Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 June

Lead Masks Case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus was "delete, because the article lacks reliable sources, and pretty much everything about this case is unverified". However, the case in question was featured in the book "Confrontations" by Jacques Vallée. Unlike many ufologists, Jacques Vallée is a reputable scientist, and I think his books can be considered reliable sources. Even though he considers Latin American media "a notorious unreliable source" in his book, I'd say that two documentaries on this case ([1] & [2]), made by TV Globo in 1990 and 2004 respectively, are more or less reliable sources too. They also demonstrate a long-term popular interest in the case. Not sure if the other sources on this case (INFA & Revista Vigília) are reliable, but in my opinion the aforementioned ones are enough to establish the notability. I've talked to the closing administrator, and it turned out that he finds the case fascinating and would like to see the article recreated too, but he cannot do it without the community consent. Finstergeist (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation if I'm reading your argument right. That is, if there really are new sources not covered by the article as deleted which support the notability of the incident, such that any good faith editor would agree that they improved evidence of notability (even if insufficiently so), then you can skip DRV and simply recreate the article. The AfD is almost 8 months old, and you're making no argument that there was anything improper in that AfD, just that there is more evidence... do I have that right? Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I can recreate the article from scratch (just like I did here), but I doubt I have sufficient English skills. These sources (except for the 1990 TV Globo documentary) actually were used in the article, but they were basically ignored in that AfD ("Simply not notable", "These cases are definitely not notable"... and that's all). Finstergeist (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've undeleted the article so the sources can be analyzed in this discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation although the AFD was certainly closed correctly (it was unanimous), the low turnout and generally poor arguments mean that there's no problem undoing it and improving the article. In my opinion notability of the topic exists: the fact that the media are still doing documentaries on the case 30 years later indicates enduring interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 supposedly for not meeting any of the criteria in WP:BAND. The main source cited was an album review in a newspaper article in the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is independent, reliable, non-trivial, and not self-published.

The crux of the deleting admin's argument is that this review constitutes "trivial" coverage because it appears in a "local-interest paper, hardly regional or national coverage" and is "brief" in his opinion. WP:BAND defines "trivial coverage" as: "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories".

An album review is not listed anywhere under WP:BAND's definition of "trivial coverage", nor does it say the source must be "regional or national" or of a certain length. The page clearly meets Critera #1 and does not violate any of the criteria on WP:Band. The deleting admin is simply ignoring WP:BAND and instead is fabricating his own erroneous criteria for band notability. Overturn. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send through AfD. This was not clear-cut enough to be an A7, even if it may eventually merit deletion. (Hmm... this comment sounds familiar...) Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And upgrade that to ... and WP:TROUT the admin for actually deciding an A7 based on a notability guideline. A7 is not for non-notable things, A7 is for things that are so entirely non-notable that they assert no importance or significance. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn - the article was prodded and that was contested. It was then nominated for speedy deletion and thus deleted. Probably should have gone to AFD after the prod, especially since this was it's third A7 speedy deletion to date. I don't think it will will survive AFD and the result will likely include salting given the number of recreations (it's what I'd be calling for anyway) but if the nominator wants that fight, who are we to stand in his way? Stalwart111 05:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we have a temporary restore so we can look at the source quoted, please?

  In general, sysops have jurisdiction over conduct and consensus. They are not empowered to make content decisions. If something involves examining a source, then that's normally a judgment for the community to make. A7 has nothing to say about sources----it's about assertion of notability. It's established custom and practice at DRV that once you get to evidence of notability, you're at a level where AfD should normally be invoked.

  However, it's not inconceivable that I'd endorse a speedy; if the sources are utterly hopeless we've been known to overturn the A7 to a G11 and re-delete, so I'd like to look at the detail here.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - temporarily undeleted to facilitate this discussion. WilyD 08:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, WilyD. It is very weak indeed; a three-line "review" in a local paper of a self-published release. It's really not very difficult to create a work that attracts that much notice. I do understand Amatulic's decision to speedily delete now. I'll go with very weak overturn, not because I think this will survive AfD (it probably won't), but on the principle that FairProcess demands that good faith editors have some effective recourse against speedy deletion.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I remain in the same place for the same reasons and the deletion history of The Reformation (album) suggests lots of WP:NOTHERE and a serious need for post-AFD salt for both the non-notable band and their non-notable album. Stalwart111 11:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the previous deletions of The Reformation (album) were when the page had nothing to do with this band or their album. Before the most recent deletion, the last deletion of The Reformation (album) occurred in May of 2010, before the band even existed. There is absolutely no evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Restoration of the histories of that page will prove me correct. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check again - the last was three days ago on 23 June. That someone tried to spam the title previously is neither here nor there, agreed, but this is very much a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. You'll likely get you wish that this be sent to AFD but I really can't imagine it surviving there without substantially better sources than those available now. That you can find a way for it to technically escape speedy deletion is no guarantee that it will subsequently survive the rigours of AFD. You've convinced me that it shouldn't be speedy deleted, but I will certainly be opining for deletion at AFD unless you can find something more substantive to substantiate notability. Stalwart111 03:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Local band, no label, no reliable source coverage, just an extremely minor review in a local freebie newspaper. We don't need to go through process for the sake of process, for an article that has zero chance of retention. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when is being more than a local band or signed to a label mandatory for being considered notable? It says no such thing in WP:BAND. You're incorrect about the Pittsburgh City Paper being an unreliable source for reasons I stated in my OP. Also, there is nothing in WP:BAND that dictates what the length of a review should be. Feel free to show all of us where you are getting your criteria. Wikitam331 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your response doesn't really address...anything. WP:BAND lays out the criteria by which a musical act is deemed notable in this project. A single brief (and I mean brief) review in an alternative newspaper doesn't satisfy criteria #1. If the band is unsigned, then obviously they aren't going to meet #5. There are 12 criteria by which a musical act can satisfy our notability guides, but this act is 0-for-12, so IMO there's no need to go through a formal deletion discussion. These arguments are just going to be made there again, to which there appears to be no valid rebuttal. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a valid rebuttal, you're just ignoring it. The briefness of the review does not disqualify it from meeting criteria #1 (as I have stated numerous times), nor does the source being an alternative newspaper. Wikitam331 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am telling you a stone-cold fact here, bro, based on several years of participation in notability discussions around here; when we evaluate sources as they pertain to notability, one generally looks for in-depth coverage that addresses the topic in detail. This Pittsburgh City Paper's blurb is superficial and fleeting, and would not meet what is spelled out in the general notability guideline; "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This coverage is not significant, thus it would fail. But even if it was a deep, 2-page long review, it'd still fall short of the "multiple sources" that we generally require for notability, as noted at the already-given WP:GNG link ,and at WP:BAND #1. I note that you've been at this since at least August of 2011, and have to say that if this band has only scraped up 3 sentences in a freebie newspaper in almost 2 years time, then they are truly a non-notable act. It's not not adequate for inclusion in this project. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A trivial mention is defined by WP:BAND as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." An album review, no matter how brief, is nothing of the sort, and qualifies under the definition of significant coverage. You say 3 sentences is not enough, but 2 pages is? Where does the line get drawn then? Sounds like you're just asserting your subjective opinion, which is exactly why the length of a review is not mentioned in criteria for notability anywhere. Basically you're just telling me I'm wrong because that's how things go around here, which is just an argument from authority. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 sentences is considered trivial, that "review" is of about the quality one would find in a college newspaper. 3 sentences in a single free newspaper is not an adequate assertion of notability, which is why it as eligible for deletion without discussion. You're also rather conveniently ignoring the point that even if the City Paper was somehow deemed non-trivial, that is still only a single source, when the project's guidelines call for coverage from multiple sources. Do you plan to keep ignoring that? Tarc (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• By what authority do you assert that 3 sentences is considered trivial? Where does it say that in any notability guidelines? You also have yet to explain how the Pittsburgh City Paper is trivial other than your own baseless assertion. And no, a single source is not an issue because I can find another credible source if necessary. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• By the "authority" of the standards set by the general notability guideline, as noted earlier. If you have other sources then by all means produce them, though seeing how you've been at this for 2 years it seems rather unlikely that anything of worth will be found now. I have nothing else to say on the matter at this time; if this gets sent to a deletion discussion, I will most certainly weigh in then. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless you care to be more specific, simply posting a link to general notability guideline does not prove your assertion. Wikitam331 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly speaking, you're correct: there is no formal rule that unsigned bands cannot have a wikipedia article. However, as someone who's been active in AFD discussions for 8 years and seen countless bands pass through, I don't remember the last time an unsigned band survived an AFD debate. At the very least an unsigned band would have to be truly extraordinary in some other way, which certainly doesn't appear to be the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can add to the above with an example of a band that was warred over for several years; Blood on the Dance Floor. Endlessly recreated by fanboys to the point where the title (and several permutations thereof) had to be locked to prevent recreation. Yet when they finally, genuinely satisfied WP:BAND by charting a song I endorsed the article's creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 4. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin. We don't get to pick and choose which policies and guidelines we want for decisions like this. While WP:BAND does not require regional or national coverage, WP:CORP (applicable to organizations, which bands arguably are) does have that requirement, and it's also the spirit of WP:SIGCOV in what constitutes significant coverage. The band clearly qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#A7, in that the only actual coverage provided was a trivial three-line review in a local free newspaper. There was no significant coverage here, no other criterion was met in WP:BAND, and I saw no credible assertion of notability as required by A7. That's why we have A7, and this looked like a clear-cut case. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This band does not fall under WP:CORP. Your assertion is directly contradicted by WP:CORP itself, which says that people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:BAND. Per WP:SIGCOV, the source addresses the band directly in detail, and describes their songs in detail. That is not a "trivial" mention. A trivial mention is defined by WP:BAND as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." An album review, no matter how brief, is NOTHING of the sort, and qualifies under the definition of significant coverage. A7 could only be asserted if the page failed to meet any of the criteria on WP:BAND, which it did not. It met Criteria #1. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, WP:BAND doesn't supersede WP:CORP with looser requirements. It's a supplement to WP:CORP. The requirements in WP:CORP still apply.

  Furthermore, it failed to meet a single requirement of WP:BAND. None of the coverage it cited qualifies as significant. The cited sources are a track listing, a tiny 3-line review in a local free tabloid (not much different than a blog, really) in which the band wasn't even a significant focus of the review section, and a local event announcement. Sorry, those are trivial mentions. "Significant coverage" (see WP:SIGCOV) means that sources address the subject directly in detail. That is not evident here. I've seen high-school science fair projects get more coverage than this.

  Furthermore, WP:CSD#A7 is quite clear on what qualifies for speedy deletion, and this article failed to make any assertion of notability. It was deleted on that basis alone. The failure to meet WP:BAND criteria is simply an additional reason offered in my deletion rationale, but has proved only to be a distraction, unfortunately.

  That said, I have no objection to overturning and taking this to AFD, but I suspect the outcome would still be the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assertion that the review was in a "local free tabloid (not much different than a blog, really)" is just plain false for reasons I have stated numerous times, including in my OP. WP:SIGCOV specifically says that the band need not be the main focus of the source material. A 3-line album review cannot be defined as a "trivial mention" in any way other than your baseless opinion, unless you'd care to provide specific notability guidelines that prove otherwise. Also, there was no local event announcement listed as a source; you are fabricating once again. If the band meets any of the criteria in WP:BAND, then by default it does not fail notability guidelines in A7. This is getting ridiculous. Please overturn and take it to AFD. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Resorting to personal attacks by characterizing valid points as "baseless", "fabricating", etc. are not helping your argument.

