Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September

Lucky Charmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted by BDD under A7 and G11, because it seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic and appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. However, I am sure that I can remove advertising and replace it with non-promotional and encyclopedic content and to make it notable enough. And also, I have found the information about this artist, in which case I will add to make it important or significant enough. XPanettaa (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a copy of the deleted article to do this? Can't you just write a new policy-compliant article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do need a copy of the deleted article to do this, because I tried to see if there was a page on nl.wikipedia or the other projects (such as the French Wikipedia) in order to write a new policy-compliant article, but unfortunately I couldn't find it anywhere. XPanettaa (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if, as you said above, you have found information about this artist then you can write an article on the basis of that information rather than the advertising that this article consisted of. It's better to start a new article on the basis of independent reliable sources rather on the basis of an advertisement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the G11. (A7's less obvious at a glance.) Should not be restored in this form. If you just want the prior contents mailed to you, WP:REFUND is a lot faster. —Cryptic 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As I find it unlikely it would be convincingly improvable by itself, and, at best, I would suggest simply restarting anew altogether and perhaps have only the acceofsble parts, if at all, emailed or usefied, and not the entire article itself. G11 is a rather solid one so if it was informed act advertising, that summarizes itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted by Y under A7, because it appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. However, I have found the information about this artist, in which case I will add to make it important or significant enough. XPanettaa (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have something that will overcome the A7 issue, you are welcome to recreate it without the input of DRV. However, I'd suggest creating it in draft space and asking someone (me or Y for example) if the article is enough to overcome that speedy criteria. Just more likely to end up with an article that way. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, the speedy deletion was proper, and asking the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND (make it clear that you want the contents mailed to you, not restored to mainspace) is a lot faster and a lot less hassle for everyone involved. —Cryptic 20:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article basically just consisted of a track listing, the names of the band members and the record label they were signed to. If you do have information that demonstrates the subject meets our criteria then I'd suggest just recreating the article. Hut 8.5 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been recreated and promptly nominated for speedy deletion again. I'm not going to delete it again, but I think it qualifies for A7 in its current incarnation. -- Y not? 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been expanded since this comment was left, I don't think it qualifies for A7 in this version - the lead indicates that two of their songs appeared on some sort of chart. Hut 8.5 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• list at AfD isn't an A7, but doesn't look to meet WP:N. (Note, I commented above). Hobit (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Good morning. I am requesting a WP: DELETION REVIEW for the deleted Bentley Systems Article which used to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Bentley_Systems

I want to disclose up-front that I am an employee of Bentley Systems. I worked with the admin user:Mbisanz about reinstating the deleted page. MBisanz was kind enough to restore the page under my account here (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Draft:Bentley_Systems) so I could work on the article for resubmission. You may find the talk page here: (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=User_talk:MBisanz#Request_to_Reinstate_Bentley_Systems_Wikipedia_article.2C_please) with the history of comments going back and forth between us where I was asking for feedback along the way)

The Bentley Systems article has been on Wikipedia since 2004 and was deleted on July 2, 2016 by user:Mbisanz based on the request of deletion by user:SwistedTwister stating that that "Examining this only found a company with a few hundred millions of revenue, several press releases, republished PR and other unsubstantial coverage (their own links are tossed about in the article also), my own searches, including at philly.com, then found the same, only trivial coverage mentions and PR." For your reference, you can find the deletion discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bentley_Systems. Next, Mbisanz stated that the company is not notable and they could not find enough coverage to qualify for due to WP:CORPDEPTH.

Fair enough. I am new to Wikipedia so I read up on how to create citations and references and went out and found many external (and verifiable) sources that have written about the Bentley Systems and added the references to the article so I could prove that there really is corporate depth. I made comments to MBisanz asking for advice on the best way to approach this so I wouldn't create a conflict of interest. I asked if I should modify the page or leave it as is and just add references and I did not get much guidance there, so, to be safe, I left the article "as-is" with a minor modification to a sentence or two and made sure that every statement that existed in that article had a verifiable, external resource unrelated to the company.

MBisanz assisted me with resubmitting the finished article which went back to user:SwistedTwister who rejected the Article for Submission based stating "This was deleted 3 months ago and, because it was deleted by a community listing, at which I participated, there are no chances of this being accepted so soon; what's suggested, and is likely the best option, is to wait a few years and see where the company goes, if there's enough then, we can reconsider at that time. "

I then asked for Assistance here: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=User_talk:SwisterTwister#Request_on_15:27:07.2C_26_September_2016_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_MBouch16 and another user user:PamD stated "You should talk to the admin who deleted the original article: this was not SwisterTwister but @MBisanz:. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for the editor who nominated the article for deletion last time round to be the one reviewing it at AfC this time, as he is clearly WP:INVOLVED in the topic. It also seems strange to suggest "wait a few years" for a company established in 1984 whose article has been in the encyclopedia for 12 years."

I responded to both MBisanz and asked how to go about getting this reviewed by an different reviewer and I received this comment on the article page from user:SwistedTwister "Regardless of whether I was involved at the deletion, which I only then noticed when it alerted me the article had been deleted before, this is still quite unlikely to be accepted, because articles that were deleted so recently, are quite unlikely to be any different, and in some cases, anyone who would restart it after it's been deleted, would suggest they perhaps either simply want it restored or added again without considering why it was in fact deleted."

So, I am at a loss at this point. I'm being told that the company is not notable yet the company has been around since 1984 and has been on Wikipedia for 12 years. The company has $600million+ in revenue and has locations all around the world. The company has articles written about them from many external sources including websites, newspapers, and books (if you look in the external articles section you will see an entire chapter was dedicated to Bentley Systems in a particular publication). Is it really "too soon" for me to provide references to articles in newspapers and references to books since they were missed by the admin?

Please note that since the I started the process of reaching out to the admin MBisanz, I have been trying to follow the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I asked many questions (because I'm a "newbie") on the admin's talk page and I did receive responses but many of them didn't really answer some of my questions which left me guessing. I didn’t completely rewrite the article because I did not want to cause a conflict of interest by doing so. All I wanted to do is add the external, verifiable resources to the article (that the admin said they couldn't find) and prove that Bentley Systems is indeed "notable".

I ask that someone independent of MBisanz and SwistedTwister please review the references and citations that I worked so hard on adding to this article. Please, all I ask for is a fair review of the article. I know the article looks the same as it did before. I reiterate that I only added citations and references so I would not create a conflict of interest by changing what other people wrote on the page as I am involved with the company.

If the article needs to be rewritten, I am assuming that it shouldn't be by me due to my affiliation with the company, correct? Trust me, there are many things I would like to add to the article because the company does so much more than what is in the article but I don’t want to do anything that I am not supposed to do.

Could someone please assist me with getting the article for Bentley Systems (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Draft:Bentley_Systems) reviewed objectively? If it's not acceptable for submission, could someone please explain what steps I need to take to get the article back up again?

I'm feeling like there is a vendetta of some sort here for the page to get all out deleted. I see on other Wikipedia pages how Wikipedia admins or reviewers ask for help in getting better resources for certain articles so the articles can stay up to standards and I am wondering why nobody asked for this for this article? It just went straight to deletion. I have tried working with the admin and reviewer and it is not working. I really don’t know what else to do.

Thank you, in advance, for any assistance that you can provide. --MBouch16 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation We judge notability primarily on the basis of whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements--this is different from anyone else in the world thinks of it, but it has its reasons--see WP:GNG. Basically, the assumption is that any sufficiently important organization will have such references, and that therefore we will not need to try to determine the actual importance of things, for which we are not qualified. Unfortunately, it doesn't work as well as it might, because different subject fields are covered to different degrees by the usual sort of sources available to us; this has tended to give an astounding overcoverage for people in entertainment, or sports figures, as compared to people or companies in the field of commercial infrastructure . The problem is made worse by the tendency of those sources which do cover industry to consist primarily of small news stories about funding, acquisitions, or new products, supplemented by an occasional advertorial (this sources are very useful to people in the industry, but do not really meet our requirement for the sort of independent coverage expected in an encyclopedia). I think we need to interpret the rules with some minimal degree of judgment; we usually do, when we interpret them more strictly for a new firm that has just gotten a number of notices for its first round of funding but has not yet actually produced any product. The reverse should hold also. the normal company size for which one can certainly expect references is $500 million - $1 billion revenue , depending of the nature of the business, and this company comes within it. On the whole, I think there's enough usable material here for an article. This is a significant pioneering company in an important field, and we should take that into account. (It may be noticed that this is very much in contrast to my usual position supporting deletion of businesses where the material is mainly notices--I think it appropriate for WP to keep in some contact with reality. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your assistance and your fair, objective evaluation, DGG (talk). It is very much appreciated. As I am new to this, what is the next step? Is there anything that I need to do? Or does the page I resubmitted get approved by an admin? Or, do we need others to look at this and approve as well? I just want to make sure I am clear on if there is anything I need to do for next steps. Thank you, again. --MBouch16 (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I answered my own question. I read on WP:Deletion review/Discussions we need to wait seven days for consensus. --MBouch16 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow move to mainspace The comments by the AFC reviewer at Draft:Bentley Systems seem contrary to policy and so are best disregarded. If there are objections to this topic or article it would be better for them to be considered at a WP:AFD discussion rather than continue with a sequence of AFC reviews. Thincat (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Cycling Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Cycling Network, the article was deleted in 2015 after a deletion discussion, which had to be relisted twice, and only garnered two delete votes to result in its deletion, citing lack of notability. The article was then speedily-deleted in January and again in April 2016, when it was finally salted by User:Widr.

