Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Quadell closed this discussion by saying that it had resulted in the decision to change the way the image was used. Exactly one person took this position, while numerous people opposed. Yes, we're not a democracy, but when something like eight or nine people argue a good-faith position and one argues the opposite good-faith decision, it's not possible for the one person to be the community consensus and for the all-but-one to be in opposition to consensus — this goes far beyond the situation envisioned in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Quadell's closing statement is quite obviously an argument why he thinks it doesn't belong, and not a summary of the discussion; the members of the community who participated all-but-one agreed that this image's uses were acceptable. If "consensus" means "one person's opinion trumps everyone else's", FFD becomes simply a place where we post un-defeatable requests for deletion. Let me close with a reminder that this kind of supervote close was the basis for SchuminWeb's arbitration case, because he was closing FFDs in favor of tiny minorities; I'm not suggesting that we take any other kind of dispute resolution (regardless of how this DRV goes), but simply reminding Quadell that pretending that all-but-one people can disagree with consensus has been deemed a thoroughly unacceptable decision in the very recent past. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (or endorse my own deletion). Earlier today I closed a contentious FFD discussion that was six days overdue. It engendered a lot of discussion, and it took a lot of reading and careful thought before I closed the discussion. It is true that my closing decision in its final form was suggested in its entirety by only one commenter, but I assert that it represents the consensus of relevant opinion regarding all aspects of the image's use. (It is often in the nature of compromise that neither side gets everything it wants, and it is often in the nature of debates about national symbols that few are willing to advocate a middle ground, making it necessarily a minority proposal.) Allow me to expound on my thinking.

There were several people who argued that the proposed replacement image, File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg, was inaccurate in subtle but important ways. That's true. Some claimed that no suitable free replacement currently exists, which is also true. (Many "oppose" comments said nothing besides these two points.) Others claimed that an accurate coat of arms could be created and freely licensed, which is true. Others pointed out that a new rendition of Canada's coat of arms would not be the same as the official rendition, which is important.

Other comments were factually incorrect. Some comments appeared to conflate Canada's blazon (a text description in the public domain) with the official rendition of the coat of arms (a copyrighted image). Some claimed that it would be physically impossible to create an new, free, accurate coat of arms based on the blazon, and that's clearly not true. Some did not seem to understand NFCC#1. One comment conflated copyright with trademarks. There was a lot to sort out.

Even when all the facts were taken into account by commenters, one general opinion (most clearly stated by Stefan2) felt that there was no legitimate use for a non-free official rendition of the COA, given the fact that a free rendition could be made. A different general opinion (most clearly stated by Wine_guy) held that any free, non-official rendition would be misleading in every case, and so the non-free image should be usable wherever Canada's COA is depicted. And a third opinion (most clearly stated by Psychonaut) held that a non-free, official rendition was necessary and irreplaceable in Arms of Canada, since there the official rendition itself is discussed; but that the image was replaceable in all other articles, where no mention is made (or would be appropriate) of any features of the coat of arms outside of what is in the public-domain blazon. This opinion took into account all of the different facts and opinions made by the differing sides of the debate and found a middle ground, and though no single decision could satisfy all parties, I felt that this position best represented all points of view regarding the image.

I don't believe I acted out of process, or that I failed to understand our non-free content policy. I don't believe I neglected any of the facts or opinions mentioned in the debate. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE Once again, I can not oppose the deletion of this image in any stronger terms then I already do. We need it. We need an accurate official representation of this image. There is no free alternative, there is no promise of a free alternative becoming available, there is only the possibility of it coming some day. Until that day comes, deleting it is nothing more then a vote to deprive this project of an image it needs, to deprive our readers of an image they need. The blazon of the Canadian coat of arms is Public Domain, but that doesn't give us the promise of a free alternative. It takes an incredibly skilled user to create one that would match in accuracy such that it would be a satisfactory replacement, and those users have been faced with requests to do so for ages. They refuse, not because they are lazy, but because they fear putting in all that effort only to see it deleted on Commons, which they see as a real risk. We should not make policy on "it's possible, somewhere, someday", we should make policy on what is at hand. What is at hand for us is that there's no current alternative and nobody is giving us one either. We have NO other choice but to keep this image. Deleting it would be a travesty. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision. Clear copyright violation. SVG recreation of a work created by Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, Office of the Governor General of Canada in 1994. This well made SVG should never have been allowed as it is clearly a copyright violation. If the version is so needed as non free on Wikipedia, then it must be the original art of the artist. However, as I understand it, there is no official artistic version as an older, public domain COA exist that is similar without the ribbon motto behind the shield. The main difference is the artistic style itself and the use of maple leaves as the mantling or lambrequin, which in itself may not be original enough to disallow in an original version.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) (This user is Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N})[reply]

What are you talking about?????????????? We have tonnes of copyrighted content on Wikipedia under NFCC rules, this is no different. Being copyrighted is not by itself a reason to delete this image. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that there are some copyright works that were recreated in error, but it is trademarked works that can be recreated, not copyright works. Being copyrighted is exactly the reason to delete this image. It isn't the actual work being used under NFC but a derivative, faithful reproduction in svg of the original work....which can easily be recreated, perhaps even the style as I have even found a similar lion holding the staff in a much earlier rendering.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your !vote at all. This SVG wasn't "created" by some user, it is in fact a creation by the Canadian Government of the CHA rendition. So how is it a violation of their work if they made it? As for it being copyrighted, yes the 1994 Canadian coat of arms is copyrighted until the 2040s, but being copyrighted still isn't an automatic qualifier for deletion. It's not just a few, we have a lot of copyrighted works on Wikipedia under non-free rationales. It has nothing to do with trademarks at all. Trademarks are not incompatible with Commons licensing and if this was solely a trademark issue this file would have been moved to Commons years ago. It's the fact it's copyrighted which is why it can not be on Commons and has been on Wikipedia under non-free content rules since 2007. It sounds to me like you're confused between trademarked works which can be on Commons, and copyrighted works which can be on Wikipedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse decision. It doesn't matter if the deletion discussion was eight to one or eight hundred to one; if the majority arguments cannot be supported by community policy then they carry no weight. This directly follows from Wikipedia:Consensus, which states that "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" and that "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." It is by no means unheard of for an XfD closer to identify a minority opinion in the discussion as the consensus. (This is the usual result for discussions where one or more canvassers swamp the discussion with !votes of brand new or infrequently used single-purpose accounts, though it also happens on occasion with discussions among more established editors who nonetheless overlook or misinterpret policy.) —Psychonaut (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if you expect canvassing and !votes swamping to happen. Doesn't sound like good faith in the process to me. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just mentioned vote stacking as probably the most common scenario where the majority is wrong. I don't think canvassing or vote stacking occurred in this case. Here we had several established contributors who presented sincere and impassioned arguments for keeping the image which, unfortunately, were found to contradict the wider consensus at WP:NFCC. The decision to remove the image has understandably upset them, though a decision to keep would have been a slap in the face to the hundreds (or thousands?) of editors who have endorsed WP:NFCC, either through helping craft that policy or by invoking it in their own XfD contributions, and to the WMF which has officially adopted WP:NFCC as its Exemption Doctrine Policy.

I was disappointed to read that User:Nyttend thinks that User:Quadell, the closing administrator, was advancing his own argument rather than identifying the existing consensus. In fact, in the closing statement Quadell went to great lengths to explain what the closer's role is, what WP:CONSENSUS says about simply counting the votes, and that he had carefully examined the entire discussion. The summary of the consensus itself consisted of facts and arguments given by two participants. He did not present any new arguments or evidence not already found in the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse decision. I have pointed out multiple times before that this copyrighted image should only be used rarely because a free image is almost always available and sufficient.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is no free and accurate depiction of the coat of arms available. What you've linked to are diffs showing the insertion of either a long out of date version of the arms or just the escutcheon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. The older version or the escutcheon suffices for those purposes. DrKiernan (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some purposes, perhaps. But not for Canada or Monarchy of Canada, among others, I'm sure. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's actually a really good close and I'd applaud Quadell. He's extracted quite an intelligent conclusion from a mediocre debate. It's such a pity the consensus wasn't really behind it.

  I think this whole discussion, like many similar ones, is based on a bizarre inconsistency in Wikipedia's rules, which is our mysterious insistence on treating crown copyright the same as commercial copyright. While we continue to do that, we're going to get decisions and issues like this one. In reality, the Canadian government clearly has every intention of allowing the image to be used in this way. I think we need to close this DRV without result and ask for a brief comment from the WMF's legal counsel about this as a prelude to a community RFC on crown copyright.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "[T]he Canadian government clearly has every intention of allowing the image to be used in this way". Really?[7] Seems they still require permission for commercial use. That is non free.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely right, crown copyright isn't free for commercial use. However, this is unrelated to what I said. What I said was that it's bizarre that we treat crown copyright the same as commercial copyright, and that the Canadian government clearly has every intention of allowing the image to be used in the way that Wikipedia is using it. I did not say (but I expected readers to understand by implication) that Crown Copyright needs its own NFCC criterion.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would really need to look a lot further into Canadian Crown Copyright to know the specifics of whether we need a NFCC criteria speaking directly to Crown Copy right, but the issue that is most important in this case is that a Wikipedia (a very talented one I might add) created this work and uploaded it. It was created using an SVG program which is an open source program that allows the original file to be reproduced in extraordinary clarity and resolution. As a creation of a Wikipedian it is a derivative work based on the Copyright of the artist, not the Canadian Government. The COA as a logo is trademarked by the government, not copyrighted, however the original artist retains the copyright for their original design aspects. If you look close and research you can see that the current COA is based on, not just the 1921 proclamation, but also on a 1921 illustration of the COA. The lions are very similar, but not exactly the same. It is possible to use the same elements lifted from that Public Domain image to create an original depiction of the Canadian Coat of Arms. The mantle and ribbon are not original it turns out as the mantle of the original, more complicated Canadian COA uses the Maple leaf mantle. Slightly different, but a maple leaf mantle is not original to the 1994 design, nor is the added ribbon which is used in other COA. The actual work of the 1994 illustration, which the Canadian government uses for official purposes could be recreated in a free version closely matching the spirit of the original without breaking the copyright of the artist. You can't copyright an idea, but you can copyright the precise design and artwork.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you seriously contending that the copyright in Her Majesty's arms is owned by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, who is one of Her Majesty's subjects? If not then I have grievously misunderstood you, but if so, then I would beg to differ.  :)—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Contending that, yes, the artist does indeed own the copyright of that artwork and design. Not "Her Majesty's arms" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The elements within the arms are common and cannot be copy protected, but...individual artistic works are. If this shocks you, perhaps you simply do not know that as an artist, her copyright was established upon the creation of the work.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am afraid you have misunderstood how Crown Copyright works. See, for example, page 3 of the National Archives on Crown Copyright: "Works made by officers and servants of the Crown in the course of their duties qualify for Crown Copyright protection". Mrs Bursey-Sabourin was Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority, which is an office of the Governor General of Canada, at the time she made the image (I have no idea whether she still is). Therefore the copyright status as declared on the file description page is accurate: the file is Crown Copyright and free for Wikipedia's use.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - very clever close and I wish that the availability of a free alternative was so nuancedly considered in other cases.. As regards S Marshall's point, I do think in the context of non-free files (they would not necessarily be free) crown copyright should get a (considered) note. We have a note about commercial photo agencies, and it bears to reason that the impact on commercial use is affected by the type of provider. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree with that, S Marshall? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My position has always been that any image that is (a) lawfully available for us to use, and (b) enhances the encyclopaedia, should be used to enhance the encyclopaedia. This is not an uncontroversial position on Wikipedia but I stand by it. Crown Copyright would in almost all cases be lawfully available for us to use.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Firstly, nonfree image decisions are not made by consensus, but by compliance with NFCC. Consensus may not make exceptions to that policy. Quadell's close considered the facts and not the fans, and was an excellent and fine-grained decision that clearly involved a lot of consideration. Good work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse A reasonable compromise under the present interpretation of NFCC. Crafting such a decision is not a supervote, but a valid use of IAR. (However I may disagree with Seraphimblade that consensus cannot overrule NFCC--if the meaning is that we must have a restrictive NFCC policy, it's true we cannot overrule it because it's a foundation decision; but just what the policy should be is our own decision, adopted here by consensus. As for any other policy we make,we can make whatever exceptions have sufficient consensus.) DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, eh? NFCC has the status of a policy that overrides any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - whatever that may be... NFCC makes it clear that when there is a reasonable expectation a free image exists or could be created we must use a free image, unless the quality of such free image is so low to constitute a mockery of the subject being described. This is a case where that expectation exists. If people put their time into creating a free version instead of this AN and DRV thread, we'd have one for Canada and probably 5 other countries by now... ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose closure. NFCC#1 is satisfied here, IMO, because an independently recreated substitution of the official coat of arms would not be of "a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose" of the non-free image; an independent rendering based on the blazon alone is not going to have "the same effect" as the real thing; and the blazon alone is not a sufficiently comprehensible text description to allow the subject to be "adequately conveyed" to our general readership without using an image.

As for the suggestion that even a massive consensus on an issue is not entitled to any consideration at all if it urges a decision contrary to policy — this may certainly be true in some cases, but we must also carefully consider that if an overwhelming consensus is going in a direction that seems to contradict policy, this may indicate that the policy itself is being misinterpreted, misapplied, or is significantly out of step with the sense of the community.

Now, if our NFCC policy had come directly from the WMF, then we would be fully entitled (nay, obligated) to say — per WP:CONEXCEPT — that even a unanimous contrary consensus simply does not matter and must be flatly ignored. But as I read the NFCC and the WMF licensing policy resolution, our NFCC policy was adopted by consensus of our community and is subject to community feedback.

To be sure, our NFCC policy is recognized as satisfying a requirement of the WMF to have a policy dealing with "copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status". However, the WMF policy does not (as best I can tell) mandate the specific implementation of NFCC that we are currently using. The WMF policy does require that a project's "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (such as our project's NFCC) "must be minimal", but as best I can tell, the WMF is not thereby mandating that a piece of non-free content which is otherwise acceptable for use must be used only to the absolute minimum possible extent (e.g., only in one or two articles maximum).

If a sizable consensus is urging a different interpretation here, this should be seriously considered and not automatically be given short shrift per "consensus cannot override policy". And if people feel our current NFCC does in fact demand this particular interpretation and are not comfortable with reversing the current Canadian COA decision per the policy as it currently stands, then I would strongly recommend a community review of the NFCC policy to determine if it may in fact be in the best interests of Wikipedia to clarify or change the policy. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The admin tried mightily but ultimately invented a consensus by going well beyond the purpose of the deletion discussion. 1) the consensus was that there is no other official rendering of the AOC; 2) It was well found by the Admin that NFCC compliant consensus supported the use of the official rendering in Wikipedia somewhere; 3) But, the consensus (or, at the least the well supported position) was also that whenever the Pedia represents the AOC pictorially, it should use the official rendering, so as not to misinform or mislead readers; 4) So, whether the official rendering is used in any particular manner in any particular article is not well suited for the broad imposed consensus, here by the Admin, as there was no adequate discussion and consensus of each use on that point (or the use of notes and text and the like to obviate concerns). Therefore the close should be overturned, or amended by the admin. After he/she found that the official image would not be deleted from the Pedia, they should have left the particular use issues to other processes RfC and the like, or to further discussion to see if a consensus would form on other uses and manners of use (eg notes. text etc). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse decision - Good, well written and explained closure. Garion96 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This incident has been massively covered in the Norwegian press (see here if you understand Norwegian, there are approx. 10 articles in VG about the case, and it has also been covered by the Wall Street Journal ([8]). I guess that means that he passes the GNG and this article should be undeleted. Kebabipita (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. Strictly speaking, the speedy-delete was improper (it was deleted as an A7 but was really more about a news event). I don't read Norwegian so I can't really say if there are any BLP problems, etc. My immediate impression of the situation is that this is a very minor scandal that led to a minor non-elected party fuctionary being fired and likely won't lead to much else. Probably would not pass an AFD but I'll let those with better knowledge of the language chime in on the quality of sources and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A city councilman in Norway is elected. Local elections are held every four years. (Elections in Norway) Kebabipita (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn-I don't see how this subject could qualify as " a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event", so an A7 deletion is invalid on the face of it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, but it's not an A7 case; hacking incidents really aren't organized events or web content, and they're nothing close to any of the other things. Undeletion should immediately be followed by an AFD. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I used A7, but I probably should have added the real reason: pervasive BLP violations. As it did not fit exactly in G10, I was unsure what reason to give. I based my decision on the article not the sources, so no knowledge of Norwegian was necessary. The person is a councilman in a small city, the violation is relatively minor, and this would be undue coverage to include in an encyclopedia. It is well documented, perhaps because the parents of the individual are national political figures. Do its probably a BLP violation with them as well. If someone is willing to take responsibility for reinserting that sort of material in WP, their understanding of BLP is their responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the article had sources up to and including a full article in the Wall Street Journal, not just blurbs in the local paper, which is the type of coverage WP:BLPCRIME requires. This clearly isn't a run of the mill traffic infraction, based upon the coverage volume. That makes it quite significant enough for inclusion. I also looked over the deleted article for any other BLP violations, such as unsourced contentious material or unfairly slanted text, but could not find any. BLP is a big hammer, and to use it unilaterally in marginal cases is not acceptable (as opposed to blatant violations, where unilateral action is just fine). That's what AfD is for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Bailey (footballer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

It's a Redirect and because we have some people who can't read that she has played 4 times for arsenal and won the FA cup or get the notion that it's a redirect we're here. So full view because 4 games for arsenal, fa cup winner, significant coverage from her Olympic role. I understand that she was redirected for not being notable for her Olympic stuff that's ridiculous when we have Olympic flamelighter who are notable for nothing else with an article. 92.22.95.103 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Afd was closed about a year ago. If her accomplishments in the past year are enough to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines I have no objections about restoring this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Born 11th November 1995, played in two (victorious) games for the England girls' under-17s, got on a boat with David Beckham, all data I could easily find with 10 minutes' search on Duckduckgo. I think we had some of our more special needs deletionists taking part in that AfD, and on a personal note I'd rather have kept that article, but Mark Arsten came to a reasonable outcome that was well within discretion.

