Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August

The Cross Border Rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There has already been some discussion about the deletion at the talkpage of User: Secret but this has failed to resolve the issue. I believe there was an inappropriate call of 'consensus for deletion, with a total of 4 people in favour of deletion (including the admin), and two (including the person who discussed the AFD with the admin as shown above), and while I understand that 'votes aren't consensus', they are an important way to express consensus and a 33%-66% split from 6 people is hardly a quorum that should be used to declare 'consensus'. Neither was the issue in regards to the name taken into account, the article should be renamed as opposed to outright deleted. I also believe that the the WP:BEFORE guideline was breached and this was not taken into account by the admin and that admin has misinterpreted my link to a google search as being a breach of WP:GOOGLEHITS instead of what my intention was, which was to explain in the short time I had available, that this article had numerous GNG suitable sources had the nominator actually followed WP:BEFORE, he would never have nominated the article. Finally, WP:NRVE states that editors should consider the possibility of notability-indicating sources not currently named in the article, and I believe this admin disregarded that policy which if followed would indicate that that deletion due to a lack of notability is inappropriate.Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At this time, could your provide sources that would count toward the WP:GNG? If solid sources exist that weren't in the article or the discussion, that would be a good reason to overturn (or at least relist). If there aren't any such sources, the only possible outcome here will be an endorsement of the deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Macktheknifeau seems to insist that substantial coverage in reliable sources exists, but is either unable or unwilling to actually provide those sources. Without them, any attempt to undelete is pointless. Macktheknifeau may wish to read WP:BURDEN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the remainder of the paragraph in WP:NRVE that Macktheknifeau misquoted both at the AFD and here. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• First thing of all, the commenter in my talk page, and my close has nothing to do with the AFD consensus themselves, so its technically 3-1 (that doesn't matter but still). As I explained to another user here, I'm willing to undelete if proper policy is meet. There was about six or seven of those Australian football rivalries AFDs that day, all of which except were deleted nearly unanimously, except for one, which was closed no consensus. However Macktheknifeau basically copied and pasted each of his keep comments using faulty speedy keep rationales, and not really backing evidence to go along with his comments. Deletion review is not AFD part two. Secret ^account 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• New Sources: Having had time now to actually collate the sources, here are a number of them:

Goals galore, throat grabbing, spitting and controversial send-offs have all featured in what is arguably the biggest interstate rivalry in the domestic game.

The appointments have added more than a little spice to what is already the premier rivalry of the competition.

the strongest rivalry in the A-League clashes again tonight when Adelaide United host Melbourne Victory.

Melbourne Victory and Adelaide United might be the competition's most fervent interstate rivalry

One of the biggest rivalries in the A-League comes to Melbourne

The intense rivalry between Adelaide and Melbourne will be there tonight..

Other rivalries include Adelaide United v Melbourne Victory

Kosmina made just one change before the match between the A-League’s fiercest rivalry

How many more do I need to find before someone will take me seriously? Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• relistendorse and relist assuming those sources weren't in the article to begin with. I'm not qualified to judge sports notability, but these sources appear to be on-target and thus worthy of discussion. I am a bit worried about the name of the article as I'm not (at a quick scan) seeing it in the articles. Something to think about, but not really a problem per se. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating to make it clear the original closer closed this correctly, per SmokeyJoe. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion So two teams have a rivarly. *yawn* Don't we have a simple list of well-known sports rivalries somewhere that doesn't require actual articles to be linked to, but included a 1-para summary ... I've seen it somewhere. If not, we should. ES&L 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear a policy-based reason here. It would also be nice to be a bit more civil. People put work into these things, being insulting about their work and passions is unnecessary. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because DRV isn't AFD, Round 2. If there were sources to substantiate the notability of this rivalry beyond a routine rivalry between two cities then they should have been put forward during the deletion discussion (though I don't really think the routine sports coverage listed above would count for much). Consensus seems to be that we don't need articles for every x vs. y rivalry combination we can think of. It's a step in the direction of covering every single football match every week and Wikipedia is not a sports newspaper in either content or effort. There are always going to be "rivalries" in a competition as small as the A League and those rivalries are always going to get generic "x played y this week, they have a bit of a rivalry" type coverage, as long as those two teams keep playing each other. If you want to spend time covering every minor local derby or hyped-up rivalry, start a blog. I'd read it because I find that sort of thing interesting. But that's not what WP is here for. Stalwart111 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the AfD the deletion !votes were because of the lack of sources. That was it. The fact that the sources weren't produced at the time is actually a reason for a relist, not the other way around. The topic clearly meets WP:N by a wide margin given those sources. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That that closer could have re-listed the discussion doesn't invalidate the close. Arguably all closed discussions could be re-listed instead. The argument from the nominator is that the admin disregarded policy when the opposite is the reality. We don't want closing admins to go source-hunting and then supervote discussions closed on the basis of their own research. We expect them to close discussions on the basis of the consensus they have in front of them. In this instance, other participants called on the "team keep" to provide sources. They didn't, and the majority remained in favour of deletion. On that basis, we really have no choice but to endorse the close as technically valid. If the nominator has since decided to get his act together and find some sources (though, again, I'm not convinced the ones above are that great and a generic city-to-city historical rivalry has nothing to do with a specific rivalry between two sporting teams), then he is free to seek permission to recreate the article. Stalwart111 06:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, sorry. I certainly agree it was closed correctly. I feel that with new sources having come to light, it is worth having a new discussion. I appologize that I'd not made that clear the first time around. (I corrected that above after your and SJ's comments made it clear I was being unclear.) Hobit (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I think we're on the same page. Stalwart111 05:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Userfy  First point is that I was easily able to find an in-depth source, the fourth item on the page for a Google search on [adelaide melbourne rivalry].  This source traces the rivalry back to colonial times in Australia.  So add this source to those already listed whose titles include the phrases,

• "biggest interstate rivalry",
• "premier rivalry",
• "strongest rivalry",
• "most fervent interstate rivalry",
• "one of the biggest rivalries",
• "intense rivalry",
• "fiercest rivalry".

So this is not a case of marginal notability.  So begin the post mortem, what happened, why was this article deleted?  Central is the lack of clarity in the nomination.  A close reading of the nomination shows that this AfD has been brought on content policy, not notability.  But no policy or guideline is listed, and an argument could be made that the best way to have avoided the end result was WP:SK#1, allowing the nominator to review WP:BEFORE and rewrite the nomination to identify applicable policy in a new AfD.  The first delete !vote is "No evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry.".  As a follow-on to a content argument, what does "no evidence" mean?  That there is no evidence in the article?  Or that there is no evidence in the world at large?  The ample evidence found in a Google search is evidence that this !vote is an invalid notability argument based on only looking at the article.  As for the 2nd !vote to delete, why the Trove search returns nothing is not something random.  Perhaps the digitized newspapers are more than thirty years old, and the A-league only goes back to 2003.  It is a specific case that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.  Changing the Trove search to ["Adelaide United" "Melbourne Victory" rivalry] gives useful results.  In any case, the second delete !vote is a notability argument.  So after discarding the first !vote, there are three divergent opinions expressed in this AfD.  And what was the result of the AfD?  Even after the closer's comments on his talk page, we don't know if the deletion was for notability or content or because of the title of the article.  I think the comments of the keep !vote confirm the concerns of the nomination that there are content issues here, and these issues are compounded with an uncommon title.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. There appears to be enough new information and more interest from others. A relist may achieve better participation and discussion than last time, leading to more confidence in the result. The close, as it was, was quite proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The WP:Guide to deletion#Closure states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't judge topics like this, but if the AfD did not come to a reasonable conclusion, the process didn't work right. Though we don't actually discuss the merits of the article here as we do at an AfD, we do have to discuss the potential for a different decision at an second AfD. Nothing at WP is fixed, and every decision is appealable. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - As mentioned in many of the AfDs regarding supposed footballing rivalries in Australia, yes sources can be found that mention Team A v Team B is a derby, but as deliberate marketing ploy of the league a number of these false rivalries have been hyped. There may well be a nascent rivalry in development, but none of the sources that Mack mentions above discuss the rivalry in any depth whatsoever, they are all essentially match preview articles. Unscintillating's comment about finding an in-depth source, is sort of leaning towards the type of source required, but is weakend when reading the third page to find out that it is yet another article designed to drum up interest in a match about to happen (at the time it was written). What I would like to see is for someone to provide more sources along that line before relisting. At the moment, there is no indication that there is significant coverage of this rivalry outside of routine match reports using the word Derby or rivalry in their headline bar this one source. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent: Your accusation of being a 'deliberate marketing ploy' is false, none of these sources are related to the league or the teams involved. Additionally, GNG guidelines specifically state that that the coverage doesn't have to be the main topic of a source, so your argument about how 'none of the sources discuss the rivalry in-depth' isn't valid. We build Wikipedia articles through multiple sources. In the context of a sports rivalry, the so called 'routine' match reports are specifically what the rivalry is about, they are inherently part of the rivalry and provide the context for which the rivalry exists and what has occurred as part of the rivalry. It appears you want some mega-source that lists everything in one article, rather than using multiple reliable sources to build the article like any other article is built. WP:NRIVALRY says that "Articles on sports rivalries should satisfy the general notability guideline." To pass WP:GNG it requires significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. I listed multiple reliable independent sources above, in enough quantity that clearly cover enough ground to be significant coverage. This is a notable rivalry despite what you believe and nominated the article for. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - close was good (and yes I'm saying that as someone who !voted 'delete'). More than happy for a 2nd AFD to go ahead to re-discuss notability. GiantSnowman 10:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

the original page named gregorysung referenced the designer as one person and combined all the educational background, university lecturing, etc. as one individuals activities without enough references. the new page: clearly shows gregorysung as a design brand of two designers with their each own details and notes their specific educational and academic accomplishments and positions, lists a portion of their international design work, lists a portion of the design duo's international awards in multiple magazines, shows, etc. via their combined design works in international 3rd party sources, and awards. the duo has been active for 8years formally and at least 10 informally. they are well respected in their field as referenced by the many international universities where they have lectured and international design competitions, shows, and galleries where their work is shown. it has been made clear of the two distinct people involved, how they created the image of one designer and the products and work associated with their efforts. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, please see the previous DRV discussion and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/gregorysung. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - as far as I can see nothing has changed. The consensus at the previous DRV seemed to me to be to delete and that any future article about these designers (if their notability is established) should be written by someone not associated with these previous attempts. What was said then is still true now. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOPYX Social LMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears the admin who made the decision to delete this article may have not reviewed that latest version. I was advised to make reference revisions after the first deletion request was made. However, the deleting admin cited press releases were used in the article; there are no press releases cited.

I reached out to the deleting admin and asked him to confirm that he reviewed the updated version of the article but did not receive a final response.

The sources used in the article show that social LMSs are a new sector of an old industry and that TOPYX is a recognized social LMS within this industry. While Learning Management Systems exist -- http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=List_of_learning_management_systems -- the social LMS category will become more prevalent in time. It is inevitable that there will be more social LMSs available before long as cloud-based technology continues to evolve.

Please review this article as you're able. I will be available to discuss your concerns and am open to suggestions.

Caliandson (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion many of the "refs" do not even mention the topic. Yes, LMS's as a general topic may be notable, but this one quite clearly fails the test to have an encyclopedia article of its own. The statement above that "the social LMS category will become more prevalent in time" is a perfect example of WP:CRYSTAL - when it is prevalent, it may be notable - by that time, this "player" may not even be in the industry. ES&L 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse assuming the google cache of the deleted page to be correct, as per the discussion a search for the word "topyx" within all the references reveals only one which refers to the subject and it that case it's all quotes from the company producing this, perhaps that isn't technically a press release but the effect it the same, it's the companies own "propaganda" not a reliable third party source. Regardless the WP:GNG requirement is for non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources which don't even name the product clearly can't be non-trivial coverage, and the one which is quotes from the producer is pretty trivial and most certainly no independent. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. The Google Cache included above is not the revised version of the article. Can we temporarily reinstate the article for thorough evaluation?

Caliandson (talk) 11:47, 05 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.43.195.78 (talk) [reply]

Jess C Scott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Editors and admin did not check the updated references that were added in a day before page was deleted. The page was deleted because of "no credible sources," so I followed the recommendations in the delete discussion's page to add new credible sources (Straits Times Online Mobile Print; SexIs (magazine); and WorldCat, which are reliable sources according to Wiki's guidelines). These are links to interviews and reviews in reputable sources, which was a suggested recommendation for WP: Author. Therefore I am requesting undeletion because of these additional references which were not reviewed by the editors and admin who participated in the delete discussion, prior to these sources being cited. POV of article was also improved along with the addition of these citations.

P.S. If the references are still a problem, I request that the page have a "please improve this" template like on this page. The current or latest list of sources on Jess C Scott's references sections are more reliable than many pages I have seen with the "please improve this" template at the top of the article.

Elfpunk (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (full disclosure: I contributed to the AFD) I've had a few concerns about this article, subject and editor since I first came across it at AFD. You have literally been trying to create this article since 2010. During the first AFD you claimed to have been in contact with the author in an attempt to help substantiate notability which raises serious concerns about a conflict of interest. Despite having been through an AFD before (for this article no less) you still attempted to remove AFD templates from the article and then unilaterally recreated it a few days after it was deleted (it was speedy deleted as the recreation of a deleted article). Consensus at the AFD itself was fairly overwhelmingly in favour of deletion, not helped by your claims that attempts to delete the article were "evil" and "sexism". You also claimed to have previously been unaware of WP:GNG ("I would have appreciated receiving that WP:GNG notification when the page was first created") despite it having been a part of the discussion during the first AFD where you quoted the policy itself. Beyond all of that, admins are required to consider the discussion itself. Had the admin considered the sources himself and then supervoted the AFD closed as keep, we would likely be here at DRV for different reasons. I'm not going to formally offer an opinion either way, having contributed to the AFD, but this is starting to look like someone who simply won't drop their stick. Stalwart111 07:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, Elfpunk, but as you can see from the discussion the consensus is that Wikipedia doesn't want this content. A deletion review isn't going to overturn that for you. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--thanks for the feedback. I will indeed keep improving the article, even if it takes one hundred tries, because it is not clear why Wikipedia does not want the content (the reasons keep changing). I have followed all of Wiki's guidelines, instructions, procedures, rules, and protocol once they were made known to me (as a not-so-frequent user, I am not aware of AFD and templates and G4's and what is or is not allowed, until I am informed of it). I have closely followed all suggested recommendations during each deletion discussion, and followed those recommendations. If the 2nd deletion was due to "no credible sources," and the page now has "credible sources," the problem should be solved. Instead, there is another reason for the page to be deleted, whether it's because the page was previously deleted or because the text is similar to a previous version. If it was credible sources that were the problem, that is the error that has been fixed with an improved version.

If the main problem is that fact that the subject of the article is self-published and not super-famous according to current mainstream media standards, these criteria should be noted in Wiki's guidelines so that contributors know self-published authors are "not notable," even if they have received numerous 3rd-party independent media coverage (reviews and interviews), been participating authors at writing events, and have books in public libraries. If the page has been improved according to the suggested recommendations, why is it still being disallowed on Wikipedia while other pages with less credible sources are allowed to be on? If the policies were applied with more consistency, the whole process would appear to be less hypocritical, with regards to which pages are allowed to be kept on and which are kept off because "Wikipedia doesn't want the content."