I have just created Draft:Global Cycling Network, which was written from the ground up (not copied), containing citations from resources online, including online magazine and newspaper interviews of the YouTube channel presenters, which directly talked about the channel and its purpose. I did include some primary sources where required, for the sake of the inclusion of certain details.

As my draft article demonstrates, third-party coverage of the article subject exists online, especially one news article as shown. There are other minor (albeit insignificant) reasons that the article could claim notability which I won't quote (which IMO doesn't meet CSD or failure of WP:GNG); however, with the sources shown in the draft, the article surely passes WP:GNG. Moreover, I disagree with the original AfD discussion, as the article was deleted on the back of only two !votes, which to me doesn't feel like proper consensus. Thus I do contest the deletion, and also G4 as grounds for its subsequent speedy deletion and salting after its recreation (although I understand that G4 was not quoted as a reason by the deleting admins).

I do hope that my request for an unsalting and transfer of draft to the article space can be accepted. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Optakeover: - the best thing to do is to send it through the Articles for creation process. Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and it will be queued for review. If it is reviewed and passed but the article is salted, it should (AFAIK) be flagged so an admin can unsalt. The AfD discussion was pretty weak, with only three comments that basically paraphrase WP:JNN, so I'm not inclined to take that into consideration. The other recreated articles post AfD were pretty weak, completely unsourced and could be a paraphrased as "Global Cycling Network is a fab website yah", so I'm not surprised they were speedied. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Widr's already unsalted it. —Cryptic 10:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for your input, and to Widr for unsalting the article. Nevertheless I shall wait for the full conclusion of the deletion review before I do anything else. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that the draft demonstrates notability, but it is a huge improvement on the version deleted at AfD (which wasn't sourced at all) and the versions speedied since (which were very obvious speedies). It has also invalidated some of the arguments at the AfD - it's no longer unsourced and cites sources which aren't YouTube videos. There's certainly enough here to justify reopening the issue. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Hut 8.5 in all respects (well I can't see the deleted versions, but I'll trust him on that). It may not make it through AfD, but it's worth discussing. Seems odd some of the reliable cycling magazines/websites haven't really provided much in the way of significant coverage). Hobit (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I opine that cycling media are always constantly fighting for their viewership and/or readership, so it doesn't make as much sense for other cycling magazines and channels to talk about other cycling related magazines/channels, especially if they do not gain any benefit out of it. As GCN is by itself a media channel that covers other people, places and things, they by themselves are their own authority, which puts it in a weird position GNG wise, because it is expected they talk about other things, rather than other things talking about them. As GNG and most other notability guidelines take into consideration coverage by third-party sources, couldn't there be a case of sites like GCN being seen as content creators themselves, and not necessarily the ones other content creators would talk about? If so then that would explain the lack of third-party coverage of the subject. But I still believe that it satisfies WP:GNG on at least a minimal level. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal opinion is this isn't an article we need, but it's got some reasonable looking sources, and stands a plausible chance of passing AfD. That's enough to satisfy WP:AfC, so I have no objection to it being moved into mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is anyone going to close this discussion? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD was closed as Keep however IMHO at best it was a No Consensus outcome it should be overturned and relisted, A source was provided in the article however I disagreed with it but others (and myself included) had kept per Steve Quinn who did provide sources but it turned out they were mirrors of the WP article so they were withdrawn, That aside the nom states "as there is sufficient consensus stating that like several other cases, secondary schools are themselves in fact acceptable and notable;" which is incorrect as like with any other article schools too need some evidence of notability and simply keeping per SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't enough and it's been debated that editors should atleast provide sources when stating Keep and that just keeping per SCHOOLOUTCOMES wasn't enough, I personally think it was a close call and personally believe it should be relisted for another week so editors can fully discuss it or at best reclose as NC, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 09:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC) (Updated 15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Forgot to add I had asked SwisterTwister if they'd reopen however they've ignored the message entirely so figured this was the next best option, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 09:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was not given enough time to respond, but FWIW I would've suggested this next as the AfD was open long enough as it is, and the latter consensus suggested nothing else than Keep. As a matter of fact, the PDF source listed, which is a government link, explicitly lists the school at page 5, if that's not sufficient to at least confirm the school exists.... SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You had edited way after I left the message and had even replied to someone on your talkpage below me so in all fairness you had plenty of time, As I said the PDF file can easily die and will become unarchived so then we're left with no sources and would be back to square one, Thanks for replying anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think keep or NC would both have been closes I could endorse given the discussion and the facts. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural endorse. Bringing a "Keep" close here in the hope of changing it to "No consensus," or vice versa, is generally not a good use of the community's time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I clearly stated "and personally believe it should be relisted for another week so editors can fully discuss it or at best reclose as NC," - Perhaps I could've worded it better but I'm not actually gunning for a reclose, I'm gunning more for a relist however I was throwing both options out and just for clarity - If this does get overturned and reclosed as Keep again I will happily accept that consensus however at this time I don't really believe there was any consensus to keep just yet, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just tagged both sources given in the article {{verification failed}} - the one lists stats unrelated to the claims in the sentence it's stuck on, and might not even be about this school; the other attempts to verify a claim about where the students are from with a reference to Google Maps. If this is the standard for proving the existence of a secondary school, we might as well just drop the requirement altogether and say "Any article that says it's about a secondary school is kept, WP:V be damned". —Cryptic 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And looking at the timeline for the afd and article, I see that these were the only edits to the afd after the only substantial source was discredited as a Wikipedia mirror. This isn't an endorsable outcome; there were exactly zero policy-based reasons presented to keep. The only correct actions to take at that point would be either to relist or close as delete. —Cryptic 03:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn a plainly invalid NAC and relist. This ought to be a slam dunk outcome. The discussion wasn't suitable for an NAC to begin with; the would-be closer has notorious failings with regard to the deletion process, and the closing statement borders on incoherence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looks pretty much like a keep to me. But bringing a keep close to DRV on the grounds that it may actually be a NC doesn't seem terribly productive. It certainly wasn't a delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With the greatest of respect you've !voted keep on the article so ofcourse you're going to endorse, Anyway as I said above despite the wording I'm not actually gunning for an outcome change - I'm gunning for a relist and as I said if after a week it gets reclosed as Keep I will happily accept it but I don't believe there was a majority !keep consensus just yet, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware that commenting on the article prevents me from commenting on a DRV. And I believe that there was a clear keep consensus. Please WP:AGF here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't - I welcome all comments from everyone and everyone who participated at the AFD too but you said above "Looks pretty much like a keep to me" which to me you're obviously going to say as you !voted Keep anyway - What I'm trying to say is you (nor the other !keeps) wouldn't !vote Keep and then come here and agree with relisting or even this DRV, I do AGF and I'm glad you came here and commented :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you're here, what on earth possessed you to make this edit? What part of that statement does "[REGION] 29 [SCHCODE] 28068 [SCHOOL NAME] GUNDU ENGLISH MA VI GUNDU [APPEAR/TOT] 26 [PASS/T] 26 [PASS/%] 100.00 [SEM] 40.99" verify? No amount of points scored on an afd justifies introducing false referencing like that into a mainspace article. —Cryptic 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So let me get this straight. You're questioning "what on earth possessed me" to turn a crap stub into a decent stub and why I added a reference from an official document to verify the school's existence? And then you're accusing me of "false referencing" into the bargain? Really? That's what you're doing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A common argument advanced in favor of retaining articles about non-notable schools—one you frequently make—is that past AFD closures demonstrate that schools should always be kept. Accordingly, I see a lot of value in overturning this to "no consensus" and breaking the cycle of bad circular logic. Rebbing 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, so you're trying to make a WP:POINT are you? Not a very good one, since if even a poorly sourced (although enough to confirm its existence) stub like this can be kept, even as no consensus, then it doesn't bode well for the future of the deletionist cause as far as schools are concerned! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike you and your dubious sourcing, I'm not being disruptive to prove a point—that's what a POINT is. I'm merely suggesting that, as school AFDs are often cited as precedent, it is appropriate to correct an improper closure, even if the outcome in this case is the same. Rebbing 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The arguments for retention flatly contradict the applicable guideline, NSCHOOLS; the rule, given at ORGSIG, that no organizations, not even schools, are inherently notable; and the fundamental principle that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The entirety of the available coverage, quoted above by Cryptic, does not represent "significant attention" by any stretch of the imagination; and the bare claim that sources exist somewhere is not enough, especially when multiple editors have failed to uncover them.