  However, we're now a year on and a good-faith editor wants to re-create the article. Permit recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD if someone really thinks AfDing this material is a good use of our volunteer time...—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind, I had been an admin for less than a week when I closed this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject still doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL because the Womens Super League is not a fully professional soccer league. The only thing that has changed subsequent to the AfD discussion (where all these issues were addressed at length) is she has played several games for Arsenal Ladies. I'm a fan of the womens football game (having just watched the European Championships) but I'm not entirely sure the above contributors have addressed why they are making Jade Bailey an exception. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, there's the argument that was made during the AfD: Tony Blair doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY either, shall we delete his article too? Jade Bailey was an England girls' under-17s footballer, and as you correctly point out, she isn't notable for being a footballer. She was also an olympic torchbearer, and she isn't notable for that either. But combine the two and you get significant coverage in reliable sources: 1, 2, 3, and it's easy to find more. The argument is that she isn't notable for meeting WP:NFOOTY; she's notable because of all the reliable sources that have noticed her.—S Marshall T/C 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The argument of the IP is that because she has played some games for the Arsenal Ladies senior team she now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. She's a footballer, unlike Tony Blair. There's been no additional news coverage about her since the AfD. Sionk (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - First and foremost, I would like to ask S Marshall to practice a bit common sense and civility. Euphemistically referring to delete !voters at the afd as mentally handicapped is way out of line. The sources mentioned above were considered and rejected at the last afd. Given that, as pointed out above, the close was procedurally correct, the question becomes has the subject changed significantly. Since the afd, Ms Bailey has received little to no coverage, and as already stated, she still fails the football specific notability guidelines, meaning the close is correct today as it was a year ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect close (nothing to do with the admin more with the discussion) featured heavily on NFootball. When the subject easily passes General notability guidelines. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]"" Check for all four no reason for article not to be there. 92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I see very little evidence that the AfD considered those sources. The Waltham Forest Gazette source was mentioned on 1st August after most of the discussion was over, and rejected by a "consensus" of two users, both of whom had been vociferously pro-deletion throughout. There were other sources that the AfD did consider and reject, and we could have a discussion about whether it was right to do so, but I don't think that's necessary to overturn the deletion given what the closer says above. The AfD spent the majority of its discussion time considering, at enormous length, whether Jade Bailey meets WP:NFOOTY. There are good reasons why Deletion Review has never had much patience with specific notability guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However passes GNG as we had a newsround reference which was from the BBC, an FA Cup final win with sources from BBC and the FA stating that she took part. Just an aside here are you really going to say that some one who plays in the third division of some random countries league system is more notable just because it's professional when we have someone who has won the national cup. England under 19 call up I know that's crystal but I looked on the FA website and apparently U19 Euro's next month. But combined with 4 appearances and counting for Arsenal the biggest and probably most well known women's team in the country, an FA cup win and Olympic appearances she easily passes General notability as secondary sources have been found and used e.g. the BBC. 92.18.33.11 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't chase down the links in the article, but I'm seeing that she plays for the women's soccer team with the best record in England, has a sponsorship from a major manufacturer and had 1,000,000,000 people watch her do something. I can't say that this was closed wrongly--the consensus was fairly clear. But at the least I'd like to see a relist here. She clearly meets WP:N and WP:BLP1E. Not meeting a SNG isn't a good reason to delete, especially when she is potentially notable for two things, the subject area being only one. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Coverage in reliable secondary sources still does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or any of our notability guidelines by a long shot, even if all are taken together. A minor sports figure at best. Sorry, but there's a lot of puffery going on here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse properly closed discussion, no new evidence of any massive shift in notability that would change the situation. Besides, our notability guidelines for athletes are by far our most lenient of any of the biography notability guidelines (some might even say ridiculously lenient), so any athlete who can't pass even that very very low standard isn't likely to be a reasonable encyclopedic biography subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - does she meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL? No, so she is not notable enough as a footballer. Her exploits at the Olympics are a case of WP:BLP1E so the redirect makes perfect sense. GiantSnowman 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E is very clearly meant for low profile individuals. Someone who played for both an national Olympic team (carrying the torch no less and for Arsenal L.F.C. is in no manner "low profile." --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close, and remand to a non-deletion venue  There is no deletion to review here.  The decision to be made is an editorial decision, and restoration of the article as stand-alone is explicitly and correctly supported by the closing.  Redirect without delete is not binding out of AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - A recent AfD reflected a growing consensus that NFOOTBALL is unfit for purpose in the case of female footballers (or, particularly unfit for purpose in the case of female footballers). Since the AfD Bailey has played in the national Cup final - described by the BBC as "the Gunners' next big star" - and is now apparently starting games at the top level for the biggest women's club in the UK. Would a comparable male player ever be deleted? Such harebrained, overtly discriminatory notability guidelines do nothing but bring shame to the entire project. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no reflection on Wikipedia or the dedication, athleticism and skill of women football players, it's simply the case that British womens football (and hence the players) gets far less coverage than the men's game. You should vent your anger at the media and the major British football clubs. Sionk (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is to some extent. See WP:BIAS. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or just restore If she played in the top level women's clubs, she's as notable as if she played in the men's clubs. If the top level women's clubs in a country are not fully professional, it's still the top level. The place to carry out further argument is at a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and permit recreation - There is nothing wrong with re-creating an article that was previously deleted, a year ago in this case, as long as the article isn't identical to the deleted one and has a stronger case of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and permit recreation The AfD was by the book, most of the delete !voters were evaluating whether Bailey passes WP:GNG or not, but I agree with Oakshade: There is a stronger claim for notability now versus one year ago, (even though playing for a club in the women's top-flight confers no notability) and she might have received some coverage for her appearances for Arsenal LFC, and if someone wants to write a detailed article about her why shouldn't they be allowed? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was adequately sourced with secondary sources but unfortunately deleted as created by a banned user. I want to further improve the page so i'm requesting a review and userfication.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFruitarian (talk • contribs)

• I have indefinitely blocked the account that filed this review for sockpuppetry. If there is any question about this, I will be willing to email the evidence to another administrator on request. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was created to describe the works of the design duo gregoysung since their efforts started in 2005. The change of the description of the main page to be "gregorysung, the stylized name of the award-winning Italian, South Korean, American design duo, working out of Milan, Seoul, Chicago, and New York and comprised of designer, engineer and professor Gregory Polletta and designer, artist and professor Sung Jang." should be a better representation of the designer and the use of the photo here http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_July&sq=&lang=&file=File:Photo_of_gregorysung.jpg should also be a better representation. All links, details contained within, photo's except of the one referneced above are all correct and accurate to the work of the designer. We hope the page can be edited to include the above description and the page can be returned based on the substantial work of the duo. Eastwestdesign (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with having a fresh article written from scratch. It should mention from the very first edit that "Gregory Sung" is a pseudonym jointly used by Gregory Polletta and Sung Jang; also, it should be written by someone totally unaffiliated with either one. The earlier version of the article, which fraudulently stated that "Gregory Sung" was one individual person, will not be restored in any way. DS (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, the entire article treated Gregory Polletta and Sung Jang as a single person; dividing apart who did what would be a major effort. For example I doubt both were educated at exactly the same universities. I doubt they held a joint professorship. These are blatant and deliberate misrepresentations of facts (vulgo: lies). The design team may be notable, and it may be possible to write an article about it, but this one is so tainted with falsehoods and half-truths that it is likely beyond salvage. Matters are even worse because the same hoax seems to have been perpetrated on some of the sources, with one of them stating that "gregorysung" (who is not a person) is a national of the Republic of Korea. Huon (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per DragonflySixtyseven and Huon, essentially. This was a hoax article which was created over the period of at least seven months (it was started as a draft in January). This involved multiple visits to the IRC help channel where this person, despite knowing full well that "Gregory Sung" was not a single person, continued to portray him as one. When this eventually came to light, and we asked the author if he was aware why this was a violation of Wikipedia policy, he kept stating that the article shouldn't be deleted because "this has never been done before", which is possibly one of the worst reasons I've ever seen to not delete something. It may be that they are notable as a pair of designers, but the article should not portray them as a single person. The content from the current article is not salvageable to make a new one. Also note that User:Eastwestdesign is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:B design art, but I've decided not to block them so they can see how futile their efforts to trick and deceive us are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request review per dragonflysixtyseven, huon, deskana, ya makes sense but maybe the mess here can be cleaned up easily? this was never a hoax, wiki makes it very clear & explained on the creation page http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Musical_notability that only musicians are considerted "artists", but not designers. philip stark, marcel wanders they are 1 person and not in the "artist" category So for http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Gregorysung there was NO way to create an "artist" like page similar to http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Prince_%28musician%29 which was the full intent from the start. gregorysung not "Gregory Sung" was then created as SOMEONE http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Biographical_notability as it certainly wasn't a company of note http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Company_notability but maybe it should have been SOMETHING else http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Article_wizard/General_notability ??? becasue wiki's policy seemed clear re: musicians are considered artists and although actually gregory and sung both play a few instruments each that's not the point of the article.

gregorysung not "Gregory Sung" is a (design) artist or brand? perhaps, composed of two designers with one 11 character name and they have been doing this since 2005 - well documented in blog postings, articles written, interviews, google images, galleries where gregorysung works have been shown. ok, it shouldn't have been done, that's very clear now, understood, but what other option was there? 20 days ago a request was made and details sent to info-en"wikimedia.ord detailing a keynote speech to be made at the Reesh Festival of Creativity Sept 2013 and that is why the edit was made to show the full distinction: an 8 year journey to create gregorysung and now to let the bird soar as two wings connected to one body so as to be discussed openly at the conference on literally how to create out of nothing, something.

only 1 month ago was the seperated image of gregorysung made public after amost 8yrs for the DIP'N by Guzzini and e-my http://www.e-my.com/gregorysung product and so now it's time to adjust whatever is necessary on wikipedia and make it clear to show gregory and sung's schooling and where they lecture and are lectured to show the separation. the photos on wikicommons do show this so teh seperated image should be acceptable or if this isn't, a new page with the Guzzini e-my image is good and the page can be http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Gregorysung(artist) or http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Gregorysung(designer) as this should be easy to create yes? seems the original page will be destroyed? if not can the original wikipage 11 character page name stay if possible. since it's very important to save a lot of time and pain, can someone copy the original page code to the new page so it can be fully edited to remove the not-allowed gregorysung as one person language so it can be submitted easily?

also on the current comment page there is some brutal language can that be edited so as to not offend anyone from the royal family of the Reesh Festival of Creativity when they look at the current page? the changes be necessary for the new page are very straight forward to implement as ALL the data on gregorsung's works, projects, etc., are very clear. just need to clear up the 1st section and detail sung as a professor in korea and chicago and gregory in milan, rome, paris and londn per their linked in profiles. after each having a +15yr career and spending the last 8yrs to create gregorysung the team of gregory and sung should not be penalized for the creation of gregorysung and miss this very important honor to deliver the keynote of "what is creativity" at this prestigious conference. User:talk:Creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite from scratch Looking at the article, I decided not to restore it, nor am I personally willing to restore it even as a working draft. The only way to produce an acceptable article would be to start over. The design section has too many unsourced sections, too many products are illustrated and some of the references that were given appear to be mere mentions. Not all the awards are notable, & at least one seems to be a nomination not an award. btw, the photo mentioned is a creative merge of two portraits, and cannot be used in the article, as it illustrates nothing, and I doubt that even combined they've been actually professors at so many schools--perhaps you mean instructors? The Art Institute of Chicago page lists Sung as an "Adjunct Assistant Professor" which is not = professor, but an outside professional teaching one or two courses. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Person, artist or something else is the only issue and the same issue as when the original entry was created: should the article be created as

1) a person 2) an artist (the preference) 3) As something else

All data is sourced correctly and references were listed in the article because the full articles could not be scanned in to wikicommons to be shown and/or references on some occasions were in the ongoing wordpress blog of the websites of the magazines where they are stored were not allowed. almost all of the articples mentioned are full articles and interviews but should they all be left out? it was explicit that they be put in so that gregorysung was considered noteable as it wasn't 1st deemed that gregorysung was noteable. re: the photo being a merge, that is fine. can the image from the guzzini emy website be used showing both parties? the whole point gregorysung is the merging of the two and has been for 8yrs. that was the point and the design exercise to create one person one design voice. and yes, combined they have been professors at as many schools as verified by their linked in profiles and recomendations. Sung currently lectures at the Art Institute currently and Gregory is currently at ENPC Paris. The exact breakdown of all universities lectures, courses given (if requested) and schools and experiences attended will be listed in career section of the article.

Starting over is fine. Can the name of the new article be "Design Duo gregorysung" and can it have a pointer or redirect from the old article to clear up any confusion? The formatting and gathering of all the data for the article took 7 months. It would very much apprecited if it can be made a working draft please so that everything can be cleaned up easily for the design conference taking place in 1 month where the keynote will take place. ALL the data is correct, the only issue is to clearly make the identificaiton of gregorysung as two parties clear which will be done in the top summary section and in the "Career" heading. it would be very helpful if it can be made a working draft under the title suggested

creativeupholder ( talk ) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creativeupholder, put bluntly, I don't think you should have a hand in writing about gregorysung. Even in this very discussion you continue to misrepresent facts in order to spin a tale. That's simply not acceptable. Huon (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you should only be using one account to make your posts in this discussion, creativeupholder aka eastwestdesign. Otherwise it could be construed as an attempt to deceive. DS (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is very clear and your direction is understood. simply, there is no "tale" here as 2 designers came together created a moniker like prince (but that wasn't allowed the page as an artist a person was created and incorrecly as such as pointed out by the admins) regardless the duo of gregorysung has been designing for 8yrs, designed and launched many products had interviews, won awards, that's all. no one knew how to create the article as a person, etc because doing it the way prince did it was not allowed. in the new artcile the phrase "the duo" will be used in place of "gregorysung" used in the original text and gregory and sungs schooling and where they lecture will be seperated. all works, articles, etc. are the same there is no difference. it should be cleared up before the keynote at the design conference so there are no further misunderstandings if that is ok. can a working template from the original data please be created? it will greatly speed up removing any and all confusion creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please create the article as an artist with the title Design Duo gregorysung and just let me know so I can get right to replacing gregorysung to "the duo" and adding in the respective schools they attended and where they taught. i don't want to do this improperly and be thrown back here to waste anyone elses time, just want to get this done properly. as for eastwestdesign, that person was booted and I was asked to solve the problem so I've taken over to get this done if that is ok. creativeupholder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that when the design duo are notable by Wikipedia standards, someone unconnected will create an article, until then, there is no rush... keynote design conference or not! Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, whether or not Mr Pelleto and Mr Jang make the keynote address at the conference has nothing to do with whether a Wikipedia article exists about them, jointly or severally. DS (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if gregorysung was noteable then the 1st article would have never been approved. if it pleases the wikipedia team, the mention of mr polletta and mr jang can be in one line and everywhere else the name of gregorysung will be replaced with "the duo", unless it is necessary to list all their schooling, universities lectured at, etc. or it can be left it out, however together they are clearly experts in their fields of design and new product development. again, the work of gregorysung speaks for itself. the projects of gregorysung produced by major manufacturers and works published in numerous international publications and through interviews speaks for itself just like a song or a painting and the same is here: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Ronan_%26_Erwan_Bouroullec also everyone is connected to someone somehow and i feel that their work is worthy enough. if there are some other criteria then please advise. if the individuals careers of mr jang and mr polletta are not good enough, even though they are substantial then the work of gregorysung is. again, the work speaks and has spoken for itself for 8yrs and viewed as worthy by an international audience already. still however no one has specified: is gregorysung: 1) a person 2) an artist (the preference) 3) As something else as the article cannot be created without this. what is http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Ronan_%26_Erwan_Bouroullec considered in wikipedia? and yes Theroadislong the road is long, it has been traveled for 8yrs and that is why the 1st article was created and approved over 7 months with all due respect for all those who already approved it for the work itself and the collective +15yr experiences of the duo . creativeupholder (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pre Page Creation Check

all data has been concatinated and fully simplifeid I will use same as the broullec brothers for a page entitled "design Duo gregorysung":

gregorysung is the name for the italian/american and korean/american gregory polletta and sung jang (b.1971 and 1977) design duo. In 2009 the the duo's "Pianoforte" line won the the Best of Elle Decor design award [1] and was included in the Roche Bobois Paris design collection as well as being included in the Best of Architectial Digest AD Collector Europe [2] and later the duo won a Design Duo Award - TL Magazine, Netherlands [3] for the Pour Celain series. The duo has used a combined image for the designer's photo since inception and signs works with the gregorysung name as a single word entirely in lowercase, attributing this to the relationship between parent manufacturer and child who in fact can create a parent protector.[6]