With regards to "the first AFD where [I] claimed to have been in contact with the author in an attempt to help substantiate notability," this is indeed true and I disclosed it so that editors/admins could advise me on what to do next. It is discouraged but not prohibited to be in contact with the subject of the article. When admins/editors stated that the page's tone was more promotional than encyclopedic, changes were made. If there was a real conflict of interest with that, no changes would have been made to the tone so that it follows a more neutral POV as was recommended. The page was deleted in 2010; an improved version was posted in 2012. That version stayed on for 1.5 years. If it didn't pass Wiki's inclusion criteria, why wasn't the article speedily deleted when the second, improved version was created in 2012?

I will follow the structure on this author's page, so that the content on Jess C Scott's page is significantly improved (and no longer identical to the previous version, which means it does not fall under G4). I am not attempting to be disruptive--just following Wiki's guidelines as to what merits a page's inclusion. I have read all of the criteria for speedy deletion too.

Elfpunk (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're getting it, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It would be disruptive to keep trying to repost this article based on nothing more than your personal judgment of "it passes guidelines now, so I can ignore the deletion discussion we just had" (and that's what I meant by refusing to "play this game" on my talk page response to you). Without consensus at Deletion Review that, yes, it has now been demonstrated to satisfy GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline, it should not be reposted. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi postdlf--OK, thanks for the feedback. My judgement of whether the page passes guidelines is according to Wiki's guidelines and feedback from Wiki editors and admins. That is the only game I am playing (following Wiki's guidelines so that I know exactly why a page is not satisfactory, and what I can do to improve a particular page). I read through the criteria for speedy deletion, and followed the structure of the following existing author pages (Michael J. McCann and Nick Antosca). The improved page's contents are no longer a duplicate copy of previous versions. If a consensus or deletion review now concurs that the page does not satisfy GNG or a notability guideline, I will continue to keep in mind editors and admins' feedback as to what further improvements can be made (as I have done so far, with following all of the instructions and recommendations). Elfpunk (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the above comments (or at his talk page, or at mine) could have been more clear, yet Elfpunk just incredibly reposted this again. I have again speedy deleted and WP:SALTed it, and blocked Elfpunk for 24 hours for disruptive editing. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "even if it takes one hundred tries" was a bit of a give-away. Stalwart111 03:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: "...even if it takes one hundred tries"? Sorry, you don't get to have a promotional article by brute force. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and protect against recreation. (I listed the 2nd AfD and commented further in the discussion.) I am eager to keep articles on even marginally notable authors, especially of material in any way out of the mainstream, and have frequently over the years used my skills as a librarian to source them, and ever since I came here argued in defense of every reasonably defensible such article at AfD . Sometimes, like here, it's impossible. The protection against recreation should be reconsidered if the author does become notable, but it would take not just more books, but significant reviews of them, and others than the ed. here needs to be judges of that. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt, per DGG. If an evil inclusionist/mergist is against the article, what else is a deletionist left to argue? Besides, DGG needs to come over to the dark side with us, we have cookies...(jk). Seriously, consensus on both AfDs was clear for deletion. I don't see anything here to indicate that the deletion was improper. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit unfair on DGG GregJack. I'm sure the inclusionists have cookies too! The label is a bit unfair too, DGG has deleted far more articles then I have by at least an order of magnitude. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure that we deleted the inclusionists' cookies some time ago. Did someone recreate them? :p DGG is a great guy, but does tend towards the keep side of the house on most issues. I think that he knows I meant no offense, and if he was offended, I apologize. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did we get to their cookies? Oh good, that's bound to give us an advantage in the wee hours of the morning when blood sugar levels are crucial to securing the winning argument for an Afd. Top work GregJack. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly I tend to be an inclusionist, and as far as I know everyone using the rem "evil inclusionist" is doing so as my friend, generally for the purpose of pointing out when I think an an article is hopeless. As Spartaz says, I've deleted personally at least 12,000 articles & helped remove several times that. But I dont think it's right to treat any deletion opinion of mine as meaning it must unquestionably be deleted; I make mistakes in logic, I fail to see things; sometimes I may even let my previous experience with a particular editor or topic affect my view unfairly;; there are even some areas of WP where my own standards are more rigorous than consensus. Please never say delete (or keep) because I (or anyone else) says so, but only if you agree with what is said. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I agreed with your argument on deletion, and as a friend, I thought it was a good opportunity to have a little fun. Of course, the scotch may have had something to do with that. (Spartaz - why didn't we delete (i.e., drink) the inclusionists' scotch when we got their cookies?) Besides, you should come over to the dark side... :p GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • The irony is that I know that I do have a reputation as a strong deletionist but when it comes down to it, I don't believe there is a massive difference between where I sit on the spectrum and where DGG generally is. Indeed, I recall a DRV where I closed something as keep that DGG recommended as delete which amused me intensely. The reality is, of course, much more nuanced than the labels allow. On the subject of cookies, my son just snaffled the last one so this deletionist household is now completely bereft off cookies - except ours got eaten instead of deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Creator was not notified of nomination for deletion of maintenance categories used to filter lists of users of WP:AFCH and WP:SNUGGLE. Requesting temporary undeletion until this can be sorted out. Technical 13 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The only issue here appears to be that the category creator was not notified of the discussion. There is nothing wrong with the close in which there was no support for retention of the category. Since there is no requirement to notify the creator, and creators can watch list the page if it really is of interest, that in an of itself is not a reason to reverse a completely within policy and guideline close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, you seem to be entirely missing the point here. The major issue here is that these categories are not suppose to be deleted as they all fall under both {{Maintenance category}} and {{Wikipedia category}}. Please restore these categories and assume good faith. Technical 13 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes: Template:Cfdnotice/doc says "When nominating a category on WP:CFD, add this template to the main article's talk page to notify users of the category's nomination." and does not say that this is an optional step. These categories also fall under the Appropriate types of user categories: Categories which group users by participation in Wikipedia; such as participants of a Wikipedia collaborative project... and Categories which group users by ability to improve the encyclopedia as I've mentioned, this category is used by me for making lists for more than one WP:WikiProject to be able to mail out bulletins about software updates related to their specific operating system, browser, or (not yet implemented but planned) wiki skin. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are missing the point. A full CfD discussion was held and that decision was to delete. You need to show why the close was faulty. CfD decisions are able to delete maintenance categories. You have yet to explain why the close was not correct based on the discussion. Your objection appears to be that there are certain categories that are not subject to CfD discussions. That assumption is not supported by any policy or guideline I am aware of. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting agitated, and although I can sympathize, I am requesting you take a breath and attempt to stay CALM. I honestly do not know how much more clear it can be...

Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty! This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.

Technical 13 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only has the effect, that the category will not be deleted by the {{db-c1}} CSD criterion, but a full WP:CFD discussion can still come to the conclusion, that the category should be deleted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust, I don't see that noted anywhere in the rendering of the template or in the template's documentation. Can you show me where it does say that it only applies to CSD:C1? Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't written down anywhere, but from the wording of the template it's clear, that purpose of it is to avoid the category's deletion just because it's empty (C1 is for empty categories only). It doesn't says anything about WP:CFD's at all. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't written down anywhere, then your "assumed" purpose in not clear. The wording of the template does not read, "don't delete just because it's empty", but instead it reads "don't delete even if it's empty". Clearly, it should not have been deleted. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That template can't stop the implementation of a Categories for discussion, a process which works on the base of consensus, event if you think it should. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close There was clearly a consensus to delete the category, and therefore it couldn't have been closed any other way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose close: The entire deletion rationale was that these categories served no purpose. These categories do serve a legitimate purpose, and are deemed appropriate by the WP:CfD guidelines themselves. The fact that the creator was not notified of the discussion prevented the rationale of the categories being presented which I believe would have swayed the outcome of the discussion. Please temporarily restore the categories and relist the debate for seven days to obtain a true consensus with all of the facts available as to how the category is being used. I'm not asking for an overturn, I'm asking for a chance to defend the categories in question is all. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote. By definition of opening a DRV, you disagree with the close. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Technical 13 seems to be arguing that this falls under DRV criterion 3, that there's "significant new information" that wasn't taken into account in the CFD discussion. They need to explain how the category was used for maintenance and why that use was in some way important. The procedural failure to notify isn't enough, given the solid consensus in the CFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. The process was correctly followed and the closer implemented the consensus, so DRV would normally endorse, but, this can't be allowed to stand. Of course it matters who uses Windows, who uses Linux, etc. We're in the process of developing a visual editor and working on other technical changes. How are the technical and maintenance people supposed to test things? They will need to find users who operate various different hardware and software setups in order to find and fix bugs. For example, if everyone experiencing a particular issue is using Google Chrome and Windows 7, that's something the coders need to know! Therefore it's good for the encyclopaedia if users can self-identify with their hardware and software configuration if they so choose, and therefore, this CfD outcome needs to be unilaterally overturned.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per S Marshall's cogent analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that editors following this discussion may be interested it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - how many user pages were/are affected by the deletion? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: The countless ever growing number of people that see the category on the bottom of users pages and follow the redlink that can't see the instructions of how to add themselves to the category. Potentially, 121,930 active users. Technical 13 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a stretch, T13. Blueboar: The actual answer is, if we stick to T13's original logic, is that this will impact the developer's ability to write new tools for all users.--v/r - TP 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean seven users? Because that many are currently in the category. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Operating systems has many other templates, which are more widely used, to indicate which OS the users are using. If you click on the "Transclusions" at ubox, than you easily found users with the search OS. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current number of users in this category is at 143% of what you claim... That is a growth of 43% in less than four hours. I'd say that a 10% growth per hour is significant enough for this category to exist. You can watch it grow-- Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows currently has 0 users. Technical 13 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I only see 10 pages of 8 users in the category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • As opposed to the 7 pages of 5 users that you first mentioned 4 hours ago... Very good. :) Technical 13 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt at the very least. I don't know which policy supports full protection after deletion.--v/r - TP 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't care. Honestly, it doesn't really bother me if these categories exist or not. For what it's worth...developers don't use these self-selecting categories to find users of given operating systems (or browsers, or choice of chat client, etc). So yeah, I wouldn't undelete on that argument alone of "think of the coders!" ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^demon, while MediaWiki core developers may not use such categories, WikiProject and usercript developers do.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's code other than core?!? I jest. You make a good point, feel free to disregard me :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist While failure to notify the creator may not normally be enough to overturn, it seems to have had the effect (in this case) that the "keep" arguments that should have been presented and may have affected the outcome were not presented. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• relist there is a valid argument for keeping this that was not heard at the XfD. That's a fine reason to relist. That the creator wasn't notified helped cause that situation... I've no objection to an "undelete" given strength of argument here, but I think those that want it deleted should have the chance to make the case if they still desire. (And if they don't I'm not clear why we are still talking about this...) Hobit (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close if we want to survey who is using what OS, browser etc, we can do that without a category. In fact, I'd be surprised if WMF doesn't know exactly what OS and what browsers we're all using. Really, do we honestly believe only ten or so editors are using Windows? This is a pointless category, and something that anyone can add whether they actually use Windows or not, or if they happen to use Windows XP, iOS, MacOS etc (which I do all of) so these claims that it could be useful for identifying users' profiles is pure nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The question under review here is whether the close correctly determines consensus from the discussion. With a 5-0 turnout in favor of deletion after the full period of review, this could not have been closed any other way. I would further suggest that categories such as these are of very little use in any sort of information distributing scheme, as there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians who use any given browser, but fail to self-categorize as such. Had I been involved in the discussion, I would have voted to keep the category, but only because I see no harm in allowing editors to categorize themselves this way if they really want to. Nevertheless, I see no harm to the encyclopedia in either having it, or not having it. bd2412 T 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close You can't really close this any other way. However, due to new material being presented, I think the category should be unsalted and recreated if needed, and then a full and cogent explanation provided in the header as to how the use of this category advances wikipedia. If someone then wants to re-nominate for deletion, they can do so, and I'm sure the nominator here will have the category on watch and can defend it at that point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete only today I saw a tool writer that was planning to post the correct software to each user of it depending on which operating system they identified as running on. Scrapping the category has screwed with that idea. the category was harmless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Relist :::Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to to take account of the policy-based arguments. If there is no opportunity for the arguments to be heard, it is out of process. That potentially key arguments were not presented because of lack of notice is any error in process. For material that has a technical use, the closing admin must take account of that use--if it was not considered, for whatever reason, the discussion needs to be reopened. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. . We have another instance here of why notice ought to be required in all cases: the only effect not giving it can have is to discourage the presentation of support arguments, which is intrinsically unfair and unreasonable. . DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Philosopher and DGG. Wikipedia does not determine consensus by voting. The lack of notification caused potential opposition to the deletion from being presented. Now that the relevant editors (and more) have been notified, it only makes sense to run the process through again to determine what the actual consensus is within the community. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural undelete and relist. Proper listing procedure - specifically informing the category creator - was not followed. We have absolutely no idea what information would have been brought to the discussion if the creator could have simply presented the initial creation rationale. As such, the presence of only delete !votes is irreparably contaminated by the failure to follow procedure. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to inform the creator of a category. The rules are different than those for articles. Partly because it is much easier to create a category than an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, could you show me a link to where these different rules are so I can become more educated please? Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out where there is a procedure that was not followed? The objections appear to be based on the existence of some unidentified policy that was not followed. If there is no policy, then opinions based on a non existing policy are problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not mandatory to notify the creator, it is considered a courtesy that has become a part of the deletion process. Usually, when a deletion nomination would be potentially controversial (a nomination such as this one), the nominator should notify the creator of the category. This allows for all opinions to be heard. Since some opinions did not get a chance to be heard, it only makes sense to run the category through the process again. The underlying principle here would be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying, is that just because someone may object after the fact to an unanimous discussion, it should have been considered controversial due to a possible objection after the close? And given history for closes of this type of nomination, there was no reason to expect controversy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected to deleting the category while the discussion was going on, but never had the chance to express that opinion because he wasn't notified that the discussion was going on. I'm just saying that it would only be fair if we ran the category through the process one more time to redetermine the consensus with everyone's opinion. If it ends up with the same result, so be it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When this is over, we should probably add a bullet point to WP:CFD#HOWTO step #2 with something along the lines of "Consider adding {{Cfd-notify}} to the talk pages of the creator of the category and other potentially interested editors to notify them of the nomination." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Matthew Wise (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

majority consensus was sufficient work was done to keep, and some felt if not ought to be userfied or sandboxed - I have chosen to seek that myself and other editors want the consensus kept to. It was reviewed for Disability biography content status and passed. Have notified user Bbb23 in Talk of this. AspieNo1 (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - moved here after user posted mistakenly on talkpage. (See here as well as User_talk:Bbb23 and other places for more background). Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete. Additional note that another discussion about this was opened here at WP:AN. Zad68 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete - the deleting admin has acted according to the clear consensus. The deleting admin also left the door open for userfication, but rather than ASK the admin for such, the OP has merely badgered them about notability, funerals, and things wholly unrelated to the issues noted in the AFD. The OP has been provided ample advice on how to proceed on their talk page, but they seem wholly unwilling to follow those - even their most recent post on Bbb23's talkpage shows they are not listening. Suggest closing this DRV and advising OP to actually do what they were asked to do in the first place ES&L 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete despite wishing this were not so. I have a feeling many arguments were swayed by the eccentric nature of the original article and some of the edits. We are, however, here to discuss only the closure, which I see as correct. The discussion was closed correctly based upon the strength of the arguments put forward. The OP is an editor who is differently able and takes time to process advice. I have strong hopes that userfication will result and that they will be guided to create an acceptable article or will understand why it is not acceptable. The challenge we face is to explain this, and this procedure here, to the OP in such a manner that s/he will accept the outcome. I commend WP:AUTISM to people as a by-product of this review. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete - Consensus based on arguments, not vote counts, is clear, and clearly a delete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The majority ought to have ruled at the time. The consensus was eventually swayed to keep as a result of considerable work by many editors - with many stating if not keep to get admin to userfy or sandbox to allow any further editing to keep. Much has been said about inappropriate use of language which distracted. I endorse reinstatement of some kind, even temporary, to allow the majority position at the time to be kept to, and to see either userfy or sandbox to allow editors to improve content. A complete delete without allowing work to continue, while it was endorsed as meeting the standard of disability biography was mismanaged, with lack of willingness to deal with Autism and Disability this article was designed to redress. AspieNo1 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The thing which will be new to you is that discussions at Articles for Deletion are not a ballot or a vote. The majority does not win the day. The closing administrator is required to look at the article and the arguments, and to determine if the article meets the standard for being kept. The arguments are each considered against the relevant policies and the article itself. For brevity, sometimes we use the written shorthand "!vote" which is Wikipediaspeak for "Not a vote, but an opinion" and recognises that it is not a ballot with a majority verdict.