  While the band need not be the main focus per WP:SIGCOV, it also needs to be addressed in detail, which it plainly isn't. And, of the three sources given, one was a track listing, one was a trivial review, and one was an event announcement.link (edit - my mistake, that local-interest website link focuses on events, but the band is highlighted in a smaller section about new releases; apologies for the error)

  So we have two small reviews in non-notable, local-interest publications. This is an encyclopedia with an international audience. I see no evidence of notability, and because there was no assertion of notability in the article, WP:CSD#A7 clearly applies. You have made no convincing arguments otherwise, other than repeating past assertions. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I said some of your points were baseless and fabricated; that is NOT a personal attack. Please do not falsely accuse me of such things. Wikitam331 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  How is the band not addressed in detail? The band and album were mentioned, and specific songs were reviewed. Seems like a detailed addressing to me. You keep saying that it was a "trivial" review, but again, you haven't provided specific notability guidelines that prove your assertion. I have adequately proven that the review fails to meet the requirements for being considered "trivial" per WP:BAND. Wikitam331 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The Pittsburgh City Paper is not a non-notable publication for reasons stated many, many times, that you have failed to disprove...but yet for some reason, you keep asserting it. Being a local-interest publication does not disqualify it as a source. You are the one who keeps repeating assertions and refusing to prove them. I have backed up every single assertion I have made with proof, as the record shows. Please overturn this to AFD. Wikitam331 (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Non-notability isn't the point. The undisputed fact remains that it's still local coverage of a band known only locally. WP:CORP requirements apply; they aren't superseded by an interpretation of looser requirements in the supplementary guideline WP:BAND, the purpose of which is to provide more detailed guidance specific to bands, rather than to replace WP:CORP.

  Anyway, DRV isn't the place to discuss this. The article was deleted in strict accordance with WP:CSD#A7 criteria, and I see no indication in all this discussion that the deletion was invalid.

  Overturning and taking to AFD will simply waste more time for the community, because the article will not survive AFD, but I won't object if the consensus is to overturn. This will be my last comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - a band who proudly trumpets they are "unsigned" in the infobox, and give no indication that they have played outside their local area or received nationwide news coverage have not got a hope in hell of passing WP:NMUSIC. A valid A7, in my view. Wikitam331, I occasionally look at A7 nominations and dispute them, but this is not one of them and I think you're going to have to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn I can see it as an A7, but if a good faith ed. wants a discussion, I see no reason to try to prevent them, even if the result will be obvious to those who understand WP criteria. The reason an article in a loval paper is not considered evidence of notability is because such papers will normally write some sort of article about almost any local group, and it is therefore not discriminating coverage. It's such weak evidence of even significance that I might possibly have used A7 myself, except I don't normally work on this sort of article because of my general level of ignorance in the subject. But if I had, and the ed asked, I would just have sent it to AfD and gotten a definitive decision which would have some chance of convincing the editor that the subject was not suitable for an article, and if it did not, could then be used for speedy as a recreation if it was entered again. I know it seems absurd having had this discussion here to do it again, but the overhead is worth the trouble of convincing admins to let people make an appeal to the community unless it's utterly impossible. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn after reading the confused, ridicolous argument by the deleting admin that this musical group was deleted on the basis of failing WP:CORP and that "WP:BAND is a supplement to WP:CORP". Probably the article will be deleted at AfD (and based on current coverage I would surely vote for deleting it), but his faulty decision should be overturned without uncertainty. Cavarrone 06:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and in accordance with the JClements' suggestion, I recommend trouting the admin. Cavarrone 07:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is a decent article with a legitimate claim of notability. It might well be deleted at AFD, but the purpose of speedy deletion is subverted here by making this decision unilaterally instead of allowing the community to decide. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point out what the legitimate claim of notability is? I've read the whole article and haven't seen it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The criterion for A7 is whether or not the article asserts notability. This one doesn't. It has nothing to say about this band that would set it apart from any other non-notable self-published garage band. They wrote some songs and had some local gigs. Nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what WP:CSD#A7 says. It specifically says the criterion "is a lower standard than notability". Thincat (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the wording of the criterion uses "important or significant" rather than "notable", it still demands that the article must make a credible claim of something that goes beyond the mere existence of the topic. What is this something? What does the article say the band did beyond the most basic things that every band does and that merely constitute the bare fact of its existence (writing songs and doing gigs)? I'm not seeing anything. One of the main intentions of WP:CSD#A7 has always been to filter out a certain class of non-notable bands, so we clearly do require that an article must tell us something that puts it ahead of that most basic level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Fut.Perf. One of the whole points of A7 was dealing with garage band articles without the need for unnecessary debate. Besides, this is an obviously self-promotional article that doesn't even come close to WP:BAND and absolutely, positively has zero chance of passing an AFD. Sending it there for 7 days would just be a week of "process" with an inevitable outcome that would not benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. If this is restored, it'll be sent to AfD and deleted within 7 days anyway. Note how I say within, as nobody in their right mind can say that a brief review satisfies multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. No need for bureaucracy when it'll end up the same way anyway. Charmlet (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. WP:BAND does not apply, WP:CSD#A7 applies, and it pretty unambiguously meets A7. There's flat out no assertion of notability in the article that was deleted. Complainant's casting of aspersions against the deleting admin is neither helpful nor appropriate. Even if the rationale as explained by the deleting admin is erroneous, the outcome is correct. This is analogous to harmless error. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edward Peel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 despite the fact that the very first word of the very title, and, from what I can remember, the content of the article, indicated that the subject received a knighthood, a clear indication of importance/significance. I would also point out that speedy deletion had been contested in good faith by an established editor who was not the creator of the article. The deleting admin gave a shockingly clueless response to my questioning of his action, so we have to discuss this here. Overturn. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion. Since when has a knighthood been automatic indication of importance for Wikipedia purposes? The article was very short on references and did not even include one to show that the guy had received the title. Incidentally, by all means start the article with "sir" but standards lay down that we do not include the word in the article title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More cluelessness. References are not required to get past WP:CSD#A7. And having the wrong title, as I agree that this has, is a reason for renaming, not speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Importance is asserted if unproved, but that's not a speedy deletion candidate. Gross misapplication of A7. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most certainly not speedy. Just the fact that there is serious disagreement if "Sir" passes the WP:CSD#A7 bar requires a discussion/consensus cycle. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I wouldn't say "Sir" indisputabily proves notability all by itself. The article doesn't indicate he did anything notable (though he enjoyed fishing apparently) and was missing even the barest minimal material (no date of birth or even century of birth!) and the lone reference mentioned him only in passing briefly and did NOT support the "Sir" title. If there was something, anything here to latch onto I'd say send it to AFD just in case, but there isn't. Also, the repeated "clueless" by the nominator is verging dangerously close to a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What does indisputably proving notability have to do with speedy deletion? And, if we were looking for the higher standard of notability, how would a knighthood not satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion 1? And, lastly, the deleting admin is on record as using and accepting the use of blunt language, so I have spoken bluntly. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Andrew, speedy deletions ought to be uncontroversial. If he's this Sir Edward Peel (unclear), then he's very likely notable. Speedy deletion isn't cleanup. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Peel Commission was actually headed by William Peel, 1st Earl Peel, not Edward Peel, so it seems that that source is mistaken despite being published by the Cambridge University Press. Our Edward, according to sources that I can find but can't add to the article in its current state, ran a cotton trading company in Alexandria and was well-known as a yachtsman and fisherman. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send through AfD. This was not clear-cut enough to be an A7, even if it may eventually merit deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need for me to pile on with another "overturn", so I won't, but while I was looking into this I found RHaworth's talk page fascinating. "In general, I do not talk to IP addresses." RHaworth, are you tired of the sysop role?—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - a knighthood is not proof of notability, of course, but it's an assertion of significance. While I understand the sentiment of not wanting to pile on, an admin who makes such an indefensible deletion and then defends it needs a strong rebuke. WilyD 08:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn without prejudice to go to AfD. Trout slap RHaworth for biting newbies and not understanding our deletion policies - CSD means "getting this past an AfD is borderline impossible, so let's not bother." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD I am alarmed to find I have some sympathy with the speedy. "Sir" can be a baronet and so an eldest son/grandson, etc. can inherit the title willy-nilly. So for me "Sir" is not in itself an indication of importance. But I can't see the article so I don't know what else it said – so little, it seems, that we don't even know who was being written about. Since I can neither "overturn" nor "endorse", I'll say that the deletion has been controversial and the deleting admin should undelete the article and do so willingly. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article explicitly said the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire rather than a baronet. Hut 8.5 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, overturn then. Thank you. I don't think all KBEs are inherently notable but I think it surely does "indicate why its subject is important or significant". Thincat (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn a knighthood is certainly an assertion of significance sufficient to get past A7. Even if it wasn't, the article also said that he was one of a small group of people who pioneered a certain form of fishing, which would also qualify. The deleting admin is seriously mistaken if they think A7 is about notability. Hut 8.5 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have temporarily undeleted this to assist this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou. Being able to see the context that this is a historical figure helps enormously. I am going to assume good faith that this editor, Colonialhistorian49 (talk · contribs) is a keen amateur historian with a library of printed sources, but one who is inexperienced with computers (perhaps "49" is the year he was born, making him 63-64), and really pushes my buttons into "bash the overzealous CSDers with a large stick" mode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritchie, I know that you mean well, but your comment comes across as rather patronising. There are plenty of 64-year-olds with 40+ years of experience with computers, and my 80-year-old mother is perfectly at ease with using hers, both for her work and for communicating with her friends, many of whom are older than she is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised it came across as patronising - I meant to say something like "all the ins and outs of all of Wikipedia's policies" rather than "computers" in general. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is an admittedly crappy article, but there are rather clear assertions of notability, even if they are weakly supported and documented. The decision to keep or delete this article should be made by the community, not by a single administrator. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people, "As of April 3, 2010, a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". This does not. If this is restored, it will fail WP:PROD and almost certainly WP:AFD.--Launchballer 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about a living person and does have a source confirming that the subject was a pioneer of tunny fishing. And this discussion is not about whether he would get through AfD, but whether the speedy deletion was correct. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be amazed if this would survive speedy deletion - as quoted above, CSD means "it won't get past an AfD so don't bother". This will not survive an AfD. The article, or for that matter the reference, doesn't say that he's dead (it's not an official policy but I recommend assuming alive unless we can source otherwise) besides saying that he was a tunnyfisher. Either way, if it survives this, that's where it's going. In the meantime, I would recommend re-reading WP:NPA and WP:CANVASS; this discussion is about Sir Edward Peel (if we can find evidence to suggest he is a Sir and not a Colonel like the provided reference states), not the administrative actions of RHaworth. Per WP:DFFWF, two wrongs don't make a right. But what do I know? I've only been editing regularly for a few months.--Launchballer 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is deletion review, which is by definition the forum for discussing whether the administrative action of speedy deletion was performed correctly. And what on Earth is the connection with WP:NPA, WP:CANVASS and WP:DFFWF? As for evidence that he was knighted, that can be found in the badly formatted external link, which I can't correct while the article is blanked. And the knighthood was conferred in 1918, so we can safely assume that the subject is no longer living. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Without a specific day of death, one can still reasonably infer that someone awarded the Distinguished Service order in 1918 has passed on. WilyD 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A surprising misunderstanding of the speedy criteria by a veteran administrator. There's something odd here, because this is one admin from who I never would have expected this. I can imagine I might have made an error of this sort--anyone can do something foolish, but if I had, I would have immediately corrected myself upon being told. On the other hand, I can understand a newcomer not realizing the difference between AfD and speedy, but I'd expect even a newcomer to check the rules before posting here. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your bold !vote does not seem to match your comments. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Fixed. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn An honour is a prima facie pass for A7. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trout RHaworth for an utterly inappropriate use of A7-Speedy. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and let editors improve this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with option to userfy, as the nom has stated an intent to rename the article and add sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery of nude celebrities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Virtually unsourced, unencyclopedic, almost ridiculous failure of notability guidelines wrongly closed as "No Consensus" (i.e. de facto Keep) just 12 hours after debate was extended to achieve consensus. Asking not for deletion but rather for the debate to be reopened for seven days to achieve consensus. Request made of closing administrator to reopen debate was declined, per [3]. Carrite (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as nominator. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally, those relisting don't provide an explanation as to _why_ they are relisting. On rare occasion that can be fairly problematic. Given that the relisting admin (User:Sandstein) is pretty darn experienced around AfD stuff, I'd assume he had a good reason to relist. I guess a reasonable first step here would be to see if the relisting admin objected to the NC close. If not, I think we're done here. If he does object, given that Ryan (also plenty experienced around AfDs) didn't realize that it had just been relisted, it would seem ideal for Ryan to relist it. That said, from purely rules-based argument, I think any admin is free to close a relisted discussion when they feel the discussion has hit a resolution ("A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days."). And from a do-what-is-right (IAR) viewpoint, I think NC was the only close really possible given the discussion. So I don't think DRV should be forcing a relist here. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, agree with Carrite 100%. No reason to close off debate, which was policy-based and civil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sustain close Relisting is not a "do not close for another week" prohibition, it's one admin punting the closure for up to another week. As such, since a close is not overturning a relisting, another admin closing is not overturning a prior admin action, and no discussion with the relisting admin is needed. Since the discussion had been going on for a full week, and since no consensus was certainly supported by a reading of the AfD, there's nothing for DRV to do. A repeat AfD is certainly possible, but relisting would be inappropriate, since it was legitimately and appropriately closed by an admin. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing administrator comment - I thought I'd pop over here and offer my comments. I closed the debate as no consensus as (strangely enough) it was clear to me that this is what the consensus was. Both sides offered strong, policy based arguments and based around no original research (for those wishing to delete the article) and that it passed our notability guidelines (for those wishing to keep the article). In terms of pure numbers, these arguments were put forward by a roughly equal numbers of people on both sides (Obviously, numbers do not determine consensus, but they are one of the things to take into account). Further, a relatively large number of people had offered their opinion compared to other AfDs. As such, I felt confident in making a no-consensus close. Obviously, this is without prejudice against a future listing, but I would strongly suggest holding out for a couple of months. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was not heading towards a consensus to delete. The nomination was not entirely accurate, and so a relist is less desirable than a later fresh nomination. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, where I suggest waiting two months and making a better renomination. This one would call for a very clear nomination, including why the problems are not fixable by clean up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Obvious "no consensus"'. The fact that an AFD has been relisted does not mean it has to run the full week before anyone can close it. Garion96 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I don't mean to imply that any relisting has to run 7 days. In the case where a consensus becomes apparent immediately after relisting, the extensions are shut down early all the time, and rightfully so. Here, however, an extension was made to see if a stalemate would resolve itself and the process was arbitrarily shut down and the stalemate effectively declared unsolvable. Well, maybe, maybe not. In my opinion this is a pretty obvious Delete if things are allowed to play out normally... Carrite (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As the relister, I think that "no consensus" is an acceptable closure based on the discussion as it stands now. My preference would have been to let the discussion continue some more, because this article presents an interesting case at the intersection of several core policies, which allows for the development of several valid lines of argument. Also, this way we don't have to start the discussion from scratch as would be the case in a renomination after the "no consensus" closure. But that, I feel, is not so terribly important a matter as to require a DRV discussion.  Sandstein  15:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Regardless of whether you voted "keep" or not, this closure was an absolute shambles. There was no incivility going on, and the debate had been relisted 13 and a half hours before the closure - and the last comment was less than 15 minutes prior to the closure. Whether the debate would've resulted in "delete" or not is irrelevant - you cannot hope to guess what any future voters would've said. I'd have had no problems with the close if it was a couple of days after the relisting, with no-one commenting - but this was absurd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things that are absurd in life, I don't think that this is really one of them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see what rule was broken here. The procedure says that AfDs can be closed after 168 hours, but there's no minimum period following a relist. I don't think we have any procedural grounds to disturb Ryan Postlethwaite's close. Given that the procedure was correctly followed, the only question that remains for DRV is whether the closer misstated the consensus. I don't see that he did---there was no consensus and Ryan Postlethwaite made a "no consensus" call.