Both have each given full semeser, undergraduate, master and MBA/PhD classes internationally in New Product Development: Innovation & Renovation, Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship for New Product development: ENPC/Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees PhD/MBA program at France's oldest enginering school; Design for New Product Development: Parsons School of Design, Paris and Hochschule Luzern Lucerne School of Art & Design - Polletta plus Spatial Concepts, Product Aesthetics: Sookmyung University, Seoul; and Digital Moddeling Fabrication, RRendering and Visualization: Art Institute of Chicago - Jang. Polletta is a member of the London Speakers Bureau and American Program Bureau

The duo works internationally for clients and has completed projects for Roche Bobois, Christina Grahales Galleries, Guzzini E-my, Louis Vuitton, Appropriate Technology Collaborative, Philips De Pury, etc. and thier work has been described as "embodi[ing] beauty and the dilemma of duality that confronts issues between form and function in art and design" [3] while "creat[ing] alternatives for product development and aestetic direction that might have not been possible" [4] noted Sung Jang by "focus[ing] on what is considered impossible and then work[ing] to make it real, instead of only looking to what is 'acceptable' design", Gregory Polletta noted [5]

References

   [1] Best of Elle Decor, Elle Decor Magazine, 2009

[2] Best of Architectial Digest AD Collector Europe 2010 [3] Design Duo Award - TL Magazine, Netherlands 2010 [4] Planes Trains and Automobies - 360 Magazine pages 240-244" Issue #10 Fall 2007, Beruit Lebahanon [5] &life Magazine - Dukkan Communication and Publishing, 2006 Istanbul, Turkey [6] gregorysung - website, about us: www.gregrysung.com/aboutus.html

External links

   	Company's website: www.gregorysung.com

cristina grajales galleries: www.cristinagrajalesinc.com/artists/gregorysung

the only image will be that of pianoforte unless others are allowed. the only question is this a person, artist or other?

creativeupholder (talk) Creativeupholder (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Perhaps some established editor (who is not Creativeupholder or anyone else associated with the hoax material, not any socks thereof) can someday take a swing at writing a decent article on the same topic. But the current proponents of the article as written, have, to put it as gently as possible, strained the trust of the community to the breaking point. Hoaxes of all stripes are bad as they undermine our ability to be an information source, but hoaxes involving identifiable living persons are worse still due to the rather serious legal risks they present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, entirely the correct action when a hoax page is uncovered, and if at some point it comes back it should be entirely unassociated with the hoaxers. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, and salt deleted article. This behaviour is kind of really over the top. Lectonar (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• then who ??? yes, the statement above of "unassociated with the hoaxers" and that is not me. the article was striped of all details other than the specifics of the works and where the duo has lectured for +7yrs i am not associated with the team nor a hoaxer. i know their work. who then is "allowed" to write the article? please suggest a specific writer and someone can contact them and send all the necessary supporting materials? is this what is being suggested? the work is of sufficient level and has been said as much above plus awards, etc., speak for itself no? createupholder (talk) Creativeupholder (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "someone" who would contact the prospective author, and why would they want to do so? We're all volunteers; if someone feels inspired to write an article about gregorysung they'll do so. Personally I doubt they're all that notable. Huon (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• please suggest well then give an option. eastwestdesign was denied writing the same article that was been submitted after the takedown and then banned, i was contacted. i rewrote the article and submitted it. now i am also banned. neither cannot ask for help on chat. we are in differnet countired. who is this someone? i would ask someone else as eastwestdesign asked me so long as that new person could ask for help in chat. why can't we? shall we as ask other students and/or industry professionals to submit? is what is being suggested? who then should write the article? the exact same details from 1st article are included in this article with actually 50% of the awards, products designed photos and very specific details removed so there would be no issue with having it accepted. as for "Personally I doubt they're all that notable." well then why were they accepted in the 1st place? the work speaks for itself has for 8yrs as well as the universites and speakers bureaus, etc., where the duo works & this mean the work and the duo are validated as noteable? who is "valid" to write the article if the above is not good enough?

Creativeupholder (talk) Creativeupholder (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "i would ask someone else as eastwestdesign asked me" ...wait, are you saying that eastwestdesign told you to comment here? Under what circumstances? Please clarify. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b-design wrote the 1st article it was accepted after 7mo, then got banned then asked eastwesdesign to start over, looks like they did, stripped everything out as instructed, then submitted, got banned, eastwestdesign said, this is rediculous, asked me to start all over again, so i did from scratch. submitted, then i got got banned. i mean how many people need to be asked for a fresh start and a complete rewrite of basic facts on their work? no data changes, it just keeps getting stripped down to less and less details each time. Creativeupholder Creativeupholder (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just clarify a few terms here. Creativeupholder, neither you nor b-design nor eastwestdeisgn are banned or blocked (these terms have specific meanings on Wikipedia, none of which are applicable here). What there is, is a very strong recommendation that none of you edit an article on gregorysung as you all appear to be connected to the duo in some respect and therefore have a conflict of interest which would prevent you editing the article in a neutral way. If someone else who has absolutely no connection wants to undertake an article on gregorysung that's fine but in light of the way the original article was worded, like Caesar's wife the author of a new article has to be above suspicion of COI. NtheP (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• BANNED is banned I must be hallucinating then. As must the 3 other authors who have tried to submit a complete rewrite of this article since this situation has occured. With all due respect banned, is banned is blocked is blocked.

[12:29] == #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned [12:30] Can't use this command in this window Please forgive my discomfort here. An article was written, it was accepted, it was deined, it was accepted, 3 people re-wrote it and now we are here. The article on gregorysung contains ALL the necessary 3rd party verified references a new article was started "Design Duo gregorysung" was started and banned and now we are at the same place again. A new article has been created by some folks who are in the design industry in Milan. Hopefully they won't get banned as well. Creativeupholder (talk)Creativeupholder (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and salt: Blatant hoax. No more need be said. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• no longer even being allowed edit - immediate dismissal of submissions so a new person wrote an article today. The response from WikiPedia: "13:37, 31 July 2013 Starblind (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Design Duo gregorysung (G8: Talk page of a nonexistent or deleted page) 18:15, 29 July 2013 Starblind (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Design Duo gregorysung (Rework of article currently at DRV, consensus at this time is that creation of the article by this editor is not acceptable (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 25 ))

and again this makes no sense. So how is a design duo of 8yrs with published and produced international products a hoax? So no one will be given a chance to edit based on admin suggestions? article submissions will be deleted straight away? Seems so. This seems inconsistent with Wiki's policy and gestappo in tactic. The format of this article was copied exactly from the broullec brothers and philip starck articles. The tone is the same, factual and with many external citations. What part of the following is considered spam or advertising? It looks like this article is being banned to be clear. If someone would please just cut out what is considered "spam or advertising, I think this can be easily solved no? With 13 references to verrified external 3rd party sources there should be no issue. If this is considered spam or advertising then clearly marcel wanders, philip stark and the broullec brothers and any other person on wikipedia should also be removed as well. without the ability to be reviewed by multiple individuals, edit over time and fix errors and then submit, this is starting to look like descrimination of a noteable design team.

• That's not how DRV works. You don't get to re-create the article unless there is consensus here to do so. Sometimes articles are temporarily restored during a DRV, but due to the egregious nature of the situation it was decided above not to do so in this case. Again, please do not re-post the article here or anywhere else on Wikipedia unless consensus here says so first. If it happens again you will likely be blocked and the article title salted to prevent further re-creations against consensus. There's that word again, consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. You cannot have an article here merely through persistence or brute force. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all I discussed the deletion with the administrator who deleted it. In the end we agreed to put that into the DRV. The article was deleted for the reason "non-notable tournament for non-notable teams". Both accusations I think are wrong. The tournament has been the biggest non-FIFA football tournament in 2013 and had 6 teams, which is nearly as many as a World Cup usually has. Many of the matches have been broadcasted live by the Tamil Eelam team and the Raetia team and there where around 5 million visitors in peak. In my eyes that could be called important. Maybe more important than most non-FIFA World Cups have been. Besides that the tournament was covered by Tamil media around the globe (about 20 newspaper articles), by the Isle of Man media (radio stations and 2 pages in every newspaper). Even the Isle of Man Parliament officially invited to that tournament. The second point is the non-notability of the teams. I would like to see any argue why they are ? I mean we are speaking about national teams of non-FIFA nations or regions or ethnics. On Wikipedia there are roughly estimated 200 articles about non-FIFA football, non-FIFA teams, non-FIFA World Cups and so on. So in fact the community seems to agree that non-FIFA football is not "non-notable". If so, the teams competing there are not non-notable, too. Tamil Eelam, Occitania and Raetia all played World Cups before. Alderney plays at the Muratti Vase each year (which is also a wiki-covered event) and Sealand is a member of the NF-Board and will most likely play at the next VIVA World Cup, too. The only team, which might be non-notable is St Johns, who are a Isle of Man first league club "only". DJLiesel (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment notability or otherwise of the teams, attendees, invitees etc. is largely irrelevant, notability is not inherited. I notice the website of the tournament nicely links the wikipedia page as the source for results which is pretty much an abuse of what wikipedia is for. I guess I could invite a few MHKs and a few Deemsters to my birthday party, will that make it notable? I can't see the Manx media (i.e. very much local) to be of much persuasion, one of my memories from 10 or so years ago was a nice 1/8 page or so in the courier with a picture showing how the sign for Foxdale had lost it's F and now read oxdale. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I do not understand your comment really. One of the 2 reasons why the article was deleted ist that the teams are non-notable. Now you say that the notability of the teams is irrelevant ? I do not see that. The Champions League is notable because of its teams, too, isn't it ? Besides it is not my fault that the homepage of the tournament is not perfect. But I think you cannot judge the notability of a tournament on a mistake on the homepage ? The official reports about the tournament have been published on a blog for non-FIFA football, but that one is not accepted as a source for wiki. Well, maybe you lost that but I do not speak just about the Manx media. There are reports in all Manx media, all Tamil media, some Occitaine media and some more. There were even journalists from Russia at this tournament. I just cannot find the kyrillic source. Of course all those sources are "local", but local sources from all over the world make the reports global again, don't they ? I mean what would you expect ? Obviously South American media does not write about it (well, in fact there are even 3 South American blogs with articles about it!), because no South American team has played there. DJLiesel (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The champions league is notable because people write about the champions league directly in detail in multiple independent reliable sources which is what our general notability guideline suggests is the notability bar for having a standalone article. See also WP:NOTINHERITED, if the champions league itself received no significant coverage, it too wouldn't be notable merely because of the participants. The point regarding the Manx media being local is it's new of interest to a very small locality, it's not of general interest, a Newspaper such as "The Times" which is a national newspaper is not local. To reiterate my example of the road sign for Foxdale, having lived on the IOM for many years, the Isle of Man is a small place with a small population, the bar for getting coverage in the local media is pretty low, hence my example of a fair amount of column space dedicated to the letter dropping off a place name on a road sign. If I remember correctly the local Sunday league football used to get a write up every week also (and the same is true all over the UK local papers write about the local leagues), they are however not of general interest and not notable from the wikipedia point of view. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment First of all thanks for your explanation. I am new to Wikipedia editing and those introductions are very welcome. I also get your "problem" beter now. What I was trying to say (I am sorry not beeing a native English speaker and might be unclear for that reason) is that the one deletion reason was the non-notability of teams, which is not true. The second one is the non-notability of the tournament itself. I have to disagree here again. First of all the Isle of Man is independent and thus IoM newspaper are national newspaper according to this definition. Besides the IoM sources there are plenty more which I mentioned a couple of times before. Somehow those keep getting ignored in this discussion. TransTamil, Tamil Guardian, UKTamilNews, LankaSriNews are all national UK or glabal papers. In addition the Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance is reporting about the tournament in Canada. The Turkish "Alamanak Spor" has an article about it. "lequebecois" from Canada also wrote about it. In addition there still are the up to 5 million live streaming viewers, the 50 Tamil language sources, hundreds of newsblogs from all over the world and much more of proofs that the tournament was noted. I mean in the end there are a couple of million people who followed the event in any way and are interested in that. On the other hand you are obviously not interested in it. But is that really a sufficient regulation to delete it that quickly ? DJLiesel (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Isle of Man coverage is not national, it's all of the local news variety, if you look at the other stories at the sites you list that's pretty apparent. This is no different to any local newspaper, radio station etc. writing about local sporting events, or local garage bands or local whatever. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - as I stated at the original AFD, there is no evidence of any notability for this tournament. WP:ROUTINE coverage in the local rag simply does not cut it. GiantSnowman 08:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment OK. I spent most of the night with reading all the rules of Wikipedia. I cannot see why TV reports, Radio reports and news reports in about 20 countries are not an evidence of notability. Could you please shortly sum up WHY its not ? I am sure you cannot brandmark all articles I posted as WP:ROUTINE DJLiesel (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What TV reports? What radio reports? What international news coverage? GiantSnowman 09:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment OK, this is my last try to give evidence: TV reports: Please take a look at Manx TV and search football on their page. Then you will find all 5 TV reports about that tournament: ^[1]. Radio Reports: Same here. If you search Manx Radio for "Tynwald football" you will find several reports about that: ^[2]. International news coverage: Despite listing all those article a couple of times before, I will do it again: From France: ^[3]. From Isle of Man: ^[4], ^[5] plus 2 page pictured articles in all 3 Isle of Man national newspapers (I can make a picture of one of those if that helps in any way). From Tamil: ^[6] (UK), ^[7] (worldwide), ^[8] (Switzerland, there are more articles about the tournament on that news). Besides there are Tamil News for Australia, USA/Canada, Germany and many in Tamil language for the worldwide Tamil community. So in fact it was reported about that tournament nearly all of the world. Tamil Eelam and Raetia did also live streaming, live tickers and radio reports with background interviews during the tournament. And there was Russian media present but I cannot find the article because I do not speak Russian unfortunately. This is my last try and I will give others a chance to get into the discussions now. Maybe you could finally give an explanation why media coverage for millions of people litarally from all over the world is non-notable again ? I know neither BBC nor CNN or Al-Jazeera reported about it, but the Tamils alone are about 79 millions and all of them reading any news in their language "took note" of that tournament. DJLiesel (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Againt, that is nothing substantial or national, even with the 'Tamil' press covering it in passing. Lots of nationalistic papers are obviously going to cover such a nationalistic tournament, but it does not remove them from the realm of local/routine coverage I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion while the AFD was fairly low turnout, it was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. The event itself seems pretty minor and I share the IP's concerns that the article was apparently being used as an extension of the official website, which would be a major COI/Spam issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all to the GiantSnowman: You are calling a nationless minority and an INTERnational tournament nationalistic ? That is so ridiculous. Callin an event which is covered in >20 countries a local one is really pointless, too. I am sorry that the Tonga national press did not report about it. You could easily delete the Superbowl for the same reason. It is just mentioned in thousands of 'local' news and of course just as a routine. But I see how wiki works now. I am just one of millions of people interested in this article and you are the admin, so just do what you want to do and keep ignoring all my references or just call them rubbish or nationalistic. I am really honestly very disappointed that wikipedia is run this way. And Dear Mr Lenahan, you are right, the deletion discussion was unanimous. But honestly, I did not even see that there was a discussion and probably there are not many non-FIFA followers active wiki editors. But I really feel that I am just loosing my time discussing here. Do whatever you think is right, because in the end wikipedia is obviously created for their editors only and not for everbody. The 'free' in 'free' encyclopedia is not that meaningful. Last thing: If you delete that I highly recommend to delete all other non-FIFA football articles and all national league articles lower than league 2. Besides you should think about deleting all national teams that are ranked below 100 in FIFA maybe ? Have fun and thanks for letting me waste 2 nights study all the rules if they are not taken into account in the end... DJLiesel (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The SuperBowl is broadbast live across the world to billions of people - as far as I'm aware the 'Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament', made up of minor and non-teams, is not. GiantSnowman 13:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, trying to compare this non-notable event with the Super Bowl isn't really helping your case any. Also, arguments of "If you delete this you have to delete a whole bunch of other stuff too!" are not a good idea--see WP:ALLORNOTHING. And tantrums aren't a good idea either. Anyway, this should probably be closed as withdrawn by nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Super Bowl is broadcasted live, just like the Tynwald tournament was. The difference. Tynwald was broadcastet online and "just" had 5 million viewers life. The teams are not non-notable anymore, but are non-teams now? Ridiculous! I read all the rules and I know that does not help. But was does help then ? Giving references does not as all sources are labelles non-notable anyways. Arguing does not help, as you do not argue, but say: "It is non-notable." I am deeply into non-FIFA football for several years and I can tell you that this was problably the most-notable non-FIFA tournament which was not called World Cup ever. But probably you know that better than me. You have the "admin" status and so you have the power to judge what on this planet is notable and whats not. Thats the way it works, I learned that now. And about the WP:ALLORNOTHING. I know that this is "forbidden". It is still true, though. I just find it funny that the fact that 2 people do not like a topic it is banned. The article is not mine and not written for me or for you, but it is to inform the world. And I think it is quite arrogant of you to say: "I am not interested in that, so nobody is." And you do not even have a single argument for that except for beeing "non-notable", which is 100% a personal feeling. All the references proof the opposite. And I never "withdraw" from anything. The article has to stand for all the millions interested in non-notable stuff like this. I am just withdrawing from arguing with people who do not bring up a single argument. It is like talking to a wall which throws a stone on you from time to time.62.155.164.151 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - As per Giant Snowman, all references provided are essentially for local news reports, there has been no coverage at a national level of any significance that I can find. The fact that this tournament was organised and included a local Manx league team adds further weight to the argument that this was not a true "international" tournament, but simply a friendly tournament that happened to include some Non-FIFA teams. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I misunderstood one rule. How is "local news" defined in the sense of Wikipedia? Nevertheless the Isle of Man is a nation per definition and the Tamil News are neither local nor national but global for all Eelam Tamils in the world. In addition there are some local reports obviously. About the tournament: It was not organized to bring in any non-FIFA team. The IOMFA could not afford to bring a team to the Island Games on the Bermudas because of the high travelling costs. As a kind of compensation they wanted to created an international football tournament for the Manx people. This because they organized the Tynwald tournament as a side event to their national day, the Tynwald day. The reason of St John representing the Isle of Man (instead of their national team) is that the IOMFA is part of the English FA and they are thus not allowed to play any matches or tournaments outside FIFA. They just have a special permission to play the Island Games. As the tournament should take place close to the Tynwald Hill (because of the national day of the Isle of Man) they thus chose the team closest to this, which is St Johns. All other teams competing have been regular non-FIFA national teams, though. You are right with the fact it was a friendly tournament, more precisely an invitational international tournament. It is planned to take place on a regular basis in future, too.DJLiesel (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition I finally found the article of one of the biggest Russian sports media: ^[9]