The most you should hope for here is userfication of the article into your userspace. Indeed this is what you should have asked for as soon as it was deleted. No-one would have refused you. It is very important that you take the advice of experienced edtors here. Everyine is trying to help you, but you must take the simple step of asking Bbb23 to userfy the article for you, and do that with a very short request, on their talk page. I apologise if you have already done this. I have not checked recently. Fiddle Faddle 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP? AspieNo1 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Feel free to check keywords userfy or userfication and sandbox - and see how many times these have been mentioned. AspieNo1 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Article in Question:

FYI: User:Jmh649 has copied the article in question to the User page (as such without separately giving the talk, which can be distilled down to show editors what research, links are available and being looked into) and copied into SANDBOX, as several people requested ... Gave him * BIG HUG * and Thanks ... any other suggestions will be appreciated and will work through them. Now suggest what needs to be added, as soon as get the list of research and links updated. AspieNo1 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete Policy-based consensus clearly indicated deletion, and closing admin offered userfication as an option to improve the article (if possible). Miniapolis 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per ES&L. Since the close offered userfication as an option, I have no idea why the nom decided to pointlessly bring this to DRV. In any case, it won't be ready for mainspace anytime soon unless his notability changes massively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• : Just doing all the steps suggested by other editors and admins when nothing happened - any idea how to add comes from / lived in tags back on article now in sandbox? The question I believe why this was asked by others to bring here was in respect on the volume of negative and inappropriate contents when the article had just met the minimum requirement and was thus approved as s Disability Biography. If you look at the records, was marked "Keep" a few days earlier, and then after it had been accredited and checked as meeting the criteria deleted. By people denouncing the subject and reason for the subject of autism and Asperger's, it detracted from the development of the article which was designed to help integrate Asperger's, Autism and Disability into so called mainspace - in this respect the attitudes shown were vile, lacking unedrstanding of their ability/disABILITY trade-offs or personality - which is why I was asked for a review (because the issue of due process and accountability and proper conduct was raised for review here by others) - not of deletion, by the failing of Wiki community in being inclusive and positive and its arguable distain for the subject of Aspies and Autie culture, referenced. Wikpedians seriously need some disability and equality training rather then make allegations or insinuations which are by definition completely impossible or unfamiliar to Aspie mentality culture or language. This was at best an example of one of the worst of wikipedia and thus suggested by them a review was neccessary - Deletion or non-deletion is irrelevant it is the behaviour, lack of willingness to accept difference, and the dispicable attitudes shown that is the reason and why this is posted as a subject to review here. The article is geared solely towards Damon as the founder of the movement in Ireland and highlighting what many critiqued as a "sub-culture" trying to mainstream it but being blocked at every turn - avoiding much of his other activities of notability in detail (sure they are out there, but not deemed relevant - the article was reduced to a third to be almost exclusively on the issue of aspie/autie and disability culture and language and his championing of integration of the creative mind and abilities). AspieNo1 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NOBLECAUSE and WP:SOAPBOX? Your arguments about this individual are dangerously close to those ... you're effectively saying that your entire goal is to get the "aspie word onto Wikipedia" - no! This is an encyclopedia, and is not nor shall it ever be the place to express any such "word". The failure to have an article about this person does not "show disdain" for anyone, or any disability. This is an international project, and it's just possible that the individual in question does not meet the very strict notability guidelines for an encyclopedia article. We have plenty of articles about aspies and auties (Bill Gates and Albert Einstein come immediately to mind) ES&L 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Deep (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted twice before (the most recent time in 2011), and whenever I wish to create an article that had been deleted in the past, I always make a test article in my userspace and then I ask the deleting admin what s/he thinks about my wanting to move it into mainspace. I spoke with the deleting admin, who seems to be on the fence about it (he didn't say yes or no), but he did suggest that I bring the matter to DRV (even though it had been through DRV before). Granted, I didn't see either of the first two versions of the article before deletion (in fact, I'd never even heard of the subject until three days ago), but from what I read from the AfDs, it appears that she hadn't been nominated for any awards. Since the last deletion, however, she has been nominated twice by XBIZ for Web Babe of the Year.

Thoughts? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I don't see "Web Babe of the Year" as being a significant enough award to overturn deletion and justify an article, especially as it was only a nomination (among TWENTY-ONE OTHER NOMINEES) and not an actual win. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there consensus anywhere that that isn't considered a significant award category? (BTW, the number of nominees in the category is irrelevant.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there consensus anywhere that it is considered a significant award category, particularly when only a nomination? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is. The first point of WP:PORNBIO clearly states:

  Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

  Web Babe of the Year is neither a scene-related nor an ensemble category; and she has had two nominations. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion here was that the award fails the "and significant industry award" part of that "standard", you were asked if there was a consensus it does. Merely repeating the "standard" in no way answers that question, and specifying it meets some other part of the "standard" is essentially a strawman --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion more or less per Starblind. The discussion leading up to last year's PORNBIO revisions showed a clear consensus rejecting the OP's position here; the large number and wide variety of porn award categories (often changing from year to year) made it impossible to settle on a definitive list of included or excluded categories (although, for example, awards for "unsung" performers were mentioned several times as excluded categories. There's also a pretty solid record of AFD/DRV outcomes where community discussions conclude, consistent with overall deletion policy, that technical compliance with the PORNBIO award criterion can be outweighed by failure to meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things:
    • IP: "Repeating the standard"? It's not even the same situation. Before she had no nominations; now she does.
    • HW: That's not exactly what the conclusion is. If an article is brought to AfD, for example, and the result of the discussion is "no consensus", that defaults to "keep", not "delete".
  • Also, both of you said there is a consensus that Web Babe of the Year isn't a significant award? Point me to that discussion, please. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • IP: "Repeating the standard"? It's not even the same situation. Before she had no nominations; now she does. another strawman, completely unrelated to the context of the comment, the strand of the discussion, and picks out one part of the response failing completely to respond to the other. I've no doubt you'll evade the question again, but please point to the consensus that web babe of the year is a significant award. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Okay, I don't know what your problem is (or what "strawman" means), not to mention that I didn't evade the question because you didn't even ask a question. Basically, if you're arguing "delete" because you claim you saw a consensus that Web Babe of the Year isn't a major category, then you need to find that consensus, not me. You can't just say there's a consensus and then not be able to back the claim up. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've seen articles in main space with just a couple of lines and no external references which are out there - providing a person has success in their field and known and ongoing coverage, they have some notability in their field anmd geographical area or of limited historical signifance but no reference or citations. She has notability over a period of time, I suggest keep for now and watch to see if it remains elligable as the criteria and interpretations vary. AspieNo1 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion I don't see how "Web Babe of the Year" improves notability whatsoever - even if it was won. It's not a major - or even minor - award, so it does not add to anything from the previous AFD that could in any way enhance notability. ES&L 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's unclear to me. Can you justify the statement that it's not a major (or minor) award? I'm seeing some coverage of the award in non-porn news. But I don't follow porn news/awards so I've really no way to judge. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted I'm not seeing either WP:N or WP:PORN really met. There are arguments for both (awards, coverage in industry news) that are reasonable, but both are really weak IMO. I hate to turn people away with "close" articles, but I just don't think this is over the bar at this time. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'd say this is not a speedy case, so if it had been speedied I'd object. But you are coming here asking a question if she meets our inclusion guidelines and IMO she does not. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record I voted in the original AFD so I wouldn't be closing this discussion - even if I did have solid enough internet access to be likely to be around when this is due. The argument still hasn't changed. SNGs are supposed to show where notability can be inferred from the liklihood of reliable sourcing being available. That sourcing has been conclusively been shown not to be available for this individual. Therefore the AFD discussion and the subsequent DRV took the view that in the case of a BLP and given a choice between the SNG and the GNG that it was perfectly reasonable to depreciate the SNG where the GNG was clearly shown not to have been met. Interestingly, this does appear to be the DRV where DRV first decided not to give weight to the unreformed PORNBIO. A decision that has yet to have been shown to be erroneous. On that basis, the only possible closure of this DRV absent evidence of significant sourcing is to endorse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Spartaz, your above statement is an example of talking-but-not-saying-anything, because you said a whole bunch of words but what you said doesn't really make any sense. Why should this stay deleted, again? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully the closing admin will be able to make a better fist of following the nuances of my argument but essentially this subject fails GNG and given a choice between GNG and PORNBIO DRV has taken a considered view that they prefer GNG over PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you think she fails GNG? (OAN: it wouldn't make sense for Wikipedia to have a guideline that doesn't pass GNG, would it?) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are no in depth secondary sources so she cannot pass GNG - interviews are primary sources and don't count to notability and all the other stuff is just the usual adult industry unreliable noise. You put your finger directly on why DRV doesn't give weight to PORNBIO as its contradictory to GNG/N and an SNG is suppose to indicate areas where sources can be deemed to exist. The problem is that many of our SNGs were developed before we were so strict about sourcing BLPs and we do often have contradictory guildelines to work our way through. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviews are primary sources and don't count to notability." They aren't primary because they aren't from her official website (in fact, the only info from her official website is her height); and anyway, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources can't always be excluded.

"All the other stuff is just the usual adult industry unreliable noise." This sounds like an opinion; how is the information unreliable by Wikipedia standards?

"You put your finger directly on why DRV doesn't give weight to PORNBIO." Nowhere on WP:DRV does it say anything close to PORNBIO being ignored. Where did you even come up with that? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert, I am currently sitting in the half-empty shell of my house with an unreliable internet dongle between unpacking and getting my kids ready for their new school after a 5000 mile move. I'm not able to keep responding to your arguments and I'm sorry of it offends you but I'm really struggling to take your challenging every opinion I express seriously. We have discussed the weakness of PORNBIO about 34 million times at DRV and many contributors here have commented that we don't tend to give it weight. You have participated in many of these discussions personally so it beggers belief that you think this is new. Secondly, if you can't distinguish a personal interview as a primary source then you have no business editing BLPs or arguing about any subject's notability. Yeah, of course my comments about the adult moving industry new sources are opinion but I think you will find that its one that most people who edit at DRV share. I can't think of any article whose passing of GNG is based on XNEWS or AVN sources alone but I you know some I'd be happy to test them at AFD to see how they get on. I'm afraid I can't respond to any further commentry for reasons of diminishing value of this sub-thread but I would commend you to read WP:PRIMARY. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I'd have read WP:BLPPRIMARY without first reading WP:PRIMARY? More importantly, you're the one getting all worked up about this; I'm just asking simple questions. And it doesn't really matter how many times the issue of PORNBIO (or any other guideline) has been discussed at DRV if an official consensus has not been met. Basically, in the absence of WP:DRV explicitly stating something along the lines of "pornography-related articles may not be brought to Deletion Review", your notion of DRV not caring about PORNBIO is merely a synthesis. (And for the record, when an actor passes the first point of PORNBIO by winning an AVN Award or being nominated for two non-scene-related AVN awards (for example), guess where the source comes from? AVN alone.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has plenty of notability guidelines that don't pass GNG. See, for example, WP:NFOOTBALL criteria 2, where a player that has played one second of a professional league game passes it (here's a player who's managed four minutes of a professional game), or WP:NBASKETBALL criteria 2, where a player who has never played on a major league could pass. Or for that matter WP:NMUSIC criteria 9, where you could be presumed notable merely for appearing on TV once. Ludicrous, isn't it? Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I find it ludicrous that an article can been excluded by an SNG when the subject meets the GNG. That's why I personally tend to favour GNG in determining notability. Given a choice between conflicting guidelines an xFD or even DRV can choose which one to apply. Welcome to the wild and wacky inconsistency that is Wikipedia deletion. You probably don't have to be capable of believing 34 mutually exclusive things at the same time to work here but it undoubtedly doesn't hurt of you are going to be active at xFD. We have a lot of entrenched opinion from before so much weight was given to N and this endures in our guidelines for reasons of inertia that we are all probably well aware of. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse the deletion, but waited until now to say so because I'm a bit tired of arguing over PORNBIO.—S Marshall T/C 10:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you endorse deletion though? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because in my judgement the sources are inadequate for a biography of a living person.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A disagreement does not necessarily equate to WP:STICK, you know (especially since comments have been made regularly throughout the week). But back to the subject... Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mokenge P. Malafa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Incorrectly closed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This was an inappropriate non-admin closure and I do notice serious issues in the article, so I revered accordingly. But considering your rationale for nominating the article at AFD is weak and vague, can you clarify this further in the AFD page? Thanks Secret ^account 03:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Mahmoudieh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reference material online suggests this is a significant player in their field Jimdussier (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion vague, no new evidence with which to overturn AFD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The editor requesting the review also posted on my talk page listing some sources, none of which pass muster as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Whpq. However, if the subject becomes more clearly notable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Luiz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not appropriate for CSD A7. References provided indicated sufficient claim to notability that the issue should have been discussed at AFD. Discussed on the talk page of the deleting administrator without conclusive resolution. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A one line article about a living person who sued an insurance company and received a small amount of publicity at the time; that's all that remained after large chunks of unsourced attack material had been deleted. As noted on my talkpage DavidLeighEllis is welcome to recreate a fuller article with an actual claim of significance and notability that doesn't violate WP:BLP1E, and I'll even email him the one line of the article (and refs) if he really wants. --Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference two in the deleted article is an academic RS that indicates continued publicity well after the lawsuit. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read that article? She gets two sentences in the whole article, just about as brief, tangential mention as you can imagine. --Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The article says she's a high-profile public figure, covered in many other RS. When reliable sources provide clear indications of notability, speedy deletion is not appropriate. These are the sort of issues should be hashed out in AFD. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is whether there was a claim of notability in the article; there wasn't anything close to "she's a high profile public figure, covered in many other RS", and there are BLP1E issues to boot. As I said before, because of the BLP1E and previous attack issues, the best way forward, if you really want to have this article is for there to be a fresh start, without all the inappropriate back story. All you need to do is to supply some new broader content, with an actual claim of notability that goes beyond BLP1E and "a woman sued an insurance company for slighly kinky reason". I've already offered to email you the content. I can also copy what there was into your userspage if that's what you want, and you can work on it there. --Slp1 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the stub at User:DavidLeighEllis/Sarah LuizRoughDraftNotAnArticle would provide a way forward. Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSlp1 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I attempted to contact Secret, the deleting admin, but have not received any response. This page was deleted because the subject was deemed "not notable enough". Since the last deletion review, The Adam Carolla Show, of which Alison Rosen is the newsgirl/co-host, has become the world's most downloaded podcast according to Guinness.^[1] She has also started hosting her own podcast, Alison Rosen Is Your New Best Friend. It is regularly featured in Itunes' Top Podcasts and has had several articles written about it. ^{[2] [3]} With the rising popularity of podcasts, people will want quick, basic info on the industry's top podcasters. This is my first attempt at doing anything on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I cited anything wrong. Thank you