  But having said that, it's well-established that a "no consensus" close allows early relisting. If anyone feels that further debate might lead to a consensus where there was none before, then what's to stop them starting a new AfD tomorrow?—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• sustain close and I would advise a few weeks before relisting, because if one wants to hope consensus will form it is wise to give it some time to do so. It is rare that there is any reason to appeal a non-consensus close, unless it were to overturn something really peculiar, like a closer off the rails altogether where there was extremely clear consensus, where the appeal would be as much to call attention to the action of the closer as to the close itself DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's too much relisting at AFD nowadays. When there's no sign of a consensus to delete developing, as in this case, it is sensible to terminate the discussion. Warden (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the deletion Halogen Software has made a number of advancements, including becoming a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (one of the few tech companies in Canada on the exchange). I work at Halogen Software, but having this page restored is not part of my responsibilities at Halogen. I would like to work on redoing the page so that it meets Wikipedia's standards because I believe that a public company like Halogen should have a page on Wikipedia. The administrator that deleted the page has taken a break from Wikipedia - I have tried to comment and post on his page but received no response. Mikeypotter (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• XFD2
• Comment given that the page was deleted in 2007, I don't think you need to be here (though the last deletion did suggest DRV, it's that long ago I think that can be ignored). You can just create the article and if there is still a problem someone would need to AFD it again. I'm assuming here that there probably won't much that is useful to you on the original article. It's probably a good idea to create it in a sandbox of your userspace first and move it into mainspace when you think it's ready (or better still get some experienced editors to review it first) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation - IP's advice is good advice. You might like to start it at User:Mikeypotter/Halogen Software draft. You should be aware, though, that the company would need to meet WP:GNG or more specifically, WP:CORPDEPTH (the inclusion criteria for companies). Being one of the only tech companies on a particular stock exchange probably wouldn't be enough for the company to be considered notable. You're obviously aware of your potential conflist of interest and you'll just need to manage that in line with those guidelines. By the way, the last admin to delete the page was actually User:Citicat though I did see your good-faith attempt to contact User:Tyrenius who had deleted it previously. Citicat has been active recently and might have some good advice. Stalwart111 02:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as Moot - Go ahead and build the article, this doesn't need to run through Deletion Review. Just make sure that you have multiple, independently published sources dealing with the subject in a substantial way and that you don't recreate the deleted article — build from scratch. No bureaucratic authorization needed, just do it — but source it up, because it will be watched. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot Per Carrite. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brigante Aviation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Category A7 - reason given why the article may be of scientific or engineering importance as it is a new design of aircraft. The reason given that it it "promotion" is ambiguous since the article was not written in a promoting style. All home built aircraft sites could be regarded as "promotion" and people wanting to know about home built aircraft deserve to know about this project. MikeDutton (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I dare say people wanting to know about home built aircraft do deserve to know about this project, but I'm afraid you'll have to use your own webspace to tell them about it, because you can't use ours. Brigante Aviation doesn't meet the relevant inclusion criterion for Wikipedia. It's accepted that you didn't use a promotional tone when writing about your project and indeed your words looked measured and appropriate, but the fact is that you wrote the article to tell people about what you're doing and Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Once the project has to be noticed by reliable, independent sources, it's entitled to a Wikipedia article based on those sources, but when there aren't any reliable, independent sources then by Wikipedia's standard test it would be treated as "promotional". I'll just go and notify Deb about this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Later): That was unfair of me because I see MikeDutton DID notify Deb, it's just that the notification wasn't where I expected it to be. Apologies.—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. The criterion for speedy deletion A7 is no indication of possible importance, not whether it will pass notability--this wasnot an A7. But it was a valid G11, the purpose was to promote the airplane design. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Phones SAR List (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page is sort of tricky. I'm not exactly endorsing its recreation, but I do think that this needs to have a second look taken on it. The long story short here is that this entry was a branching off of Specific absorption rate. The editor, User:Mtpaley created the page, but not really the material. He put the article for AfD himself and another editor tagged the page as a speedy deletion via WP:G7. The page was deleted and another user sort of re-created the page, complaining that the previous deletion wasn't valid and somewhat arguing for its recreation. The re-creation wasn't actually a recreation of the material, so that deletion isn't really the one at question here. I don't know that the content (a listing of the SAR for various phones) really merits an entry, but this should probably be reviewed. It does bring up an interesting question: if someone creates an article and then promptly lists it for deletion but didn't create the content, should that be deleted via G7? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The editor in question here (User:Mtpaley) did not contribute the content; he copied it from another page as part of a WP:CONSPLIT. That can't reasonably be construed as "the only substantial content to the page... was added by its author"; others added it, they just added it to another page from which it was moved. Interpreting it otherwise make no sense; that would allow an editor to pull text he did not like from one article and move it to another under a guise of a content split, then G7 the new article. This is not a reasonable interpretation of G7.

To Mtpaley's's credit, this was not something he was doing here. Mtpaley quite properly took it to AFD to give it a full airing, and it was another editor who suggested G7. Mtpaley actually argued against a G7 speedy, on exactly this basis, but it was speedied anyway.

I take no position on the ultimate question of whether the article should be deleted after a full AFD; my comment here is strictly procedural. TJRC (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Amatulic's deletion is understandable in the circumstances, but I would think the mild procedural defect would be enough to merit a listing at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore & relist G7 should not be used if there is any doubt about the role of whoever is asking. Tis was not a sufficiently clear use o it. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting admin - When I deleted the article, there was zero doubt about the role of who requested deletion. The author of the page, Mtpaley (talk · contribs), made some attempts at blanking, the last one of which left a message on the article: A brute force manual rollback to the article that I think needs deletion - mtpaley. Another editor subsequently came along and helpfully added a G7 tag. After figuring out this history, I deleted the article, because up to that point the article had only one contributor, who requested deletion.