References

Stax Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reached out to administrator Ryan Postlewaithe several times over three weeks but have received no reply. The page was deleted based on "notability" but I can't see how it violates any of the stated guidelines.

Those guidelines state the following: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

"A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. [The listing includes "Organizations & Companies.") The only other criterion stated is that it must have a reliable third-party source, and one of the posters acknowledges that Stax is listed in the Business Week standard company overview (we have plenty of others; FYI, the company website is www.stax.com). For the record, Stax has been in business for nearly 20 years, serves Fortune 500 companies, as well as 14 of the largest private equity firms in the world. When you boil down the guidelines, you qualify as "notable" as long as you're a company (which we are) and you're verifiable (which we are).

In the end, the deletion seems to be based on the individuals' personal view of what's notable (and, again, the guidelines specifically state "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." So what basis is left? If someone could point out any other specific guideline that was violate, we would be happy to fix it.

I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2013‎

• Endorse, evidently correct AfD closure. And Jks825, please don't keep creating new accounts here; I take it you are the same editor as the previous SmalleyJK (talk · contribs)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion is evidently correct, would you mind telling me what guideline the page violates? jks825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks825 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in an overtly promotional tone, as if taken from the company's own public relations material (I assume that you and the other previous single-purpose accounts that wrote it actually work for the company, right?) More importantly, the article failed to demonstrate that the company had been the object of sustained, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications. But most importantly, it wasn't actually Ryanpostlethwaite's job to make this assessment, nor is it mine; his job and ours here is merely to judge whether the participants in the AfD had arrived at an informed consensus about it. They had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The "other criterion" isn't simply "it must have a reliable third-party source" as you state above; it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (em. added). (And WP:CORP basically boils down to a restatement of that these days.) I can't see the source or sources referenced in the article, but AllyD's statement in the AFD that they weren't significant coverage went unrebutted. The way forward here is to point us at additional in-depth third-party coverage. Bhny's already looked for some on your behalf and couldn't find any. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply]
  • For the record, there were two sources cited in the article. One was this [9], which seems to be a self-authored company listing rather than a piece of substantial, independent editorial coverage; the other was [10], which is currently a 404 error. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wayback Machine archive of the second one. It doesn't look like much help either. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These last few comments were a lot more specific and helpful. They provide much clearer guidance on what needs to be fixed. Thank you. Jks825 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse by default: both AFDs were unanimous and there appears to be no breach of procedure. Nominator appears to be expressing disagreement and/or frustration with Wikipedia's notability/verifiability standards and while they're free to hold that opinion, mere dissention isn't going to restore the article. Since no evidence has been presented that the situation has significantly changed since the AFD (for example, by the company having a major and well-documented change in notability), I endorse the deletion by default. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion Even were the company notable, the article is so promotional that it would need to be started over. But I suggest you not do so unless you have several really good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not press releases, or material derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ginifer King (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

also

Kayla Maisonet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Breanna Yde (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Curtis Harris (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Amber Montana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Soft redirects inappropriately deleted as WP:CSD#A3 "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting ..." WP:Soft redirect#Deletion are to be treated as would any other redirect. Some of the article had RfD discussions going when the speedy delete occurred. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 21 Discussed this with deleting admin, comments on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Pages with just a Soft Redirect to External Websites. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a technical foul on FPaS's part, but I can't bring myself to endorse overturning the deletions. This was clearly a misuse of the soft redirect function, and if I was going to take any action as a result of this it would be to clarify policy that soft redirects are not intended to be used to link to external websites such as IMDB and that any such soft redirect is not protected by the exclusion in A3.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously I disagree and think it is a valid use of the soft redirect function as currently documented. Until policy is clarified prohibiting this use and the article at WP:Soft redirect changed to reflect that change in policy, this issue is still open to the ongoing discussions at RfD and should not be truncated by an inappropriate speedy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)Clarification of policy would require a lengthy discussion and a community consensus at the talk page of said policy. As policy stands the deletion was in clear and unequivocal violation. Soft redirects CAN be to non-mediawiki sites. Whether the specific case of IMDB is allowed is for the community to decide during a discussion not for one or a small handful of people to decide on their own.Camelbinky (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Criteria for speedy deletion would also need to be changed as well, as it also specifically excludes both redirects and soft redirects both from A3. It isn't just a matter of someone using WP:IAR, it is a matter of someone didn't bother doing any research on soft redirects or know how to use A3. If you don't read the policies and you don't know what the criteria for a deletion is, should you really be deleting?Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think it is 100% Grade-A bullshit that the Wikipedia was ever used to redirect traffic to off-wiki sites for non-notable porn starlets, we're not a referral service for the adult industry. Whatever endorse/support is needed to make sure that this stays gone and any other cases are cleaned up, I do so. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am always wary of getting into arguments with admins but I agree with every word Tarc said here. I do apologize for taking the discussion to the Village Pump. I have now been informed that it was the wrong place for this discussion. I am not sure if deletion under A3 is appropriate but I agree with the end result. -- TOW  talk  01:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then a discussion should be started at the relevant policy page. That's all I've been asking for is for existing policy to be used unless changed first. I have no problem with the outcome, they did deserve to be deleted, but only after discussion at the relevant noticeboard and not through deletion and especially not through the deletion criteria that was cited. There was a violation of forum shopping and then a violation of speedy deletion policy and a violation of soft redirect policy.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been looking to find out what our rule on this actually is. It seems to come under a content guideline at WP:ELMAYBE point #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." If this really is the best guideline available then I see two arguable positions.

  On the one hand we could say: An RFD is necessary. That Village Pump discussion does not constitute a consensus in favour of deletion and no speedy deletion criterion that applies. DRV's role is to see that we follow the process correctly and this is not within any process we recognise.

  The counterargument to this is: If there's nothing but a link to offsite user-submitted content, then there's no encyclopaedia article to consider. Wikipedia's rules to protect article-writers from random speedy deletion can only be invoked when there's some attempt at an article to protect.

  The fact is that Ginifer King is an actress known for her appearance as a nameless bit part in a 2009 Rom-com movie that flopped like a stunned flatfish. She may very well have massive talent and star quality but if so, no reliable source has ever noticed, which means we shouldn't have an article, which means we've got to the right result here even if the process was a bit rough.—S Marshall T/C 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This deletion review is done under critia #2 of this forum "if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,". This is not the proper place to debate those particular redirects and it is extremely hard to have that debate with the content being debated deleted. These are actors in a new Nickelodeon kids TV series, not porn stars but you can't know that with the content under debate gone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A sysop will be along to {{tempundelete}} the disputed content shortly. In all the circumstances, this is the correct venue to discuss what to do now.—S Marshall T/C 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion It wouldn't make a difference if they were porn stars. This was simply an attempt to introduce IMDB links into an article via the circuitous route, and the end-result of deletion is correct. Soft redirects are meant to guide users to sister-sites of the WMF, not to get around the sensible guidelines of WP:ELNO. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted (endorse own deletion). Just because our policy texts don't spell out each and every bad idea how a feature could potentially be abused doesn't mean it's not an abuse of the feature. The A3 exemption for "soft redirects" was added to CSD after this and this discussion in 2008 [11]. It is clear from these discussions that none of the participants was thinking of the possibility of applying this to alleged "soft redirects" from main space to external non-sister projects; all they were thinking of was things like Wiktionary targets. When in a different discussion in 2010 somebody proposed allowing such links to external non-Wikimedia wikis, this was roundly rejected as being an invitation to linkspam. We may have a few legitimate soft redirects to things like Meatballwiki in project space (dunno), but soft redirects to non-affiliated sites in content space are still just what WP:CSD#A3 covers, and was always meant to cover: articles "consisting only of external links" – just because you dress up that external link in a fancy template that was never meant for that use doesn't change the fact that this is what it is. – In the present case, the proposed links are for BLP subjects and point to an external site that is known to be thoroughly unreliable and which in these cases contains unverified and overtly promotional material that would be extremely inappropriate for Wikipedia itself. The soft redirect template makes it appear to the reader as if the link target was somehow associated with us and endorsed by us. Doing this is one of the worst ideas I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. While I have no doubt Geraldo Perez proposed these uses in good faith, following his interpretation of A3 would mean that we would open ourselves up to linkspam systematically – any spammer could create an "article" page with a link to his favorite company website or blog, write "this is a soft redirect" above it and then pretend we can't legitimately speedy it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - While the deletion does violate the letter of A3 it follows the intent of it. One of the intents of A3 is to allow the speedy deletion of articles that only contain external links. All of these pages only contain a link to an external website. The original author of these pages, acknowledges in their first edit summary on each page that these are non-notable actors. These pages do not improve the english Wikipedia at all. GB fan 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Future Perfect. I'm shocked to see there is even a controversy over this, or anyone thinking it's acceptable to maintain pages in article space that do nothing but give links to IMDB or any other site completely unrelated to Wikipedia. I would have speedied them myself under A3 if I had seen them, and I'm finding the complaints about process not being followed are irrelevant and doing nothing to address the underlying issue of why in the world these kinds of external link-only pages should be tolerated. "Nothing says I can't do it" is wikilawyering, not a substantive argument that it improves the encyclopedia (even if we pretend that WP:NOTLINK has no relevance). I see these listed here at least were all created by one editor within the past couple days, so without any indication that this has been widespread practice for a long time that editor should have the burden of explaining why these belong here and how they could possibly be limited reasonably. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Perhaps there was a technical foul in the details of how the bureaucratic rules are defined. But per WP:BEANS we shouldn't need to identify every possible undesirable type of edit. older ≠ wiser 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted / Endorse deletion using speedy deletion to get rid of totally unacceptable articlespace content is a perfectly valid IAR case. I find the nominator's attitude that simply because the rules don't specifically forbid something means it's allowed particularly odious. Wikipedia's policies are never intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible bad ideas, and editors are expected to act with common sense. Wikipedia's rules don't specifically say not to take a nude jog through the lion habitat at the zoo either, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please understand, everyone who has commented above encouraging the speedy delete. Speedy delete is not allowed for ANY soft redirect. You will need to change the policy, it is not a matter of this type of article is not specifically "illegal", it is that you can not speedily delete them at all, ever, for any reason. Since discussions are not voting, and it is based on the merits of comments based on existing policy, technically any admin closing this could ignore all keep deletes that encourage speedy delete. Please read up on wp:soft redirects, which is also in compliance with the policy on speedy deletion which also says you can not speedy delete ANY redirect, hard or soft.Camelbinky (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any action is allowed that clearly benefits the encyclopedia. Per the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Wikipedia's policies are NOT intended to cover any imaginable type of desirable or undesirable behaviour (see WP:IAR, WP:NOTBURO), and attempting to rewrite the policies to make them cover everything would lead to undesirable unintended consequences and would overall NOT be a good thing(see WP:CREEP, WP:BEANS). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if we treat this legalistically, however, WP:CSD#A3 expressly provides for the deletion of articles consisting only of external links. Soft redirects are noted as an exception, but if these are considered valid soft redirects, then what remains as "articles consisting only of external links"? It would be silly if a one-link page could not be speedy deleted for consisting only of external links, but a two-link page could be. It would also be silly if the difference between being speedy deletable or not were simply whether the one-link page used {{soft redirect}}. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've opened a related discussion at WT:CSD#CSD A3.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Completely in line with policy, if not its somewhat flawed wording. I think anybody who was around for the discussions that resulted in A3 in the first place, and the exception later carved into it for {{wi}}, would be just as aghast as I am at this twisting of it. What's next - we have to send {{infobox person|Jaimie Doe is the bestest guy evers!}} to AFD because infoboxes aren't speedyable either? If it makes you feel better, call it an R2. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion And Kudos to Future Perfect for taking decisive action, sorry it didn't work out. As for the initiator of this discussion,

Plip!

