even if it's badly worded and really trying stating that Popcorn Deelites is at the Linn Farm it's very clear that "and still makes public appearances..." which would still mean replacement is quite possible. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, until someone actually does a picture, no alternative is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the criteria is not that such a picture exists right now, it's that one can be created, which clearly it can. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That part directly contradicts with the rest of NFC #1, which states that non-free content must be replaced "if one of acceptable quality is available". — Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The application of NFC#1 has been quite consistent for years. Your opening to this DRV was clearly meant to be based on the idea that a free alternative couldn't be created, now that's been pointed out to be false, you're trying to simply dispute something which as a long term contributor and admin, you will have encountered many times with the same application, that is disingenuous to say the least. To be clear NFC#1 is part of the EDP as required by the foundation the resolution on this is quite clear "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.". If you want to make NFC#1 something else, DRV is not the place to do it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah strawman arguments now, we're seeing it all here. This lot has been rehash 1000's and 1000's of times, again the policy is about "could be created", not has been created, nor that any particular editor could create. At this point I'll bow out of this, since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strawman about it; just pure practical interpretation of the policy. But yes... please go, because I am absolutely inlolerant about being called dishonest, so you are no longer welcome in this duscussion. — Edokter (talk) — 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obvious strawman argument. You attack the "free alternative" by saying it highly impractical that you make the picture as it would cost a lot of money. The IP correctly stated that according to NFCC#1 someone has to be able to make a picture. You telling him that he is "no longer welcome in this discussion" is also way out of line. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in being part of a discussion where another editor acuses me of being dishonest; any such editor automatically loses the right to be part of that discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, get off your high horse, and take the time to read WP:NFCC#1. No one is accusing you of anything. Your unfounded accusations directed at others and immature behavior in this discussion is disgusting. Frankly, I am impressed you are still an admin. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion." If that isn't an acusation, I don't know what is. And no admin was ever desysopped for having an opinion. — Edokter (talk) — 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the IP meant "honest discussion" as if you've been dishonest. I think he meant it as "man-to-man" or as a mature discussion. I think you've made a huge mistake in your interpretation of NFCC and you're letting your pride stand in the way of seeing this error.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per User:Fastily/E#F7. That's all I have to say. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the IP and Fastily. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A simple way to replace this would be to ask the subject's owners nicely if they would provide a free image. I'm sure that they would respond positively, especially if the request was accompanied by a small donation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Image clearly doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The non-free content criteria are strict and narrow, and "could be created" does not mean that there has to be someone ready, willing, and able to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse OP has a huge misunderstanding of NFCC. If it is possible that a free equivalent can be created or exists, then a non-free image cannot be used. Deletion was in accordance with policy.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A horse is a horse, of course, of course; but there's indication that this one can't (yet) be depicted without violating WP:NFCC#1. I'm of the same opinion as Phil Bridger and would suggest dropping the farm a line to ask if they're willing to provide OTRS permission, and perhaps even a higher resolution version of the file. That's the best course of action at this point.   — C M B J   12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created two versions of this page, one with the french title and another one with the english title of the movie. Could an administrator delete the article with the french title?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestialvoyage (talk • contribs) }

• The French title is now a redirect to the English title, as is standard with works originally in a non-English language. Deletion is not required and is probably a bad idea as someone might search for the French title, even on the English Wikipedia. I want to apologize for the troubles you had with Cluebot which reverted your edits in error at one point, but it seems that everything has been sorted out now. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Premature closure, decision inconsistent with preliminary consensus, rationale was WP:CSD#F7b despite available source material with photo-specific commentary for at least one revision. Request for reversal was met with objection under WP:NFCC#2, which is a reasonable argument for anyone to make at XfD, but an inadequate one for urgent unilateral action.   — C M B J   12:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comment: This was a standard application of WP:CSD#F7b (commercial news agency picture). Being a mandatory criterion, based on the need for WP:NFCC#2 compliance, this speedy deletion criterion can override consensus at FFD at any time. As such, yes, CSD#F7b does constitute adequate grounds for unilateral action. – As for the uploader's argument that there was "photo-specific commentary": as pointed out to him on my talkpage, this argument falls short of the facts. There were one or two sources that briefly mentioned this image (or some other version of the same scene), but only in the sense of mentioning it in passing, as evidence for some commentary that was invariably directed at the situation depicted in it, not at the image as a creative work as such. No source came anywhere close to engaging in significant discussion of the photograph as an object of interest in its own right (e.g. the photographer's creative choices, its esthetic value, etc.), and neither of course did our article. What we have here is a typical, and unfortunately frequent, case of uploaders confusing the role of an image as a vehicle for illustrating a discussion with that of an object of encyclopedic discussion in its own right. The latter is required as a minimum precondition for overriding NFCC#2 in the case of commercial agency images, and this was simply not the case here. This kind of case is exactly what CSD#F7b was designed to handle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context: The article in question is Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This [78] is a link to the passage where the image was used, before it was deleted. As anybody can see, there is some comment on the situation depicted in the image, but no trace of comment on the image as a creative work. Moreover, all observations made in that comment are original research, since no reliable source seems to have made a point about them (the footnotes are to sources entirely unrelated to the photograph). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image description and its quality are irrelevant -- reliably sourced commentary on the photo was cited in the article's main text and on the nominator's talk page. Regarding value judgements about the commentary itself, this view is unsubstantiated by WP:CSD and contradicts consensus even in recent XfD discussions.   — C M B J   14:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting bizarre. Of course the image description is not irrelevant. The criterion "object of commentary" in CSD#F7b refers to commentary that exists or doesn't exist in the article – not in some external source or other. Our article wasn't engaging in such commentary, therefore, the criterion kicked in. Simple. And as for the "commentary on the photo" that you keep saying existed in those external sources, I told you three or four times but you keep ignoring it: those passing references to the photo also fail to rise to the level of significant commentary about the image as such. Do you really not get the difference? Here's what "commentary about the image" would look like:

• "AP photographer soandso was widely praised for the skillful composition and lighting of his image, and got a Pulitzer prize for it."
• "AP photographer soandso was accused of having forged the image by photoshopping the Guy Fawkes masks into somebody else's photograph"
• "The photograph by AP photographer soandso went viral as an internet meme and was widely parodied and imitated"

That kind of commentary is what this is all about. Of course, nothing remotely comparable to any of these things happened in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image description is irrelevant because it is only one possible place in the article where commentary can exist. As for your definition of a creative work and the associated value judgements you're making about the aforementioned sources, this is a matter of opinion that is not appropriate to consider when overriding XfD discussions with CSD.   — C M B J   23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do "definition of creative work" or "value judgements" have to do with anything? You have evidently not even begun to understand what I'm saying. Please read it again; I'm tired of explaining this to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not and never was a misunderstanding about the concept you're trying to explain.   — C M B J   05:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was tagged {{Non-free historic image}} (though I don't know whether it was placed there by the uploader or someone else—can we get a temp undelete of the image page, not the image, if so?). The template points out—in boldface, no less—that the image itself must be the subject of commentary, not the event it depicts; and I'm not finding anything in the article history that comments on anything other than the event. Endorse. Though I do want to say, too, that I think the WP:NFCC#8 suggestions in the FFD that it could be replaced by a generic image of a Guy Fawkes mask are ludicrous. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away from my desk at the moment, but Masnick's commentary was cited in the article and the Forbes source was on the nominator's talk page. Whether either of them satisfies NFCC is a valid debate, but the closer should have expressed that view in the discussion instead of acting defiantly on subjective merit.   — C M B J   00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be commentary in our article, not just in a source cited in it. Even a sourced statement like "Mike Masnick of Techdirt commented [something about the image]" would suffice, and there wasn't one. (And I have to ask, are we looking at the same source? Masnick doesn't comment on the image in it; he talks about the event, and doesn't even display the same image as this one!)
The Forbes source, again, wasn't in our article, and again is commenting on a different image (the same one as Masnick's), but at least does comment on the image itself. A phrase like "An image depicting the event was widely distributed on the Internet.<ref>[Forbes, etc etc]</ref>" would be enough to keep this from being a speedy, but I don't think it would survive in the article. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The semantics of our article's iteration could have been improved upon, but there actually was a statement to that effect: "Mike Masnick of Techdirt noted that the handmade masks were themselves symbolically 'counterfeit' ...", which was a reflection of the source's commentary in that "[w]e should note that, from the picture, it looks like ..." I take Masnick's assertion at face value and recognize that others may rightfully disagree, but that's why we have XfD.

Regarding Forbes' commentary, I personally think that it does have a place in the future of the article. I also realize that it wasn't cited in the article at the time, but it was made known in pertinent discussion and the closing administrator should have taken that into consideration. That's a whole nother can of worms, unfortunately.

As for the photo discrepancy, this is because a second version was later uploaded for added encyclopedic value. Perhaps this was temerarious of me. I'll come right out in the open and say that I've been around since 2004 and our attitude toward non-free historical content may have changed since I was inculcated. With that said, the closing administrator still deleted all revisions of the file and subjectively deflected what still appears to be a reasonable case for proper community debate.   — C M B J   11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]