  Nevertheless, evidently I failed to look carefully enough at the article history. I generally don't delete articles that have an active AFD, and failed to notice that. If Mtpaley moved content from elsewhere and that content is now lost (I wasn't aware of that), I agree the deletion should either be overturned or the content restored to the original place from whence it came. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with deleter Amatulic too - I agree the deletion should either be overturned or the content restored to the original place from whence it came. The deleted content was actually authored by a whole bunch of people adding SARs for various devices. Notification of the ACTUAL authors would likely result in citations that make the content more readily verifiable.
Let's consider whether anyone considering challenging the content should assume good faith and google <Model> <SAR value> and only challenge if there's no result that comes up that confirms that the content is readily verifiable). In other words, we know that regulations require published SAR values for all contemporary mobiles (at least ones recently for sale in a regulated area, which I think is the same set). So anyone claiming "that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable" is surely wrong - because of the regulations. --Elvey (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When creating the SAR article I am fairly sure that I did it with a comment saying that it is content split from the original page. I must admit to doing a shabby job of the split but after a couple of self reverted edits I left it as just a copy of the original material. I still think that the page is nothing more than a list of untrustworthy numbers. To be valid every entry would need a citation. Mtpaley (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Just keep deleted unless there was a substantive edit to the break-out page by someone other than Mtpaley, without prejudice toward a future list article on the subject (at a title more like List of specific absorption rates of mobile phones). If anyone feels this content should stay on Wikipedia, they can either undo the edit he made to Specific absorption rate removing it, or they make a break-out article themselves; but there's no point having a full AFD for what is essentially an unopposed editorial decision to remove a section from another article while declining to put it into a subarticle. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reinstate then AfD as the person behind this entire scenario I request that the article is reinstated then immediately put in AfD for a proper reviewing. The original speedy delete was clearly based on the incorrect assumption of G7, the fact that I argued against it is evidence of that. Mtpaley (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without further comment been looking through this with a view to closing and it seems to me that this has been a totally pointy exercise. The list was split off from the main article by mtpaley on 1 March [4]. Then on 20 March [5] he removes the link to the list from the parent article saying that he wan't to get it deleted. Now we have a DRV because he only wants to have it deleted after an AFD. This is frankly a total waste of other editors' time and effort when he has what he wants and the original content remains in the history of the parent article. My personal view is that we should not be rewarding levels of disruption like this and that the DRV should be closed without an outcome. If mtpaley wants the content is still where he first found it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to make this clear I am not the person behind this being put in a deletion review. I don't know who requested it. Mtpaley (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Withdrawn by nominator Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two separate editors have asked for the temperature of this discussion to be dialed down. DRV maintains a strict policy of commenting on policy and not the editor. In the event that I close this DRV (which is exceedingly likely as a quick scoot through recent archives will show) I will not be counting opinions that are based on opinions about other editors as that is not a policy based rationale and therefore irrelevant. If you want your vote to count you need to show in either direction why you thought the close was either correct in policy or wrong in policy. Both precedent and policy allow deletion for a content fork or for hopelessly NPOV and both of these arguments were addressed in the closing statement. Meeting GNG is not necessarily a defense against that. Commentators may find it helps the closing admin to address that. Finally, practice at DRV is to close DRVs early if they become platforms to attack other editors so I do strongly suggest we keep this discussion neutral and policy based. Thank you for reading this public service announcement. Spartaz Humbug! 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the closing admins reasons for deletion are flawed. He has said that the title was inflammatory and this is a valid reason for deletion, it is not per POVTITLE. All sources in the article, as well as many more given during the AFD all say Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, per POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" He also gave as a valid criteria for deletion "sources" However bar one source all others were to academic publishers. The subject matter obviously passes the GNG and this is a topic of both academic and MSM interest. I believe this needs to be overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - "I don't like it" is not a valid rationale for DRV filing, which despite the protests to the contrary, is what this really is. Nominator also seems to be cherry-picking the closing admin's rationale, which did not rest solely on "inflammatory title", but also noted "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms" and "sourcing/NPOV". These types of articles come (and usually go) around all the time in this project, hyper-partisans pushing their partisan agendas. The keep votes were crap of the "it looks sourced to me" variety", so between that and the number of calls to delete, consensus of the discussion was read correctly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, and I am sorry I missed a part of the closing rational, ny connection dropped out. The information in the article is not covered in other articles at all that I can see, and as already mentioned, the sources are from academic publishers so how is that a valid reason for deletion? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol what? "I lost my internet, so I didn't read the whole closing rationale" ranks up there with "my dog ate my homework". The subject matter is covered at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence and the specific topic articles linked from there. You're trying to fork constant into an unnecessary standalone article. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no, the connection dropped out while I was filing this and some got dropped without my noticing, and the content in the article is not present at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence, and even if it were, a content fork is within policy is it not? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIZERULE if I add the content which has been deleted it will put the Religious violence in India over the 100kb limit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get a temp undelete please? There have been wildly different claims about the sources so it's hard to evaluate these. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse As per the original nom that "Pogrom" is used to denote Jewish Historiography. This is one of the occasions (along with Indian feudalism) which is total WP:OR in Indian context. Solomon7968 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows that the original nomination was flawed, the term has been used for years to denote other massacres. Merriam Webster gives a definition of "an organized massacre of helpless people" The term is not reserved exclusively for massacres of those of the Jewish faith. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the Muslim community is helpless in India although the opposite is true. To create it please first give Non partisan sources that the Muslim community is helpless in India. Solomon7968 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any minority group is helpless when faced with overwhelming numbers, especially when the state or police refuse to help. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your above comment is WP:OR. I will not respond to it. Please give citations. All top posts in India are occupied from the Muslim community (from finance minister to Ex-President to RAW head) What more you want? Solomon7968 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense, not OR. But as you insist, Women and Politics in the Third World "(Kashmir with a predominantly Muslim population) where, in the name of fighting terrorism, state security forces waged a virtual war against helpless civilians" Workers, Unions, and Global Capitalism: Lessons from India "workers saying that the victims deserved what they got: this was evidence of extreme prejudice, given that the victims were helpless innocents who were tortured, raped and killed in unspeakably brutal ways" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you forget about the Grand Mufti of Kashmir which issued a death fatwa because some teenage girls formed a band (that also wearing hijab). No one from Muslim community stood against this. Why are you not telling other side of story Mr. User talk:Darkness Shines Solomon7968 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could the temperature in this debate be reduced, please? This argumentative back-and-forth is not conducive to thoughtful scrutiny of the issues raised. I would tend to agree with Hobit that there are widely varying claims being made and a temporary undelete would be helpful in evaluating them.

  Certainly religious violence against Muslims takes place in India. No reasonable person would claim otherwise. The question is not whether to cover religious violence against Muslims in India, because clearly we should cover it. The question is whether to cover it in its own, separate article or whether religious violence in India or persecution of Muslims are better places.

  I want to say that "pogroms" is not a word you'd normally expect to find in the title of an encyclopaedia article----it's not our usual language. I think that even if DRV decided to restore the content we would have to find a more distant, more neutral, drier title for it.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of articles with pogrom in the title [6]. The sources used in the article can be seen in my userspace here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not care if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and every single of the other stuff are related to Jewish History. You cannot erode Indian historiography by imposing the word "Pogrom". Your aticle title seems to be Political views of Paul Brass. Solomon7968 21:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmm. Up until I looked at Darkness Shines' list of sources, I was pretty clear that "pogrom" is a Yiddish word meaning "mass-murder of Jews by a mob of gentiles". I was intrigued to see that there really are sources (and here) that call the anti-Muslim violence in India "pogroms", and use that actual word in the actual title. Although I still don't think we should use that word, I can see how a reasonable person would disagree.

  For me, I think the key to this is that the experts don't have to be neutral, and indeed they usually aren't----it's accepted that subject-matter experts write books from an angle. We Wikipedians are constrained by WP:NPOV in a way that subject-matter experts aren't. I think our concern about neutrality underlies and underpins the consensus that emerged in the debate we're discussing, that we shouldn't have that article title. And I don't think a user would type "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" into the search box.

  Darkness Shines, I think it's accepted that there are sources and they do use the word "pogroms". But the fact that there are sources doesn't mean that a separate article is the best way to cover the subject. Could you list all your objections to covering this under religious violence in India, please?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:S Marshall Your summary is fine. I hope Darkness shines agrees. Solomon7968 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The first problem is size, Religious violence in India already stands at 93,686 bytes, to add all the information from the pogroms article will violate WP:SIZERULE as it will put the article over 100kb. Should the pogroms article be restored and expanded it would surpass the size limitations even more. There is also the fact that this is a subject of academic interest, it passes GNG as a stand alone article under those guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are those all of the reasons that you want us to consider?—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon so, I am sadly, no policy wonk and have no ideas as to which policies I ought to be quoting. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm looking into this subject at the moment, refreshing my memory on all the violence since the Godhra train incident, and trying to understand the shape of the coverage we already have (across all the various articles). My first impression is there's quite a chaotic mix of articles with varying scope and focus, and I'm starting to wonder whether the whole topic area wouldn't benefit from rethinking its structure a bit.

To be quite frank I don't think the solution will be to overturn BWilkins' close; there really was a rough consensus there to support it. But I do think our coverage of anti-Muslim violence in India needs to be improved, and I agree that there's academic interest in the subject, and I don't see why the sources you list can't be used. It's a question of working out a balanced and fair way to do it. I'm minded to try to help when I've done some more reading and thinking.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:S Marshall The problem is we do not have articles on some core issues. For example check the article Syed Ahmed Bukhari which I created two days back. Solomon7968 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that missing articles are part of the problem. I'm just reading some of our very large number of articles about human rights in India, and I'm going through their histories. What I'm seeing is a whole lot of content written by a relatively small number of users, and it's often the same users in each article, interacting with each other again and again. I can see how pressures and tensions build up...—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing which most frustuates me is lack of reliable sources on politics in India specifically the "Votebank politics". For example no Imam of any Indian mosque has a wikipedia entry though it is well known Imams are used for political purposes. The scale of lack of reliable source can be a headache to every editor who has a miniscule knowledge of the subject. Solomon7968 00:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: On why a separate article is not needed for this I had written at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India that "If the articles, this one or the one already present, are written properly, they should only briefly be talking about various events as these events have their own separate articles. So if there is going to be only brief writing of few lines, why should there be two such briefs; one with a neutral title and another with an opinionated one?" §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people." — I don't think singling India out is constructive. Same goes for the focus on only Anti-muslim violence! There is nothing wrong in letting those who are editing India-related pages in good faith, edit those pages because they form what seems like a small group of people to you! Isn't it a tad much to call it It is not dangerous.
"small group of people" - What group? AFAIK there are no group-membership services on Wikipedia. Those group members didn't sign up for something formally. Is that an euphemism for something? Small is a vague word. That article was not only not reliable it was also offensive and filled with personal inferences, opinions and conjectures.
There is no need to "incubate" this travesty of an article imbued with utterly partial insinuations and prevarications that are fudged together basing on deplorable POV. You've got to be kidding me(!) This is unacceptable. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, please. This isn't AN/I. Deletion review is supposed to be a drama-free zone.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm now. I changed the comment and shifted the focus back to content. This is not a war of nerves. Don't get on my nerves. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The first thing you need to understand is that the closing administrator will recognise my comments for what they are: I am endorsing BWilkins' close and recommending that this content is not published in the Wikipedia mainspace. The second thing is that the closer will have been paying attention and will know that there's already a copy of this material in userspace. What I'm actually asking for is no change to the status quo after the article has been deleted.

The third thing you need to understand is that my position is backed up by policy. WP:PRESERVE says "preserve appropriate content", which is wording that, more than three years ago, I wrote. It will take time to assess which of that content is appropriate and what isn't, and how it can all be phrased in a balanced and neutral way. I'm formally requesting that time to assess it should be allowed.

And the fourth thing you need to understand is that the reason why I'm "singling out" articles about India is because this DRV has caused me to read them and I have become a little concerned. I have not accused you or anyone else of bad faith and in fact I went out of my way to be clear that I think everyone concerned is editing in good faith. But with the best will in the world, you, and other editors active in the topic area, are clearly passionate about the subject, and you may benefit from support from editors who have a little more distance from it. (Yes, I'm being vague. The specific concerns I have don't belong here and would raise hackles if I mentioned them individually. Spartaz whoever closes this DRV doesn't need to read them to assess what I'm saying against policy. We can go into it at a later stage.)—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you do a little bit of research you might learn that there are other faiths also both inside and outside India who are suffering from abject communal violence. Just to clarify, I am only against these two things. (1) Semi-exclusive focus on anti-muslim violence and (2) singling out India.(cf. WP:BALANCE, WP:DUE, WP:IMPARTIAL) And don't take this the wrong way, but claims of ignorance about vehement persecution of other faiths don't mean they don't exist. The rest of your comment is fine by me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request temp restore - Clearly this article is quite polarizing. In order to make a proper judgement I will need to actually see the content of the article in question. It's hard to pass judgement on something when there is no context which can be used to make said judgement! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhh... having a revision available where there is actually article text would usually help!PantherLeapord (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) - Here Bwilkins said, "I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion." And I concur, apparently the closer summed the arguments for deletion in a line where only one of the cited reasons was "inflammatory title" others were "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms"; "sourcing"; "NPOV". The DRV-nominator here is the creator of the article and there are many behavioral and attitudinal issues with his editing. Attitudinizing as a impartial, neutral editor, he is far from one. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn Agreed with Darkness Shines's nomination. I will strongly support undeletion. Please get the article restored. The result ought to be "no consensus". The consensus for "deletion" was never reached. Faizan 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article restored then you need to write overturn, not endorse. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't mean unanimity nor is it a majority vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Only citing just a policy or commenting based on subjective liking towards the subject to increase the head-count, is not a valid ground for nullifying a legitimate consensus. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. You have already posted your comment there on the AFD. There is no need to recreate that imbroglio all over again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Title argument not supported by policy. FYI, for use of 'pogroms' in a non-jewish context, see Frank Herbert's 'Dune'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