• Endorse- Absolutely no problem with this invocation of WP:IAR, as editors need to be able to deal decisively with this kind of silliness without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Anyone with WP:EL experience knows that these pages should all be deleted, and whether or not an admin completed all the correct paperwork beforehand is not relevant. Policies do not list every bad idea, so it does not matter that no rule prohibits creating a page at Wikipedia simply to promote an external website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, in case you didn't see it the first time- no one is saying this has anything to do with rules about making the article, so I don't know where you and many others are saying that rules don't prohibit the making of this page. The problem is that the !rules explicitly say you can not speedy delete soft redirects for any reason. Change the damn rule. Everyone here is saying the rule should be ignored per IAR, but put your money where your mouth is and change the damn rule if you think IAR should be invoked in every case. IAR should be used for minimal exceptions, rules should be changed when IAR is being invoked too much.Camelbinky (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above responds to this argument. It makes A3 internally unworkable if these are viewed as "soft redirects". And it should be clear by now that the community never contemplated that link pages such as these would qualify, so the exemption at A3 can't reasonably apply here. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Right outcome, wrong criterion. I have a very strong view that IAR speedy deletion is never appropriate and even though I stand by that this is the most testing case I've come across. These pages break the spirit of A3, as they are exactly the sort of thing that criterion was written with the intention of covering. They do not meet the letter of the criterion though as redirects are not subject to A criteria. Redirects and soft redirects are covered by the R criteria, so the nominator is incorrect to say that soft redirects can never be speedily deleted. Indeed by my reading these pages arguably fall under criterion G3 as they were deliberately created to bypass Wikipedia's policies, but that is only arguable and not strong enough to count. However there is no doubt in my mind that these pages should have been speedy-deleted as G11 as they serve exclusively to promote the subjects' pages at IMDB. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, given that there is good faith disagreement that the speedy deletion criterion applies, by definition it does not apply. Therefore Overturn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Easily meets the A3 criteria: "Articles consisting solely of external links." Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except A3 explicit excludes soft redirects, so they do not meet the A3 criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any soft redirects. I see an external link to IMDb masquerading as a soft redirect. If this is acceptable, please let me know because I'd like to add a "soft redirect" to my very non-notable software firm's homepage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present we do not have any definition of what constitutes a valid soft redirect target and what does not. There is presently a discussion at WT:CSD to try and define one for speedy deletion purposes, but as it stands essentially any working link that claims to be a soft redirect is one. Were you to add such a link then I would speedy delete it per criterion G11 if I felt that was appropriate or nominate it for deletion at RfD (which is where policy says soft redirects should be nominated). Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and then 1) start a real discussion which can be SNOW closed in a day or less, based on the opinions here, and 2) start a real discussion about what A3 should say. IAR speedies should never be allowed to stand if even one good-faith editor, which Camelbinky certainly is, disputes that speedy applied in that case. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Camelbinky is not not a Wikipedian. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It mirrors consensus and prevents mass creation of off-wikipedia soft redirects. Some time ago we removed links to IMDB from infoboxes. I don't want them to see them coming back as soft redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I don't personally think these pages qualify as soft redirects, which Template:Soft redirect defines as "short pages inviting readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project". Although they had a soft redirect template on them, they were pages consisting solely of external links. Even if these pages do qualify as soft redirects it isn't appropriate for us to have soft redirects to non-WMF sites, and so the pages should be kept deleted regardless. Hut 8.5 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the policy discussion at WP:CSD has quickly concluded that A3 is indeed intended to treat links like these as deletable, and the wording of the criterion has been clarified accordingly [12]. Can we now close this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, our rules are to be ignored when a literal reading of the text would create ridiculous "loopholes" that were clearly never intended. Good on FPaS for getting it right. In the end, reaching the right result is more important than whether one used Form 1053A-B3 and was "supposed to" use Form 1053A-B2. For the creator of the "article" that clearly isn't one, a trout at the very least, and disruptive editing sanctions if any more false articles are created. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also have scare quotes around "rules" in this instance. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being new to the discussion it seems User:Seraphimblade perhaps hasn't been following the many places this was discussed in which the editor who created this soft-redirect article did mean well and created it and only two others as a way of gauging Community reaction to whether they were O.K. or not, and while he/she believed they should be O.K. he/she was willing to abide by Community decisions and just wanted their "day in court" in a discussion instead of a speedy deletion. But I guess Seraphimblade would rather make accusations and threats than to read the ENTIRE discussion and all relevant information, or even use just a bit of good faith. Seraphimblade's entire !vote could have done without the scare quotes or accusations, which in my mind make it irrelevant to the closing admin's decision (if it actually came to that, a snow close seems more likely). Editor's !voting need to remember it isn't a popularity contest, not all !votes and comments need to counted, it is the strength of your argument based on existing policy that matters.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll second that. While these pages clearly don't belong on Wikipedia and I endorse the deletions, there is no evidence whatsoever that these pages were created to be "disruptive". Shame on you Seriphimblade; you've been here long enough that you shouldn't need a blue link to find "AGF". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shame on you for misspelling my username. But that aside, I've certainly been here a while, long enough to know speaking frankly is a service, not a disservice. The existence of A3 should be more than enough to clearly communicate "We don't want pages that are just external links". If someone hadn't known about that, and had said "Didn't know that wasn't allowed, won't do it again", that's the end of the story. Bringing it to DRV, however, indicates they think it's somehow acceptable if the link is stuck into a template. I'm being quite clear that it's not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis E. Dec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm confused by the closing decision here, which was to delete the article on the grounds of lack of notability and reliable sources. If User:Seduisant/SandboxDec is a correct copy of the article, then I see numerous secondary sources which serve to establish notability. Dec is the primary subject of a chapter in a 1994 book by Donna Kossy, a recognized authority on eccentric individuals. The publisher is independent of the author, and both the publisher and author are independent of the subject. Dec is also the subject of a 1999 biographical stage play which was reviewed at least four times in the New York press, including The Village Voice. Dec's work has been published by Robert Crumb, and reviewed or examined in The Big Takeover and the official journal of the AIGA. I think that any two of these alone would be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The article does indeed depend too much on primary and non-reliable sources, and this is perhaps why the reliable ones were overlooked by the closing administrator. (Note that, if the decision is overturned, it would definitely be possible to pare down the article such that it covers only those aspects of the man's life and work which have attracted sufficient scholarly and press coverage.) Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the AFD, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because this is the kind of stuff I find really interesting, but not everything that's interesting, weird or unusual is necessarily going to be a good encyclopedia subject. The AFD was extremely clear, with a delete consensus if you're just counting votes and an even stronger delete consensus if you're weighing arguments. There were 4 bolded keep votes: (1) acknowledges the lack of reliable sources and admits it's a WP:ILIKEIT vote, (2) gives no reasoning at all, (3) an IP, presumably someone logged out, repeats the no-reasoning vote and notes the previous AFD and (4) says it's "a shame" to delete the article but admits it's borderine. So yeah, not a single, solid, policy-based argument among them. There are places to find info on Dec, but it's often a fine line between reporting on fringe weirdness and posthumously making fun of a mentally ill person. There are places to do that, but Wikipedia really isn't one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing that there was no consensus to delete the article, or that the administrator misjudged the consensus; I'm pointing out that the arguments made for deleting the article, while grounded in policy, were not actually supported by the evidence. Closing an AfD involves a bit more than simply identifying which !voters invoke WP:N, WP:RS, and other policies in their arguments; it's also necessary to examine the premises upon which those arguments are advanced. I could nominate, say, Barack Obama for deletion on the grounds that the subject has no notability via coverage in reliable sources; that would certainly be a policy-based argument, but an examination of the references in the article itself would show that it doesn't actually apply to that case. In this case I don't think anyone was acting in bad faith; I suspect that the reliable sources, buried as they were among a slew of unreliable ones, were simply overlooked. Indeed, there was no specific mention of them by either side in the debate. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's important to be clear that the AfD closer's role is to review the debate, to summarise the consensus reached by good faith participants, and implement it. I disagree with Psychonaut in that I think it's not the closer's job to review the sources. The debate participants are supposed to have done that by the time the debate ends. If it turns out that this hasn't been done, then the closer is not at fault. We should endorse a close which accurately reflected the consensus at the time. That doesn't oblige us to agree with the debate's conclusion, and we can require a relist despite endorsing the closer's actions, but DRV should always support a closer who's correctly divined the consensus.

  We're currently in breach of the terms of use. Please would a sysop restore the contribution history of the copy in Seduisant's userspace, so the contributors get proper credit.

  Reviewing the subject debate, it's hard to argue with its conclusion. Starblind is correct: this content is taking the piss out of a confused old man who's now died. It can never be anything else because it's based on sources that also take the piss out of the confused old man who's now died. There aren't any in-depth sources that don't; sources about the stage play are not sources about Mr Dec. Therefore it's not currently possible to write something neutral. NPOV is policy, so this falls on its face before we even start to consider notability. To allow this article, we'd need a source that doesn't treat its subject like a joke.—S Marshall T/C 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • S Marshall is correct that the user space copy is a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material, but it has been in violation for a few months since the AfD was closed. I think that it is fine to leave until this DRV is resolved. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like Seduisant created it during the AfD. I asked him not to do this and notified him in the process. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments on your post, the first of general principles and the second specific to this article. First, if the closer's duty is only to identify the consensus, then generally speaking, what recourse do we have when that consensus is later found to rest on false premises? If WP:DRV isn't the appropriate procedure, then what is? Second, I don't think your interpretation of NPOV is correct. A subject which has received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable irrespective of the point of view of those sources. We don't omit articles on unpopular individuals (such as criminals, tyrants, or madmen) simply because none of the sources have anything nice to say about them. We just summarize the objective facts of the person, and then neutrally report on notable third-party views and opinions about them. I am by no means arguing that overturning the deletion decision here would be an endorsement of the article in its current state, and I agree it has sourcing and POV issues that need to be addressed. If restored the article would need to be pared down to a small fraction of the original in order to bring it into line with our policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your first point, DRV can, and sometimes does, conclude that the debate closer was right to close as they did, but the debate itself needs overturning because some important point was missed. There's a clear example of this, which contains a lot of pertinent discussion about the principles at stake, on the second debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24. I want to emphasize how important it is that sysops can have confidence that DRV will support them if they implement the consensus.

      On your second point I very much see what you're saying. To me, the issue is that we don't have a source that takes Dec seriously. They're all essentially mocking and use words like "kook"; they treat him as a figure of fun.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Encourage userfication for Psychonaut. I don't think that this had a strong notability challenge. The subject has clearly been noticed. WP:BLP is not an issue. The fact that sources don't treat the person with respect is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The biggest challenge is meeting verifiability. It is unusual that a subject more easily meets WP:N than WP:V, but here it is possible that much underlying material is apocryphal. I have not attempted to review all sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the AFD. The closing admin's decision accurately reflected both consensus and relevant policies. No important points or sources were "overlooked". The article was someone's original research essay that went to great lengths to exaggerate Dec's importance. Likewise, the arguments that Dec meets WP notability for his own article are being greatly exaggerated. Donna Kossy may be notable enough for her own article, but that does not make anyone she mentions in her zines automatically notable. A graphic designer who says he used Dec as an influence hardly counts as a reliable source that demonstrates Dec's notability just because he said it in the journal of the AIGA. That Dec was the subject of an obscure stage play that got a mention in The Village Voice or that Dec's words were used by Robert Crumb is not sufficient either: notability is not inherited. Also the fact that 99% of the article is sourced to a Dec fan club dedicated to, as Starblind put it, "posthumously making fun of a mentally ill person", doesn't help at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotaract Club of University of Moratuwa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There seems to be a willingness at AfD to discuss and even delete articles whose redirects IMO would be routinely kept at RfD.  This AfD is a case in point.  The alternatives to deletion were not considered in the nomination and not mentioned in the closing.  The response from the closing admin included an unqualified statement that "Notability is a reason for deletion", which IMO is at the core of the problem here.

This is almost a policy and evidence-free discussion.  I did a search for "Wikipedia:" and "WP:" and found only one policy mentioned, in which the mention itself was speculation as to what another editor meant.  Only one editor has presented enough evidence about the sources to allow for the possibility of repeatable results.  I made an argument for wrong venue, but I did not cite WP:ATD.  I opened a discussion with the closing admin at [User talk:Secret#AfD closed as delete], and noted that there is no possible theoretical delete result, even with a raw !vote count.  The raw !vote is 4 delete and 5 don't delete.  The response is that there is a "clear" consensus here.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with only rare exceptions, student clubs at a single school tend to not be notable enough for an article and generally do not pass WP:ORG. Nothing in the article or debate suggested this one was any exception--indeed, the article itself was especially bad, 32K+ of trivial text outlining the club's activities in great detail, a list of past presidents, an unwikified timeline, and overall having the feel of a brochure or advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to call attention to instances where the deletion policy has not been followed correctly. It is not a place to attempt to advance new arguments that could have been made at the deletion discussion, nor to re-advance old ones. In this instance, the deletion policy was correctly followed, in particular the custom of giving a higher weight to arguments based on the extent to which they conform to Wikipedia policy. Linking to, or quoting, policy is not necessary. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I see this as quite a nuanced one. I would endorse Secret's close of that debate and deletion of that specific article. I certainly would not endorse everything Secret says to justify that deletion in your subsequent talk-page discussion, and I think some discussion at the in-principle level about notability may be helpful here; but it's right that this particular material was deleted.

  It complicates things that we sometimes use words loosely. At AfD and DRV, "delete" strictly means "make into a redlink", so "merge", "redirect", "keep" and "no consensus" are all flavours of "keep", while "delete", "userfy" and "incubate" are all flavours of "delete". However, the debate participants may not always appreciate this distinction. The closer's role is to read the comments at the AfD in context, not just the bolded words, and interpret them. For example, at this AfD, Ryan Postlethwaite correctly decided that what the "delete" meant was "do not have a separate article", and closed the debate as "redirect". I don't think any of our more experienced DRV participants would have an issue with that kind of decision. Unscintillating's argument is that the subject debate should have been interpreted in the same way.

  I don't really agree; notability is a tool. Its main purpose is to enable us to detect and remove marketing spam. Here it's being adapted to deal with content completely lacking in encyclopaedic value without wasting too much volunteer time. This is within Wikipedian norms and I don't see any benefit to disturbing the outcome. Chapter and verse about notability for the intelligent inclusionist is here, and the section on dealing with non-notable things is particularly relevant to this discussion.

  However, in my view Secret's bald declaration that "Notability is a reason for deletion (despite some claims to the contrary)" is a troubling thing to read from a sysop and I take a fairly dim view of that. Notability is not a policy and it does not by itself justify deleting content. The misuse or overuse of notability isn't unconnected with our issues with editor recruitment and retention----because the guy who spends three hundred hours writing articles about individual TV show episodes might just be the guy who goes on to write Fauna of Spain, providing we don't drive him off with harsh and weird decisions. In other words, notability exists in tension with other important considerations and it's much better not to overstate the case.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect Per WP:ATD. To the extent that ATD, which is deletion policy, was not considered and applied appropriately, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was not policy based, and should not have been blindly implemented by any administrator. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no option to redirect here. Secret ^account 05:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't want closers to start reading "redirect" arguments into a debate where none were presented----I think DRV would quite rightly view any such close as a supervote. Jclemens, what do you think Secret should have redirected that title to?—S Marshall T/C 08:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There were two comments regarding "merge", one being a !vote to merge to University of Moratuwa, and the name of the topic identifies itself as a part of "University of Moratuwa".  And as has been also argued, "Delete non-notable" may sometimes be understood to mean "don't keep as a stand-alone article", which is another path to find a redirect/merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of User:Bearian's comments – at this AfD or the referenced one at WP:Articles for deletion/Clean Green Cayo – specified what content to merge (WP:Merge what? essay). Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with S Marshall's supervote comment. A closing admin could delete and – as an ordinary editor – create a redirect, depending on how strongly the consensus was against one. A potential closer could also participate instead of closing. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, a supervote is when an admin imposes his or her own views. A policy-based outcome need not have been mentioned to be chosen, and choosing a merge or redirect option when none has been advanced by the participants, but the decision is in line with the policy-based outcomes expected is far from a supervote--it's an admin implementing policy, just as much as weighing a rough consensus is. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Supervote#Advice to admins facing a defective debate: "If a person feels strongly that the opinions expressed in an XfD are contrary to policy then it is better to comment instead of close." Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not mindless robots. Judging a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS demands that the admin view the opinions expressed in AfD through the lens of what actual policy says--the same authority that is granted admins to weigh appropriately options that are expressed in a discussion entitles them to consider the policy-based outcomes that should have been expressed. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first clause, but I disagree entirely with the second. It implies that an admin would be entitled to waltz into a well-attended and unanimous discussion and summarily close it in the opposite direction. The participants might all be wrong, but it is unnecessarily provocative. If the counterargument is overwhelming, simple participation should turn the debate. Regarding the definition of "supervote", I quoted directly from the essay. You are free to propose changes to the existing essay or write your own User:Jclemens/Supervote or WP:Judging consensus is not a supervote. (I usually prefer to describe the particular situation over using "supervote" due to differing interpretations, but it was convenient after S Marshall used it first.) Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind a "supervote" is where the sysop closes a discussion according to principles or criteria that aren't favoured by the participants in the discussion that's purportedly being closed. If we allow or worse, encourage such behaviour then we're implicitly downgrading the discussion from a consensus-reaching attempt to a sysop's suggestion box, and we should probably start handing out crystal balls on passing RFA.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you find a local consensus from 33% writing down "delete" plus the implied !vote of the nomination?  What happened to the "local consensus" of the 55% viewpoint of "preserve"?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (1)Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do any of these is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence or in presenting it is as much improper deletion process as ignoring the guidelines, for the goal for all admin actions including deletion is to act reasonably in the circumstances. If there are reasons that were not advanced that might plausibly affect the decision, altho we usually do not determine them here, we send it back to AfD . Therefore this, and any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed here. 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. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. I'm not necessarily saying it should be considered plausible here, but it can be considered DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you are welcome to have a view as to how DRV should work and what its policy should be, you should not express your personal points of view like this as though they are actual policy, and you do not have the right to declare policy "not applicable". Stifle (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (2) Redirection is for most types of articles at least a possibility (sometimes after deleting the present contents), though in many cases there may be good reasons not to use it. In any contested case where it might be plausible, if I close for delete I try to say something about why redirection is not suitable, whether or not it was raised in the argument, for it's something a closing admin should always consider it if seems relevant. I'm not necessarily saying it's appropriate here, but it has to be considered. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review so we can all see and consider it DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closing admin obviously read the weight of opinion correctly. A redirect to the university article would have been of little or no use to the reader, as the target contains nothing about this topic beyond a mere mention of its name in a list, and it would be extremely doubtful whether it would be appropriate (under WP:WEIGHT) to insert more coverage of this very minor subtopic within that parent article. The suggestion that the alternative option of a merge would have been so obvious and so compelling that the closing admin would have been obliged to consider it and supervote in favour of it even in the absence of significant support for it in the discussion is absurd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, the material for this club at University of Moratuwa is unsourced, so saying that it is "extremely doubtful" that material from this deleted article would have been useful is insufficiently-considered.  If additional text for the club has WP:UNDUE weight at University of Moratuwa, editors can create List of student organizations at University of Moratuwa as per WP:Editing policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a plausible argument. Why did you instead recommend Wrong venue? It is effectively "WP:Speedy keep #1 and refer to talk page", which was rejected as Option 1 at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011). Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The "wrong venue" recommendation indicated that no administrative tools were needed for the discussion.  Allowing the discussion to proceed at AfD opened the door to the potential for a wrongful deletion.  The fact that I hadn't studied the topic enough to know whether to keep, merge, or redirect, was immaterial to that determination.  The "wrong venue" !vote is not based on an RfC, it is a guideline-based !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convention is that – unless nipped in the bud or containing serious problems – AfDs are allowed to run. "Keep and consider merging to the university article or a list of clubs" may have been more effective, especially if backed by specifics. "The fact that [you] hadn't studied the topic enough" is very relevant to the weight that your recommendation received. Which guideline? Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a curious contrast, in which you reduce the weight of my WP:ATD policy-based argument for wrong venue because I didn't report what I would have said in the correct forum, but you give full weight to !votes for delete even though no policy-based argument for deletion was presented.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My weak endorse notes that all arguments were not especially good. The deletes are somewhat more than WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE due to the club being associated with a single university. No one explicitly linked WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations at the AfD, but it is consistent with their arguments. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To move from non-notable to delete requires negotiating WP:FAILN (WP:N) and WP:BRANCH (WP:ORG), neither of which leave room for deletion of material for non-notability when the topic is already covered in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing for merge or redirect would be easier if there were an obviously appropriate target like your proposed List of student organizations at University of Moratuwa, List of Rotaract Clubs in Sri Lanka, or List of Rotaract Clubs in South Asia. There would be WP:WEIGHT issues with merging anything substantial into University of Moratuwa#Student organizations or Rotaract, where the club's significance is lessened, so a proposal should be specific (WP:Merge what?, essay). The principle that "deletion is a last resort" was also covered in the linked RfC. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And let's put those four delete arguments back up front:

1. Non notable chapter of an organization at a single university.
2. student club at a single school, contents almost entirely trivia. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost.
3. per [#2]
4. Basically, per [#1]. Non-notable organization that has not generated relevant coverage.