  The related argument that we should keep schools to counteract systemic bias goes against the explicit consensus of the community: a recent proposal merely to relax GNG in such cases was squarely rejected, so the idea of automatic notability for underrepresented for-profit corporations is beyond the pale. Despite editor interest, Wikipedia is not a directory of unknowns. Consensus is not a vote; community consensus trumps local consensus; and this decision should be overturned. (Disclosure: I voted "delete" below.) Rebbing 17:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm afraid you can't get to "delete" from there. Any editor closing that as "delete" would have been resoundingly overturned at DRV, and rightly so too. It's not productive to quibble between "keep" and "no consensus", so I won't do that, but the idea that this could have been closed as "delete" (never mind the idea that it should have been closed as "delete") holds no water at all. You can get to a "delete" against the majority, on Wikipedia, but when that majority is made of the considered views of established editors, you've got to show special circumstances like copyvio or socking to overcome it.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but !keeping per SCHOOLOUTCOMES without providing any sources holds no water either, It's like me saying "Keep as meets GNG" and not providing any sources to back that up .... That !vote wouldn't be taken seriously and it's the same here - Sources need to be provided, I see both established delete !voters and !keep voters however being established doesn't mean we ignore everyone elses !votes. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a source. It shows that the school exists. Our standard for secondary schools has been "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." We seem to be above that (very low) bar. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Hobit, A source was provided however It wasn't working for me (so assumed it didn't work for others) but not only that as far as I'm aware PDFs are "unarchiveable" - I'd tried more than once to archive PDFs and it's failed so my concern is if that source dies we're buggered, Ofcourse if this was a non-pdf source then I wouldn't be here now - If 1 source is found I'm always happy to keep because as you say it proves this school exists, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quoted the source in its entirety above. —Cryptic 13:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source has worked well for me each time. And it really doesn't matter if the source goes away or not--not all sources need to be on-line. And yeah, the source is extremely limited. It shows existence and that's about it. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I did show special circumstances: all of the voters (I omit the ! advisedly - it's a school afd, after all) made their primary edits to the afd before the main source of the article was identified as a Wikipedia mirror, and all comments to the afd following that were negative. A couple pages below this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 24#David Merlini we're headed toward overturning an otherwise unanimous discussion because we had only one full comment (another delete) after additional sources were presented; it's not reasonable to endorse this despite having no full comment after the only substantive source and the only source unambiguously about the subject was shown to be unusable. —Cryptic 13:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't say "endorse" and for the avoidance of doubt I don't endorse it. I would never in a million years have closed that as "keep". My position is that it's not productive to overturn the "keep" to the "no consensus" that would have been accurate. I understand why you feel a sense of injustice about David Merlini. The reason why that DRV doesn't seem comparable to me is because that was a BLP which was closed as "delete" which is what we routinely do when there are no sources ---- but there were sources; whereas this was a high school which was closed as "keep" which is what we routinely do with high schools ---- and it's still a high school. With David Merlini all the reasons why we delete unsourced BLPs were invalidated because it wasn't. With this school, all the reasons why we always keep articles on high schools still apply.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for an admin to close. Not a suitable closure for a non-admin to make per WP:NACD since close calls are best left to admins. I think it's reasonable for it to be closed as delete, but I think an overturn to delete here would be a little too far. Perhaps a relist would clarify consensus a bit as well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Overturn to no consensus or overturn to relist.

Cunard (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a fallacy to presume that the sources available for a week were read, when they may or may not have been read.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a key point that should be normative: If "User A" says "delete, no sources exist" and then "User B" replies with multiple RS'es, then A's !vote is invalid. If A wants to return and then modify their comments, they can, but to give an impeached statement default credibility is not how consensus works. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reclose I can't tell what the decision was from the closing or the subsequent discussion.  What were the WP:DEL-REASONS for the deletion?  Without knowing why the article was closed as delete, it is difficult for editors to know how to fix problems.  Were !votes taken down?  If not, why not?  My quick analysis without access to the article is that the WP:DEL8 argument raised after the nomination was resolved.  The WP:DEL14 raised in the nomination was supported with a 2nd suggestion to Incubate, but was not resolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating (talk · contribs), would you clarify what you mean by "reclose"? Is that a "relist" or an "overturn" or something else? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of something that includes a vacate but leaves a relist as an option, but after seeing the state of the article in the Google cache, I feel that this article should not go back to mainspace.  I think the nominator was right on target and should be sustained, although I still can't see the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Delete as per WP:DEL14, with incubate on request  As stated previously, the WP:DEL8 argument raised after the nomination was resolved.  The argument of "extremely promotional", a WP:DEL14/WP:NOT argument, was the problem raised in the nomination, but was never again discussed.  As per WP:NOQUORUM, "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator...Common options include...closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal".  While the community rejects notability-based NO-QUORUM deletions, the deletion here is a WP:NOT deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you clarify how the article in the Google cache violates WP:NOT? Why do you feel that "after seeing the state of the article in the Google cache, I feel that this article should not go back to mainspace"? Cunard (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is true that the nominator has not provided a WP:DEL-REASON or wikilinked to the WP:NOT policy, but I think that the phrase "extremely promotional" at least suggests WP:DEL14 and WP:PROMO, whose point 5 reads,. 

5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

Are you able to look at the Google cache and see writing that is not "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery"?  I think that much is objective.  For me there is also a subjective component, perhaps harder to quantify, with which reading the paragraph that starts "Merlini has performed several..." gives me physical discomfort due to lack of objectivity.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The writing can be improved. For example, one sentence I would delete is "David Merlini's live TV shows broke all current ratings records in 2004 and 2005" because it is unsourced. Once that sentence is removed, when I read the article in the Google cache, I do see writing that is of an "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery".

I consider such defects very minor and easy to address. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

The article said, "Merlini has performed several high-tech stunts such as being launched in a rocket, embedded in a block of solid concrete then lowered into the Danube, or frozen with liquid nitrogen."

I do not see anything promotional about "Merlini has performed several". Merlini's stunts are performances so "perform" is an acceptable verb to use. How would you rephrase that sentence?

Cunard (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add to my previous comments.  I suggest you consider that an incubated article is within the scope of WP:Editing policy, not WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cunard's position is quite arguable, and it's plausible that the reason so little attention was paid to the sources he presents is because participation at AfD these days is so low. Would a fresh listing attract some more substantive comments? It's worth a shot, although I fear that Sandstein might be right and it could well go by without anyone bothering at all. I'm afraid the root problem----lack of editors----is getting worse and we'll see more and more of these, with flaky decisions coming out of almost unattended discussions.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth a shot, although I fear that Sandstein might be right and it could well go by without anyone bothering at all. – that could happen (but likely will not because of the increased attention from this DRV). I differ from Sandstein in that if no one bothers to comment, "no consensus" rather than "delete" should be the correct close. Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion -- I followed the AfD although I did not !vote as the area of entertainers is not of strong interest to me. I reviewed the additional sources, but they looked like "human interest" stories and adding them would result in an article on a subject of passing significance. I'd day that it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the discussion is reopened, I would probably !vote delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV analyzes the consensus in the discussion. Two editors, DGG and I, commented about the sources and differed on whether the sources established notability. Do you believe that is consensus for deletion? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There was also an !Vote from editor Muffled Packeted: "Equally, he has no significantly-sized fanbase, won no major accolades, and the only contribution he has made- holding his breath- is neither "'unique, prolific or innovative."" K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• relist or overturn to NC There may be been a TNT issue here, but in the face of actual sources, there is no consensus to ignore them. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit (talk · contribs), regarding the TNT issue, here is the Google cache of the article. I don't think that is TNT. What about you? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not great prose, but it's not a TNT case either IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, it is not WP:TNT, but is requiring of conversions to article form. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus" or relist. Resolved promotionalism isn't a reason for deletion, cf. DEL4, and notability is not judged based on the content of the article, see ARTN, thus, the nominator's vote should have been disregarded as illogical and "flatly contradict[ing] established policy . . . ." WP:CLOSE § Consensus. Similarly, John Pack Lampert's boilerplate "non-notable [adjective]" vote "show[s] no understanding of the matter of issue." That leaves three reasoned votes: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and DGG voting for deletion and Cunard supporting retention, and a 2–1 split is no consensus. No shade to the closer. Rebbing 21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rebbing: WP:DEL4 reads, "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)".  I can't say that I know how to apply WP:DEL4 in AfD, so perhaps you meant WP:DEL14?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unscintillating: No, I meant DEL4. The nominator argued for deletion on account of promotionalism (including that which he had removed), but that's not a reason for deletion; the closest deletion rationale concerning advertising, DEL4, applies only to extant (not removed!) content, and only when the article has no "relevant or encyclopedic content." Rebbing 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning overturn. The diligent advocate provided compelling evidence, compelling at least enough for a source by source analysis. Hesitating due to "Extremely promotional" & "See talk page also for previous discussions". Would someone please temp undelete these. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the Google cache of the article. Regarding temporary undeletion, I have asked at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion here for the page to be moved to Draft:David Merlini so I can clean up the article per my comment to Unscintillating here. I would prefer that the move to draftspace be done over temporary undeletion, which would prevent me from improving the article to address Unscintillating's concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Cryptic for temp undeleting both. I see a very clear picture of newcomers or driveby editors throwing together draft material on what looks to be a notable person. Bonadea made an attempt to clean up what looks like a detailed promotional pamphlet. It would be very good if Cunard is allowed to clean it up. Definitely undelete, authors in the history deserve attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your analysis, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs). After Bonadea's cleanup, do you consider the most recent revision to still be "a detailed promotional pamphlet"? If you do, please let me know what can be improved in the article, which will help me with my cleanup.