References

Listn2BlkSabth (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the debate almost four years ago, this could have been recreated easily without going though this process if she now meets WP:GNG. The reason why I never replied back is because I gotten busy with work and school, and not very active for a long time. No Comment on this being restored or not. Secret ^account 01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Chawla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Ron Gates (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team, I have created a article about a kid named Ayaan Chawla who owned well known companies in Asia, but the article has been deleted. So i would like to request you to restore the article, as you are administrator. But if you want to contact please. And i am reading articles on Wikipedia since 2004 and i found many articles which are related like this kid and i also work as i am professional but i haven't seen any 16yrs kid who is doing this type of things since he was 10yrs. Will be waiting for your reply sir.

Article was deleted by Mark Arsten http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Ayaan_Chawla_article_deletion.

Regards

Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Article was deleted properly through AfD. No additional information has been provided to give any indication that there is any reason to restore the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I blocked the article creator indefinitely as it was clear that he is using the project for promotion purposes. He was already blocked before by Alexf for continuing to recreate an article called Asian Fox Developments and vandalism and came back to create an article about Chawla, the founder of Asian Fox Developments, so he was clearly warned. This could be safely closed. Secret ^account 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/Speedy close properly deleted at AFD, which had some of the most frankly pathetic sockpuppetry I've seen in years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Levesque (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD regarding an ice hockey player was closed as no consensus. The closing administrator states in the rationale that "Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable." and that "Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago.". While it is true that it's harder to find Internet/online sources for players who retired long ago, this player played AHL and ECHL hockey as recently as 2004. If difficulty in finding sources is a valid keep reason, what about Wayne Gretzky, who retired in 1999? The closing administrator also states that "Both arguments are valid, and[...] there is no strong prevalence". Wayne Gretzky is obviously notable, but my point is that the fact that the player retired long ago should not, in itself, be a valid argument for keeping the article. Although WP:NHOCKEY presumes notability, it won't—nor should—guarantee notability. Basically, if a hockey player meets any of the WP:NHOCKEY criteria, there's a great chance that there are enough sources that confirm the player's notability. But WP:NHOCKEY in itself should not guarantee notability. If a player meets WP:NHOCKEY but its notability is disputed, it should be up to those who believe the player is notable to find sources that confirm the player's notability, whether it be online or offline sources. The 7:4 consensus in the AFD indicates, at least to me, that WP:GNG trumps WP:NHOCKEY in terms of notability. Levesque has not played in the NHL either. I do not agree with this closure, and I think it should be changed to delete. Heymid (contribs) 09:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied on my talk page, the case to me is clearly borderline, so I would not object if my closure gets overturned.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse it is reasonable to say that discussion had no consensus. As a NC close, feel free to bring it back shortly (month or two?). Secondly, there are going to be sources that cover him in reasonable depth (enough to make a case for meeting WP:N at least). It sounds like he played for Northeastern--there is going to be coverage in the school paper and maybe a local paper. There will also be some local coverage (likely small press) where he played. Did anyone contact him? I'm guessing he'd have copies of any significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is about finding the sources, not presuming that the sources exist. You can't prove that sources don't exist. I noticed that a number of sources were added in the article today, but most of them are only statistical pages for individual games and transactions. His NHL profile does not add to his notability either (I suppose that every player drafted in the NHL draft have NHL profiles), it's just basic information about him, but nothing in the stats, game log, notes etc; only one link in the "News" tab too. This also makes it hard to expand the article with more information regarding his playing career. Also, he was only drafted in the 4th round, as 111th overall. And he is retired, so he won't be playing any more games. I don't think this player is notable enough for Wikipedia. Heymid (contribs) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the fact that there ARE third-party sources to his career makes him notable under WP:N... and those sources plus his stats also make him notable to NHOCKEY... the sources added do include a few actual newspaper articles... and they do mention him as an ECHL and AHL player... irregardless of his draft level in the NHL, he was an established, fully professional hockey player and the sources agree with this. DMighton (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse (maybe...) this is hard because had I seen it earlier, I likely would have opined for keeping this article on the basis of what I've managed to find since, which includes coverage from a 2013 pro-am tournament, coverage from his World Hockey Junior Championships appearance, passing mentions of his performances in various matches like this and passing mentions in USA Hockey Magazine. By itself, a large collection of passing mentions wouldn't likely be enough, but alongside the fact that he passes WP:NHOCKEY, it's probably enough for me. But I don't think my want to contribute is reason enough to relist the debate and I can see where the nominator here is coming from in terms of process. Perhaps add some of those newer sources that do provide him with some coverage and then re-test consensus with a new AFD in a little while (which is perfectly acceptable for a no-consensus close)? Stalwart111 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm not saying this was a super-notable hockey player... never even heard of him before today... but I was able to add references to the article proving his existence as a professional hockey player with relative ease. I'm not sure if other editors didn't want to put in the effort because he isn't a well known name... but I don't feel that deletion is required. Just my opinion. I can probably do a lot more with the article, I just put in a few minutes this morning waiting on my kids to see if this was really all there was. DMighton (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, but completely understand the closer's rationale. We have over time pretty much elevated SNGs to godlike status, but they are by definition arbitrary. NHOCKEY only presumes notabilty on the basis of those arbitrary criteria, and this player only barely met the easiest one on the list. I !vote overturn, however, because the closer missed one critical aspect of the deletion debate: The player fails WP:Notability (sports)' basic criteria. NHOCKEY is part of that sports notability guideline, and if it fails the basic part, then the part specialized for hockey is irrelevant. Even the articles Stalwart111 adds above are just passing mentions. There is no evidence in the article at present, none added in that AFD, none in this DRV and none that I can find myself that indicates this player meets WP:GNG. Resolute 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I did not miss this, but mentioned this explicitly in my closing rationale (WP:N is in the relevant part equivalent to the basic criterion of WP:Notability (sports)).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh, fair enough. In that case, my view is that insufficient weight was given to that argument. Notability as defined by WP:N/WP:GNG was never established. The Keep side of the argument relied on NHOCKEY as a crutch to support the article but utterly failed to demonstrate notability. The guy's career was entirely within the internet age. Sources are hard to find because they don't exist. Resolute 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn While I understand where Ymblaster was coming from, NHOCKEY doesn't trump GNG, not to mention the keep side rationales were weak and ignored the GNG completely by not providing sources, so it was a faulty close policy wise and consensus was clear. Note: I did recommend deletion in the debate, but that was mainly because I was arguing with another user to death about notability on another debate, which led me to this one. I rarely comment on AFDs outside the area of American football and lists, (both of which I do not close because of my strong viewpoints in those areas) so I'm reading this according to how I would have closed it if I didn't participated. Secret ^account 01:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse per Stalwart. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 06:40, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - per Hobit and DMighten as a reasonable no consensus closing. Presumption of notability per NHOCKEY has been established, with comments for and against his notability argued in AfD. Sources are presumably available (microfiche, ect.) for a prfessional player at his level, and no one has proven sources do not exist to overturn the presumption of notability. Outreels (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse GNG is one way to meet N, SNGs are another--if either is met, an article is appropriately kept, and thus a no-consensus close would be a policy based outcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that this SNG specifically indicates that meeting it can still lead to deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per Jclemens and others. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, while SNG's can create a presumption of notability, that is a rebuttable presumption. In this case, it clearly was rebutted, and in this case, the subject is not notable. The consensus at the discussion for that position was clear and policy-based, and the discussion should've been closed accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn SNGs only give the presumption of notability, and this one in particular even makes it clear that meeting it does not guarantee an article must be kept. Without the keeps presenting a number of sources proving that the player meets GNG then policy dictates he can and should be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion articulated at WP:NHOCKEY (as established by a consensus of editors), a fact verified by numerous reliable sources. The presumption of notability was not clearly rebutted and, in fact, the article is sourced with several independent and reliable sources including USA Today and the New York Times. Dolovis (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Rufer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With three delete !votes (including the nomination) and three "Merge and redirect" !votes, consensus was not to redirect as was performed here. A closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it may be in order. Another option would be "no consensus."

Redirecting articles listed at AfD in this manner without consensus, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which may have needed to be preserved.

Lastly, a merge closure would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Football League All Stars Football (Philippines) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as redirect, but consensus in the AfD discussion was for this article to be merged. Out of the 5 !votes that stated merge, two !votes stated "Merge and redirect", which includes a merge. A proper closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it would be in order.

Redirecting articles with clear consensus to be merged, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which should have been preserved per consensus in the discussion.

Lastly, a proper closure per consensus would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London 1850 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as redirect, but this was not the consensus in the AfD discussion. A proper closure of "no consensus" or "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it would be in order.

Redirecting articles listed at AfD in this manner without consensus, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of a potential for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that may omit information which may have needed to be preserved.

Lastly, a merge closure would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As in the case of "University of Business & Finance Switzerland" below, this is a pointless request, since you can go ahead and merge content if you want to.  Sandstein  13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption has been that at least one of the people who wanted the merge would proceed to do so. Presumably they have interest in the subject at hand or they would not have joined the discussion in the first place, and are more likely to do so than the "community at large" (Expecting the closer to do the merge is unrealistic, because by definition the closer is supposed not to have any strong person al concern about the topic of the article, or they would have joined the discussion.) The practical alternative is for the closer to put merge tags on the article. There might be concern that the merge would never be completed, that the people who advocated the merge may have done so only as a compromise and avoid doing the actual work. Then of course one of the people preferring delete could do so, and is likely to merge as little of the article as possible--another reason for those advocating merge to do it themselves.

My own practice when I close an AfD as merge, is that I usually put merge tags on the article and often suggest in the close who should do the merge. I think this is better than closing as a redirect, though I might close as a redirect when I think the consensus is a redirect might be enough, but that a merge of some small amount of the content would be possible. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, closure reflected consensus exactly. The closing administrator is not your slave. And spamming DRV with long, identical comments for essentially identical deletion debates is much more likely to harden people against your position than to convince anyone. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Business & Finance Switzerland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as redirect, but consensus in the AfD discussion was for this article to be merged. The first !vote states "Merge/redirect" and the second states "Redirect - Should go to Geneva Business School with the information merged onto that page." The second !vote clearly suggests that merging should occur. A proper closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the page and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to it would be in order.

Redirecting articles with clear consensus to be merged, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which should have been preserved per consensus in the discussion.

Lastly, a proper closure per consensus would then list the article at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This review request is pointless. The closer wrote: "Since the edit history still exists, anyone is free merge however much they'd like to at any point, so long as they indicate as much in their edit summary". You can just go ahead with the merger if you want to.  Sandstein  13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative to perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above The assumption has been that at least one of the people who wanted the merge would proceed to do so. Presumably they have interest in the subject at hand

My own practice when I close an AfD as merge, is that I usually put merge tags on the article and often suggest in the close who should do the merge. I think this is better than closing as a redirect, though I might close as a redirect when I think the consensus is a redirect might be enough, but that a merge of some small amount of the content would be possible. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as redirect, but consensus in the AfD discussion was clearly for these articles to be merged to the various articles listed in the discussion. Out of the six !votes there, all six recommended merging, and only two recommended redirecting, both written in the form of "Merge/redirect", which also includes merging. A proper closure of "merge", undoing the redirect/restoring content on the pages and adding {{Afd-merge to}} to the pages would be in order.

Redirecting articles with clear consensus to be merged, and then suggesting in the AfD discussion closure that people can merge content, is problematic, because the end result remains as a loss of information in the encyclopedia that goes against the grain WP:PRESERVE, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. This is very important to maintain the overall integrity of content within the encyclopedia. Another problem with this close is that only editors who contributed to the AfD discussion will likely be aware of the need for merging. Other readers and editors will simply be redirected to pages that omit information which should have been preserved per consensus in the discussion.

Lastly, a proper closure per consensus would then list the articles at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, per use of the Afd-merge to template, which facilitates an actual merge to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This matter was discussed with the AfD's closer prior to creation of this deletion review, see old revision page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As in the case of "University of Business & Finance Switzerland" above, this is a pointless request, since you can go ahead and merge content if you want to.  Sandstein  13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because under this line of logic, then people !voting to merge is also pointless, because under this procedure the merge is almost certain to never actually occur. The page is redirected and there are no tags prompting a merge, resulting in data loss. This also puts the responsibility of merging upon a minority of people, namely those who participated or viewed an AfD discussion, rather than prompting the community to do so using tags. People using AfD stats on Toolserver.org will see a denotation of "redirect" rather than "merge", and then not take initiative to perform a merge due to this inaccuracy. How is requesting accurate closures that are based upon consensus and the will of participants in discussions pointless? Skipping the actual merge part and just redirecting certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia's integrity as an accurate source of information. Also, is WP:PRESERVE pointless? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see the point of this. Any interested editor is able to merge the article content, there is no technical barrier to doing so, and it doesn't require DRV. The difference between a "merge" and a "redirect" closure is largely academic, as a merge closure involves a redirect and there's nothing stopping material in a redirected article from being merged somewhere else at editorial discretion, regardless of the AfD result. A "no consensus" closure would have been strange, given that it would have resulted in no change to the article, which nobody wanted. Hut 8.5 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that this is the place to go to to contest AfD closures. Future readers and editors are unlikely to be knowledgeable of the potential for a merge, due to a lack of tags on the articles informing them. Net result = data loss and lessened data integrity. Ultimately, merge ≠ redirect only. Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy, but I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes. If I don't perform the merges, and nothing occurs as a result of these discussions, I predict that one year from now the merges will unfortunately have not occurred. Also, !votes in this discussion were unanimous for a merge to occur (sans the nomination). Closing as a redirect comes across as rather supervote-like. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kutschke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL after his Bundesliga debut [1] 79.216.34.185 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, he does. And scored a last-minute goal as well, I see. Game, set and match. Speedy restore.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The AfD was valid when decided in February 2012 and the article history doesn't seem useful. Endorse, but permit recreation. Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Assuming that the IP or someone else will make the necessary updates, this should certainly be restored as circumstances have changed and the reason for deletion no longer applies. This is probably a good candidate for a speedy closure unless someone objects in the next few hours. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This AFD was valid when it was decided. It seems the proper action would be to just create the article, not overturn the deletion. A non notable individual becoming notable 1.5 years after an AFD decision does not mean you go back and overturn a decision that was correct at the time. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but permit recreation - per Mackensen above. Deletion was the right outcome at the time but the subject is now notable. Stalwart111 12:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New draft of article is here. I have discussed the issue with the closing admin here. My goal is to either recreate the page or, at least, relist if for discussion. My primary reason is that the page is improved, especially with more references to reliable sources. The article was improved mainly during the previous deletion review, thanks to some useful feedback. But, because of this changing target, at least some of the participants in that review voted on a preliminary (and flawed) version. I have made some minor improvements in the last few days as well, but these were small changes. Yfever (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Participating editors need to know that this topic area has a long history on Wikipedia and the entire subject of Race and Intelligence is subject to discretionary sanctions; you may wish to review the relevant Arbcom case before taking part in this debate.