Numbers #2 and #3 don't make a notability argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see #2 as an anti-WP:VAGUEWAVE: it does not even mention notability, but it has a rationale. The assessment "contents almost entirely trivia" implies that removing the unencyclopedic trivia would leave nothing behind. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your question about the guideline is better than I at first understood.  It comes from WP:SK, and the precise term is "wrong forum" rather than "wrong venue".  I've added some bolding at WP:SK.  Searches show that both phrases are commonly applied to closings, and "incorrect forum" and "incorrect venue" are also commonly used.  The key point is that "wrong forum", unlike "speedy keep", does not propose that the discussion be terminated, rather moved.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given are between different XfDs, and the last sentence of that paragraph is "This does not strictly count as a speedy keep, since the page still remains nominated for deletion." User:Hobit recommended wrong venue at WP:Articles for deletion/Obad-Hai (June 2013), and the discussion was allowed to proceed. The AfD search results for wrong venue were cluttered with referrals to RfD and MfD. I saw old AfDs from 2008 and 2009: Josh Romney, Zeituni Onyango, and Aston Merrygold (none closed especially early); plus Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington and Golden Alternate School closed as merge. More recent examples, Patamon (December 2011) and Bob the Dinosaur (July 2013), qualified for Speedy keep #1. Results for wrong forum were similar, with the addition of Korean maritime border incidents, Civilization (Justice song), and The Beach Boys solo discography (the proposed split is not common) closed by User:Sandstein in 2010–2011. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In looking at that RfC, I noticed a comment by Jc37 that explains the supposed "localconsensus" here better than anything else I've seen.  It is done by counting just the delete !votes and the keep !votes, which in this case gives 3 for deletion and 1 for keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the arguments in this AfD with what the lede of the WP:Arguments to avoid essay says,

Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So how much weight should be given to arguments from WP:Arguments to avoid?  Wouldn't that be zero weight?  I only see one !vote in the entire AfD that shows that the editor has looked in detail at the 21 sources in the article, and zero editors show that they have done a minimal Google search.  Admins are allowed to make bold redirects after closing no consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked over the sources:
  • I skipped over the University of Moratuwa, Rotary International, and project websites as self-published sources about themselves, which are excluded by the general notability guideline's "Independent of the subject". "South Asia Districts Winner 2011 of the Most outstanding Rotaract projects" is verified,^[13][14] but there is no evidence that this award is notable or confers notability. The ShelterBox press release only mentions that the club is involved.
  • The numerous Sri Lankan newspaper sources reminded me to consider WP:Systemic bias. The The Island source^[15], credited to Sandamali Devadithya, is obviously written by a club member with its frequent use of "we". One of The Sunday Times articles^[16] about "Handz" is co-written by Devadithya. A closer inspection reveals that most of the articles have a suspicious press release tone and no author credited. The 2000 article^[17] about the "A Glimpse of Heaven" project has comments from the club president, but nothing about the club itself.
  • The Ministry of Education source^[18] does not mention Rotaract, Rotary, or Moratuwa.

Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article at The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) shows that the Sunday Times has a circulation of 330,000.  As shown at WT:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 20, there were five references from that one newspaper at the time of deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If I just wanted to look at the WP:GNG notability issue, I'd note that Wikipedia editors are not at liberty under WP:GNG to object about WP:RS that "they didn't apply Wikipedia policies when they gave attention to the topic".  I'd note that there is evidence that the club has attracted attention from Germany, Turkey, India, and Australia, as well has across Sri Lanka.  I'd also note that just because a topic is wp:notable doesn't mean that we have to have a stand-alone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I wrote in the essay WP:Inaccuracy, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  What this means for a deletion discussion is that editors are not at liberty to ignore reliable primary sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, I looked up its circulation. I read all five articles and found that, except for the 2000 "A Glimpse of Heaven" article I mentioned above, they all read like press releases. Press releases are covered by Note 9 in WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources.
  2. I don't understand your first sentence. Is that a quote from somewhere? Is your argument that The Sunday Times is reliable, end of story, and my impression of the articles' press release tone should be discounted? Please provide those international sources for examination.
  3. What are you arguing? That every reliable source in an AfD'd article must be considered for use elsewhere? Even if a source is reused, the article may still be deleted. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed allows reuse of "Bare references" without attribution, just as you copied them to this DRV's talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sri Lanka article says, "The British science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke (most famous as the author of 2001 A Space Odyssey) served as Chancellor of Moratuwa University in Sri Lanka from 1979 to 2002."  The article at University of Moratuwa says that the school, "is the most sought-after technological university in Sri Lanka."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Opinion  Our article at Commonwealth of Nations states, "Most recently, international pressure has been mounting to suspend Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth and to change the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) from Sri Lanka to another member country, citing grave human rights violations by the host country."  My point here is that responsible future leaders of Sri Lankan technology, which this club is, have reason not to jump into a conversation here; and that rashly deleting their work, telling them that their work is "wasted effort", calling their work "especially bad"; is insulting and hurtful.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. Having reviewed the sources and disagreeing with Sionk's assessment of "apparently reliable", I believe that the delete outcome is correct. The arguments presented lack specific detail, but deletion is within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file is a critical element of a Featured article. Its Fair Use status was unchallenged at FAC in December 2012. No rationale provided for deletion. No consensus to delete. This should not have been closed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/Relist-I know FfD doesn't typically involve as much discussion as other XfD processes, but when an editor makes a good faith objection to a deletion nomination and an admin proceeds to delete without addressing it at all, something is wrong.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The image is irredeemably non-compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can we say that and then require that the article have an image? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not require that the article has an image. If an article can't be rated as FA without an image, and if no policy-compliant image is available, then the article simply needs to lose its featured status. No article is "required" to be featured. And, by the way, it would help people to understand what you are saying if you were to let us know which featured article you are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps if it is re-listed, then this can be discussed. An image with a valid WP:NFCC justification is a policy-compliant image. The contextual significance depends on the article in question, but it was deleted without reference to it, and therefore WP:NFCC#8 could not possibly have been the grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW FAC here --86.5.93.42 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse（deleting admin's comment). First, why was I not notified of this DRV? Now, about the merits of the case. In the FFD, no argument was brought forward about how the picture passed NFCC#8. The only thing that people discussed was whether or not the image might in fact be public domain, which turned out to be not the case. In the absence of anybody addressing the actual NFC concern as expressed in the nomination, the nominator's argument stood unchallenged and was actionable. I also note that the FUR on the image page was false, as it claimed the image showed "George W. Bush's reaction to what Stephen Colbert was saying". In fact, the image is so tiny and Bush's face is caught at such an angle that I can impossibly discern how he is reacting. The only thing this image contributes to the understanding of the article is to show the layout of the seating and the decoration of the podium. As for the FA status, that is neither here nor there. Back at the time when the article was first featured, FA processes were notoriously uninterested in upholding NFC policy, and the more recent re-nomination failed to even mention image use. The complaint that the article could not continue to be featured without an image is also a red herring. The FA criteria say that an article should have images "where appropriate", but since having a non-free image that breaches NFCC is, by definition, not appropriate, the absence of such an image cannot possibly be held against the article (and if people really insisted on images, you could still use free portraits of Colbert and Bush anyway). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the image is important to understanding. The reader can see the formality of the occasion, and just how close Colbert and the President were. The are plenty of screencaps on Wikipedia with valid NFCC tags, and there is no reason why this is not one of them. The image is small, a single frame, too low-res to use in a book, the entire video is available on YouTube so the is no commercial impact. A non-free image with an appropriate fair use justification does not breach NFCC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not get notified either. Without a valid close, it is hard to know what sort of image to use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I find closures like this very frustrating, and I'm certain many editors are even more frustrated than I. In general, when closing a discussion, it would be helpful to actually explain the closure. I hope everyone can understand that getting one's work "trashed" without even an explanation as to why is frustrating and not helpful to editor retention. In this case (and as is common in FfDs) the closer literally never edited the discussion when closing. I'd hope folks can see why that isn't ideal. Secondly, as far as I can tell, the closer did provide a rational for deletion, but only in the DRV (above). It certainly seems that issues are being raised by the closer that weren't in the actual discussion. I don't see how such a view can be the consensus of the discussion when the discussion didn't include those views. All that said, FAC requirements aren't a policy-based reason that NFCC is met. I think we need a better discussion (perhaps with the closer of this discussion providing his views above) and a reading of consensus of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no need for any more substantial explanation on the FFD page because there had been no argument for keeping. A single pertinent argument had been made, by the nominator, and that remained unchallenged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a challenge--a user asked for more details about what the nominator saw as wrong, both with respect to the FUR and what exactly the relevant policy was for critical commentary. No one responded and your close didn't explain either. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A question is not a challenge. To challenge an argument, you need to raise a counter-argument. Nobody did that. When I'm tackling a backlog of literally hundreds of old open FFD discussions, I can't separately re-explain the policy to every uploader who happens to not understand it, and as you rightly saw, closing obvious FFDs without additional closing remarks is standard procedure. Did you notice your whole argument is actually self-contradictory? On the one hand you demand that we should close FFDs only on the basis of arguments that "were in the actual discussion", but at the same time you complain about me doing exactly that: the only argument that "was in the actual discussion" was an argument for deletion. If you want me to restrict myself to reading what's said in the discussion, what else but this argument would you want me to base my closure on? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you are saying is that in the interest of clearing away old FFDs, you have been short-circuiting the proper procedures that require prior notification of involved parties, consensus to delete, responding to objections and providing a valid rational for deletion, on the assumption that an image can always be re-listed if someone complains. I would suggest that someone has. The case has been made for re-listing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh? What are you even talking about? I did not short-circuit any procedure. I found an FFD that had been open for almost a month; the weight of opinion expressed in it was clear (one argument for deletion, zero arguments for keeping); I closed it. That is the procedure. And what prior notification? Incidentally, you failed to notify me of this DRV, so don't you now go lecturing others about proper procedure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone tried to raise a counter argument, but didn't know enough about how to do so. Their questions were reasonable. I do (seriously) appreciate that there are a lot of back-logs around here. But I'd argue that we're better off with those being backlogged than we are with closing a discussion like that with no comment. Further, that an editor is asking for an explanation of the deletion nomination _is_ a challange. The user felt the FUR was enough and said so. We've got two people with an "is/is not" argument. They also couldn't find a policy-based reason that critical commentary was needed. That too is a challenge. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chung-Chiu Hong Sudden Death Event (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was speedied twice so I would want to bring it here for discussion. Certainly not a hoax, and while for the subsequent recreation the quoted source was not the best this event has caused quite a stir in Taiwan: many high ranking army officials have been charged, and the scandal has reached to the extent the Defence Minister has tendered his resignation (but declined by the president). Chinese sources indicate that there's more than it meets the eye - too early to say that this article is not notable. Also consider the amount of content on the chinese version. Definitely not a speedy case.

• Sources: The Standard (Hong Kong) Taipei Times BBC Chinese Washington Post AFP China Post.
• Note: Should be renamed to Death of Hung Chung-chiu if overturned. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion. Wikipedia is not news. We had a similar event in Wales recently when two soldiers died. Did that reach Wikipedia? The event may prove to have lasting notability as Mailer Diablo claims but the article gave no indication of that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the second admin to speedily delete the article, which I did pursuant to WP:CSD#A7. Whether the article could be notable is largely irrelevant on an A7. As RHaworth states, the issue is whether the article "indicates" that the "subject is important or significant." All the article said was a soldier died because of physical training during disciplinary confinement. Apparently, the soldier had been disciplined for bringing a camera phone onto the base. That doesn't even come close to making a claim of significance. I would also like to point out that yet a third admin, User:DGG, tagged the article for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "military abuses" factor was clearly missed in both instances. Generally, military abuses and scandals tend to be well-documented here. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid invocation of CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the second deletion. The article contained a link to news coverage of the incident. While that doesn't guarantee the topic will be encyclopedic because of WP:NOT#NEWS, it should be sufficient to get past A7. Evidence of notability, or even possible notability, is enough to get past A7, and speedy deletion is not an appropriate forum to make non-obvious determinations concerning notability or newsworthiness. Hut 8.5 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD. I can't see the article since it is deleted, but based on the title, it appears to be about an event, and not a biography of a person's life. Assuming the article was about the person's death and not all the other events of the person's life, then I do not think it was subject to A7 and the speedy deletion was thus invalid. It is quite possible for a notable event to involve a non-notable person, and I don't think the intent of A7 was to require people involved in events to have a claim to significance for articles about events they were involved in to be kept. Regardless, there seems to be news coverage of the event in reliable sources, which seems like a indication of significance. Even if the article was on a topic subject to A7, then it would seem to pass the requirements to not be deleted by A7 (again, I can't see the article, but per Hut 8.5's statement, some of the news coverage was apparently in the article). RHaworth's statement that the article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS seems like a reasonable statement to make at an AFD, but not a reason to speedy delete an article, so I think the article should be taken to AFD. Calathan (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NOTNEWS is not a speedy criteria and A7 is intended to be a significantly lower bar than WP:N. a single good source is enough. --Hobit (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hobit. A single RS is evidence that something was deemed important enough to cover, and is entirely enough assertion of importance to overcome A7, every time. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Since when is WP:NOTNEWS a speedy deletion criteria? Also other stuff exists, in a DRV, really? --Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but allow recreation. The deleted article is really thin, consisting of only one sentence stating why a person died, and without any more context, I can understand that the article failed to establish why it was covering a notable event, so A7 was understandable. It is correct that WP:NOTNEWS isn't a speedy criterion, and from the sources that many of the "overturn"-s provided, it may well be that the subject deserves an article (for example, we have an article on the Martin Anderson case). But I think it is better to start from scratch instead of trying to build on the article that was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I brought this up here is because the article would risk getting speedy deleted again and salted if recreated without discussion. Apparently the article was indeed recreated for the third time under Hung_Chung-chiu after this discussion had begun. I have prepared a rewritten draft article here which I intend to combine and rename everything to Death of Hung Chung-chiu if the closer agrees to allow this subject to be recreated. - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that I missed the 14 July version, which should not have been speedy deleted (hence I am withdrawing the "endorse deletion" part of the vote). I agree that your draft is suitable for putting into mainspace. (Good work with that draft by the way. :-)) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Agung Pribadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He is now playing with Persib Bandung in the highest professional league in Indonesia the Indonesia Super League. He have already played competitively since 2010 and also for several matches this year. Here are some sources 1 2 3 (mostly in Indonesian). MbahGondrong (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider spinning out an article of merged bios on the team from Persib_Bandung#2013_Squad. The whole team look like bio-stubs failing WP:BIO1E. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see how BLP1E is compatible or relevant with the guidelines for athletes, since playing in one game at the highest level is notability DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reliable sources that differentiate this player from any other player on the team. Playing on a top level team is creates a presumption of notability, not notability per se. DRV should not prevent recreation here, we want to cover these players, but without any biographical content, I recommend merging the whole team together. I think this would better serve the readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It might serve the readers better if we had a policy of combining small articles, but we don't. The presumption that playing one game is enough for notability is the basis of our sports coverage. The idea that on has to be not just a player at the highest level, but a stand-out player at the highest level,is unsupported by anything it WP, and , of course, would remove 90% of our sports coverage. If you like the idea, propose it somewhere. (As far as I personally am concerned, WP would be just as useful to me if it had no sports coverage at all, but I don't try to fit WP into my private ideas of what would be helpful) 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these are only reasons you can find for not making an article, then I
support recreation — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