  I see that Cryptic has fully protected the page, which prevents me from moving it to draftspace. Would an admin move the pages to Draft:David Merlini and Draft talk:David Merlini? Cunard (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You should wait for this DRV to be formally closed.

The page was a "a detailed promotional pamphlet" in that it was a list of accomplishments. It was not irretreivable, but actually looks like a draft list of points to write around. Prosification, featuring independent commentary evident in your quotes on the AfD page will fix it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suspect that "detailed promotional pamphlet" isn't just a comment on the article's formatting and lack of NPOV, but a literal description. It's difficult to prove for something created back in 2007 (and then recreated after a prod in February 2008), but at least some of the text from the first version of the article is used verbatim in the subject's own current marketing material (as seen, for example, here). That particular text isn't present in the 2008 recreation, but other text from the original version is. It's probably better to work directly from the sources. —Cryptic 08:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment here:

  I didn't see your request to draftify it rather than temporary undeleting until after I'd done the latter. If you want to cut-and-paste it to draftspace and work on it there, I'll do the legwork to merge the histories after the drv closes and it's restored, as it looks like it's headed toward; or you can just paste your draft back over it, if you prefer.

  I have followed your suggestion and created the draft at Draft:David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating (talk · contribs) and SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article at Draft:David Merlini. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made some edits to the version in draft space.  The draft space version shows what can be done with either an overturn with option to incubate or an overturn to incubate.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for improving the article, Unscintillating (talk · contribs). Now that the article has been rewritten, would you support restoration? ("Overturn to incubate" doesn't seem necessary anymore since the article has now been improved in draftspace.) Cunard (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merlini was buried in a concrete chunk thrown into the Danube." is an example of the depth of problem in this article.  It has been so easy to fall into WP:IN-UNIVERSE writing here that we are still using Wikipedia's voice to state magic as reality.

  And being lowered by a crane is not "thrown".  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cunard, the article is currently deleted.  An overturn to incubate would allow the work on the article in draftspace to proceed, which is, I believe, what you want.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for fixing the in-universe concerns here. I have rewritten the article in draftspace—and you have copyedited the article—so I would prefer an "overturn to restore to mainspace" rather than an "overturn to incubate". Cunard (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - If additional analysis was needed, I would have, because I had analyzed it, this was still a Delete in that there was enough suggesting Delete, and the sources were found to also not be satisfying. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to using Unscintillating's draft (and possibly history merge). The draft looks to be suitably referenced and has the right tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I am not satisfied with the quality of sources. A low circulation newspaper and a yellow journalism magazine should not be used as sources for demonstrating notability. A lot of the references in reliable sources are passing or brief mentions (so brief that they can literally be quoted here). These do not add up to notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OSTI (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template is part of a family of templates for citation identifiers, like {{hdl}} and {{bibcode}}. Not having it is detrimental to citation style flexibility. Additionally, one of the users who supported deletion is fine with undeletion. As for the other user's comment, this is not at all like {{cite doi}}. {{cite doi}} put the citation information in subpages to be transcluded on the article, which made it awful to maintain and edit. This is an external link template in the same line as {{doi}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore This seems like a Tempest in a teapot. If somebody wants to use it, I can't see any valid reason to prevent them from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• no objection from me if you are going to use it [1]. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The template was unused at the time of its nomination. Where is the evidence of likely use in the future? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better question is if all other identifiers have templates, why shouldn't this one. Even if they aren't used in article space, these are useful in talk and other namespaces. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm perfectly happy with my original question. I note you didn't answer it. Endorse deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a consensus that it failed WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 at the time, and was deleted in accordance with the consensus, so of course DRV will endorse Plasticspork's decision. But TFD#REASONS point 3 is easily overcome; all you've got to do is re-create the template and actually use it. At that point, the only way to delete it would be to renominate at TfD citing different grounds. So, it seems to me that anything deleted solely under TFD#REASONS point 3 can and should be automatically restored if the requesting editor is in good standing (as in this case) and can explain where they're going to use it. I think that in that event we should be looking at an automatic and speedy restore, as we do with PRODs. (We should document that somewhere, I think.) But if the requesting editor doesn't have a specific use in mind, then how is it a good use of volunteer time to debate it?—S Marshall T/C
  • The specific use is to make links to OSTI documents. When it got deleted, a bot removed several instances, so they are hard to trace back. But those would at least be very useful in meta space / and places like Help:CS1 (e.g. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Which_identifiers? / Template:Citation/identifier/doc / Template_talk:Citation/Archive_4#Include_other_identifiers). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it was in use when deleted under TFD#REASONS point 3 is decisive. Speedy restore as the debate participants were clearly mistaken on that point and it was the only reason given for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diffs, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thincat's post, immediately below.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted elsewhere, those transclusions merely documented the existence of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean as noted elsewhere, those transclusions were used to create links to OSTI documents, which is exactly the purpose of the template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and the fact that transclusions were removed (for example diff) and existed but were not removed (here) shows that the claim that it was unused was incorrect. And evidence of "likely use in the future" is that when a bot comes to restore the damage previously done (does this happen – I hope it does) this template will again become transcluded. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted elsewhere, those transclusions merely documented the existence of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean as noted elsewhere, those transclusions were used to create links to OSTI documents, which is exactly the purpose of the template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Thincat. This seems like a decision that should have had far more eyes. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist Restore for now per evidence given, though I have yet to see use in article space, which may have been key words left out of the nomination (I am not opposed to renomination if a use isn't found, or making another template as suggested in the TfD) —PC-XT+ 06:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Changed to speedy relist per SmokeyJoe —PC-XT+ 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidence"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very little, really, which is why I added the parenthetical statement. As for multiple transclusions being removed by a bot, I can only find one in that bot's edit history at the time the template was being deleted, and it has already been linked, above. I didn't consider the circular links had weight, but did find at least two actual transclusions. I'm not really sure how useful this template potentially is, (and can't actually see what it is, for that matter,) but won't oppose a second look. —PC-XT+ 05:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite often, the template's use in mainspace is short-lived, since people will routinely convert plaintext citations from "J. Smith (2006) "Title" {{OSTI|01234}}" to "{{cite document |author=J. Smith |year=2006 |title=Title |osti=01234}}. It's not quite a template that's often subst'ed, but it's more or less the equivalent situation. But the template's usefulness in metaspace is quite clear and overturning that deletion on those grounds alone is already sufficient. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further evidence, if true (diffs, please), that the template is not needed. The only uses in metaspace seem to be documenting the the existence of the template, so your argument is circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template's main use in metaspace is to create links to OSTI ressources (e.g. User:Headbomb/sandbox4). No instance is self-referential (save for the one that was on the doc, which is now deleted). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, diffs please. The use in your sandbox is "* {{para|osti-access|yes}} – to flag a free {{para|osti}} like {{OSTI|4435330}} [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] which is quite clearly documenting the then existence of the template, and thus entirely self-referential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not, it is not. It is clearly documenting CS1/CS2 templates, not itself. This should be fairly obvious since you don't see {{OSTI|foobar}}, but rather a formatted link to OSTI which is exactly the purpose of this template, as I've explained it to you several times now: To create links to OSTI documents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist for more discussion, no criticism of the closer. Someone clearly has something more to say, and the discussion was small and cursory. Actually, some criticism of the closer is due for failing to respond on their talk page. The closer has not been active for a week, userpage is tagged "semi-active", andhis talk page was being over-zealously archived. Real life issues can arise suddenly. As a reasonable closer should have re-opened the discussion on request, and as the closer is absent, I recommend speedy relisting. DRV is not the place to argue details being argued above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, just because it's useful to have a template for each identifier supported by CS1. OSTI is currently the only one without a template. It was not very convenient during the discussion of changes involving |osti= If the template is only used in a dozen pages, is it really a problem? − Pintoch (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of popular Internet services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The no consensus interpretation of the outcome was a misguided decision by non-admin User:SSTflyer, whom refused to discuss the issue. --damiens.rf 13:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist so an admin can correctly close it. Per WP:BADNAC WP:NACD, non-admins should not be making close calls. This issue has been an all-too-common problem with SSTflyer. It's been brought up several times and she never engages in conversation every time it's brought up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BADNAC doesn't mention close calls, which is of course perfectly correct; there are non-admins I'd happily trust with a close call, and admins who aren't fit to make them. "No consensus" was the correct outcome. But a failure to discuss or explain the close on request is simply inexcusable. Overturn for someone who's willing to talk to re-close in exactly the same way.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I used the wrong shortcut. WP:NACD says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That could have been either a delete or a NC--both would be reasonable. I've no problems with a NAC here (and have reasonable faith in this closer in particular), but not responding after 3 days while continuing to edit is a problem. If the closer doesn't respond shortly, I'd recommend a "reopen". Also, as always, an uninvolved admin could reclose also. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate close. I probably would have closed this as delete. NC really seems like a stretch. I have no problem with the NAC aspect, but I have a lot of problem with the refusal to discuss it on her talk page. You don't have to agree to every request, but at least acknowledge that you saw the request and considered it. To say nothing is just wrong. I'm not sure the NC closure by itself is enough to make me argue to vacate (it's pretty close, though), but that combined with the refusal to discuss it certainly is. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist/reclose - Aside from no quorum scenarios, non-admins should almost never be closing deletion discussions they judge it to be no consensus which "should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus." It also means the discussion was a "close call". Not discussing it makes it worse, but it would be a reasonable objection either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note: I've undone SSTflyer's own closure, as "relisted", of this DRV request. Obviously, editors whose decisions are being reviewed here are not supposed to close the review discussion. I think we need to consider community sanctions to prevent SSTflyer from making more AfD closures, as I've now seen several of their closures, here and elsewhere, that looked very problematic. I'm leaving it to others to (re-)close the AfD, which SSTflyer reopened and relisted for a third time.  Sandstein  08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While this is still open, I'll add that I would wholeheartedly support a topic ban on SSTflyer from closing discussions. This has gone on way too long. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Start a discussion somewhere then, I don't think this is the right place, though I'm not sure where would be the right place. WP:ANI I guess? For the record, I've seen almost entirely good closes from this user, but I've not reviewed everything. So I'd strongly recommend coming with some idea of what closes you see as problematic and an idea what % of closes that is. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm aware. I just don't have time for that right now. Just trying to gauge it while we're all here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. For some reason I missed the message on my talk page. Following a request for one of my closures to be reverted is entirely appropriate. My closure was inaccurate, I acknowledged it and reversed it, case closed. I have closed 600+ AfD discussions, naturally some are going to be contested by other users. SSTflyer 05:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Already properly reopened. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was nominated for AfD on 29 December 2015. It was deleted on 5 January 2016. Between 6 January 2016 and 1 February 2016, someone re-created the deleted page. On 2 February 2016, the page was speedily deleted per G4 and salted. Since 2 February 2016 and now, new news articles have came out about the subject (ie [2], [3], [4], and [5]). These new news stories cover the subject in-depth and are about items not covered before. The deleted page does not cover what these new news stories cover. Because of that, the new draft is not similar to the deleted version. A new page about the subject was created on AfC (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Draft:Tomas_Gorny). It was deemed that the subject is now notable. Also, User:Rklawton, the person who nominated the page for AfD, also now agrees that the subject is notable (see [6]). Please un-salt the page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Kohl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Kurt Kohl consensus was not done, page deleted. Page was well referenced, edited by a few members. Telecine Guy 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