  DRV is normally unwilling to enforce decisions that are a year old, and I think your request to revisit the discussion a year later is a reasonable one. However, I am not at all convinced that it's appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about a single scientific paper, particularly when it's one about heredity that's written by non-geneticists. My basic starting point is that any coverage of this paper belongs in Race and intelligence, so my view is that the discussion should be restarted and I will !vote "delete".

  In view of the history of this topic area, I would propose that instead of restoring the article to mainspace and then AfDing it, what we should do is MfD the userspace page (explicitly envisaging a move to mainspace as one possible outcome of the MfD).—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyi. I'd not read that Arbcom case before. In any case I've got to say that the closing statement was somewhat unsatisfactory, but that the close was reasonable and so I'd endorse it. I don't see this draft addressing issues raised at the AfD in a major way, but I think it is improved and so should be allowed to escape a speedy deletion. So move draft to mainspace and relist seems reasonable, though S Marshall's novel proposal with MfD is acceptable to me as a second choice. I would like to see more depth here--the rebuttals and re-rebuttals could be a lot stronger. And I do suspect that the right way to cover this is in the Race and intelligence article. But that's an editorial issue and not really a topic for AfD/DRV.

On a broader note, I honestly think that covering major papers like this would be a great idea. But I'd like to see that the paper had a major impact outside of the field and inside of the field--at least for the first few. In the draft I'm not seeing anything in the way of popular press coverage (Science Friday, CNN, Popular Science, etc.). I think that type of coverage would help a lot. (And I'd swear I read some back-in-the-day.) But that the paper is actually discussed, rebutted and re-rebutted means we have coverage about the topic (rather than just cites to it which is much less useful for a Wikipedia article). Hobit (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is complicated. I'm leaning no, but it may take a lot of time to justify that in term of Wikipedia logic. Generally, it is too specific. The references too primary. I don't feel this is really secondary source material so much as various authors' opinions, which are primary source material on the question of the article. The article is discussing a subject, but this page is not about the subject, but about an article. I think that a journal article, as a topic for coverage, is not for an encyclopedia, but for the literature itself. the encyclopedia should be trying to cover the subject covered by the article. For there to be an encyclopedia article on a journal article, I would expect non-specialised, popular press prublications to notice, and for the article to not be filled with journal publication citations. Annus Mirabilis papers comes to mind, and this article doesn't compare. I don't think the userpage draft should be sent to MfD unless there is a project space (ArbCom, DRV, ANI, content noticeboard) declaring the subject unsuitable. MfD is not a proper place to discuss the suitability of mainspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Journal articles can be topics for WP articles, just as books are. We have normally been very reluctant to do so, because perhaps a million primary journals articles would meet the GNG, being discussed significantly in reliable sources--the nature of scientific publication is to discuss prior work in the field in a new publication. Even were we to ask for significant discussion in secondary publications like books and review articles, there probably would be at least 100,000 that would qualify. The reason for excluding them in almost all cases is that this is detail beyond the scoped of a general encyclopedia; it is sufficient that we refer to important papers in the articles about the subjects, and the articles about the authors.

What would usually qualify for an article would be something that is regarded as "famous", in the sense of being a major landmark in the field that even undergraduates in the subject would be expected to know about, or one which served such a role in some earlier period: the classic example is Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, but see also our category of them at Category:Academic journal articles and its subcats. I think almost all of those deserve to be there, though a few on one particular topic are a little over-specific. So the question of the inclusion of this article would be whether it is of similar importance, and that would need to be discussed at an AfD (the argument would be that this is the Jensen's recent restatement of the subject from his perspective) In terms of citations, some of the other social science papers there have roughly similar figures. (some are much lower, and I think their inclusion might be more questionable than this). DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen has written one article that is sufficiently famous to qualify for a stand alone article here and which is considered a significant publication in the R/I debate by all commentators. This is not it. The article here is simply a recent review article in a minor journal - it is not at all groundbreaking, and even though, being a review article, it is frequently cited, some recent reviews are actually deliberately leaving it out because it is scientifically problematic (see http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/67/6/503/). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger Eaton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

no reason was provided. Originally a flag for speedy deletion was given to the Page. I contested the deletion and everything has been deleted with no reason provided. Guideline A7 was given as the original reason but I do not feel that applies. Labeach2002 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• restore I can't see the article, but [2] would seem to give him an assertion of notability. Given he is a minor (and a young one at that) I can see the hesitation, but assuming the article didn't have BLP problems, I don't see how "the youngest athlete ever to compete at X Games" isn't an assertion of notability. He also seems to have a sponsorship from DC shoes. No clue if he makes it over WP:N, but things like [3] make me think that it won't be a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, to be clear the A7 might have been valid, depending on what the article was like, thus I'm arguing for a restore not an overturn. And if there were massive problems with the article (WP:BLP or WP:TNT) the right answer might be to allow recreation. A temp. undelete would be helpful if there is debate about those 3 options. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article, I think it passed the A7 bar, but it could be debatable. The topic is easily over that bar however and IMO over the WP:N bar by a fair bit too. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible for the article to be available for viewing by administration? The article, which was not complete, did have links to an espn article detailing notabilty as well as links to the DC shoes webpage outlining his membership in the team i also noted in my original deleted response that a similar page for Tom Schaar is currently an article Labeach2002 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion an analysis of the sources: (1) Wikipedia article, not a reliable source. (2) ESPN, probably reliable, article shared with another kid, no in-depth coverage (3) Shoe company blog, not a reliable source (4) Mentioned in results list, no in-depth coverage. While the A7 deletion might arguably be said to have been incorrect, since the subject is a very young child and the article would not survive an AFD, leaving it deleted is likely the best choice. For what it's worth, one of the references gives personal contact info (such as a Facebook URL) and we really should tread carefully in including or linking to such information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize this was an A7 deletion, not an AfD discussion, right? Your comments about sourcing really only make sense in the latter context. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and sent to AfD. Not a valid speedy under ANY criterion. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation / send to AFD - I'll volunteer the services of the Skateboarding Wikiproject (which may well just be me this weekend!). There are plenty of sources including Fox News, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Transworld and the Tampa Bay Times. There's a good article to be written here and I promise we'll be especially careful given the age of this BLP. Stalwart111 06:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've started a draft at User:Stalwart111/Jagger Eaton. I posted it in one hit to avoid having to history merge it with the existing article. If people are relatively happy with it then we can cut-paste it over. Happy for it to run the AFD gauntlet thereafter if people would be more comfortable with that. Stalwart111 09:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I see two aspects to this.

  First, to review the deletion: I think this was in a grey area. I accept that arguably, the A7 was within the criteria. However, I wouldn't personally have chosen to delete that material at that point. The article was very young, freshly-created with the edit summary "more to come". It's not yet policy that articles must be fully-developed in userspace before they can be moved to mainspace, although if Wikipedia continues down its present deletionist path, I'm sure that'll come. Until that day does come we have to recognise that some of the content in article space will be under construction, and where there's a reasonable indication that the material is under construction, I would hope that most sysops would show more restraint. Still: although I disagree with the judgment call, I reluctantly endorse the deletion as being within the operating parameters we give our sysops.

  Second, to recommend an outcome: I prefer Stalwart111's draft and agree that this should be moved to mainspace subject to AfD at editorial discretion.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if this is not my place to speak and will remove if not appropriate for this area. However I feel it necessary to comment on this as a new user. As a new user I decided to start with what I thought was a simple topic, to get my feet wet so to speak. I have now learned that I have picked a very difficult subject matter to start with. That being said, to have a new user come to the site, pick a topic, start to learn about the polices and procedures (lots of time and reading) and move forward to create (incomplete) and then have the page flagged and deleted without any discussion would for many people turn them off the site all together. The next step to have the deletion reviewed is another difficult task that most new users I suspect would not even attempt.

I assume the idea is to turn away articles that do not meet criteria not turn away potential users. I respectfully request that this process of deletion without discussion be used with more caution.

After reading A7 numerous times, I continue to struggle with how this meets the criteria. From reading the above comments by users much more experienced than I, both endorsements of the A7 deletion do so with hesitation or state may have been incorrect. In this situation I would assume that there is some grey area and area for discussion which should not result in immediate deletion.

Labeach2002 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you don't mind, I did a very small amount of formatting on your comments to make things flow more clearly.

First of all, you are correct on all counts. Pretty clear this should go for discussion at WP:AfD or just be kept outright. You are unfortunately encountering this situation for a number of reasons. First of all, Wikipedia (as a whole) has a very strong desire not to harm real people. So we are very careful about having biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) and we worry a lot about people vandalizing them. We've had everything from "he's gay" comments to things like home addresses and death threats posted. The logic is that if we keep the number of these articles down it is easier to find such vandalism (same number of eyes, less things to watch). And of course minors, and especially very young minors, are an even greater concern. Now I personally think we overstate the issue, but that's the general consensus. And so the bar for creating the biography of a very young minor can be quite high. Please do understand the intent is to protect the minor. This of course has a lot of side effects, one of which is pissing off new editors such as yourself. I do want to say that your work here to date is pretty impressive. The article you wrote certainly had problems but it was a very good start. The fact that you've managed to correctly get a deletion review started is actually more impressive--I found it pretty annoying the first time and I have a PhD in computer science and had been here for months before I did that. So net effect--you are someone we would love to keep here as you have a lot of potential. And we know we have a big problem keeping new editors around and we (well most of us I think) know that deleting good-faith work by new editors is a major cause of driving off editors.

The more generic issues is about what Wikipedia should cover. We have inclusion guidelines that are pretty verbose but the main one is at WP:N. Why are we so picky about what we have articles on? The same issue with vandalism is a major reason, but there is also a sense that having "silly" articles makes Wikipedia look bad. The generic debate about this can be found at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. I'm pretty far on the inclusionist side, so be aware I'm explaining why we keep things out of Wikipedia even though I feel we keep way too much out. Please feel free to contact me if you have anything you think I could help with. Best of luck, Hobit (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One other note. If you look at my user page there is a really bad bit of verse about sandcastles. It's about exactly what you are encountering. Wikipedia started as something everyone could really edit, and is becoming something different. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy undelete and list at AfD, as a reasonable contest of a CSD#A7. The question of the speedy should not linger at DRV, the speedy was reasonable at the time, the deleting admin is at no fault. A deletion discussion has purposes besides deciding whether to delete, notably the change for new and old editors to discuss and learn. If the author wants it, let him have it. I think it has no chance of not being deleted, but that is a question for AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My preference would be for the original article to be undeleted and merged with the new better article written in draft by Stalwart111. I am more than happy to accept the wiki projects help to create an article that is not deleted. I assure you the article will be closely monitored. If it needs to go to AfD then so be it. Can this be resolved quickly? Labeach2002 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 was not appropriate because the draft article contained credible claims of significance. Warden (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Speedy deletion was not appropriate as the article at the time of tagging contained a credible claim of notability and even included an ESPN reference to support the claim. That is sufficient to negate a speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The article contained credible claims to significance, and therefore should have been sent to AfD to discuss instead. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Decision Requested - This discussion has been open for over a week, can a decision please be made. Labeach2002 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeamNG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I think that the voters on the subject were misinformed on the information that was present Cilliang (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. DRV is not AfD, Round 2. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm referring to is this "If someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly," it says that clearly on the DRV main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilliang (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was 7 deletes to 2 keeps, with the keeps both being accounts with no edits other than the article and a poor grasp of deletion policy. Such 'votes' are usually ignored when closing a debate, but evem if they were given full weight it's still a strong consensus to delete. I think you'd have a better chance of being crowned Emperor of the Moon than you do of getting the debate overturned by reason of "closer misinterpreted consensus". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relist the voters on the subject were misinformed on the information that was present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilliang (talk • contribs)