I agree, Support recreation. I see User:MbahGondrong is doing productive work here. I suggest consideration of merging, a suggestion for User:MbahGondrong to take or leave. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the contributions, of course I support recreation and regarding SmokeyJoe suggestion, it would be a bit hard since it will apply to a lot more of player/club articles and not only in Persib. DGG idea sounds good, to make a discussion about it in another place.
  Just curious should be done next, is it needed to wait for more participants in this DRV or the article can be recreated already? Sorry, I am kinda new to this DRV stuff. ;) MbahGondrong (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Shaima Alawadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although there was a consensus during the AfD for the article in question, I believe that if due diligence was carried out, in accordance with deletion policy, that the AfD would not have began in the first place. I would have contested the AfD while it was active, but unfortunately real life (including work) got in the way. The reasoning for the AfD was WP:PERSISTENCE, however if we look at WP:EVENT & WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, I believe that I can show that it meets notability as required by WP:EVENT. The event which is the subject of the article in question occurred in March of 2013, significant coverage was received by the event from multiple non-primary reliable sources, including internationally, thus the event meet notability as required by WP:GNG. Even after the first month passed, significant coverage was received by the event including by NBC News, ABC News, and the Associated Press. As I stated at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Murder of Shaima Alawadi, the last major coverage of the event occurred in January 2013, and the possible reason why no further coverage has occurred since then, is cause the next hearing regarding this case doesn't occur until 25 JUL 2013. And since notability does not degrade even if the event doesn't receive as much significant coverage as time passes, it has no effect on level of notability that the subject has already received. The closing Admin, has contacted me on my talk page, and has suggested I open this review rather than the request for undeletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the article's history for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If I recall, there was relevant discussion on the talk page of the article, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously I'm involved in every possible capacity except administrative (I created the article and also nominated it for deletion) - I endorse the deletion. I don't think there was anything irregular about the discussion - the participants simply have a more stringent interpretation of WP:EVENT than RCLC does, and that's okay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What metric did you use to decide that Persistence had failed?  Was your nomination argument intended to be a WP:NOT deletion or a WP:N deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran searches and found only routine coverage, of the sort that one will find about any news story because journalists have got to make a living somehow. The most recent RS coverage of any kind seems to have been in November 2012, when her husband pled not guilty and we got three sentences of new coverage (plus a re-hash of the whole case for people who had forgotten, but I'm not sure that says much), in one AP story. One or two more sources had picked up the husband's arrest a few days earlier but apparently didn't even bother to follow up. The argument here is a failure of WP:EVENT and specifically its WP:PERSISTENCE requirement, EVENT being a subset of our WP:N notability guidelines. WP:NOTNEWS has a headnote to event notability for a reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this interpretation of WP:PERSISTENCE, I don't think that any one could argue that the even received significant coverage within the month that the event occurred. The contention between Roscelese and myself appears to be what continuing coverage of the event, and its outcome warrants continued coverage. As shown by Roscelese is that coverage occurred at least until November 2012, and I have shown above how coverage continues into 2013. Now the event itself does not fall under what we find as a list of examples in WP:ROUTINE, and furthermore the event and the continuing coverage is not a brief mention in a crime log or pre-scheduled event, but rather in-depth coverage of the unfolding outcome of the event as stated in WP:ROUTINE, and therefore gives the event non-primary reliable sourced in-depth continued coverage. This meets WP:EVENT & WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE IMHO.

As shown below the subject of the event, and its coverage, received in-depth coverage in Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance where there is a section called "Campaigning for the Victim?", which likened the killing (when it was thought to be a hate crime) to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Sure it was mistaken as a hate crime initially, which lead to a large part of the initial coverage, but as Richard-of-Earth said in response to an IP's call for deletion of this article.

When the murder hit the newspapers it was thought to be a hate crime, so it gained notablity. See WP:NTEMP. People who still think it was a hate crime can come here and get the correct, cited information.

— Richard-of-Earth, 31 March 2013

A better question is why delete this article, now that it has been shown/dis proven that the event is not a hate crime, as it was originally believed? As stated by the above editor in the initial statement of the AfD, the article was created because the editor thought it was a hate crime, and that since that is no longer the case, that it is no longer notable? It shouldn't matter whether the event was a hate crime, or not, the question is does it meet WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, & WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no problem with the AfD. That said, there is plenty of coverage, including in books ([19] has some pretty detailed coverage). Even in the last 24 hours her death has been mentioned in the press (not English, so I'm unsure how much is really there) [20]. The number of gnews hits is quite large, including detailed coverage from the NYT, BBC, etc. I'll go with endorse closure but IAR relist as I believe this is well above our notability bar and given that it is still being referenced in the news, meets WP:EVENT and the like. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and relist per Hobit. Parroting what others have said: there's clearly nothing wrong with the AfD, and consensus was properly judged, etc. But it was low participation, and I think there's good reason to suspect this topic may be deemed notable with a bit more digging, such as what Hobit's done above -- particularly given the sort of secondary narrative of how this case went from being called a "hate crime" to being, well, not at all a hate crime. The book Hobit sources above appears to be discussing the manner in which this case' depiction in the media changed, which makes the case more interesting as a Wikipedia article, IMO. Put another way, if I saw this at AfD, I'd vote keep, so while I know we're only here to determine whether consensus was properly judged in the AfD -- and it was -- I'd like to see this close endorsed and still give the article another shot. Or, you know, just "per Hobit." :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Carl W. Ernst (2013-03-20). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-137-29008-3. Retrieved 2013-07-14. The Alawadi murder...became a poster child of Muslim honor killings and violence against women.... The link to family violence, not proven so far either, gave fodder to the Islamophobic propaganda machine...

• The general issue with WP:ROUTINE is that the topic easily passes WP:GNG, which means that the topic passes WP:N without regard to other notability guidelines.  So it is necessary to turn to WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER to obtain a policy basis for the removal of such material.  Some may have the idea that WP:GNG notability is somehow reduced by being an event, but this is not to my knowledge something in the guidelines.  In general, WP:ROUTINE means that we don't cover events that are more statistics than history.  By the essence of the concept, books are not newspapers, and events that appear in books are not routine.

I argued at AfD2 that the wp:geoscope for this topic was worldwide.  I am now satisfied by the Ernst book of March 2013 that the topic satisfies WP:NOT.  On the other hand, the current article somehow does not bring out the aspects of this case that have attracted so much attention, which may explain the current result more so than any policy or guideline page.

In the current AfD, the closing admin provides no explanation for the closing, doesn't mention two drive-by !votes, says nothing about the relationship between WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and says nothing about the absence of comments about the previous AfDs and the talk page discussion.  Editors are left not knowing the result of the AfD.  There is a presumption that the result was obtained by vote-counting. 

Incubate  What would be practical is to move the article to the incubator until at least July 25, when the next hearing occurs in San Diego.  This would provide time to update the article with the Ernst book, and would procedurally allow for a new AfD when the article returns from the incubator.  I am also not opposed to an overturn to keep, or overturn to wrong venue as per WP:Merging.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What we've got here is a good close by Mark Arsten, but a defective discussion, in that the AfD failed to unearth the sources that have come to light in this DRV. We shouldn't get into an in-depth analysis of those sources here because that's not DRV's role. We need to send it back to AfD for a closer look.—S Marshall T/C 01:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got three AfDs and a merger discussion on the talk page, how close a look do you need?  Requiring another AfD discussion is related to forum shopping because you didn't like the last result.  How does incubate until July 25 not solve all of the problems?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that what we need is an AfD that examines the sources. The way Wikipedia is at the moment, it might take quite a few. I strongly agree with what Jclemens says below about running off all our inclusionists. It leads to defective AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as achieving the clearly wrong outcome, per Hobit and S Marshall. WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER provides no reason for exclusion of material covered in so many venues. For some reason, the AfD just wound up with a clearly wrong result. Have we run off all our inclusionists such that no one even bothered to check for sources during the AfD? It sure looks like it, and I'll admit my own fault in not following AfDs closely enough to notice this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I do not mind deletionist's zeal, but really? A contested AfD that doesn't examine sources and sourcing validity is a pro-forma rubber stamp, exactly what AfDs shouldn't be. I do have a problem with "Murder of" articles in general as a title - they are an unencyclopedic loopholing of BLP/BIO/EVENT requirements - but not with the content. I haven't looked at the article, just the AfDs, but damn, does sourcing even matter anymore? TL;DR: agree with Hobit, S Marshall, and Jclemens. --Cerejota (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn AfD3 without prejudice and relist. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE (AfD3) but passes WP:GNG (AfD2, I see independent secondary sources). AfD was too poorly attended and more attention is needed to develop a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know why the page was deleted previously, but now there are more than enough sources for a full article: [21] I would like to write the article but it is protected and only administrators can reinstate it. Thanks. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was deleted and salted because so many spam articles with that title were created. A long time has passed since the decision to salt it was made, and I don't think we can justify maintaining the protection when a good faith user wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - yeah S Marshall is right. It was last deleted in 2007 after a solid 12 months of spamming and was presumably salted thereafter. Samwalton9 is an editor in good standing with 1200 edits to his name, a good article creation track-record and zero blocks. Why the hell not? Stalwart111 00:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. Reasonable request by an editor in good standing; no previous AfDs. Disallow future WP:CSD A7s or G11s, allow testing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parikipandla Narahari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(1) The deleting admin wrote "Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully." I don't see how they were rebutted successfully. (2) I asked closing admin for clarification as step 1 of review procedure. He has not provided it so far.diff (3) My arguemnts are as follows: My comments in support of notability have been: The subject is notable:

1. For being called by Tehelka as "Gwalior's game changer" and amongst one of India's few civil servants who are using websites like Twitter and Facebook to interact with citizenry to solve their problems, taking cognizance of these efforts Internet and Mobile Association of India has awarded him for the same. (comment made on 13:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC))
2. For being called by Hindustan Times a hero of sorts (comment made on 17:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC))
3. The reply during Afd was "An author of non-notable books who has received three non-notable awards, two of which are sourced (along with most of the rest of the article) to what seem likely to be self-written biographies hosted on government websites. (comment made on 14:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC))
4. User:Secret's closing comments were, (as mentioned above): "...Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully."
5. I feel there has been an error of judgement in considering that there has been a successful rebuttal. Could this be reviewed please?.
   1. Neither Hindustan Times nor Tehelka are related to the subject.
   2. By what yardstick is the CRISIL award to be a non-notable one?
   3. The rebutting comment was made before the second evidence posted.
6. Would it possible for a copy of the deleted article to be made available to me please, perhaps paste it into my sandbox.

In my opinion the closure is an error of judgment and needs review. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding nomination statement point 5.2, linked is a corporation article without coverage of awards. To assert notability of an award, I would expect to see explicit coverage of the award, whether on a stand alone page, or at least a section, and with coverage of the recipients. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisil award links[22][23] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those links say nothing about wikipedia-notability of the award. There is no commentary on the significance of the award. To measure the notability of an award, you need to count independent commentary of the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I present a search result for Crisil awards for excellence, the award has mention in multiple reliable sources.[24] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mere mention does not speak to notability. Notability requires that some reliable third party says something about the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously it isn't the Noble prize, but CRISIL is a notable rating agency, I consider any award that it gives, on a national level is notable, the award finds mention in RS. (I understand what you mean, perhaps, however I haven't searched hard enough.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) This] source discusses CRISIL and considers the award an import mile stone in its growth. (2) This has the award being presented by Chandrababu Naidu the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. (3) The award is a joint action, the other partner being the Urban Development Ministry of the Government of India, it is a government partnered award.[25] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC. I think this is a NC case, but I could see deletion being a reasonable outcome. But the admin hasn't elected to respond (AFAICT) to YK's comments on their talk page and those comments seem reasonable so I don't see how deletion has been justified. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer When I read the debate, I felt there was a strong consensus to delete. The first two keep commentators were because the article was restored for apparently no reason and sent to AFD and didn't even discuss the subject himself, so I ignored them. The rest of the comments was the usual if Narahari meet GNG or not, which there was consensus to delete in the AFD but Yogesh Khandke brought up some sources near the end of the debate, which made the closure trickier, and I misread the rebuttal. I personally see the article as a obvious WP:BLP1E but considering the mistake I made evaluating the two sources YK bought up, and all the confusion in the AFD about the restoration, and the last minute change of consensus, a Relist is the only solution here. Secret ^account 05:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This source says that Narahari conceived Ladli Laxmi Yojna (A Scheme which was widely appreciated and awarded). India's leading Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar awarded Narahari for Creating Socio-Economic Impact through Innovative Implementation. Dainik Jagran reported that he working on a new system called Revenue Department which helped many land related disputes; http://post.jagran.com/revenue-department-will-provide-you-all-land-related-information-in-15-days-1334142455. Therefore I don't think this article is now BLP1E. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outlook Express XP Icon.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Outlook Express XP Icon.png was first denied and then ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia. This image is the icon of the last version of the program, the one included in Windows XP. The icon currently at Outlook Express is that of an older version. Precedent (other articles include up-to-date icons) and consistency (with the screenshot currently at the article, which is that of the last version) dictate that the icon currently at the article should be replaced with this one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suspect if you said at the request for undeletion that this was a replacement image and that the old image could then be deleted, you'd probably have got a different response. I don't believe wikipedia recognises precdent as such, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion suggesting such a change would be controversial, so I can't see why the restore of this, delete of the current can't be actioned. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and delete the old one I guess. Seems a reasonable request which no one has objected to. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows Mail logo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Windows Mail logo.png was basically ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have left Wikipedia. This image was deleted due to a lack of licensing information, but I can provide this information along with a fair use rationale for the article Windows Mail, which does not currently have the icon of the program. (Note that the licensing information is quite obvious in this case, given that it's the icon of a program.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The requirement is that each such image has a fair use rationale and suitable licensing information, not that "it's obvious" (Which is usually code for "someone else can do it"). Can't see why this couldn't be restored if you undertake providing the suitable information within a short time frame of restoration. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In fairness, that is pretty obvious.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore a FUR can be reasonably written here. Hobit (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garvey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as "no consensus" on 4 July 2013. The discussion began on 27 June 2013. The matter was discussed for seven (7) days before closure. The discussion should be re-opened so consensus might be reached on the issue of whether the article subject is notable under GNG. I believe that there was consensus that the article subject was mentioned in several reliable sources, but consensus needs to be attempted as to whether these mentions were significant per GNG. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (Reasoning here.) I actually thought that the admin did a good job of balancing the arguments in this case. Best to let it rest and revisit six to twelve months down the road - if necessary. --regentspark (comment) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure was correct given the arguments. Consensus cannot always be reached, so it is useless reopening the AfD again. Also User:Bacon Avacado Burrito is a sock of User:Ann Bardrach and at least one other long term wikipedian who I will not name.Martin451 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, please apologize. A.G.F. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have just had a bad faith AfD for this article by a vandal, and another new editor takes the same article to deletion review, there is something seriously amiss here. I am fairly sure I know what your main account is, but not enough to take to a sock puppet investigation. Martin451 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The no consensus close was correct to both the spirit and the letter of the law/rules. Another week of discussion won't change anything. (note: I !voted "delete" in the original discussion....) First Light (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse, leaning "Merge and Redirect". My reading of the discussion definitely leans to "Merge and Redirect" to Jimmy_Wales#Personal_life. The closer was wrong to assert that only "a few proposed merging and redirection to Jimbo Wales". The Merge and Redirect option was explicit in many complex !votes, and consistent with many Keep and Delete rationales. "Endorse" because "no consensus" was within the closers discretion given some clearly opposing viewpoints within the discussion, and because AfD is not a ruling forum on merging. There was definitely not a consensus to "delete", and so the conversation can continue on one or both talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the time since this page was deleted and salted, the company has had a fair amount of coverage regarding a study they did on WordPress. After talking with the deleting admin about unsalting the page title, I was referred to make a case here. Neo12345292 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you list some of this press coverage, with links to any online articles? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure.
    • IFSEC Global
    • Network World
    • TechWeek Europe
    • German-language ZDNet
    • WordPress Engine (hosting provider)
    • CRN
    • Calcalist (Hebrew)