• This guy obviously does not know and nor care about wikipedia policies and guidelines. Several persons explained him how to sign their posts, for no avail. Endorse AfD closure, carried out according to the rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC
• The AFD had four delete votes as well as the nominator with the only keep vote being qualified as weak keep so the consensus was clearly delete. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: There was no other way to close that discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, move for speedy close: There is nothing even remotely improper in the close of this AfD. Appears the proposer has competence issues, possibly language based. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of Order of Smile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is a perfectly fine Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals subcategory, present on a number of other wikis ([7]). Pl wiki category lists 227 entries. It was deleted from en wiki due to, first, an argument that there are not enough subjects on en wiki for it to justify existence (WP:SMALLCAT), which is a), not a valid rationale (given that pl wiki clearly suggests there are numerous, just need to be translated, as they inevitably will be one day), and b), Order_of_the_Smile#Winners already lists more than enough for it on en wiki not to be an issue. Second rationale was an argument that the category fails Wikipedia:Defining, with some people specifically arguing on the example that it was not "defining" Nelson Mandela. Well, is he better defined by Category:Bands of the Order of the Aztec Eagle or Category:Freemen of the City of London? I doubt it (and I doubt anyone can be defined by them). Having reread WP:DEFINING, I can see how most award categories fail to meet it, but in my experience of 10+ years here, and having written 1000+ articles, many of them bios including GAs and FAs (and participating in related discussions), I have never ever before seen anyone complaining about "too many" award categories or seen one of them deleted. Major awards, orders and such as usually seen as notable, and they have their lists of recipients and categories for them. Creating categories for major orders or awards is the established practice, and DEFINING needs to be rewritten to reflect established practice. Now, I would agree that minor orders and awards may fail notability criteria (and many certainly do fail), and in turn also that they may not deserve their own category, but despite the somewhat condescending tone of the last deletion discussion where a number of people dissed the award as "an NGO award for making children smile", it is undeniably notable (the en wiki article is poorly referenced, but pl wiki has a long further reading section, and there seem to be at least two books about the award (ex. [8]), in addition to plethora mainstream press references, because in Poland at least receiving this award is no small deal (ex. [9], [10], [11], [12] - those are stories from a large Polish newspaper, an even a larger, national paper, a major magazine (Polish Newsweek-like publication), and Polish Radio, respsectively); it is also endorsed and reported on by pl government, ex. [13]), and in Poland it attracts much more coverage then most high-culture or military or civilian awards (it is also famous enough to be covered not only on pl and en wikis, but on a dozen more). It is not minor, it is notable, and it fits perfectly within the well-established tree of Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals, with 200+ notable recipients. So, in essence: please restore, it is a category for a major award with numerous eligible bios. PS. Oh, and it certainly defines Mandela more then "Order of the Aztec Eagle" - he had nothing to do with Aztecs, but made many SA children smile more... just saying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a category person, but my understanding is that we only have categories for things that are defining. That is said to be things that would be likely to be mentioned in the lede. Randomly sampling those that have Wikipedia articles, only one had it in the lede and many others didn't mention it at all. I don't know that that's a reasonable bar, but it appears to be the one we've agreed on. So endorse for now, but I'm happy to keep an open mind that I may be misunderstanding guidelines here. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying applies to most awards and decorations. It is clear that the common practice does not follow the policy - categories are commonly created and populated for awards and medals that are not commonly mention in lead. It is not common for awards and medals to be mentioned in lead, because they are usually discussed in the article's body. Unless you think we should delete most medal and order categories, we need to update the guideline to reflect this practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it is time to do cleanup of the award categories. And BTW, speaking about "most", IMO most actually do not gave categories, especially the likes of the Order of Smile. Even not all state awards have recipient categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus supports deletion. SSTflyer 05:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Delete votes did not address guideline-based concerns of nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you endorsing the deletion or the opinion of the nominator here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just mentioning that the opinion of the nominator was guideline-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. A minor award of questionable notability itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse/uphold closure per above. If other cats are not defining, they too should be nominated. Neutrality^talk 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Dozens of categories for minor awards such as this have been deleted (for failing Wikipedia:Defining). Oculi (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to "Listified"), with the listification edit noted in the close (note that the nominator did it with the nomination, but please record the edits, and now Order_of_the_Smile#Winners needs improvement). I read a consensus to delete but no criticism of listification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of start page services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No quorum: after the AfD was relisted twice, only a single vote was given to *delete*. The page author's comment was ignored because it was not properly formatted (even though the comment itself was crystal clear):

I disregarded the "Comment" statement because it does not express a clear preference in the form of "keep" or "delete", as is customary, and is furthermore unsigned.