Reggie Sears (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reggie Sears there, which passes WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. Notifications: Y, JSFarman, Victimoflove97, @pple. Launchballer 06:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation - Launchballer is a hard working young editor in good standing and with a solid music articles track record reinforced by a bunch of DYKs. His adoption of the draft makes me much more comfortable with the idea of recreating it. The draft article seems well written and well sourced and when my only criticism is that it could do with an extra sub-heading or two, I think the work that has been done is more than sufficient to allay previous spam/recreation concerns. Stalwart111 12:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in some subheadings. How's it looking now?--Launchballer 12:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I fixed a couple of minor things too. Looking good. Stalwart111 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation. It was salted almost six years ago; much has changed since then. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation. Well written and sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This seems to have been a bad TfD close, which I've tried to discuss with the closer, to no avail.[4] I don't see how the outcome of the TfD could be anything other than "no consensus". At the time the TfD was relisted, four editors had opposed deletion, while two editors had supported deletion. Another editor supported deletion with only the statement, " delete per nom, replace with standard. It's 2013 now, c'mon". This last vote really has to be discounted as it's straight WP:PERNOM and "It's 2013" has little relevance. In any case, it was rebutted. After relisting, the discussion sat for 12 days before another WP:PERNOM vote was submitted. The next vote was "no reason to keep two templates when one will do" but subsequent delete votes contradicted this suggestion by suggesting replacing the template with up to three templates. The final vote was one that concerned me greatly as the editor's only prior Wikipedia history was a series of 10 unrelated votes 2 years ago.[5] He seems to have come out of retirement to specifically vote at this TfD and his vote was simply a personal opinion. Based on the valid points made in the discussion it seems that that the consensus was effectively 50:50 and the original reason wasn't supported - the template wasn't redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} at all, as some of the functionality is not available in IS. It's only redundant to IS if content is offloaded to other templates and I don't think the closer gave this due consideration AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As required, I've notified the closer of this discussion. I've also notified WP:MELANESIA and WP:PNG, as the template falls within the scope of these projects. As a courtesy, I have also notified WP:AUSTRALIA. While the template is not directly supported by that project, the names of many WP:AUSTRALIA members are in the edit histories of the template and the articles to which it was transcluded. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a courtesy you've notified WP:AUSTRALIA to canvass votes to restore this. The templateis endorsed by your project because we had an argument about 4 years back with Order in Chaos, you and co about how essential it was for Australia and PNG to have special place boxes and how dare I invade your turf. Frankly it's beyond pathetic that you still have OWNership issues over infoboxes and still had it on your watchlist from the time I once tried to delete the Australian and PNG infobox. That you could still have a grudge and ownership issues after all this time illustrates what an unreasonable fellow you are. Any Australian wikiproject member who turns up here to support Aussielegend is not here for the right reasons and doesn't have the best interests of wikipedia at heart and should be embarrassed with themselves for being so petty over this. Aussie legend is motivated by nothing but pride for this opening this review, not because the infobox was somehow superior and wikipedia is much worse off because of it.. Completely irrational behaviour. The deletion was certainly a valid one (a crappy designed infobox from the wiki jurassic which the majority don't know how to edit and has long been completely redundant), given that to my knowledge virtually the only people opposing deletion were Australian wikipedians canvassed at the noticeboard who when they feel that their turf is invaded stick together through thick and thin, however unjustified they are. The Australian project as a group represent the biggest example of OWN on wikipedia I've ever come across and from my experience of them as a group completely disregard the views of outsiders and other experienced wikipedians on here. I can't believe they're still trying to hold on to their turf.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This similar, unresolved discussion may be pertinent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Blofeld, please don't assume bad faith. Your comments are bordering on personal attacks. WP:AUSTRALIA was notified for the reasons stated. There are a lot of au editors who edit the PNG articles but may not have seen the discussion. I don't remember you ever having tried to delete this infobox, there appears to be no record of it in the discussions that I checked. I didn't even know this infobox existed until after it was nominated. It has never been on my watchlist. As for claiming that this is "a crappy designed infobox from the wiki jurassic which the majority don't know how to edit", please note that the code used by {{Infobox settlement}} came from the same era. It was simple for the ajority to edit because the terminolgy was specific to the country, unlike the ambiguous "one size fits all" parameters of IS. Any editor adding the infobox to an article knows that the "llg" field is for an LLG, what field do they use now? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, would you expect me to assume good faith in you after calling out Plastikspork for fairly closing this TFD and attempting to restore a template few people other than the Australian wikipedian group think is necessary. What possiblr good faith could this TFD involve? Reopening this wastes more precious time when PNG articles could be being improved. The reality is that you barely edit PNG articles if at all and have only done this because your project pride is shattered and are used to getting your own way, at least over Australian topics. It angers you that a general community of editors was able to have a stronger say in the matter and find it difficult to accept. You do have serious ownership issues which isn't healthy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reading over the TfD, it appears that one of the primary objections to using Infobox settlement is that it didn't yet use Infobox as its base. That conversion was accomplished during the course of the TfD and thus became irrelevant. Otherwise, I think it's a fair reading of the discussion that Infobox Papua New Guinea place wasn't dissimilar enough to justify retention, particularly as what parameters it had which were different weren't specific to Papua New Guinea. Also, I think it's bit inaccurate to say that you "tried to discuss with the closer, to no avail." Plastikspork (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since you left your message, though I doubt he'd reverse himself. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue over using {{Infobox}} has lost context because of the relisting. User:Pigsonthewing nominated a number of templates claiming redundancy to IS, but some of these were already functional wrappers of IS (some of these have been kept), some used more modern code and the issue of {{Infobox}} and Lua was raised at several. I don't see why my claim is inaccurate - I did try to discuss the deletion with the closer but the fact that he did not reply, for whatever reason, meant that the attempt was to no avail. DRV instructions "please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin" and "If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page". What I wrote was entirey accurate. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, although I am certainly biased on the issue. from my reading of the discussion, the major objections were addressed during the discussion. there were 'me too' votes on both sides. I am also the one who replaced the template in about 100 articles. I can provide a list if anyone wants to see it. there were no difficulties in replacing the template, and I was able to correct a few errors along the way (e.g., listing districts of a district instead of LLGs). in most cases it was a very simple replacement. in the cases that there was geographical location information in the template, which was only the case for suburbs and a couple districts, I used the very widely used {{geographic location}} template to retain this information. the climate data and nearest cities information was retained using a couple blank fields. in several cases, the climate data was not in agreement with a sourced {{weather box}} template, so I removed the unsourced data from the infobox. in at least one case, the old infobox was not able to support more detailed total area and land area information, which is possible with {{infobox settlement}}. as far as redundancy of the template goes, I will say that it was a very simple conversion. more so than {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}}, which is also being deleted.@Tusslemon, @Underlying lk, @User:Pigsonthewing, @User:Calliopejen1, @User:This, that and the other, @Thumperward, @Elekhh, @Dr. Blofeld, @Mattinbgn, @De728631, @Orderinchaos Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for the same reasons of the tfd, and AussieLegend should behave in a more sportsmanlike manner and accept the result instead of questioning my right to take part to the vote only because I didn't edit as a logged-in user for a while.--Tusslemon (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Valid deletion, nothing has been lost.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - sound closure as delete. I note that while the complainant has "notified" projects, he did not notify me, as the nominator of the original TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as per all the very good reasons above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No need for a separate geographical template for one particular place; the regular geotemplate will do nicely. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of discussions that have closed as "keep" or "no consensus" demonstrates that there is a wide belief that there is a need for individual country templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you drop that stick, would you like to tell us how many have closed that way, and how many with deleter/ merge/ refactor as a wrapper? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as Pigsonthewing said, it was a sound closure as delete. It wasn't even close to being 50:50, every single !vote after the tfd was relisted was in favour of deletion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not exactly true. While the votes that were cast after relisting did favour delete, some of these were clearly arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. When you discount the questionable votes, the outcome is almost 50:50. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After reading the discussion, I agree with the closing. The issues the oppose !voters raised, that Infobox Settlement was not based on Infobox, seemed to have been resolved (see Pigsonthewing, 14 July.) Discussion also indicated no meaningful functionality would be lost. AssieLegend argued that other context should be in the Infobox in question, but if that information is relevant to Papua New Guinea (like weather,) why wouldn't it be relevant to anywhere else? I'd like to point out that AussieLegend missed that one of the four oppose !votes was in fact per AussieLegend with no other reasoning. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"why wouldn't it be relevant to anywhere else" It is, which is why editors suggested using the much larger climate box, which is an overkill in most PNG articles.

"AussieLegend missed that one of the four oppose !votes was in fact per AussieLegend with no other reasoning." - Actually, the wording was "per eloquent arguments by AussieLegend above". Clearly the editor had read and been convinced by my arguments for retention. This is different to the WP:PERNOM votes cast, since the nominator's argument was simply "Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 74 transclusions." The nominator hadn't demonstrated that the infobox was redundant or how only having 74 transclusions was a reason for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NJGov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Evidence and arguments from Elvey, ColonelHenry at TfD, the excerpted text of The Open Public Records Act of NJ… As the deleting admins have not articulated what part(s) of what argument(s) they find unsound, I can't be more specific, but the evidence that there is NJ content released without obligation has been provided. Elvey (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, when I was reviewing that discussion, I found it rather unsatisfactory. A lot of it consisted of an amateur discussion of law, and I wouldn't have much faith in any legal conclusions that it reached. I think that a more complete closing statement would have been helpful.

  However, the closer was right to conclude that there was a "rough consensus" (the Wikipedia standard) against retaining this template. In other words, most Wikipedians participating in that discussion seemed to be persuaded by the "delete" side of the argument (irrespective of whether that side of the argument was flawed --- Wikipedia admins aren't qualified to assess that! Their job is to decide what the consensus was.) If I had been contributing to that discussion, I would probably also have said "delete", because anything called "Template:PD-NJGov" should be a template for material in the public domain. In fact such material is not in the public domain. It is merely subject to an open licence.

  In my opinion DRV could overturn that discussion on the basis that its conclusion wasn't crystal clear. However, I also think that would be solving the wrong problem. A better discussion to have would be to open a RFC on how we should treat NJGov material. It's not quite "public domain" but it is openly licensed. It wants a template of some kind. Once we know how Wikipedians want to treat this material we'll be able to devise one. Deleting the "PD" template and leaving nothing at all is clearly suboptimal.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• it does seem as though WP:TFD is not the best venue for discussing file license templates. clearly, as with all such discussions, the outcome should not be based on a simple vote count. as S Marshall suggests, the better choice would be to have an RFC, although ultimately it would be better for someone representing the legal interests of WP to read the license and make a decision on the matter. just because a majority of WP editors think a license is compatible with WP, doesn't mean it actually is compatible (e.g., the commons discussion). @User:Plastikspork, @User:Carnildo, @User:DavidinNJ, @User:ColonelHenry, @User:Armbrust, @User:Bearian, @User:January, @User:ТимофейЛееСуда Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Frietjes, I agree with your suggestion, someone from legal at the Foundation should take a deeper look at this issue. I only call it as I see it, despite not being a lawyer, I touch upon the law often with my experience in finance and publishing, using my judgment on how I read the law and how I've seen it applied, and things I've discussed with other editors on the topic, I think the template is valid, but I would very much like to see someone higher up at the Foundation resolve this conclusively. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer notified.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact wording in question is "view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State". The straightforward reading of this statement is that the phrase "without obligation" applies to the phrase "view, copy, or distribute", that is, you can view the information without obligation to the State, you can copy the information without obligation to the State, and you can distribute the information without obligation to the State. It does not say that you can modify the information without obligation to the State.
  The definition of "free content" used by the Wikimedia Foundation (and therefore by Wikipedia) requires that any license permit four things: the freedom to use the content, the freedom to study it, the freedom to make and distribute copies of it, and the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of it. The New Jersey Open Public Records Act only covers three of the four points, and so is not a free content license. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true, but it has an air of finality that seems quite out of place to me. We've decided to delete the PD-NJGov template but that can't be the end of the discussion, can it? The result of the decision we've made will be that there's no licence template attached to material from New Jersey's state. This seems unsatisfactory to me because foreseeably, we will need to use material that originates from New Jersey's state to enhance our encyclopaedia. Therefore, the job isn't finished until we have a template that can be used. The decision to delete the existing template cannot possibly be the end of the process. We must create a template that does satisfactorily describe NJ State material.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already got perfectly good templates for works that don't meet the definition of free content: {{Non-free fair use}}, or perhaps one of the other ones in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. --Carnildo (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such a tag would be inaccurate. It describes the material as being used under "fair use" provisions which, in the case of NJ Government material, would not really apply. Because the subject material is openly licenced, and because consent is granted to sites like Wikipedia to use the content in certain ways, the legal basis of Wikipedia's use of the file would be in terms of the open content licence, not fair use at all. We need a "nonfree by Wikipedia's definition but used under an open content licence" template.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content policy requires a fair use claim for any content which is not freely licensed, even if it is licensed in such a way that Wikipedia could legally use it without needing to rely on fair use (see, for example, {{Non-free with permission}} and {{Non-free with ND}}). January (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long and bitter experience tells me Wikipedians' bloody-minded attitude to non-libre content isn't something I can solve, but I can't help feeling deeply frustrated by that kind of thing. Even when we actually have permission to use this stuff to enhance our encyclopaedia we've got to come up with a fair use rationale before we can use it? I find that bizarre, obstructive and completely unnecessary. Still, {{Non-free with ND}} seems like a potential basis for a new, NJ-specific template to replace the deleted one. Would the nominator be happy with that?—S Marshall T/C 00:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first point, the project aims to create free content that anyone can use or distribute. A Wikipedia-only permission wouldn't cover reusers of WP content, but if the media in question also meets our stringent fair use criteria reusers may also be able to use it under fair use. January (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with S Marshall that a new template is needed. Just because its not 100% clear that works of the New Jersey government are in the public domain doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some template for New Jersey works. Perhaps a Creative Commons license applies? DavidinNJ (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licences require a statement from the copyright holder specifying that the content may be used under that licence.

Having determined that NJ's licence does not meet our definition of a free licence, NJ content can only be used if it meets WP:NFCC criteria, in which case it would be tagged with a template from Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. If we did create a specific template for NJ material, it would have to be a non-free template (perhaps an adaptation of {{Non-free USStateGov}}). January (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly Carnildo! What kind of ***** rehashes the same argument presented instead of addressing the counterarguments presented? This is so pathetic! It borders on propaganda!--Elvey (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all need to reread the previous discussion. WP:RTFPD!!! (Read the Fine Previous Discussion!) Carnildo's argument isn't holy sacrament; it's full of holes. NJ has released PD content. There is no and can be no restriction on modification of that content. WP:RTFPD!!!

Consensus determination doesn't mean counting votes. If it did, we'd have a bot do it. It means evaluating the strength of arguments. Which I see no evidence the closer did. NJ's licence does meet our definition of a free licence; some of us don't have the legal or English skills to see that.

Carnildo needs to respond to the counter-argumemns raised during the previous discussion.--Elvey (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove This is a copyright issue, my reading of the NJ policy is that it does not implicitly allow for the modification of material only reproduction as is. This is a significant part of what WP considers when it calls something PD a custom version of {{Non-free USStateGov}} is appropriate. LGA _talk^edits 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AG-10B.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I'd like to request the removal of this graphic image of sexual torture (an uncensored image of a hooded prisoner being forced to masturbate), or have it replaced by the widely available censored version please. I was reading about Lynndie England and there is no notice of the graphic nature of this uncensored image that is contained on it and other pages. I understand that the image is under fair-use, but I don't think there is any need for this type of material on wikipedia, and I have never found other graphic material of this nature on here before. I don't know if I have completed this process correctly, but I spent 40 minutes going through the Wikipedia image deletion policy and this is the best I can do. Hope you can take this down/change it for the censored version, thank you. FrothyD (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the image isn't hosted on en.wikipedia but on wikimedia commons, where it's considered public domain, so there is no restriction on it's use. As the image hasn't been through a deletion debate on en wikipedia, DRV isn't the venue you want. Realistically you are talking about an editorial decision as to if the image is appropriate to the article or not, you can have that discussion on the artiles talk page. If that's getting you no where then there are other venues of dispute resolution. However I don't think you'll get very far - it's fairly well established that wikipedia is not censored "...However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link.". This has been debated many times and I find it unlikely that you'll manage to prevail. Similarly the concept of putting warnings on is also not something wikipedia does - see no disclaimers in articles --86.5.93.42 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of scope Whether or not to use this image isn't within Deletion Review's scope. The proper place would be the talk page of the article or articles where it's used. As the IP above correctly points out though, such a discussion would be likely futile, as WP:NOTCENSORED is a very firmly established precedent agaimst such things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ashen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article has been created/deleted a number of times since 2008 with the last deletion in Feb 2011. I feel that this is a good time to reactivate this article, as the subject has recently become very relevant. I cite: Ashens and The Quest For The Gamechild. I created the previously noted page, and feel that this is just one of the many reasons that Stuart Ashen is relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Stuart's YouTube channel has (at time of this initial post) 398,076 subscribers, and 79,704,778 channel views. I feel this is well known enough for inclusion on wikipedia, based on other, less subscribed and viewed YouTubers.