Neo12345292 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the Hebrew article, which I can't read, it looks like only the Network World article provides any substantial information on Checkmarx itself beyond simply introducing the company as a security firm. I'm not familiar with the publication so don't know whether it would be considered a reliable source. If it is then perhaps it, in combination with the totality of the brief mentions in coverage of the vulnerability itself, may establish the company's notability. Without further information and evidence of consensus from other editors I'm hesitant to endorse recreation of the article, particularly since it's going to require constant vigilance to curb the spamming and other promotional/COI edits. In this case we need to be very sure that the subject of the article has indeed achieved notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hebrew article does not discuss Checkmarx in any more depth than the CRN article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse not seeing anything substantial/in-depth enough to overturn a very strong consensus. Given the bad history of this article, we'd need to see some really major new notability to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree that the article's history on Wikipedia means it has a higher bar to overcome now. I think the bar for notability should be the same as for any other article. I wouldn't personally want to write an article based on the sources shown here because I see them as inadequate, but I note that the quality of sourcing is similar to other articles in Category:Networking software companies. Is there a general lack of decent sources about networking software corporations?—S Marshall T/C 01:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the bar for notability shouldn't be set any higher for this article, or for any other article where the subject appears to have a history of abusing Wikipedia. However, what we can and should do in such cases is to give extra scrutiny to any claims or evidence of notability. For example, recent reincarnations of the Checkmarx article included several impressive-sounding claims supported by sources which superficially looked to be reliable, but after some investigation turned out to be not independent of the subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as no consensus, but from this vantagepoint there does not appear to be any establishment of notability or reliable third party sources in which to base an article. In quick discussion with the closing admin, considerable weight was given to one keep argument that was based on also-poor sources based on an argument that we should keep the article to help keep tabs on a specific point of view. Clearly, I disagree or I would not be here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close As accurately reflecting consensus. The final delete !vote was not policy based either. There's a high hurdle to overturn a no consensus close to either keep or delete, and I can't see it being met. No prejudice against renomination, but the thing simply didn't appear to attract enough attention, after TWO relistings, to really call the debate well-represented. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't recall any instance in which DRV has ever overturned a "no consensus" close. (Can anyone else?) Although I don't think we'll overturn Xymmax's close in this case, if you have some reason to think a fresh debate might reach a more definite conclusion we shouldn't stand in your way. I think the best outcome is "endorse" but perhaps the DRV closer would consider saying explicitly that speedy renomination is permitted.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturning no consensus to delete or relist was never common, but hardly unheard of either. See e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 1-15#Flash Flash Revolution, right at the top of the first archive with modern(ish) closing templates, or Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 16-31#29 December 2006, where we did three in a day. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A while back the Red Cord Records page was deleted based on no source or good sources. I have physical credited magazines that have discussed the label or a band in-depth. What do I need to do to get the page undeleted or have a discussion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeJohnson12345 (talk • contribs)

• Could you tell us what these sources are, please? Physical credited magazines should have an ISBN ISSN and page number that you can list.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may not always be the case, but magazines to be used as reliable sources should have publisher info as well as titles, dates, and pages. And I think you meant ISSN... Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for quibbling that, Jclemens. I did indeed mean ISSN and not ISBN.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ISSN numbers are merely bar-codes for the trade and are not required. Nor is presentation of any source required for a courtesy userfication so that the article may be worked on further. The creator should be advised, however, that a future attempt at reestablishing the piece in mainspace will be closely scrutinized and will need to show multiple, independently published sources dealing with the subject in some depth in a presumably reliable way. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also worth pointing out, I think, that coverage of a band signed to the label would not be considered coverage of the label itself. We would need coverage of the label itself. Stalwart111 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not — it depends on context. For example: a long interview in which a band member is asked about, and talks about, the label may well count towards GNG as long as the passage about the label is substantial enough. In general, most articles about bands will not count towards GNG for the label, however. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (leave deleted), until better evidence of sources meeting WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nom has claimed there are more sources but hasn't provided them even after several days. Besides, it's unlikely a record label could become notable without releasing some notable records and signing some motable bands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel this page was deleted too quickly. I saw it was discussed for deletion so I started editing and verifying a lot of the content. I corrected a lot of the things that were mentioned in the discussion for deletion, spending hours to add multiple sources. I came back a few days later to continue working on the article and it was gone. I would have been happy to discuss how to further improve the page - maybe a point or two could have been omitted and the language could have been improved too. But I don't understand how this could have been accused of being purely promotional when the page also included controversies and such. I have looked up the page because I'm a student at the Technical University of Vienna and I took several lectures with professor Poledna and professor Kopetz who are both founding members of this company and acknowledged in their field. I found the page to be informative. In addition, I have just seen last week that TTTech has won an export price by the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber so it is indeed a well known corporation here. I know you're not supposed to compare but I can't help thinking TTTech has partnerships with Audi, Boeing, Airbus etc. and if I look up those company pages they are no different from this one so in that context the deletion really seemed too fast to me. I have since continued working on the article - it is now in my sandbox. I have talked to the admin who closed the article and was redirected here. I hope for this deletion to be reconsidered so the article can be re-written and further improved. Sathescha (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as closing sysop, I can tell you I saw a clear consensus to delete. There were three and a half delete opinions, and only one keep. I also note that both the appellant here, as well as Austria2010 appear to be single-purpose accounts connected to the company. -- Y not? 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input. However, how many articles I’ve worked on is no indication about the notability of the page in question or the fact that a lot of what was criticized in the discussion has been changed shortly before deletion so I fail to see the relevance of this point. (I used to be on Wikipedia and Wikiquote a little some years ago but had forgotten my user details so when I wanted to work on this article I created a new account. I admittedly have only contributed to a small number of pages alltogether as I don't have that much time but afaik there isn't a minimum number of contributions one has to make.) As I said before I hope to get a chance to further improve the page as I had put in hours of work before it got deleted and I'm very open to all suggestions and working together with anyone interested. --Sathescha (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (to redirect, keeping history). I don't see a consensus to delete, but a rough consensus of a discussion heading to a redirect with possibility of some merging. The nomination focussed on a notability guideline. Notability guidelines do not mandate deletion if there is a merge target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I would vote on keeping the article and further improving it. The whole argument was based on notability - this is not some small joint that has just been around for a few months. The NASA mentions them on their website, Audi holds 25 % of the shares. The article the page now gets redirected to isn't informative about the company itself. They work with a variety of technologies so the redirect doesn't make sense (if you are interested in time-triggered technology on a whole but also avioncs systems such as AFDX you would know the vast difference). --Austria2010 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Commenting late; there are good reasons why comments out of time, such as this one, are not always be given weight. But since this is still unclosed, I'm guessing our regular DRV closers are looking for more input before they feel a decision can be reached.)----On reading the discussion, I see the votes preceded by a bold "delete" all, without exception, give reasons explaining why there should be no separate article with this title. None of them give any reason to preclude a redirect. When the redirect argument is presented, even the nominator agrees that redirection is appropriate. So in this case I completely agree with SmokeyJoe.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Moresby International High School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This Afd was closed by someone who is not an admin( just stating fact, not taking issue with that person). There are concerns with the keep rationales which ultimately has lead school article to be kept. None of the rationales are showing any sort of notability at all, the comments are all aimed at "We keep all high school articles" Which I believe is in contravention of WP:ORG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". The other thing being linked and conveniently ignored where it suits is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) which further states "However, this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically" Either way I don't believe that policy is being followed or are there valid rationales on why this school is notable. I have not raised this issue on the talkpage because as stated the closer is not an administrator. I have not notified anyone of the discussion because I largely think that what they will say is irrelevant to a reviewing admin. If anyone feels differently please notify whoever you think should be. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - This seems almost like an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP due to the lack of notification and the fact that the filer is also the one behind the original AfD... PantherLeapord (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I have also notified the !voters of the original AfD. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider taking advantage of the appeal system is forum shopping I am guilty as charged. This is the standard place to raise the issue if you disagree with the outcome of any deletion as seen here WP:DPAFD. I have based this on the relevant policies governing the notability guidelines, which is clear in this case and even policies that are noted above and linked to in the AFD, if you think that the other editors should be here by all means let them know but I am sure that any admin reviewing won't fail to see the answer to each keep rationale is the same and it has been WP:ITEXISTS and WP:VAGUEWAVE votes, none actually address the notability of the insitution itself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not forum shoping; this forum is exactly where User:Hell in a Bucket should be posting his request for a review of the deletion of this article. Earlier today he mistakenly (but presumably in good faith) raised the issue at WP:ANI and was correctly redirected here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Here we go again. User:Hell in a Bucket takes issue with the fact that there is clearly a consensus that high school articles should be kept. He quotes "rules" to "prove" his point. But he ignores the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that we should ignore all "rules" if we consider it benefits Wikipedia, and, most importantly, that the fact that it is virtually unheard of for a high school article to be deleted at AfD proves a consensus of those who contribute to AfDs. It couldn't be any clearer if it tried, but still we get disgruntled editors trying to claim that they are right and the majority who oppose them are wrong. Wikipedia works by consensus. We have a clear consensus. No, of course it's not a consensus of all editors. Nothing in Wikipedia can ever be a consensus of more than a tiny fraction of editors. If we demanded more we would never, ever have a consensus, even on the most important issues. This is patently obvious, but is ignored by the high-school-article-haters in an attempt to prove the rightness of their cause. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the WP:GNG or WP:ORG is guided by consensus as well? Even the linking to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES it shows it must pass WP:ORG. If we want the blanket endorsement that is being urged and constantly shouted about maybe there should be a RFC. I am only trying to follow the guidelines and spirit of what is the consensus on notability. BTW unless you mean you've been in these DRV's before ok, but I have never once been here in four years editing, you may have me confused with another editor. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called an exception to the rule. We can have them you know. Particularly since there are actually no rules on Wikipedia. Consensuses don't have to written down in triplicate and filed with the appropriate authorities. They just have to be clearly in existence. I wasn't specifically referring to you, but this comes up again and again and every time it's defeated. For those of us who contribute to these AfDs a lot it does get somewhat tedious and it does seem to get on the WP:POINTY side. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding your comment that called me a "high-school-article-hater" please remember to WP:AGF my first article written was Central High School (Pueblo, Colorado). I wrote it partly because I went there, and also because it had notability as having historical architecture and several highly notable graduates. If I see that type of notability I am happy to see those here but a one line article just saying it exists doesn't do it for me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't specifically call you a "high-school-article-hater". I'm just tired of dealing with the small group of editors who seem to be on a crusade to get high school articles deleted (especially if they're schools outside the USA). If that doesn't apply to you then I apologise. Incidentally, I've always been mystified as to why people think having notable graduates makes a school notable. It doesn't. It's usually completely random where somebody goes to school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Lol I actually agree with you. This was my first article cut me some slack jack, I thought it mattered, in the end it's actually trivia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Necrothesp, I would like to point out that it is not "usually completely random where somebody goes to school". Where you (or your parents) live generally has a lot to do with it.--Auric talk 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which is missing the point entirely! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Endorse closure . The precedents documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS are those on which articles on mainstream high schools are almost always closed at AfD. That page may be an essay, but it expresses no opinion - simply summarises AfD outcomes. Hell In A Bucket is fully aware that numerous RfC over the years to either overturn this precedent or to turn it into an official guideline have always ended without consensus either way. The precedent is upheld by hundreds, possibly thousands of AfD closures, and the fact that educational institutions are exempt from CSD-A7 also gives a kick start to notability for schools. Whezther the closer is an admin or not, this closure falls within WP:CLOSEAFD, and Hell In A Bucket does not appear to have attempted a discussion with User:Czar, the closer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • To address this, you mean the part that says [[26]] here that says an Administrator will review it and is specifically exempted from non admin closure because it is not "absent any contentious debate among participants." This was a debated issue with my delete rationale and attempts at a discussion and a merge rationale that weren't addressed. Why discuss it with Czar when he had no authority anyways and then an admin still would've to review it? Do you think it would've ended differently. I will be away for a couple hours so I will not be able to reply and I'm not sure I really need to at this point add anything more because everyone is saying the same things we said at AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand what your mission is here. Is it to discredit the closer who perfectly assessed the consensus (and which was based on a standard accepted practice for schools), or is to overturn a well established precedent? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ultimate mission here, I just think this article doesn't belong here. If it was a well written piece I'd be more inclined to agree with you that IAR would be a fitting exemption. The problem I am having is that this article doesn't even try to claim any notability. All it is that there is an organization that exists by this name and happens to be a high school. If you read my userpage I state I think we should be selective if our efforts here are to gain or keep respectability. Having an article that a business exists makes this place tantamount to a Yellow Pages. I understand and respect schools are not applicable to A7 csd and I realize why but if the community really wanted to keep all high school articles why is there the caveat, that they must pass ORG in Schooloutcomes? I am a deletionist by nature but at most this article should be redirected to the overall district. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nominator says "I don't believe that policy is being followed". But the main point of the notability guidelines is that they are guidelines, not policy requirements. It is our policy that they are simply guidelines. We are invited to examine an article in the light of the guidelines, possibly see whether or not the article meets them, and then decide whether we would like the article to be kept or deleted. Even if I think an article exceeds the guidelines I can still think it should be deleted on grounds of the topic having insufficient notability. If I find an article falling below the guidance criteria I may still think it should be kept. That is not ignoring our policies, it abiding by them. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Hell in a Bucket certainly has valid concerns about the state of the Article - it is at present a stub, and not much of a stub. The "Keep" is certainly generous, but generosity in keeping High School Article is the norm - the standard of major direct influence on world affairs is generally accepted as not applicable. In this case, the Article should certainly be kept, as it can BECOME a good well-referenced article, given the school's history. It isn't yet, and might have to be considered for deletion again if no-one takes up the job of expanding, but for now, it is a fairly new article, and needs time. Tagging for lack of refs would be the more appropriate action, or asking for help at Articles for Expansion, or Guild of Copy Editors, if Hell in a Bucket wishes to pursue their concerns. Don't see anything but good faith on both sides - Article just needs work.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Common outcome, reflects consensus. I'm bothered that the editor has focused a lot of energy talking about how the closer wasn't an admin at the WP:ANI discussion. There is no function difference in an admin close or non-admin close in these kinds of cases. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what I've stated above this would not be a non admin closure apropriate thing because there were dissenting opinions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on your insistence in mentioning that it was a non-admin close, one might conclude that you are trying to poison the well. You keep mentioning something that doesn't matter, so it must matter to you. If it didn't matter, there would be ZERO reason to even mention it once. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a desperate attempt to overlook the concerns I've brought up. Maybe you can elaborate on what you think would've been different if I had talked to Czar? I can tell you after I raised the same concerns there I still would've been here. If people took the time to actually rationally think about the points raised here, everyone wants to ignore that if this was the precedent that all high schools are kept, why does it say it must still pass WP:ORG? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep per longstanding precedent to keep high schools where existence can be proved by a reliable source. That might not sound very Wikipedian, as the only other things that have presumed inherent notability are heads of state. But trying to AFD a high school is generally pointless anyway, since they always have coverage in reliable sources and their impact on the area they serve is without question, and thus they're virtually always good article subjects. Simply put, Wikipedia works by consensus, and on this particular topic consensus is crystal clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer. I have little to add that hasn't been said, but wanted to acknowledge that I've seen the thread. I believe I've acted well within policy and closed on the discussion's clear consensus. I would have been happy to discuss this with the nom at his request. czar · · 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you would've been very happy to talk about it, however it still would have been a waste of time. As I mention in the first two sentences of the request here I have no issue with you at all, I just believe that the closure was counting votes and not actually observing the guidelines set down for deletion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is inconsistent to say you had nothing to discuss with me but then publicly question my closure judgment (vote counting?) in light of a crystal clear consensus. There have been other (better?) opportunities for such a proxy war,^{[Port Moresby 1]} one I find uninteresting, so I'd appreciate if you ceased to implicate me and traffic in my reputation in fighting it. czar · · 03:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't read the first sentence of this posting and understand it I'm sorry, I lead with that I do not have a problem with you and I would have been here anyways so that's where I went. You can choose to take that as a slight or you could say thanks for not wasting my time. I have stated before as you evidenced and I reiterate that as I find articles like this and others, I will continue to nominate as I see appropriate based on the consensus and guidelines we have laid out for notability. I'm sure that will make some grind their teeth but apparently the precedent you (as a group) still keep touting specifically says that it is subject to WP:ORG if there's enough to make a RFC change to blanket exempt all high schools from deletion then I have no problems with that, however as it is there is a reason it states what it does and it's being willfully ignored. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I just can't get past the apparent SNOW keep overview. See my advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Editing consensus has been, for a very long time, that being a high school = notability. That's not WP:ITEXISTS or a WP:VAGUEWAVE, that is WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - I am a strong supporter of the longstanding consensus that secondary schools of confirmed existence are kept on a per se basis. It seems to be a well-established community consensus. There probably should be an RFC to ratify this into the Special Notability Guidelines at some point, but that's another matter. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]