— Sandstein, on his talk page

Admin was contacted about this, but to no avail. High emphasis on procedure. Closing this AfD without consensus or a soft deletion would have been more appropriate outcomes. Michieldewit (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You misleadingly omit to mention that the page author you speak of in the third person is yourself.
  As someone who categorically refuses to bold voting keywords in my deletion debate comments, and mostly don't use them even unbolded, I'm not a fan of Sandstein's response. Endorse nonetheless, since your comment on the afd wasn't policy-based, didn't refute the initial argument of notability (not of the list entries, but of the list subject) or the later argument of original research, and further implies a copyvio of that external link in your selection criteria. —Cryptic 14:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: Although I can see why my disregarding the unsigned, unlabeled comment could be considered overly bureaucratic, there's a good reason for why I normally do this in all discussions I close: signing comments in discussion is required by community norms, and without a signature it is normally not possible to determine whether a statement is by a possible meat- or sockpuppet, or is a duplicate "vote", both of which are frequent occurrences at AfD. I consider that it is incumbent on those who wish to participate in a discussion to conform to community norms and expectations in such a way that the purpose of the discussion (establishing policy-based consensus) can be achieved as easily as possible, and that those who do not do so must be prepared to have their opinions disregarded. That applies, in particular, to editors who have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, as Michieldewit has.  Sandstein  14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for explaining your standpoint. I can see how your strict and procedural approach would be required in discussions with a lot of comments: all sorts of confusion might otherwise arise. In this particular discussion, however, there were only 2 comments and there was no risk of confusion at all. It would have hurt nobody to be a little more lenient here. Like some people would ignore a red light on an empty intersection at 3am. On the point of your assumption that I am a long time editor: although this is strictly true, the number of my edits is low enough to still consider myself a rookie. Duration is not a sufficient measure for experience.Michieldewit (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- "ignore a red light on an empty intersection at 3am"? Traffic rules are there for a reason. I hope not many people do that. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The message of course is that rules should not discourage people from using their own good judgement and applying rules only towards their intended purpose. Michieldewit (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-close. I can't agree that there was a good reason to disregard the page creator's comment, and since there were so few other participants, the closer's doing so can't be considered harmless. I suggest that Sandstein alleviate this concern by advising what his closure would be if that comment is given consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh. I'd have to decide between no consensus (because of the few and divided opinions) and delete, essentially because of the reasons articulated by Cryptic. I'd most likely still go for deletion because the (few) "delete" opinions do appear more persuasive in terms of policy: they raise substantial concerns of core policy (WP:OR) which the "keep" side does not address, and they invoke (if not explicitly) the notability guideline for lists, WP:LISTN, whose requirements the "keep" side also fails to take into consideration. Instead, Michieldewit makes a mistaken argument based on WP:LISTCOMPANY (which is about whether specific companies should be included in lists, and not about whether the list itself is notable), and otherwise argues only based on usefulness, which we know isn't a very good argument to make at AfD.  Sandstein  17:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And how about the soft delete option? Have you considered that? Michieldewit (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no "soft delete" option.  Sandstein  10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So how am I to interpret the list of options stated for a no quorum situation? It clearly includes Soft deletion as an option. Michieldewit (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• relist or reclose I stand by my comment in the previous DRV where this came up that requiring a bold !vote (or in this case a signature) has no basis in policy, guidelines, or common sense. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is. We're all volunteers, donating our time as experienced editors to the purpose of the project. I want to use this rare resource as effectively as possible, that is, to help process AfDs as efficiently as possible. Every minute I need to hunt through page histories to determine who might have left an unsigned comment and whether I should therefore take into account the opinion, is a minute I don't have for reading and considering arguments. If we expect admins to do that extra work, we de-incentivize compliance with talk page guidelines and other community norms. If we do not, we give people an incentive to follow the rules. That's why I will continue to disregard opinions that do not conform to the pattern that is customary and expected at AfD: I want to support the work of the people who want to help me do my job as closer and conform to community expectations, not others.  Sandstein  10:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It would probably be wise, then, to properly document these expectations and include a reference to these expectations somewhere in the AfD header. The precious time of new editors should not be wasted by having to dig through piles of rules and procedures, just to know how to respond to a certain situation. Michieldewit (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd take this a step farther, if you think this is acceptable, even though I believe everyone commenting here disagrees, I'd ask that you start a discussion on the generic topic. I do understand your point, but the "this is not a vote" mentality (which I favor) means that you really are supposed to be reading the arguments, not just the boldface !votes. And yes, people should sign things, but sometimes people make mistakes. If it was a common issue at AfD that would be one thing. But not signing things at AfD is, IME, very rare indeed. We've wasted more time talking about it already than I imagine skipping such cases would save you in a year. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't quite bring myself to say overturn, but.... I'm not a big fan of lists, tend to steer clear of closing list AfDs, and as a result, don't really understand policy and common practice around lists as well as I do for articles. I honestly don't know if I would have closed this as delete or NC. But, while I have much respect for Sandstein, I don't agree with his stance on the mechanics of contributing to an AfD. While putting a keyword in bold is good practice, it's not required. LIkewise for signing your post. When I'm closing an AfD, if there's an unsigned comment, I'll generally look through the history to see who it was (assuming sinebot hasn't identified it already), and then typically I'll go look at their contribution history to see if they're a WP:SPA or not. Sometimes people forget to sign. It happens to everybody. If this comment was dismissed because it wasn't convincing, or didn't cite policy, or had been clearly refuted, or something like that, I'd be more inclined to say that's within the closer's prerogative. But, to dismiss it simply because it was unsigned and didn't say keep in bold, seems excessive. So, I'm not standing here with a firebrand and a pitchfork chanting overturn!, but, yeah, if this close was voluntarily backed out and left for somebody else to reclose, I think that would be a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant endorse- Yeah, not a huge fan of dismissing arguments just because they were unbolded. But arguments that the contents were original research, that directories like alexa do not confer notability, and that the scope of the list is unclear, are strong arguments. I think it's likely that the close would have been to delete regardless. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• We got to the right outcome but I can't endorse the means of getting there. If someone says something, the closer needs to evaluate what they say. If the closer reads what they say with proper attention and understanding, and weighs it correctly, then neither the conventional word in bold, nor the conventional signature, are really necessary at all.
  • Well, that's not quite right. For example, the closer will certainly want to know whether the unsigned comment was made by someone who's already opined in the discussion or a newcomer to it, and to that extent, his or her time may be squandered in having to search the page history for that. I agree with Sandstein that the better practice is for editors to abide by the conventions of the XfD pages where possible. Where I disagree with him is regarding that a good-faith participant's comment should be completely disregarded for a presumably inadvertent failure to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the comment's worth reading, to what extent does it matter who made it? Ditto if it isn't worth reading? I think the identity of the commenter matters less than you and Sanstein contend. Signatures can't be trusted anyway, since Wikipedians (1) can usually rename their accounts on a whim; (2) don't have to use signatures that match their account name; and (3) can easily spoof signatures. When I close a discussion I generally look at diffs to establish who said things and in what order (since later comments are often placed above earlier ones).—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reclose, deliberately ignoring a relevant comment is not the best response to a mild procedural flaw like in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but... dismissing an editors opinion solely based off of a procedural flaw (failing to sign posts, not putting "keep" in their comment even though they still argued to keep) sounds pretty off-base to me. Firstly, only 2 users commented, so Sandstein could've easily checked the page history to see whom left the unsigned comment, and closed the AFD in about the same amount of time, so his argument about not having the time to read does not stand up (in this particular instance anyway, but that's not even the point). Secondly, sometimes editors forget to sign their posts (happens to all of us), so not all editors whom didn't sign are really meat, sockpuppets, or duplicate votes. Thirdly, as per the points raised by S Marshall above, one shouldn't just blindly look at signatures either. And there's nothing to suggest that Michieldewit's comment being left unsigned was not done in good faith. So while Sandstein is absolutely correct that editors should conform to the norms customary to participating in discussions, Sandstein didn't take the time to evaluate the AFD thoroughly, and that's customary to closing discussions. Sandstein should've left this to another administrator if they couldn't take the time and patience customary to closing discussions. All bureaucracy aside however, whilst the rationale behind closing as delete was off-base, it doesn't change the outcome, in that, unlike the "delete" side whom addressed the various WP:OR/WP:NOTABLE concerns, the "keep" side failed to do so, in that since its the weight of the arguments that actually decides AFD's, one must actually back up their arguments if they want their opinions to be considered. As such, the AFD closure was justified irrespective of Sandstein's own mistakes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. WP:RELIST precludes relisting a third time and closing based on the (thin) contributions to date was appropriate, as was the closure itself. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue at hand is the justification for the close, not the outcome itself. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Gorny (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The person now has coverage in RS on the draft, non-promotional and should be unsalted and recreated. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you give us some hints? What sources? What draft? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Please see Draft:Tomas Gorny for the sources including one from the Huffington Post. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (e/c) The nominator recently declined the AFC submission of Draft:Tomas Gorny but now considers the subject is notable. However, the article has been salted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (2nd nomination). It's beyond me whether it is appropriate for people here to give an opinion on the merits of the draft. Thincat (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: I only declined that AFC submission because it has one unreilable source like his LinkedIn profile but now removed and resumbitted. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and allow recreation. I looked at a few of the references in the draft. Certainly, between the Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Forbes we've got more than enough WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AFD in question was closed January 2016. The primary point of DRV is to appeal disputed deletion decisions. It's why WP:DELREVD requires the closing administrator to be approached first before opening up a DRV. WP:DRVPURPOSE criteria 3 does talk about presenting new information since the deletion but in the context of the primary mandate of DRV, this is to provide new evidence that was not presented at the AFD that would have changed the outcome of the AFD. Considering most of the new sources provided are from July and August 2016, meaning they did not exist yet, I don't think this is relevant to the purpose of a "deletion review". A delete consensus at an AFD is not a lifetime sentence for an article; DRV is not required by policy in order to recreate an article. I would say very few articles that were deleted via AFD come back to DRV before they are recreated. In terms of addressing WP:G4, I don't believe it would apply as it is specifically outlined in the policy: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I would argue these new sources and even the prose of the article are different enough than the deleted version. Most importantly, it should be noted that it's not the deletion that's being requested here, it's the request for un-protection. The protection was not part of the January AFD outcome. However, the nominator was sent here to DRV from WP:RUP because an administrator reviewed the article and deemed them to be essentially the same. I've looked at the article and didn't come necessarily to the same conclusion, especially considering the new sources and content. Mkdw^talk 02:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow recreation. For WP:SALT the policy is to consult the salting admin in preference to the deleting admin but it gives a wide choice of approaches. I hadn't found the discussion at RUP when I commented previously and it looks as if that discussion did not consider the state of Draft:Tomas_Gorny. Anyway, the response there was unnecessarily cantankerous. I see no need for another AFD. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt per nom. Why was it salted, and how do you find the salting log? As at least one experienced editor says "new sources", allow recreation and testing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Special:Log/protect will show you the salting log. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So will the log link in the drv header. Interspersed with all the other logs, but salting's best understood in context of deletion log entries anyway. —Cryptic 09:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, silly me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific reason it was salted, apparently, was because it was a cut-and-paste-and-barely-edited recreation of the old article, complete with "[edit]" and "[10]" and so on in the first revision at the ends of headers and instead of references. —Cryptic 09:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could ask the salter User:Jzg to comment, though I don't think there's much to say. All pretty Ho hum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging JzG again per SmokeyJoe above, as that is the capitalization he uses and the ping may not work otherwise. (Yes, it's a redlink.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I salted because it was a cut and paste repost. Overall, I think this article is the result of some payment or other inducement. That said, I am happy to leave it to others, but note that the existing draft would be a G4 repost per the AfD, as it's essentially the same article, so a new draft needs to be prepared first. Oh, and this us not he first time I gave explained this. The draft was submitted before with the same content and the same explanation. Somebody is really keen on getting this very minor person on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Specifically to this... So what if someone paid for it? It's just an assumption, obviously, but I'm not naive enough to think it's an inaccurate one. Does the guy meet inclusion criteria, or not? If he does, then we include him, if not, then we exclude him. The presumption of possible payment should never be used as a weapon against marginally notable people who apparently desire to be included. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I misunderstanding the various histories, JzG? The AFD was in January this year, the recreation and salting were in February but the most significant references in the current draft were not published until April and June.[15][16][17][18] Thincat (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was highlighting in my above comment. The draft heavily relies on sources published after the AFD and obviously not a cut and paste of the previous article. There are entirely new sentences and phrasing. I don't think it could be justified as being deleted against G4 when the two versions are actually compared against one another. Mkdw^talk 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and move to mainspace and it's not clear to me, if the current draft would be G4 eligible, given the coverage present in the draft, that the 2nd AfD was properly closed. That is, there are currently a lot of sources in the draft which provide non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, clearly meeting the GNG. If necessary to mainspace this, then Overturn the 2nd AfD as not reflecting the sourcing currently (and presumably previously) present, regardless of nose counting. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request should have been granted at WP:RFUP considering that the new draft used newly acquired sourcing and was certainly not a cut and paste of the previously deleted article. As far as I'm concerned in the context of DRV, the AFD was closed correctly by unanimous consensus by the participants to delete the article. The DRV should be closed as unsalt or return to RFUP noting that a number of the participants here believe the draft does not qualify under G4. Mkdw^talk 19:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That clears a lot of it up, thanks. Trying to figure out what is going on is a bit problematic when one cannot view deleted revisions. So yes: no need to overturn the previous AfD, because the G4 was clearly inappropriate because more sources had been added. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it might, but the text is the same. I honestly believe it was supplied by the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over my decade of editing, I've contacted at least three separate individuals when writing about them. Mind you, no one paid me for anything, but still: what is the big deal if the subject supplies text about themselves? It's either NPOV and supported by reliable sources, or it's not. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Tomas Gorny is a Polish American tech entrepreneur. He is the CEO of Nextiva and the founder of Nextiva, IPOWER, Internet Communications, SiteLock, and UnitedWeb. He resides in Scottsdale, AZ.