• Hi, could you list reliable sources which could be used for the article? In general we need reliable, third-party, independent sources per WP:N before we can have an article.Hobit (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the deletion history of the article I think a solid, sourced userspace draft would be the way to go with this. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, inherently faulty reasoning that someone deemed not-notable for making silly YouTube videos can somehow become notable for making another silly Youtube video. No indication of any significant new notability, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elexis Monroe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this article was deleted for an inaccurate reason. What complicated things is that the relevant guideline it satisfied, WP:PORNBIO, was under discussion at the time, and it was thus interpreted to not be a valid guideline for proving notability (btw, that guideline ended up not being changed at all). I contacted the original admin who deleted the article about it before I realized that s/he is on vacation, so I re-created the article with an explanation as to why I did so...because the subject passes point #1 of PORNBIO: having been nominated for two non-scene-related awards in multiple years (Acting Performance of the Year - Female in 2011 and MILF Performer of the Year in 2012). Still, another admin speedily deleted the article without warning earlier today, and attempts to get him/her to even userfy the article were unsuccessful, so I brought it here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're talking about the recent G4 speedy deletion, then I'm inclined to overturn. The articles appear more than cosmetically different, and it's been over a year since the deletion debate. Consensus can change, and I think Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) was wrong to assert that "...you can't reverse the results of AfD discussions simply because you don't agree with the outcome" (see User_talk:Erpert#Elexis_Monroe for full discussion). That's simply not the case. Re-creations are permitted all the time. If we were talking two, three weeks after the original deletion then that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That comment was not intended to imply that AfDed articles can never be recreated, but that an editor who disagrees with the outcome of an AfD cannot restart the page with the same content. G4 doesn't have any sort of time limit and the AfD is only from last year. Hut 8.5 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A few questions and/or concerns. First, it would nice to be able to view the actual article that was recently speedily deleted to judge whether it really does meet PORNBIO, but it appears that it would based on the info here, which shows two 2012 (AVN & XBIZ) "MILF Performer of the Year" nominations and one 2011 XBIZ "Acting Performance of the Year - Female" nomination. Second, are there any lingering copyright issues (as hinted to here) with this recent re-creation? Third, it doesn't appear to me that the former AfD discussion is really relevant here in any event...so maybe taking this article back to AfD might be a solution? Frankly, I'm unsure how to vote here given the limited options presented here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, let me clear up a few procedural questions. The original AfD is irrelevant; all that matters is the speedy deletion. I've undeleted both the article and the talk page to help. I believe the talk page also helps address the copyvio issue (sounds like a false positive). Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion - based on the above discussion & a review of the most recent article talk page & article content. Thanx for restoring both histories as well. Guy1890 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, the article should be restored since it passes WP:PORNBIO, which states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times". While PORNBIO doesn't specify what "several times" means, I feel that two awards is sufficient for "several", but some users don't believe that two is enough and that is why articles like these are often deleted. I was planning on creating this article myself and I know of other award nominations she has received. Elexis Monroe has been nominated for an XBIZ Award for Acting Performance of the Year - Female in 2011, AVN Award for MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year in 2012, and two XBIZ Awards for MILF Performer of the Year in 2012 and 2013. Four performer awards is more than enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting admin: the article did not differ significantly from the version that was nominated for deletion. Be careful with your versions if you check this: the recreation was based on the article at the time it was nominated for deletion, not the article at the time it was deleted. Some material was removed during the AfD for WP:BLP/WP:OR concerns which has now been put back. Here is the comparison you should be using. The only non-trivial difference is the addition of a section on "Health issues", which should have been mostly or entirely removed for BLP concerns (it includes an allegation that the subject was fraudulently using donations referenced only to someone's blog). The recreator left a comment on the article talk page in which they said they had recreated the article not because they had addressed the concerns in the AfD but because they thought the AfD decision was wrong and they felt they could overturn community consensus unilaterally. This is the kind of situation G4 is meant for. The article did not claim that the subject has been nominated for any more awards than the AfDed version did, and those nominations were not considered sufficient to confer notability at the AfD. Hut 8.5 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The article did not claim that the subject has been nominated for any more awards than the AfDed version did, and those nominations were not considered sufficient to confer notability at the AfD." I'm sorry, but that's really irrelevant IMHO. The fact is that the subject of this article has been nominated for enough "well-known and significant industry awards" to pass PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The deleting admin's analysis is entirely correct. Note that the original AFD was conducted under a less stringent version of PORNBIO than exists today; that the guideline is now more restrictive is hardly a basis for overturning the AFD. The underlying AFD concluded that such awards as "MILF Performer of the Year" did not satisfy the "well-known and significant" standard of the PORNBIO guideline (supporters of deletion described it variously as "a downlevel category with no discernible standards" and an "industry-promoting award"), and no reason has been provided here for setting that consensus aside, nor has any reason been presented here for disregarding the AFD consensus that the subject fell so far below the GNG that possible technical satisfaction of the SNG was irrelevant. It's also curious that comments from prominent porn enthusiasts have shown up so rapidly here, and suspect canvassing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator did notify a wikiproject here (not that this is necessarily inappropriate). Hut 8.5 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The underlying AFD concluded that such awards as 'MILF Performer of the Year' did not satisfy the 'well-known and significant' standard of the PORNBIO guideline"...which is about as clearly an incorrect statement as I can see. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV has always been reluctant to enforce year-old AfDs. PORNBIO was a defective guideline at the time that AfD took place, and at that time DRV was openly refusing to implement it. The guideline has changed for the better since. Although I can't see any reasonable basis on which one could contend that Elexis Monroe is notable, I agree that procedurally speaking, it would take a fresh AfD to establish that.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I just don't see any logic to the position that because a guideline has been tightened up, a deletion consensus under the less restrictive version is somehow suspect or needs revisiting. It's already too easy for porn publicists to get promotional pieces into the project, and allowing past deletions to be revisited every time another set of tinfoil trophies is handed out en masse is just a formula for wasting constructive editors' time and effort. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's already too easy for porn publicists to get promotional pieces into the project" Is there any evidence that that is what is going on here (or anywhere else for that matter)? If not, then it's irrelevant to this discussion here. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples? My impression is that recreations without substantiated changes are allowed at DRV closer to three years. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• list at AfD It's been a year. I personally will be voting to delete I think (I'm not seeing WP:GNG met and I'm not sure two==several) but consensus can change. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Straightforward case of G4, evidently the exact same article (largely the same wording), but most crucially: still exactly the same situation with respect to notability. No new arguments. There was a legitimate consensus for deletion in the AfD, and just because the author doesn't like the outcome doesn't give him the right to unilaterally overrule it, as he evidently wishes to do. Yes, theoretically, consensus could change, but there isn't the slightest indication suggesting that it has, or that it should (as others have noted, the relevant guideline has, if anything, become more rigid in the meantime). The argument that "it's been a year" is unconvincing: we don't just re-run every contentious AfD every twelve months just because somebody feels like it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the !votes discounted PORNBIO as flawed. Now that it has become more rigid, it might get more traction. Seems worth holding an AfD to find out... Hobit (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the closer there was consensus that even if PORNBIO was valid then the subject would not pass it. Hut 8.5 16:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, re-reading what was discussed about that "guideline" in January 2012, and what changes were made to it in June 2012, I find that those changes didn't in fact address the fundamental disagreement about the validity of the guideline at all. The January discussion was closed with the finding that the predominant opinion was that the guideline, being based on the recognition of mere industry-internal "awards", was fundamentally flawed and incompatible with our basic principles of demanding independent reliable sourcing. This fundamental objection was deliberately not addressed by the later discussion in June. Hence, the finding still stands that PORNBIO does not have consensus. It is a fundamentally invalid pseudo-guideline that has no authority at all, in either its old or its new form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The January discussion was closed with the finding that the predominant opinion was that the guideline, being based on the recognition of mere industry-internal 'awards', was fundamentally flawed and incompatible with our basic principles of demanding independent reliable sourcing. This fundamental objection was deliberately not addressed by the later discussion in June. Hence, the finding still stands that PORNBIO does not have consensus. It is a fundamentally invalid pseudo-guideline that has no authority at all, in either its old or its new form."
        • Wow, that's the most ridiculous statement that I've read here on Wikipedia in quite a while. Members of the mainstream film industry receive "industry-internal awards" all the time. I would personally be very open to debating what, in fact, the guidelines of PORNBIO should say, but this isn't the place to do that. Guy1890 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you'd actually taken the trouble to read that discussion, you'd know that there's no excuse for perpetuating that ridiculous canard about comparing those porn awards with oscars and similar real awards. It was thoroughly discussed at the time [6], and continuing to bandy it about now is nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Ah, no, it isn't; as Hobit mentioned above, consensus can change. And a pornography award isn't a real award? Maybe not to you, but Wikipedia isn't interested in anyone's opinion when it comes to notability. Also, you seem to be forgetting that you're supposed to be discussing Elexis Monroe herself, not porn in general (this is starting to make a bias more evident). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • AVN are compared to Oscar or referred as Oscar of porn by hundreds if not thousand of sources (eg the first I found [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). Actually I found them more convincing than you saying the opposite and quoting yourself saying the opposite. Cavarrone 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your opinion on this subject "Future Perfect at Sunrise" is, put simply, ridiculous on the face of it and, IMHO unfortunately unworthy of a Wikipedia administrator. It smacks of an I just don't like it mentality, which has no place here. Do you have any idea how many AfDs since 2012 have discussed whether or not a subject meets PORNBIO, which ultimately decides whether or not that subject should have an article on Wikipedia? I sure don't, but Mr. Wolfowitz might know, since he's likely initiated a large chunk of them in a continuing effort to gradually whittle the Pornography Project down to nothing. I'm sorry, but the idea that the PORNBIO standard isn't a "real standard" is what is really the canard here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just to let the closing admin know, the users who are !voting to delete here are the same users that !voted delete before, but...it's because they don't like the guideline, the category the subject is nominated for, or pornography at all. Since when are those valid reasons to delete? And as far as Future Perfect at Sunrise's allegation that I am reopening this because I didn't like the outcome, I already clearly explained to Hut 8.5 that that isn't what I'm doing. Since last year, people have started to realize in these porn-related AfD discussions that that's what some of the delete !voters have been doing, which thus resulted in some such articles being restored (why do you think Capri Anderson came back?). And as far as WP:PORNBIO becoming more rigid, well, point #1 of that guideline (which Ms. Monroe still passes, and she passed back then too) hasn't changed at all, and it is still satisfied. Care to explain how it isn't? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Capri Anderson came back on the grounds of her 2013 AVN award for best supporting actress and of her additional award nominee for best actress, if you had restored an article identical to the previous deleted version it would be speedy deleted per G4 as well. Cavarrone 06:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But it was also mentioned that she passed notability before that--actually, it was mentioned by you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was mentioned what and where?? The point is simple, "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" is elegible for deletion via G4. The Anderson article was improved, so it was not elegible for speedy deletion, it was nominated for deletion and survived, even with my vote. This one was not improved, and the polemical, pointy talk page discussion you started there was an obvious call for deletion via G4. This is not an AfD, we are here discussing if Hut was correct in his application of G4 and yes, he was correct. When you give an example, you should care to compare two situations which are comparable, as a minimum. Cavarrone 09:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You've said repeatedly here and elsewhere that you recreated the article because in your opinion the subject passes WP:PORNBIO and because you think the delete !voters in the AfD were motivated by personal prejudices. That is simply a disagreement with the outcome of the AfD. When the community makes a decision through a process like that it can't be overruled on the whim of one editor. I don't edit pornography articles here, and I came across the article when clearing pages at WP:SCV. I did not delete it because of any prejudices surrounding the subject matter. I deleted it because it was an unimproved recreation of a page that had been previously deleted at AfD. Hut 8.5 18:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hut, I've noticed that when I ask you a simple question, you seem to answer everything but that. The question I asked is, how does the subject fail point #1 of WP:PORNBIO? Instead of answering that, you just continued to accuse me of re-creating the article because I didn't agree with the outcome. If everyone saw it that way, then how come that notion never came up when Celeste Star and the aforementioned Capri Anderson articles were restored? You really ought to assume good faith here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't answer that question because it is completely irrelevant to my deletion. The fact remains that the AfD was closed with a consensus that the subject did not meet PORNBIO. If you recreated it because in your opinion the subject does meet PORNBIO, without providing any additional evidence to support that fact, then as I said you recreated the page because you disagreed with the AfD - either the close or the rationales used to support that position in the discussion. The same goes if you recreated it because you think the delete !voters were motivated by personal prejudice. The two examples you cite would not have qualified for G4 because the recreations stated the subject had won additional awards since the first deletion. Hut 8.5 09:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The two examples you cite would not have qualified for G4 because the recreations stated the subject had won additional awards since the first deletion"...which, as has been highlighted at the beginning of this discussion here, applies in this case as well. Look, are there some issues with some of the sourcing to other portions of the most recent version of the article in question? Sure, but it's pretty clear that the subject's past & recent nominations passes PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The recreated article said that the subject had been nominated for XBIZ "Acting Performance of the Year – Female" and "MILF Performer of the Year". The version sent to AfD claimed the same two nominations, and during the discussion another one was added (AVN "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year"). The AfD concluded that these nominations were not sufficient to confer notability through PORNBIO. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV isn't ever a "re-do" of another AfD about the exact same subject, so it doesn't concern me what the previous AfD said or didn't say. Quite frankly, I've only skimmed a brief portion of it, as it really isn't relevant here. It also doesn't make much sense to me to delete this article again only to have it likely re-created at some point in time in the (near?) future by some other editor (not me BTW) in a more improved version, since it's likely to just end up at AfD once again (since deletionists currently plague the Pornography Project). Why don't we allow the article to exist so that it can be improved and just skip all that other nonsense? Guy1890 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 only applies if the recreated version is not sufficiently improved compared to the AfDed version. If, hypothetically, the recreated article said that the subject had been nominated for some award that the AfDed version did not mention, then it would prevent a G4 speedy deletion. Whether the new nomination confers notability or not is an issue for another AfD to decide, not speedy deletion. You claimed above that this hypothetical situation actually applies to this specific case. As I explained in my previous comment, you were wrong. I doesn't make any sense to be to allow someone to recreate an almost identical, unimproved copy of an article we have decided is unencyclopedic in the hope that someday somebody might create a version which complies with our standards. If someone does create an improved version of this article it will not be speedily deleted under G4. Until that happens the previous decision stands. Hut 8.5 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Whether the new nomination confers notability or not is an issue for another AfD to decide, not speedy deletion." Exactly, since we're only going to end up at yet another AfD, it makes no sense to me to delete an article that will almost certainly meet the relevant criteria (PORNBIO) that applies to that same article. It really should be no surprise to anyone that the administrator that originally speedily deleted the article in question still supports that deletion here. I'm sure that's a pretty common occurrence here at DRV. Further comment is really pointless. Guy1890 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've misinterpreted my comment. The part you've quoted was discussing a purely hypothetical situation which doesn't apply here. If someone comes up with some new evidence of notability, then the subject can have an article. Until that happens the previous decision is going to stand. This is especially true for recreations which are almost identical to the version we decided wasn't suitable. Hut 8.5 09:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but eventually allow recreation of a different article by a different editor. Hut 8.5 was enterely correct on deleting this under G4, the article was almost identical to the one which was deleted via AfD, so identical that Erpert was notified about a possible copyright violation of a mirror site which stored an old version of the article. If Erpert considered invalid the previous AfD and wanted the identical article restored the correct venue was deletion review; knowing him a bit, and after reading his polemical comment on the article talk page, I bet he just wanted to raise a new fuss about PORNBIO, as usual. On the other hand, if someone else want to create a different article about the subject with additional informations in support of her notability and without blatant BLP violations (please no fraud accusations without the strong support of independent reliable sources) is free to do it. Cavarrone 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Knowing me a bit"? "[Raising] a new fuss as usual"? You do not know me like that, so don't you dare throw out those kinds of accusations. And who are you to say I can't re-create this article? That's not up to you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know you at all, but as far as I can remember, you've come to DRV several times. Every time I remember you coming here, you've always wanted to add more porn-related content to Wikipedia. Clearly you enjoy pornography, and taking your userboxes at face value, you're a 32-year-old male virgin, which I can well believe. I'm afraid, Erpert, that people tend to draw conclusions from the evidence you provide.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which you well believe? My personal life and choices have nothing to do with this. And I've only come to DRV one other time. In addition, I've !voted "delete" in several porn-related AfDs; not to mention that I even started this one. Everyone needs to focus on the topic at hand here instead of me.