& other arguments? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own deletion Darkness Shines is quite falsely claiming that I deleted because of an offensive title - in my close, I summarized a number of the arguments - one was that the title was inflammatory, but that was not a reason to delete. Mr Shines has been aware of this false statement for sometime after posting to my talkpage, but choosing not to listen to my responses. Mr Shines is focusing on one single false issue expecting responses like Only In Death's, and succeeding - thankfully only once. Do not allow this DRV to get as ugly as the AFD: that AFD led to blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the result ought to be "no consensus". The consensus for "deletion" was never reached. There had been discussion and votes for "Keep" too. Faizan 07:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was a consensus in the AfD for deletion. The central argument for deletion - that the article was not neutral and that the topic was covered elsewhere under more appropriate terms - is grounded in policy. The main argument for keeping the article was the existence of sources, which isn't particularly relevant to this argument. Hut 8.5 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (note: I !voted delete in the discussion.) The closing admin summarized consensus accurately, including non-neutral framing, better covered elsewhere, etc. These are reasonable policy based grounds for deletion. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One question for you RP, does this subject pass the GNG based in the sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an issue here since the closing admin didn't cite GNG as a reason for deletion. But, no, I think it fails the 'presumed' criterion. --regentspark (comment) 20:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify right at the top admin Spartaz has clarified, "Both precedent and policy allow deletion for a content fork or for hopelessly NPOV and both of these arguments were addressed in the closing statement. Meeting GNG is not necessarily a defense against that." Endless repetitions are not needed is what I think. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if your subject is "pogroms" then it actually doesn't pass GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few editors do not like the content or think it is not neutral is not a reason to delete, any perceived neutrality issues can be fixed through editing. The fact of the matter is that this subject matter does pass GNG and as such an article on it is allowed by policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Passing the GNG is not a guarantee that an article is encyclopedic. Pages can be (and are) deleted for a variety of other reasons, including WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Hut 8.5 16:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey folks, while I agree that GNG isn't the end-all here, it is very hard to evaluate the AfD without being able to see the article. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Religious violence in India and Persecution of Muslims#India and read "pogrom" in place of "riot". That should give you the idea. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am an involved party, I would like to point out that User:Nthep deleted the image with no comment, just that it fails criterion 1. User:Eeekster was the one with the comment above, and I don't believe he is an admin. Surfer43 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. I deleted the file for failing to meet NFCC#1 namely that a free use image of the bat could reasonably be created. If the concensus is that a free image could not reasonably be created then I'm more than happy to restore the file but then there is a possible discussion about whether NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is being met, if the image is that rare. The NFCC are a package so while this discussion maybe about the application of one criteria, just check that chosing a different interpretation of one doesn't potentially mean that others are now not being met. NtheP (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:PantherLeapord was the only one calling names. Surfer43 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as an improper F7 and send to FfD. Disputed fair use != Invalid fair use, a discussion is certainly called for, and not just an escalating back-and-forth between the uploader and the tagger. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On the one hand, I agree with Jclemens to the extent that speedy deletion should be reserved for clearer-cut cases. The purpose of the speedy deletion rule is to empower sysops to delete material without a discussion, but the community has set many limits on that. They're wearisome to read in detail but the underlying principle is always: it should be absolutely obvious to a neutral observer why the deletion is right. In cases where a neutral, good-faith observer might think "that's arbitrary" or "that's a matter of opinion", speedy deletion isn't the right tool for the job. In this case there is good faith doubt so a discussion is necessary.

  But on the other hand, I don't think there's any point in sending it back to FFD, because our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Wikipedia rather than improving the actual articles. FFD will just delete it again because that's what FFD does. The people who're focused on encyclopaedia-building find FFD and NFCC a bit alien from the rest of the encyclopaedia because those venues are so militant in their focus on free content. To me, it's quite obvious that material that (a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia should be used. Deleting such material is obstructive, destructive, and grossly and blatantly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia.

  FFD and NFCC have become so free-content-focused and so deletionist that there's little point in having them. We might as well go the de.wiki route of not hosting image files locally at all and putting everything on Wikimedia Commons.

  For that reason input from the wider community is to be sought, not the free-content crowd who congregate around FFD and NFCC. I'd recommend that this goes to RFC, but I see that there's already one open on this very subject on WT:NFCC. DRV should wait for the community to decide at that RFC and then enforce the community's will.—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Wikipedia rather than improving the actual articles". I'm sure your handful of GAs qualify you to write off the opinions of people like Masem and I as nutjob extremists who aren't really here to improve the encyclopedia. You're the one suggesting we do away with one of our central policies. You're the one with a minority fringe view. You're the one ignoring the "community's will". J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK the greater community's will is that fair use images should be used where the free alternative is not of acceptable quality (Such as the initial free replacement for the Playstation 4 image). I would hardly call that a "Minority fringe view"! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Marshall is of the view that if an image meets three criteria: "(a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia [then it] should be used." This amounts to doing away with the non-free content policy, which is deliberately far stricter than his very liberal ideas about non-free content use. That is the fringe view. I am making no comment about this image, I am defending myself and others from his attack against us. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, of course that's not the community's will. "I know there's a free image, but I don't like it very much, so we'll continue to use the non-free image." Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Free image purism is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia! When a fair use image is of much higher quality AND encyclopedic value than the free image then it is obvious that using the free image will only DEGRADE the quality of the article the image is used on. Would you rather use the free version and degrade the article or stick to the higher quality fair use image? PantherLeapord (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Take a look at non-free content criterion 1. We do not use non-free content when a free image could reasonably be created that would serve the same purpose as a non-free image- we certainly don't use non-free content when free content is already available. This is not particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFCC#1 is the very REASON that this image was falsely deleted in the first place! WP:NFCC#1 is why we are here today! If WP:NFCC#1 was not CONSTANTLY misinterpreted by free image purists and deletionists then this image would NOT have been deleted to begin with! As this bat is EXTREMELY RARE and ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to get a photo of then it SHOULD be kept! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment S Marshall is quite mistaken about FFD. A file was kept as recently as 12 May.[8] One was also kept on 19 May but that was withdrawn by the nominator.[9] On 3 June one was "not deleted" with a supervote because someone gave "a correct reason".[10] The normal procedure is not to close discussions with a consensus to keep[11] and so by no means all images are deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving examples of images that were kept does not invalidate what I said.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Wikipedia will not change a thing. Surfer43 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've left a comment on the photo's page asking if the author would be willing to release it under a free license. As far as I can tell, no one has even attempted this yet (which, frankly, is ridiculous). Hopefully this will be able to solve the entire problem. If anyone speaks it, it may be worth trying to contact the photographer in Spanish, too. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is definitely a good thing to have done. If you get a reply of "no", for me that would make the situation clear cut. Thincat (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will leave the comment en español. I doubt he won't allow it. Surfer43 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sent him a private message in Spanish. Hopefully he gets it. Surfer43 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • He replied "You have my permission to use it on Wikipedia." I sent him another private message explaining we need it to be released under CC BY-SA 3.0. Surfer43 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete and list I agree with S Marshall in nearly all respects on this one and would like to see an RfC on the broader issue. But DRV's job isn't to worry about how broken FfD is, it's to overturn bad deletions. And this one is clearly not a speedy case or even close to it. A new picture can't be reasonably gotten by anyone at this time so IMO it should be kept at FfD. Just needs to get there. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broader issue is already a RFC. Please comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Surfer43 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you mean the entire NFCC policy. Surfer43 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, obvious case of replaceability, and as such obvious and legitimate use of admin judgment in processing an F7 case. No case was made that this bat is significantly more difficult to find and take a photograph of than all the thousands of other species we have free nature photographs of on Commons. Any competent nature photographer could do again what the author of this photograph has done: travel to the Dominican Republic, visit its National Park, go to one of the caves (tourists do that every day), find a bat. There is not a shred of evidence that the opportunity to take the present photograph was somehow unique or overwhelmingly difficult to repeat. This is a slam-dunk case; not even anywhere close to borderline. Note also that on the image talk page, where the uploader first contested the speedy deletion proposal, he did not in fact bring forward any argument challenging the replaceability charge. He was arguing about whether the photographer had a commercial interest in the picture and other such things, but that just demonstrates he unfortunately failed to understand the NFCC criterion, which says "is available, or could be created". No substantive counterargument to the replaceability tag was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the animal is hard enough to photograph that only one picture exists (which is my understanding), that it _could_ be recreated at some point is pretty crazy. Where is the bar here? Someone could take a picture of an extinct species by recreating it from a preserved cell at some point in the future. Is that "could be created?". Or I suppose time travel could be found to be workable at some point so everything could be created. Yes, those are extreme, but the bar here to someone going out and getting such a picture is huge and unreasonable. My examples (ok, not the time travel one) are not significantly higher as creation of certain animals from cells is doable, if damn expensive at this point. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty certain walking into that cave and finding a bat sleeping in it is not significantly more difficult than getting access to the current Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and gaining permission to take a free portrait shoot of him (which nobody seems to have managed so far either, but he's still covered by our "living persons" rule). The fact that this particular bat has not been photographed more often is apparently not due to it being super-rare or super-secretive; it's just that its habitat happens to be limited to a relatively small part of the world (but still, that part of the world is not somewhere in the middle of Antarctica or at the bottom of the ocean; it is inhabited by some 10 million people and visited by thousands of tourists each year.) – And no, it is certainly not the case that only this one image of it exists; it's just that so far none of the existing ones happen to be free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so you know, this is the only picture taken of it on the internet. If it is so common, why is so little known about it? Surfer43 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • False- as Thincat has shown below, there are other pictures out there. Further, there seems to be plenty of literature on the species- note my quick expansion of the article, and note the large number of hits on Google Scholar. Further, even if it was little-known, that wouldn't preclude it from being common. The IUCN seems to be quite clear that it's "locally common in specific areas" and "reasonably widely distributed". J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit: There are only a few photos of it on the internet. Surfer43 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is getting silly. We don't judge the replaceability of an image based on how many images of the subject we can find on the Internet. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Needs an actual discussion of the full set of issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I'm sure it was outside deletion policy to have speedy deleted the image. It was not one of "the most obvious cases". Whether it would or should survive a deletion discussion is not a present concern. Thincat (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a photo published in the US in 1980, seemingly without notice but I don't know how to tell whether copyright was subsequently registered.[12][13] I think ASM are making their early Mammalian Species notes available deliberately.[14][15] And, of course, someone could ask. Thincat (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email. I'll keep people posted. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. A lot of the claims being thrown around in support of using a non-free image here are just plain wrong. The image this discussion concerns is not the only one on the Internet, as Thincat has shown. There may be more out there, as there are plenty of hits on Google Books and Google Scholar. This leads me to the second point- this does seem to be a fairly well-documented species. I've started to expand the article a little, but there's no doubt plenty more that could go in (the taxonomic history alone seems to be highly complex and interesting). Concerning the replaceability of this image, however: it is neither the case that the species is super-rare (the IUCN notes that it is "locally common in specific areas") nor that it is super-isolated (it is "reasonably widely distributed", according to the IUCN, on an island with a human population of 20 million). Also, for what it's worth, it looks pretty much the same as the Mexican funnel-eared bat (for which we do have free images), only bigger. There's really no way that a non-free image of this species would meet NFCC#1, and so the deletion seems quite appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quote Miller, who first identified the species: "Except for its greater size, Natalus major so closely resembles specimens of N. stramineus from Dominica as to require no further explanation." (p. 399). J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for what it's worth, I've just come across another photo online, in this article. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion(as uploader) - per J Milburn. I hope the author releases it. Surfer43 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This did not meet the speedy criterion--it was disputed free use, and disputed free use needs to be discussed, not speedied. It's every bit as clearly not a speedy as if it were an article deleted via A7 on the grounds that the deleting admin said that on balance, they didn't think it was "sufficiently" important. it's only indisputable cases that are appropriate for speedy. This is being challenged in good faith and must be discussed. Better there than here. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now the person who disputed it in the first place has recognised that it should have been deleted and endorses the deletion? J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain wrong, DGG. "Disputed free use"? There was no claim of free use anywhere. The file had clearly been uploaded and labeled as non-free, and it was obviously agreed that there was no free license for it. And as for the challenge to the replaceability claim, it's the same as with any "holdon" tag: what matters is not that the deletion is contested "in good faith"; what matters is that it must be contested with a pertinent argument. To challenge a replaceability tag, the minimum condition is that there must be a tangible argument addressing the issue of replaceability. Since the person who was challenging the deletion never made any such comment and never said anything about the possibility of creating a replacement, there was effectively no challenge for the deleting admin to consider. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said right at the start, there's absolutely no point sending this matter back to FFD because FFD can almost always find a reason to delete fair use images, even when it's an image we can lawfully use that's improving the encyclopaedia. We should close this DRV without result, pending the outcome of the RFC at which point there will be a recent community consensus to compare it against.—S Marshall T/C 10:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • S Marshall: Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just admit that the image violates policy, and that you simply don't like the policy? J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. And of course, the policy RFC, no matter what its outcome, would hardly affect this file anyway, since it is by no means clear that the file would meet the reworded criterion any more than the current one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • With pleasure. The image violates the current version of policy. The current version of policy is utterly moronic, consisting as it does largely of text written by a self-selected group of free-content advocates which now enables them to delete perfectly lawful fair-use images on the basis that it's theoretically possible that at some point in the future someone will travel to a cave in Borneo, take a photograph of a bat and give it to the world at large----and they're actually outraged when someone challenges their right to do this, as if their actions benefitted the encyclopaedia! It's accepted that Wikipedia aims to produce an encyclopaedia of free content, but surely providing gratis educational content for the benefit of all is a higher aim than handing out libre content for the benefit of scraper sites. Surely where there's conflict the encyclopaedia should come first. Surely the policy needs revising by the community at large before it's fit for purpose. The RFC currently in progress should be advertised more widely to help achieve this.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorted. Closing administrator, S Marshall accepts that this file does not meet policy, and opposes this deletion because of a distaste for the policies. Specifically, S Marshall doesn't like NFCC#1, and seems to believe that we should use non-free content if no free content exists, not merely if no free content could be created. In accordance with how these discussions are meant to be policy-based, and not merely vote-counting, I do hope S Marshall's comments are ignored. Marshall: I've expanded the article somewhat, and it actually appeared on the main page last night (of course, in opposing the inclusion of non-free content, I am actually damaging the encyclopedia, as you so kindly reminded me). It is currently illustrated with a picture of a related species (or, if you believe certain authors, a member of the same species) so similar that the original description didn't even bother to describe the appearance of this species beyond comparing it to that one. It really isn't the case that a photograph would improve the article to the enormous degree that you believe. If you want to improve the article, go and expand it. There are plenty of sources left which I haven't cited, many of which no doubt contain important information. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, we do indeed have a rule that only allows a few dozen fair use images on the whole encyclopaedia---but we also have a meta-rule that governs our rules. From the start, I've been showing that this case is the poster child for a rule that stops you building an encyclopaedia. It's also a rule that's under RFC at the moment and from the beginning, I've been saying that the outcome of the RFC should prevail. These are not views that closers typically disregard, and although it's accepted that they don't always win either, I certainly do join issue with you about whether they should be ruled out completely!