Tomas Gorny (born August 21, 1975) is a Polish-born American businessman. He is the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Unitedweb and Nextiva, a cloud business communications company. In 2001 he founded iPower (formerly iPowerweb), a website hosting company. By 2003 IPOWER became the fastest growing website hosting provider in the United States.

Draft mentions SiteLock and omits the date of birth. Deleted article lead does not mention where he currently resides. We see this pattern continue all the way through the article.

Content about early life:

Gory was born in Zabrze, Poland to working class parents in 1975. They purchased him an Atari when he was 12. He learned to program the Atari to make games. His family moved to Germany when he was 14 where he attended business school. He started a PC distribution business when he was 17. At the age of 20, he immigrated to the United States. He knew no English at the time.

Tomas was born and raised in Poland. He attended college in Germany, but dropped out two months before graduation to move to the United States in 1996.

The draft article is significantly expanded and uses sources from Business Insider and the Chicago Tribune to source the information specifically about his teenage and early 20s. Let's look at wording around IPOWER since it seems to be the company that's the most widely covered in both the draft and deleted article:

He started IPOWER, a web hosting company, in 2001 with capital from his credit card. In 2007, IPOWER was merged with Endurance International. The company was sold to Warburg Pincus and Goldman Sachs in 2011 for close to $1 billion. The company is now apart of Endurance International Group, a publicly traded company.

In October 2001, Tomas founded iPower and served as CEO for 7 years, growing the company to the second largest web hosting service provider in the United States with over one million customers.In 2007, Tomas orchestrated a merger between IPOWER and Endurance International Group, and until the partial sale to Warburg Pincus and Goldman Sachs, he remained the largest individual shareholder. Endurance International Group (NASDAQ: EIGI) went public in 2013 and Tomas remains on the board of directors of the company.

Perhaps there's an undisclosed paid aspect to motivations behind these edits. We have WP:COIN to raise those concerns and many WP:TNT would apply. However, I do not think we could reasonably state here that WP:G4 applies on the claims that this is a "cut and paste" "same text" "recreation" of the deleted article. It's not. Using administrative policies that do not apply is not the way to prevent an article about this individual from being created. If you strongly feel that this article should not be on Wikipedia, then as an editor, you could nominate the article for another AFD or bring up your concerns at COIN. Mkdw^talk 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland Parker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm not sure why this was subject to speedy deletion. Rowland Parker published a number of books^[1] and The Common Stream has achieved recognition as a classic.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} He was a notable local figure^[8][4] and, all in all, seems to more than meet Wikipedia's eligibility criteria. The person who deleted the page is no longer active on Wikipedia. StenLasha (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was speedy deleted because there was nothing there except an infobox, section headers copied from a different article, and an external link to http://www.librarything.com/author/parkerrowland. There was zero prose. Just put what you wrote above at that title and you're miles ahead of what it was. —Cryptic 13:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) The deleted article had no content except for a number of headers and an infobox. There is no point in restoring that content. You can just go ahead and write a new article.  Sandstein  14:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore' It was technically a valid A7, but using speedy did not show good judgment. The simplest check would have shown him a notable writer, and more time should have been allowed for completing it. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that there was no actual prose in the article, or anything else which would be useful to anyone trying to write another version, I don't see any point in restoring it. I suggest that the OP write a new article including the information presented here. Hut 8.5 12:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, which was not being prevented. A two year old speedy A7 doesn't require approval to recreate, if you have sources that overcome the old deletion reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Basedow (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The prior AFD supported a WP:TNT approach, that the article was poorly sourced, and had unresolved copvio issues. The current copy does not have these issues. Additionally, the admin deleted the article under CSD, as opposed to relisting an AFD (given that more than a year has elapsed and the copy does not have the same issues the previous one is said to have had). StonefieldBreeze (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural: This clearly-not-so-new user has move-warred to get his version into mainspace while the DRV's ongoing. I've therefore blanked it with {{Temporarily undeleted}} per SOP. I have not, however, restored any of the actually-deleted revisions because of the allegations of copyvio in the history; I'm currently a bit busy in RL so don't have time to investigate that properly. —Cryptic 23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 speedy. G4 is only for articles that are "sufficiently identical copies", but this new version is completely different to the one deleted at AFD and appears to be a complete rewrite from scratch. There might still be a case for deletion but that needs to be decided by the community. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn WP:CSD#G4 as it has been stated that it was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version (taking Lankiveil's word on it, as I can't view it as a non-administrator), with no prejudice to this article being listed at AfD after restoration. Undelete and list at AfD. It is similar enough to the previously deleted version that I can see why it was speedily deleted. Given the changes, especially the improved sourcing, I think it is due to let this topic have another deletion discussion.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Its still reading as a bit promotional and its so surprising that this inexperienced user has appeared from a long absence to draft a slightly spammy article so perfectly formatted that I'm really wondering whether there is a connection between the author and the subject. I have been around a decade and couldn't format an article so well. I'd like to have that clarified before I formally opine but my view is that we should just resend this to AFD to deal with the issue of promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Spartaz: See the nominator's talk page.
  @Godsy: I've undeleted the old article, sans the revisions identified as copyvios. The diff across the recreation is this. Just about every paragraph's changed slightly, so the Mediawiki diff algorithm fails as completely as it usually does, but there's nothing remotely "complete" about the rewrite. —Cryptic 08:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing that, I've adjusted my statement above accordingly.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 Speedy Any noticeable improvement in sourcing ends the appropriateness of G4. Substantially identical is a rather high bar, intentionally. It can be relisted if desired, and looks like an utterly trivial article, but that's not for DRV, which is only commenting on the appropriateness of the speedy. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like promotional garbage to me, though if a full discussion is required to arrive at a decision it is not big issue.