Also, the simple question is how she fails WP:PORNBIO, which for some reason people refuse to answer--oh, I know why...because she doesn't! Even if it was thought that I created the article maliciously (which I didn't, no matter how many times Hut says it), the fact of the matter is that she still passes the guideline. If people don't like the guideline, do what happened last time: get consensus to change it first and then revisit articles. Don't just use WP:IAR to justify deletion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether the subject fails PORNBIO is one for AfD. We've had that discussion, and the consensus is that yes, she does fail PORNBIO. Unless that consensus changes or becomes irrelevant you have to abide by it, whether you agree with it or not. The issue to be addressed in a review of a G4 speedy deletion is whether the article was sufficiently identical and unimproved compared to the version deleted by AfD, not whether the AfD decision was correct. I never said you created the article "maliciously", and nobody here has argued the deletion was justified by IAR. Hut 8.5 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and nobody here has argued the deletion was justified by IAR." That's pretty much the postion taken by "Future Perfect at Sunrise" above. They might not state it that way, but it appears to be the exact same rationale in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, there's a subtle difference. FPaS is saying that PORNBIO isn't a valid guideline at all, not that it is a valid guideline they're electing to ignore in this case. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're being overly generous towards a fellow administrator, which I can understand, but it's really six of one & a half a dozen of another. PORNBIO simply can't be ignored because one editor chooses to ignore it as "invalid". That's not the way things work on here at all. Guy1890 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the accusation of bad faith. I never said I actually agreed with FPaS's position, I was only clarifying why I made my comment about IAR. Hut 8.5 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that should make any difference. That edit was made during the AfD discussion, and at least some of the participants (and the closer) would have taken it into account. The reason given for excluding the award nominations at AfD was that they weren't significant enough, not that they weren't from multiple years. Hut 8.5 09:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of said awards was not actually decided. And if the guideline was indeed changed, why wouldn't it make a difference? People who are against the article's existence can't justify their position by just sitting there and hoping that no one noticed the change (although I'll admit that I didn't notice it myself at first). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my comment below. Further labeling hasn't done anything to reduce the temperature of this discussion has it. If this continues this may have to be closed early. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Spartaz? Personal issues aren't going on anymore. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The temperature of this discussion is becoming unnecessarily heated and I would ask everyone participating to dial down the heat and restrict themselves to discussing the policy and the content and to avoid making any further comments about personalities. DRV requires a collegiate editing environment to function properly and its not unknown for discussion to be closed early is this isn't possible and for votes to be given significantly less weight if their proponents have engaged in labeling and personal commentary. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the G4 which was entirely correct, but if the relevant guideline is majorly different (I don't go near this area) then by all means send it back to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline hasn't changed. Here is the version which was in effect when the AfD was closed, and here is the version in effect now. Apart from the addition of a sentence saying the criteria should be applied only to people involved in the adult entertainment industry and the removal of a {{Disputedtag}} they are exactly the same. Hut 8.5 15:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has changed; I even showed a diff that showed the guideline before and after the change. With all due respect, what about that did you miss? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That change was made before the AfD closed. Furthermore the issue in the change was not mentioned by any of the delete !voters as justification for their opinion. Therefore it could not have had any effect on the decision to delete the article. Hut 8.5 19:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they missed it like I did; or maybe they didn't care because they don't like the subject. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion (WT:Notability (people)/Archive 2012#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe)) and edits to the guideline (overall diff, history) overlapped with the AfD, but the last four deletes came after the page protection. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G4 deletion. I agree with Hut 8.5's evaluation of the diff between AfD nomination and recreation: the only material difference was the Health issues section, which contained a combination WP:BLP violation of both Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and Avoid self-published sources. There were no substantial changes before the speedy deletion. There is a new 2013 nomination to add to the three discussed and rejected at the AfD. My opinion is that it is not enough, but I have no interest in arguing over the definition of "several". Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think a consensus has been reached. Also, the comments do not take into account the full set of references (including an academic journal and US and UK news sources) - they've focused on one (the Daily Mail) which only adds a minor factual aspect to the article. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this with User:Black_Kite and we haven't agreed. (Though thanks to him for his help.) The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the title of an encyclopaedia article, it's the title of a gossip column. What we need to do is see through the terms used to find the underlying encyclopaedic topic, and then redirect all the alternative plausible search terms to that encyclopaedic topic.

  In this case there are two encyclopaedic topics here: Affect display and Face perception. Any salvageable content from the academic journal and trustworthy news sources should be covered in one or the other of those two articles. I'd endorse Black Kite's close and I suggest you take him up on his offer of userfication so that any salvageable content can be in-merged. Once this has been done there's nothing to stop bitchy resting face from being converted to a redirect. The only thing that might complicate this is if there's any content in the deleted article that you didn't write, in which case you should seek advice from Black Kite or from this page about how to preserve attribution.—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose we could restore the article and convert it to a protected redirect to preserve the history. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Kwiatkowski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

G4 refers to articles which are 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy'. I did expand the article and added additional information and references about her new roles. A year has passed and Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (a major Hollywood production) has been released.[14] She has also completed filming a lead role in Edge of Marlene, an adaptation of a book by an award-winning Canadian author, Billie Livingston,[15], completed filming Cheat[16], and landed a recurring role in Bates Motel, a critically-acclaimed TV series.[17] Hergilei (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've temporarily restored the article so that editors may review the history. No opinion on the merits for now. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit restoration The justification for deletion was that the one role listed was in a film that had not yet been completed. That seems clearly no longer the case. So it's enough to justify restoration and optionally another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn doesn't seem to be a valid G4 as there are new sources. No objection to listing at AfD if someone wants to. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was an extensive and thorough discussion about why this category should not be deleted nor merged. In total 3 people supported a merge while 2 opposed it. No one was able to present an argument based on logic as to why these categories should be deleted. These categories do NOT violate any of our policies either.

The administrator closing the discussion ruled in favor of a "merge" under the rationale that "we can't imagine doing this style of categorization for one of the most notable legislatures in the world, I find it hard to imagine us doing it for a less notable one." However, as noted in the discussion, members of the UK parliament are categorized in such form already. See Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 for an example.

It is obvious that this discussion should have been closed as a "no consensus" rather than a "merge"; allowing the categories to remain. This is why I'm requesting a DRV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment. I don't like to get into mere vote counting, but in case that carries the day: There were five people supporting merge: Bearcat, John Pack Lambert, Good Ol'Factory, The Bushranger, and (conditionally) Pr4ever. There were two opposers: Ahnoneemoos and (conditionally) Peterkingiron. Even with the clear majority on the side of merging, I didn't make the close solely on that basis. The arguments on the merge side were vastly stronger: The "McCain argument" (that John McCain would get +15 categories if this precedent applied elsewhere) overwhelmed the repeated restatement of the argument to the contrary from Ahnoneemoos. That repeated restatement included badgering ("Weep fucking do, just because you dislike something doesn't mean we must stop doing it"), personal attacks ("it is quite astonishing that an administrator has such poor understanding of Wikipedia"), and misunderstanding of how CfD works ("This is exactly why administrators base their decisions solely on policies"). So, I took the good with the bad, and made my decision. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this clear. As an administrator, your rationale was based on speculation on something that did not happen nor has happened even though we already categorize legislatures by session? (see Category:UK MPs 2005–2010) Are you aware that such fact was mentioned in the discussion? We already have a precedent, yet McCain, or better said, members of Congress are not categorized that way. Evenmoreso, your decision was based merely on the speculation that someone might add 15 categories to an article? What policy is violated by adding 15 categories to an article? Once again, none. How is such argument considered "stronger"? John McCain already has 44 categories. What exactly would be the problem if it had 59? Or 100? How did you base your decision that adding 15 more categories would be "bad"? What policy states that such number of categories is "bad"? Like I said in the discussion, as an administrator your actions must be based on policies. This discussion was extensive and not a single person presented a policy nor a logical statement as to why these categories should have been merged—yet for some reason, which you have not been able to explain logically, closed it as a merge. None of your arguments nor the ones presented in the discussion merit a merge. Finally, I would appreciate if you avoid using terms such as "badgering" and "personal attacks". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's not going to benefit the discussion if I get into an argument here. So I'll respectfully decline to comment on Ahnoneemoos's reply.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- consensus to merge was clearly established. "I disagree with the result" is not a reason to overturn it. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. There is a big difference between disagreeing with a result and noticing that the rationale used to reach such result doesn't make any sense nor is based on policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your DRV nomination consists mostly of re-arguing the MFD of course I will think you're just disagreeing with the result and asking for "MFD round 2". You are the only person at either the MFD or this DRV who thinks the merge arguments are illogical, and it is clear that you only think that because you disagree with them. Arguments don't become empty or illogical just because you have a different opinion, and these were strong enough to convince the closing admin and an independent editor (i.e., me) that these categories should be merged. The only argument you've presented in this DRV that the closing admin got the process wrong is a miscount of the number of editors on each side. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is weak and illogical because we already categorize legislatures by session and yet McCain is still not categorized in such a way. Both schemes can coexist on Wikipedia. This fact was presented in the discussion and debunks the closer's rationale entirely. Do you see the fallacy now?

Furthermore, per WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy:

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

We already proved the fallacy (weakness) of the arguments presented. Regarding the second emphasis, which policy did the closer invoke to rule in such way? None, because there is not a single policy that states that we should not categorize articles in such a way.

The closer ignored the fact that other legislatures are already categorized in such a way and did not invoke any policies to sustain his ruling. The outcome must be overturned to no consensus.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already mentioned many times in the MFD that your preferred way is done elsewhere, but this argument did not convince the other participants that it would be appropriate in this case. You seem to be assuming that everything not explicitly forbidden by policy must be allowed, even when a consensus of editors agrees that it would be a bad idea. That is not true, and I also have to point out that there is no policy that states we must catgeorize articles this way. The arguments referring to WP:OC were very convincing and won out in the end, and I think you're just going to have to accept that. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, do not put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. The main issue here is that the rationale used by the closer is (1) a fallacy and (2) not backed up by a policy. Per WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy:

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

How can this CfD be closed as reaching consensus when it was not "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy"? Once again I ask, what policy was invoked to reach this decision? You have not been able to provide one, nor was anyone in the discussion able to provide one, neither did the closer.

Furthermore, per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS which is a guideline:

Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

Not a single argument presented in the discussion nor in the closer's rationale was based on fact. It was based on pure speculation, fear, and personal opinions. No facts, none. Period. The result must be overturned to "no consensus".

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find dealing with you to be very annoying, since you do not read or understand anything people say and endlessly repeat yourself. I am done with this conversation. Reyk _YO! 02:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the hostile stuff wasn't very nice but it really has no impact on the result itself and so should be disregarded. I'm really not seeing a strong argument as to why the interpretation of consensus was wrong. Arguments about the proposal itself should have been made at MfD and re-arguing them here isn't really the purpose of DRV. Those arguments didn't really seem to convince people at MfD and that's kind of the point. The closer seems to have seen an argument that did convince people and determined consensus on that basis. Effectively there are two comparative arguments there (one with regard to the US Congress and the other with regard to the UK Parliament). As for the count, I'm seeing 5 for "merge" (nom included, one conditional) and 2 "oppose" opinions. All comparative arguments being equal, I can't see a rationale for overturning the close at the moment. Stalwart111 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Stalwart's analysis above. I'm not sure where "3 to 2 for merge" comes from, I'm seeing 5:2 the categories should go. The only reason to overturn that's been advanced has been that the close was not based on any policy, but WP:OCAT applies and thus discounts that argument. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:OCAT was not the rationale used to close this CfD; that's the point. Furthermore, WP:OCAT is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline quoted even says so, "it is generally better" it does not say, "it must not be categorized in such a way". It even says at the top: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If we used guidelines then we would have a conflict (a no consensus) since WP:CLNT states that:

A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":

• Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

since in this case the answer to both questions would be "yes", which means the category is appropriate. So once again, every fact presented on both the discussion and this DRV points toward the result being a no consensus since (1) we don't have a policy that can be invoked to merit a merge/delete, (2) we have conflicting practices, and (3) our editors have not been able to reach a consensus between themselves.

Furthermore, WP:POLICY which is another policy, establishes that:

Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.

and in this case we have proven already that WP:OCAT is not a description of a best practice since (1) we have conflicting practices (see Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 where legislatures are categorized by session) and (2) we have not been able to reach consensus neither as a whole nor locally within Wikipedia in these matters, and evenmoreso (3) we have a conflicting guideline through WP:CLNT. Such cases must be ruled as "no consensus" until we reach an unequivocal consensus through discussions or through the establishment of policies that covers such matters.

So, once again, our policy to establish consensus is very clear, per WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

But yet, no one has shown which policy this decision was based on. For example, when people invoke WP:GNG in discussions (which is a guideline) the policy behind such decision is actually WP:INDISCRIMINATE—in those cases the result is actually based on policy even though people are invoking a guideline. That's not the case of this CfD and it's the reason behind this DRV.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I response with great hesitancy as I fear we've entered an I Didn't Hear That situation. There seems to be some sort of ongoing discussion regarding guidelines vs. policies, and I'm telling you right now, that I'm having none of it.

Your argument concluding "... which means the category is appropriate." is logically flawed. That the category did not fail a single, isolated test does not imply that it would not fail any test. See: Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

I am declining to respond to the rest of your comment. Most of a possible response would simply be flat-out contradictions, and I think most, if not all of this has been covered above. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As the DRV instructions mention, "Deletion Review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Endorse. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The 2 opposes were rather vapid, containing little but whinges about "otherstuff" and "ocat" being just guidelines. The consensus of sound arguments was quite clear. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]