Second, your many excellent content contributions are welcomed and appreciated. However, the implication that they give you any moral authority to tell others how they should contribute to Wikipedia is denied. If I decide to improve that article, then I'll be the judge of what I should do to improve it.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a rule that "only allows a few dozen fair use images on the whole encyclopaedia". That's simply false. Further, if this image is your poster child, your campaign is doomed to failure. Reread my endorse vote above. There are numerous images of this species on the internet. It is moderately common and well-distributed on an island with a large human population. It is well-documented. It looks almost identical to another species for which we do have free images. Even if the RfC does result in adjustments to the NFCC, this article would still not warrant a non-free image for these reasons, unless, through some unlikely twist of fate, large numbers of people start supporting the ridiculous "No free images? Oh well, just find one on Google!" adage that you seem to support. As for your second point: That's hilarious. So I have no moral authority to tell you how you could improve the encyclopedia, but you feel justified in telling me that I'm damaging it? Pull the other one. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Patently unfree and replaceable. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Obvious fails to pass the non free content criteria. Valid speedy deletion. Garion96 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Yee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I generally concur with the deletion rationale for this page, neither the first AfD (closed no consensus), nor the second show consensus that the article subject is 'low notability'. The majority of commenters on both the first and the second AfD voiced their support for keeping the page. In light of that, closing this AfD early as delete is inappropriate. I suggest it be relisted to get more input, to see if consensus exists for considering Jessica to meet the threshold for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.

If the AfD had been allowed to run for its full duration I could see this action as appropriate. Instead it was closed after only 5 hours. I propose reopening this AfD and allowing it to run for its full duration. That MastCell closed the AfD with the comment "I expect this decision to be controversial and I expect that it will be submitted to deletion review", itself shows that this is clearly not an obvious case where the AfD can be closed early. Prodego ^talk 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Prodego ^talk 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin: I closed the AfD early because of credible assertions that the article subject was suffering real-life harassment due to the article. In those circumstances, I saw the possibility of real harm in a protracted 5-day AfD. Rather than repeat my deletion rationale, I'll simply point to my statement at the AfD. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed for over a year, and is properly sourced (so all the information in it is available elsewhere). Giving a week to allow editors to review the deletion request hardly seems unreasonable. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This was essentially a speedy delete where no speedy criteria applied. The closing admin cited WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which states that "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Consensus (or lack thereof) was not allowed to form. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is probably no policy precedent for this, but what I'd like to see here is for this article to stay deleted for six months or a year, and then it can be restored. That's enough time for threats to dissipate and passions to cool, and we can make a sober decision on the merits of the article with no threat of consequences to the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion What if the article is restored to somebody's user-space with no-index turned on? That should allow the discussion to conclude normally without any immediate WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion because the closing rationale - primarily IAR based on subject request for deletion and low value to the encyclopedia - was well-justified. -- Scray (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Scray.--ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion article was apparently causing the subject unreasonable real-world grief. Whatever benefit this low-notability article might have had for Wikipedia is certainly not worth causing real harm to a living person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We are all better for losing this article with as little fuss as possible. Thincat (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Exactly what IAR was built for. Not to mention common sense. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Disclosure: I handled the OTRS ticket that precipitated this, but I did not !vote in the AFD. I believe this was the right thing to do, a perfect example of the spirit of IAR. If we screwed up somehow, I'm sure someone will let us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a larger discussion may well be merited. In particular I'd like to see if she'd be interested in having the article restored with keeping it protected in some way. She is clearly above the bar for notability and I don't think her bio is of low value at all. But endorse for now, a fine and good use of IAR. Hopefully we'll find a way to bring it back that she's okay with. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I sympathise with what seems like a good-faith effort on the part of the nominator, but I agree this is exactly what WP:IAR is designed to facilitate. Stalwart111 05:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I differ from this chorus of endorsements for the following seven reasons:- (1) DRV's main job is to see the process is correctly followed and a SNOW close is a decision to disregard the process; (2) There are good reasons why we have a process; (3) Snow closes of controversial debates don't bring the drama to an end----they just bring the drama to DRV; (4) Despite Wikipedia's increasingly deletionist approach, "BLP" is not yet the Magic Article Deletion Word; (5) Dealing with persistent vandalism by deleting articles is utterly retarded, because it rewards the vandals; and (6) Article subjects don't get to pick and choose whether they have an article for the same reason they don't get to pick and choose what their article says.

  I will list ground (7) separately because it's not a procedural objection and may receive less weight. Because the article's been deleted by one of our anointed few and not restored for DRV purposes, I have no opportunity to give this specific case the scrutiny it needs, so I default to "overturn".—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On (5), I was under the impression the issue was off-WP harassment, not on-WP vandalism, yeah? Stalwart111 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the close that we're reviewing says is:- the very real possibility that our article is precipitating or enabling real-life harassment or harm. In other words, it's about the risk of on-WP vandalism leading to off-WP harassment, yeah?

My point is that we have better tools for dealing with on-WP vandalism than the "delete" tool, and if we do start dealing with on-WP vandalism by deleting articles then we need to take a long hard look at the behaviour that we're incentivising. If I started putting vandalism about Jessica Yee into another article that I didn't like, would you want that other article deleted too?—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, yeah, fair enough. I was also reading the running commentary in the AFD about her being the subject of threats of violence. But I get where you're at. Stalwart111 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I initially leaned toward your view. I suspect my personal knowledge of issues related to people who do what she does often go through had something to do with it. Further, her article is cached at Google, so that's where I looked. Lastly, I think in the long term we can and should come up with a better solution for this article. But keeping it there creates a perception on her part that she is still at risk, that's not acceptable when things are so fresh. I would like to revisit this at some point, ideally with her permission. The work she does and the awards she's won are important and should be documented here. I agree full protection would be quite enough to keep the issue at bay. But it's not reasonable for her to know/accept that at this point IMO. Hobit (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse So basically the nominator of this review agrees with the closure but just for procedure's sake this review? Good closure from deleting admin. Garion96 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while I appreciate where User:S Marshall is coming from, having reviewed the OTRS entry, I'm quite happy that immediate deletion of the article was the appropriate course of action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse and move on - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and although it's not censored, we shouldn't be causing any real-life harm with the stuff we write about here. When threats cool down and the subject becomes clearly notable, recreate. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lavie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) * AFD1

• Overturn+Restore: I am requesting that this June 2, 2013 version be restored. Background: On June 2, 2013 I posted the new version as an improved version (not a recreation) of this 2009-2013 article which was deleted by AfD on April 1, 2013. Unfortunately the new version was summarily speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 even though it is definitely "not substantially identical to the deleted version." I've since communicated with both the April 1 deleting admin Spinningspark (here) and the June 2 speedy-deleting admin RHaworth (here); RHaworth recommended DRV. Reasons to restore: The June 2 version should be restored as being improperly speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4, since at 16KB the June 2 version is not a mere "recreation" of the ~65KB article from 2009-2013. Significantly, a list of differences between the two versions is provided below ("Changes") to conclusively demonstrate that the June 2 version is not an "identical and unimproved copy" of the article deleted on April 1. Substance: More relevant to the April 1 AfD: Consensus was that the article had puffery and bombardment; there was substantial disagreement (no true consensus) whether puffery and bombardment masked notability or masked lack of notability. See list of notability-related occurrences in Table N (below) and list of AfD Delete commenters' factual and reasoning errors in Table E (below). RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC). Updated 19 June.[reply]
• I have restored the edit history and replaced the redirect with a temp undelete. The difference between the version deleted at AFD and the one G4 is here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This content has a distinct whiff of advertisement about it and the content is not neutrally-written. The references are wearisome to check, so I only checked a random sample of them; whenever I did finally track down the passing mention of Lavie somewhere in the showbiz page linked, it seems like----without actually falsifying anything----the passing mention has been stretched to its absolute limit. The effect overall is to make Lavie seem far more remarkable and successful than a close examination of the references would support. I'm of the view that this page fails WP:NPOV too egregiously to allow inclusion in its current form. However, I would be minded to permit creation of a much shorter, much less promotional article a few lines in length.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esp. to S Marshall: A subtle but important point missed by many passers-by is that the subject's way of music promotion—outside major music labels—was part of what subject was notable for early on, and therefore describing such promotion and its results is 100% permissible here. If by "showbiz page" you mean ET Canada then I understand your concern that the quoted language is open adulation; I included it as showing a result of the subject's music promotion and not for its truth value: that is, I included that particular tv coverage to help establish threshold notability (Table N). Nothing in this article approaches "falsification." RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I understand that. Part of the problem we have on Wikipedia (or more accurately, part of one of the problems we have on Wikipedia) is that AfD has a constant and obsessive focus on notability, often to the exclusion of all else, so that the only way to re-create an article that's been deleted on notability grounds is to establish the subject's notability once and for all. Achieving this sometimes involves NPOV issues. I was careful to say that you hadn't falsified anything. I do think you've stretched the references to their limit and I think overall the article gives the impression that this lady has been a great deal more successful, and attracted a great deal more attention, than is really the case.

      We could allow this exact content because it's fixable, but to do so is to elevate the notability guideline above the NPOV policy (because on Wikipedia notability issues lead to deletion but NPOV issues don't). Rather than permit that I'd prefer this review led to the creation of a short and neutrally-worded stub that can be expanded based on her subsequent achievements (if any).—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for a thoughtfulness that's somewhat rare. After notability is established, I certainly can see removing ETCanada's quoted adulation, the phrase "following in the footsteps of ... Arcade Fire", mention of Yanni's CD being Billboard #1—which I added for completeness and for notability reasons (Table N). RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) My procedure for this rewrite was to start with notability-endowing facts (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) and find reliable references for those facts; with all respect to your perceptions, in fact I wasn't "stretching" the references; the intangible NPOV tone can be improved through normal editing. RCraig09 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question for admin. At this point, should we be talking only about reversing the WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete (see "Changes"), or also about notability (Table N)? RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is out of scope at DRV. Not that I'm saying either applies here but just to illustrate my point, If the process of deletion was wrong but the article sucks then editors can say so and that gets factored into the final close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Spartaz says is exactly my understanding of the process here. It goes the other way too: if the process was technically right but substantially unfair because the article has very clear merits, we find some device for permitting it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close is also my reading of AfD2, although I ask the closer to give more explanation. Also as per S Marshall. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural ——> Substantive discussion. Since this DRV has moved from procedural (WP:CSD#G4) to substantive (AFD2, notability) considerations, and commenters do not appear to have considered Table N, I have pasted it below. Errors in AFD2 Delete comments are still at Table E.

The following chart shows occurrences corresponding to various notability provisions.

RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration to version requested by RCraig09. The woman meets are our notability requirements several times over for multiple reasons, per RCraig09's table. Huh, she's highly notable even for her secondary contributions, like her outstanding work for hunger relief. I note that the article on We Are the World is the only FA class article in our Hunger relief portal. This is despite there being libraries full RSs on other hunger relief topics. Most of the other topics have none existent or at best C class articles. Unlike We are the World , they haven't been blessed by the leadership of a crowd sourcing trailblazer like Lisa Lavie. Here's an ABC source for an interview with Lavie, just one more example of the dedicated coverage she gets from global media. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration This is sufficiently improved to overcome G4, and there's at least a reasonable chance at notability. If anyone feels that the notability has to be discussed again, another AfD is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per DGG. If it's debatable, it's NOT speedyable. All speedy criteria only apply to unambiguous situations, period. Really, a DRV of a speedy should be closed as 'overturn' as soon as there are multiple editors in good standing who agree that speedy was improperly applied. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not sufficiently improved from the version originally deleted by consensus. The original article used WP:BOMBARD tactics to disguise the underlying lack of notability. Lightening up on the BOMBARD is not enough to cure the more important notability problems, unaltered from the originally deleted version, as S Marshall quite accurately points out. And certainly no sound reason has been advanced to undo the redirect; this is fundamentally a BLP1E-type situation, and nothing in the newer version is sufficiently improved to rebut that conclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A specific refutation is called for. ● Improvements are noted in "Changes" list, below. ● Notability is outlined in Table N, above. ● Consensus (5 Delete versus 3 Keep/SpeedyKeep/LeaningtoKeep comments), not commented on by the April 1 closing admin, was filled with factual and legal errors noted in Table E, below. ● Shortening content & references by ~75% is not "lightening up"; it's a from-scratch rewrite. ● Notability (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) is not BLP1 (BLP1 being H.Wolfowitz's theory, and not consensus) ● S Marshall brought up NPOV concerns, not notability concerns. RCraig09 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Changes. Some participants don't appear to be reading the ("Changes") linked above, so I paste them here:

The June 2, 2013 article is "redone from scratch" per a Delete commenter's suggestion. Changes present in the June 2 version:

1. Content has been trimmed by about 75% to avoid assertions of "fluff" and "peacock"
2. Sourcing is limited by about 75% and of prime quality to avoid assertions of "bombardment" and "dubious sourcing"
3. The brevity of this new article should make subject's notability apparent, especially through WP:MUSICBIO § 10 which was not previously considered.
4. New content from sources, including ET Canada, eTalk and Canada AM (not merely stating that "subject received coverage" on these tv shows).
5. New sourcing in June 2 version includes: (fn 2,3) Allmusic for two movie soundtrack listings; (fn 16) eight sources establishing 2010-present affiliation with Yanni on tours; (fn 17) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro credits; (fn 18) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro awards; (fn 19) PBS and MLive, for Yanni's PBS special.

RCraig09 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Errors in AfD2. Some participants don't appear to be reading Table E so I paste it here.

The 2009-2013 article was deleted on April 1, 2013 (five "Delete" comments, versus three comments of "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" and "leaning towards keep").

To curtail factual misunderstandings, the following chart shows some of the errors made by the "Delete" commenters in the deletion discussion for the 2009-2013 version.

RCraig09 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RCraig09, it would be helpful if you could refrain from: (1) posting huge replies to absolutely everyone you disagree with, individually; (2) posting tables three or four times as long as the post you're actually disagreeing with; and (3) using copious amounts of bold text to emphasize your points. Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per lack of reasoning that notability or verifiability has substantially changed since April. There's a troubling trend at Deletion Review lately where someone will fight a supposedly invalid G4 deletion claiming they improved the article, which is usually technically correct but since the subject still isn't notable it just gets re-deleted at AFD again anyway. This results in a lot of wasted time both for the community and for the person trying to restore the article. There is no point trying to fight a G4 if the article will unquestionably fail a AFD discussion, which is nearly always the case when it's already failed once and there isn't any new unquestionable notability like a hit single to give reason to running a debate again. We're volunteers here, so don't waste our time or yours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific to this article. Examples: Yanni DVD and CD, PBS TV special (re WP:MUSICBIO § 10). Plus, the above Tables show the "notability or verifiability" that was clearly visible to AfD participants (not buried in fluff) has changed. RCraig09 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C++ Primer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I really feel confused about why this article meets G11. This article only introduces the book neutrally, including its authors and editions. Although I only include an Amazon product page as a reference, this article shouldn't be speedily deleted at least so that it can be improved. In addition, this book is a notable C++ book and is cited by lots of papers. --HNAKXR (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why HNAKXR has come straight here instead of first discussing this with me as the deleting admin. The article has no substantive content such as sales figures or awards to show why it's notable, but that's not the reason for deletion. It basically contained text saying it's about C++ and named the authors, nothing at all about the book's contents. It's only "reference" was a spam link to a sales site (Amazon). It had been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, and I concurred since I felt that it was clearly intended as a link to a book sale's site rather than an encyclopaedia article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notification told me that I can go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and I found that I should use Wikipedia:Deletion review instead per instructions on that page. I am not familar with rules on English Wikipedia since I learned some wiki markups on other websites using this software as well.

I used the Amazon page as a reference because of another similar article The C++ Programming Language, but after reading Wikipedia:External links, I agree with you that it's an inappropriate link.

So is it okay to leave it without references? --HNAKXR (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically you are supposed to talk to the deleting admin before opening a deletion review (it's somewhere in the instructions at the top of the page), and if you aren't satisfied with the response then you can open a discussion. It's not a huge deal that you didn't do this though. The page really ought to have some references of some kind, though an Amazon link isn't very appropriate per WP:EL. Hut 8.5 19:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11 isn't for pages where someone has inferred that the article was written for promotional purposes, it's for pages with promotional wording, which this page had none of. Yes, the Amazon link was inappropriate, but removing the link would have sufficed - G11 isn't supposed to apply if the problem can be fixed by editing short of a fundamental rewrite. Hut 8.5 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn; the language was neutral. That being said it seems like a good candidate for AfD, or just a straight redirection to Stanley B. Lippman. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hut 8.5, whose analysis is spot on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have restored the page to facilitate this discussion. Mkdw^talk 21:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On what planet is this a G11?—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The article clearly isn't written in a promotional tone but its sheer lack of associated content makes it a bit like a classified ad. WP:CSD#A7 decidedly does not cover books. Now I happen to know that this book is a standard text but most review coverage is from firms trying to sell the book or from blogs, etc. I can't add to the article to put in the information that it is held in 663 libraries in the US.[17] Is that quite a lot? User:DGG (trying to trigger his notification gizmo) will know. This needs discussion. Thincat (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counting all edition, it's 1061. It's a lot, even for a popular computer subject. Second most widely held book on C++. Bjarne Stroustrup's book has 1429. But what is also relevant is that it has been translated into German, Dutch, Polish, French , Russian, Chinese, & Japanese. That almost always indicates substantial notability as a major work in the field. Reviews are also needed & are almost certainly be available. But , as mentioned, that's for AfD. What it does show, is that the article is worth the trouble of improving. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I was leaning that way, but DGG's analysis pushed me firmly towards this conclusion. Alansohn (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trout the deleting admin for so vastly misunderstanding G11 and/or simply being too fast to evaluate the tagging on its merits. Either way, this isn't remotely within the realm of admin discretion. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, G11 is only for clearcut cases of promotional articles, which this is not. While the article is very short, the discussion above shows there's enough meat to have a discussion on this at AFD if the nominator wishes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Omar Todd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My request to incubate the deleted article, so that I can improve it and potentially return it to mainspace, is being denied.  Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination) for analysis and discussion with the deleting admin.  Although this is listed as an AfD discussion, the admin has identified that WP:CSD#G4 is the applicable deletion guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was previously deleted in 2012. It was then recreated and then nominated for deletion a second time. I came across this second AfD and speedy deleted the article per G4, because I felt the sources in the article added nothing to the content of the previous incarnation. There is a COI concern. I offered to re-create the article and re-instate the AfD, but Unscintillating declined. Instead he wanted the article moved to the incubator, but since the article was in the middle of an AfD when it was deleted, I think the only appropriate options are: a) leave the article deleted, or b) re-create it and reopen the AfD. I won't comment on which option I think is better; I will let contributors here decide and then act on that decision. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclosure: I watched a season of Whale Wars and it is possible that I have seen the topic on TV.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I missed Whale Wars. I must have been commenting on G4 speedy deletions at the time. Thincat (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just re-read my comment; I had not intended to suggest that you had a conflict of interest, merely that concerns over one were expressed at the previous AfD. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see the WP:CSD#G4 deletion claimed the "Article is not fundamentally different". However, this is not the relevant criterion. G4 deletion is against deletion policy for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" so this is the first consideration. Are the deleted and recreated pages "substantially identical"? Thincat (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's productive to analyse whether G4 strictly applied because Basalisk has already offered to restore the page. The options seem to be (1) leave it deleted or (2) restore it (either to the incubator or the mainspace) in which case Basalisk will put it through the applicable XfD process; as far as I can see it's up to Unscintillating to choose which he prefers. If that's so then what's DRV's role? We seem to have no procedural irregularity to correct, no wrong to right. Everything is being done in a perfectly orderly way and my instinct is to let these editors carry on. Am I missing something?—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Unless I somehow missed it, no argument has been put forth that the situation is really any different than it was during the initial AFD. If it's not appropriate for the incubator maybe Unscintillating can have a userspace copy with the agreement that if it's not improved in a reasonable time it gets deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as not a policy-based G4. G4 is not for things where editors have tried to make changes. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Significant change to popularity and accomplishments, re-worked to eliminate outside linking. She is featured on several of the Wikipedia pages for puppets and puppeteers but when mentioned can't be linked because page doesn't exist. Producerarose (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleeckie page is finally ready to be resubmitted. The text is attached below. How do we go about doing this?

Thanks!

• Comment Can someone more experienced than myself at DRV help out? The deleting admin recommended coming to DRV and this submission is, it seems, under "3 if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".[18] Reviewers are advised to !vote "endorse" or "relist", the latter if we think AFD discussion would be warranted.[19] So, are we being asked is there "significant new information ... which would justify recreating ..."? We have the collapsed text above and this to compare, is that right? And what is the status of this which has some appended text? We do not seem to have a draft article text so I am not clear what we would hypothetically be recommending for relisting at AFD. Can someone help? Thincat (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like an open-and-shut case to me. We've got an AfD that was (correctly) closed as "delete" in March 2011. Producearose cites a variety of sources that post-date the AfD. It's not DRV's role to evaluate those sources in any depth----that's a job for AfD----but what I do is take a quick glance and see if I think there's enough new material to justify considering this again. To my mind there is enough. The outcome I'd recommend is permit creation of an article based on those sources without prejudice to a subsequent AfD if someone wants to scrutinise the sources more closely.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate & relist at AFD I'm not at all convinced this is a notable topic and I don't really think it will pass an AFD, but the local emmy nomination does indicate a change in status since the original decision and given that it couldn't hurt to take a second look. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as wrong venue There's no dispute that the old AfD was correct, so any editor in good standing is free to recreate an improved article. DRV is not for prior restraint on encyclopedia-building work. Now, if the community had salted the title for repeated abuse of that freedom, that would be another matter. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Without any valid reason my article has been deleted. The editor in question noticed that the article had been deleted in 2009. That is all and that he says is the reason for his deletion. But the article I wrote has solid references and there has occurred a lot in the life of the photographer Errol Sawyer. His photo book 'City Mosaic' was published. A. D. Coleman, first photo critic of the New York Times, wrote about this book: 'It comprises close to four decades’ worth of engagement with the classic mode of mainstream-modernist street photography. — Consistent in quality, in terms of both craft and content, it speaks in its own voice, aware of the tradition on which it builds but not noticeably beholden to any predecessor therein.' Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director, wrote the following review about Sawyer's work in 2012: 'Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.' On top of that the pictures of Errol Sawyer are present in many museum collections. It is very important to put the article back in wikipedia. Thank you for your accurate reading and objective review. Fred Bokker (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: article temporarily restored for DRV. The recently-deleted version is here; the version deleted at AfD in 2009 is here. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV doesn't usually endorse g4s of four-year-old afds. On the other hand, bringing an article back from userfication a second time incorporating essentially all of the text of the deleted version isn't likely to win you much sympathy. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The deletion was a valid G4 speedy, on my nomination as an editor with extensive experience with the prior AfD'd versions of the article and their intensely COI-driven, ever-name-changing editor. As the closing admin also explained: "The 2013 article is the same as the 2009 article, with the addition of the new book. The references are not reliable sources and Mr. Sawyer still does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable notability guidelines." Fred Bokker's argument for re-creation rests on Sawyer having a book published... by himself via the "Errol Sawyer Foundation." And yes, this A.D. Coleman wrote about the book - he's the author of the book's forward, after all. Neither establishes notability/meets WP:CREATIVE. In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met and likely won't be, even with continued editing.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'In other words, the reasons for the article's deletion (twice via AfD) have still not been met (not true) and likely won't be (blatant prejudice), even with continued editing. ,ie., Mr Sawyer “..likely won’t…" receive recognition for his work up until today nor in the future (?)'

Thank you for informing me, Mbinebri. Errol Sawyer qualifies for the following tags.

Any Biography: WP:ANYBIO:

1. 1. Errol Sawyer received a grant from Stichting Sem Presser Archief, Amsterdam, Holland, for the publication of the book City Mosaic: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html:

Creative Professionals: WP: CREATIVE

Sawyer’s work is represented in several notable collections of galleries or museums:

La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, 1974 and 2001. 37 pictures.
Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Harlem, New York, 1997. 40 pictures.
Eric Franck Gallery, London, England, 1997. 21 pictures.
Fadi Zahar, La Chambre Claire Gallery, Paris, France, 2000. 4 pictures.
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas, 2004. 2 pictures of the 'Manfred Heiting Collection.'
Tate Britain, London, England, 2012. 6 pictures of the 'London Collection' of Eric and Louise Franck.

Quotation of Julian Spalding, English critic and former museum director http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Errol_Sawyer.html:

Immediately, when I saw Errol Sawyer’s photographs, I was surprised by their compositional completeness - which lifts them out of time, and gives one the feeling that they are held forever (that ‘hold it’ moment) – and by their utter naturalness – that gives one the impression that life is flowing through them and nothing in them is forced, arranged for show, or in any way artificial. Their authority as artistic expressions lies in this confluence. Errol Sawyer is that rare thing today – a classical black and white photographer in the Henri Cartier-Bresson tradition, using the camera at its simplest and most challenging, as a trap for catching time. Looking at his pictures, I feel more fully in tune with living today, and my guess is that people in the future will continue to look at them, and by doing so, get a glimpse of what it was really like to be alive today.

I am looking forward to see an honest review by the Wikipedia editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You appear to be misconstruing the purpose of a DRV. This discussion is to determine whether it was appropriate to delete the article under the G4 speedy deletion criteria - i.e., whether the article was substantially a copy of an article previously deleted via AfD. We're not here to rehash the old AfDs because you're still unhappy with their outcomes. Please keep your arguments to what new content/sourcing justifies the re-creation of the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about your ego or my ego but about the importance of an article of Errol Sawyer that can be read in English. Let's overcome prejudice and take an objective look at the article to see how it can be approved instead of excluding it forever, as you say. (which is blatant prejudice)
A lot of editors don't know about notability tags. I am sure that the editor of A. D. Coleman's did not know either because he is a widely known and respected critic: the first photo critic of the New York Times.
How can I tag WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE in my article of Errol Sawyer? That would be a big help. Fred Bokker (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Speedy deletion by WP:CSD#G4 is against policy for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I had to read the two versions for quite a way before I found substantial differences. Julian Spalding's view on Sawyer is quoted and this is worthy of consideration. Sawyer self-published the book City Mosaic in which A. D. Coleman gave his opinion. I am not suggesting these changes establish notability. I am saying the versions are not "substantially identical". The deleting admin applied criteria[20] which would be appropriate for an AFD discussion but not for a speedy deletion precluding AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's basically an advert, though, isn't it?

  I'm very anti-speedy deletion when we're dealing with a good faith attempt to add content to Wikipedia. But this isn't it. It's a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of an artist nobody else has noticed, and to divert traffic to his website, made by an account created for that purpose. G4 may not have strictly applied but I don't see this as a good use of our volunteers' time at AfD. I'll go with overturn G4 to G11 and re-delete.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 more or less per Thincat. The AFD nominator's argument began "No photography books published", and now there is one. Ordinarily I'd be leery about a book whose publisher is so closely associated with the subject, but the essay by a notable critic without any identified COI far outweighs that concern, especially in the G4 context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substance or Form?
Are we talking about substance or form here?
It is proved that Errol Sawyer is an established artist and qualifies for an article considering his book, the collections etc.
Instead of a speedy deletion I had expected the help of wiki editors to make a better article: a Wiki worthy approach.
Which editor can me help me now to improve this article so it will meet the demands?
How can I get the tags WP:ANYBIO and WP: CREATIVE?
The difference with the former article is the publication of the photo book City Mosaic and a lot more links and references:
Who is Who in Art since 1899: https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=sawyer&first_name=errol
Auer Fondation Encyclopedia: http://auer01.auerphoto.com/en/ency/view/23j24swv#page=tab1
Book City Mosaic is published with a grant of the Stichting Sem Presser Archive: http://www.sempresser.nl/stichting/projecten.html
Distributors of the book: http://www.ideabooks.nl/index.php?op=full&title=26274&what=n&r=4&p=&k=&g=01&page=2, http://www.bol.com/nl/p/city-mosaic/1001004011182398/, http://www.prleap.com/pr/169104, http://www.anartistbooks.com/detail.php?bookID=ErSaEr85, http://www.worldcat.org/title/errol-sawyer-city-mosaic/oclc/747717685/
A. D. Coleman: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/about-a-d-coleman/adc-in-print-and-pixels/recent-publications/
Sawyer's portrait of Beauford Delaney: http://lesamisdebeauforddelaney.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyers-photographic-portrait-of.html, http://entreetoblackparis.blogspot.nl/2012/09/errol-sawyer-photographer.html
VLAK magazine: http://vlakmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/vlak-3-arrives-14-may/
Julian Spalding, critic and former museum director: http://www.julianspalding.net/JS/Welcome.html, http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Julian_Spalding
And there are many more links and references.
Let me keep the faith in Wikipedia as an objective medium with helpful editors. Fred Bokker (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. We could chat all day about whether it should be deleted as G4 or G11, but opening such a debate would be totally pointless when the article will ultimately be deleted anyway. Running a debate about which deletion criterion best applies wouldn't actually benefit anyone as the end result is the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but it would be a good candidate for G11. Despite the verbosity of Fred Bokker, the intention of the article is clearly promotional and it would appear (despite it still being early) that the consensus is not favourable for a keep outcome. Mkdw^talk 05:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I am sticking by my "overturn" above). I concede G11 is a better bet. The criterion as documented, "Pages that are exclusively promotional", isn't met but even I would be happy to slip in a "substantially". The lead isn't promotional at all and Early life, while it needs to be shorn of stuff like "absorbed the spirit of the Sixties", is mostly OK. But as things go on more and more needs rewriting, or probably removing. However, the WP:CSD#G11 "fundamentally rewritten" requirement is an additional requirement, not an alternative one, to "... exclusively ...". So, G11 would also break policy but I am not finding myself very upset at the prospect. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse I'm not convinced that Julian Spalding is an independent source, but I do know that Spalding's Wikipedia article is itself promotional and includes a lot of text taken directly from Spalding's web site. Spalding's review is self-published, and looking at Spalding's site, and with some familiarity with the art review publishing racket, there's no reason to think that it's been through an editorial process, and it's reasonable to wonder if the review was done for pay. A. D. Coleman's quote is, according to the current article, from Spaulding's book, but such an inclusion would usually be a paid gig, and not considered an independent source for demonstrating notability. The "new sources" here are not going to be considered reliable at AfD, and in evaluating a G4 vis-a-vis a deletion on WP:BASIC grounds, there is nothing that I've seen in this discussion that strikes me as changing someone's mind at AfD about whether this meets BASIC. Given how I interpret G4, I must endorse. Normally, I'd temper my view given the age of the AfD, but here that's mitigated by the problems with the material we've seen so far, a concern which is, in my view, fair game for some latitude in closer discretion. However, if this is to be restored, I'd suggest taking it to AfD once more. Either new sources are found which make the grade, and a more objective, neutral piece can be written from them, or they won't. Either way, we'll reach a quicker, and more importantly, more correct, conclusion. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the aim of Wikipedia? To inform people.
It is an objective encyclopedia on the Internet.
You can see every article as a promotion piece and what we have is not a serious discussion, based on the facts (as Errol Sawyer is an established artist and should be in Wikipedia), but an endless discussion based on prejudice because the article has been deleted before.
Which person can I ask to intervene or to judge the way this discussion is going?

There must be another organ/board within Wikipedia that is overseeing this kind of talk an behavior.
Fred Bokker (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really. The best advice I can give you is to locate additional sources: newspaper articles or books (rather than blogs). I found references to Mr Sawyer in the Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the Irish Independent, on TMZ and on Oprah.com, but these are all passing mentions of his having "discovered" Christie Brinkley (though Oprah.com also has a brief mention of City Mosaic). Unfortunately, Google News does not work as well as it used to, and there may be other press articles I have missed. There are also a few photography credits to be found in Google Books, but what you really need is a feature in a newspaper or magazine focusing on his photography work, or a few paragraphs in a book. The closest I have found is a French source, reporting on an exhibition of his work; this French source may be good as well – it seems to be an article on his photography – but unfortunately, Google only shows me the first couple of lines of the article. Here is another article that seems to be specifically about him, but again, I can only see a small part of it. Here is another French source announcing an exhibition of his work. Have there been articles in the Dutch press? Foreign-language sources are perfectly fine for the English Wikipedia. Basically, one or two good sources covering Mr Sawyer would swing this. Good luck. Andreas JN466 04:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at AfD. when there is reasonable doubt, a speedy is inappropriate. I see people arguing the merits of the underlying aerticle in good faith, and the place to do it is at AfD. That will settle the issue one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Appears to be a vaild delete decision. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]