  additional  Comment: if the final decision is to leave deleted please look at d:Q6220997 and see if that should have a deletion request at Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCskill ThaPreacha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nigerian rapper MCskill ThaPreacha is notable enough for Wikipedia article having been featured on Juice magazin - Edition #173, p.72) Juice Magazine. Berlin, March 2016. ISBN 4194503705909. HipHopDX - http://hiphopdx.com/videos/id.24532/title.mcskill-thapreacha-drops-beats-and-rhymes-episode-1 Chuck D RAPstation - http://rapstation.com/article/mcskill-thapreacha-spotlight-interview and lots of international platforms. MustaphaNG (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Juice source was in the article at the time of deletion and you brought it up repeatedly during the afd, and the other two sources above are of similarly low quality to those in the article and brought up repeatedly in the afd. It's not that nobody heard you; it's that your arguments didn't convince anybody. DRV is not a second chance to do that. Endorse with fire. —Cryptic 06:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to examine and address failures to follow the deletion process, not to reheat old arguments which have already been (or should have been) raised at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and suggest speedy close. There's nothing in here that wasn't already said in the AfD. And, the AfD was unambiguous. So, this should be speedy closed as not complying wiht WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. The last two sources are new, even if they're not enough to make a difference. It does us no harm to leave this open and ignore it for a week. —Cryptic 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Stifle, RoySmith, and Cryptic: Requesting temporary undeletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse I feel as if only a couple of sources were discussed, and only one of them of those listed above. And if the Juice one is solid (which seemed to be agreed to in the AfD), then the other two (one a fairly long interview, one a very short piece) might be enough to get over the WP:N bar. But to overturn the discussion I'd like something a bit stronger than those two, because while they are just over my bar for notability, my bar is lower than most, so I suspect we'd just get it deleted again. So find/wait for another solid source and come back at that point would be my advice. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The new sources presented aren't different enough from those present during the deletion discussion about the article. Rapstation was already present as a source, and HipHopDX is similar to others that were used.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Lane (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin clearly misapplied the applicable guideline. The closer stated there was no consensus on "whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO". However, under PORNBIO, a qualifying award must be "well-known and significant", a higher standard than merely notable; PORNBIO was tightened up in this regard four years ago. If there's no consensus that the award passes a relatively low bar, it should be evident that it fails the guideline's actual higher bar. Closing admin has refused to discuss
The delete !votes in this discussion were substantially more numerous, better argued, and better grounded in policy and guidelines. The keep !votes, to the extent they had any grouding, pretty uniformly rested on the argument that meeting any part of PORNBIO "automatically" guaranteed the subject an article. This contradicts express language in WP:BIO, which PORNBIO is part of, saying that technically passing an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". !Votes which contradict the governing guideline should be discounted, especially when they are in the clear minority. Finally, the keep !~voters made only trivial attempts, at best, to rebut the argument that, as a BLP without adequate reliable sourcing, the article should be deleted. BLP policy overrides a marginal pass of a dubious SNG. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 26 (Jayden James), which presents essentially the same issues, where the community strongly endorsed deletion, as well as the similar, quite recent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Rose. Clear failure to meet GNG and BLP sourcing requirements overrides a heavily disputed claim to technically pass an SNG, especially one the community shows little confidence in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse without a lot of enthusiasm and with an understanding that the RfC on PORNBIO may change our guidelines and thus this may be worth revisiting soon. There are sources in the article that aren't horrid (Daily Dot has her discussing issues related to her job, there is a porn news site that _might_ be independent (can't tell and don't really feel like researching it from work). Might not be over the GNG (depends on independence issues), but not so bad that we don't have at least one, and maybe 2 or 3 RSes that cover her in enough detail to write an article... Hobit (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete, because the "keep" side's contention that having your name on this page is sufficient to take you over the notability threshold for a BLP is, well, damn. I'm stuck for the right phrase. Let's say "Completely without merit", although I'd prefer to put it more strongly than that.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  To put it more strongly is what? I was paid to keep the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not. It would be to say the "keep" side arguments were completely outside the normal range of opinions shown at AfD, and showed a lack of editorial judgment. I'm trying to avoid being really, really rude about the arguments that were used to force a "no consensus" outcome in that debate. If this is the kind of article that we have to retain after a strict application of PORNBIO, then we'll need to open yet another RfC about PORNBIO because it's not appropriate to have BLPs with this kind of sourcing in our encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall There is already a discussion ongoing about tightening pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to take PORNBIO's "well-known and significant" at face value. I'm not convinced that any adult-industry award is well-known outside of the adult industry, like WP:ANYBIO requires for essentially every other field. —Cryptic 18:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Come on, its a BLP that doesn't pass the GNG. Whatever PORNBIO says there is a wider community consensus that such articles should be properly sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The close said that "there is a split on whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO." The AFD for that award has since closed as redirect (6–3 for delete). Rebbing 06:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Whether one discounts only the silliest votes (ArchieOof, Pwolit iets, and Tomwsulcer) or all the votes (both keep and delete) that fail to provide more than vague waves towards PORNBIO and GNG, there is clear consensus for deletion here. (Disclosure: I voted for deletion.) Rebbing 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per above. Would note that WikiProjects do not get to set their own looser notability rules for items in their purview. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I personally do not think the award sufficiently substantial, but I do not think there is any agreement about that. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete -- the nature of the award is immaterial if RS are insufficient to meet GNG. Wikiprojects do not get to set their own notability guidelines, only community as a whole. (Disclaimer: I vote delete). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me for quibbling, but, as an additional criteria under BIO, PORNBIO is not a mere WikiProject recommendation but part of an established, community-wide notability guideline. I agree that, on its own terms, meeting PORNBIO is not enough to make a subject notable when true (GNG) notability is plainly lacking, but I think it's appropriate to defer to a finding of notability under PORNBIO in close cases (which this was not). Rebbing 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The claim made (by me, as it happens) that the article does not comply with WP:BLP was not refuted in the discussion, with nobody saying that there were any reliable sources about the subject with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required by that policy. No amount of claims that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO guideline should outweigh a failure to meet the WP:BLP policy, so it seems that this close was based on vote-counting rather than policy-based consensus. And, even then, the closer claimed that the decision was based on whether there was a consensus as to whether the award is notable, which is not part of the WP:PORNBIO guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. I don't think that close accurately reflected the content of the discussion. The Keep !voters focused almost exclusively on arguing that the subject meets PORNBIO, and didn't really dispute the assertion that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. The Delete !voters argued that the subject doesn't meet the GNG and either that she doesn't meet PORNBIO either or that this wasn't relevant. Several also said that having an article on a living person who has very little coverage in RS poses serious BLP problems, a significant concern. It is perfectly legitimate to delete an article on a subject who passes PORNBIO but fails the GNG, as pointed out above, and WP:BIO suggests such articles should be merged into others. The closing statement only focuses on the issue of whether the award is notable, which isn't the standard of PORNBIO and which has been pretty much settled by the fact we've got rid of an article about it. The GNG and BLP concerns should have been given greater weight. Hut 8.5 15:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as no consensus. I don't know if I've ever seen a discussion that had been closed as "no consensus" brought to DRV; at any rate, I don't see the "delete" !voters saying anything new here. Why do y'all want to get rid of this article so badly? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part of that comment contributes in any way to the discussion about whether this decision should be overturned? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it hard to believe that you don't understand my comment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your comment perfectly well. The first sentence is about your knowledge of other DRV discussions. The second misunderstands the nature of deletion review. We are discussing whether the close accurately reflected the policy-based comments in the discussion. It is not the place to say anything new about whether the article should be deleted. And the third is simply a generic insult that could be applied to anyone who starts a deletion review. None of those sentences in any way contributes to the discussion of the issue at hand here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• And even though your third sentence is irrelevant, I'll still give an answer in the interests of collegiality. I want this to be deleted because it is an article about a living person that is not written on the basis of reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete per most of the above. I find the arguments that the single award in question is 'major' are unconvincing, and that was the only thing saving this article from an outright deletion already. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. It is a fact that the award has not been demonstrated to be notable, and so the close is at fault to cite the possibility that the award is notable. That there "is a split", aka "a dispute" is just a reflection of die-hard supporters of the long since discredited PORNBIO guideline section voraciously arguing in support of WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY violating porn starlet stubs. Discrediting the failed arguments, there is a consensus to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Regardless of the fact that no-one provided any evidence that the award was "well-known and significant" in any way, it's simply a BLP that fails GNG. Given that practically all the Keep votes were based on this unproven claim of the award's significance, this is an easy Delete. I also note that if you take this and the other two linked AfDs above, every single Keep vote apart from one came from the same pool of six editors. I suspect this means that to delete most porn performer articles, you need at least ten people who believe it's not suitable for Wikipedia. This isn't how discussions should work. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... or you need an admin willing to close correctly per V and BLP regardless of the numbers involved in whatever discussion happens. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've hit the nail on the head there. The idea seems to have taken hold at AfD, and among many admins, that notability is the only game in town. If WP:BLP policy (which insists on a high standard of verifiability) was understood to be more important than any notability guideline, as it is, then we wouldn't have the problem of articles about living people being kept when there are no reliable sources available with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - I was one of the "!deleters" and with good reason - The article did quite simply fail GNG and it shouldn't of been closed as NC at all. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, just to check, you all did notice that this article has actual sources, including a rather relevant interview about issues in the porn industry published in a mainstream location? To claim that there are "no sources" or WP:V isn't met is just plain false. The sources may not be up to WP:N's standards, but there are decent sources that one can reasonably argue do meet the requirements of WP:N and certainly meet WP:V. I feel like our porn discussions are basically a lot of people on both sides not actually caring about the actuality of the sources or article, just !voting to keep or delete because it is a porn article. Black Kite's comments about the keep !voter's is certainly true (and frankly, I strongly suspect some of those folks are paid editors), but the delete !voters are also generally coming from a fairly small group (though much larger than the keep !voters and I very much doubt _they_ are being paid). Hobit (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, my conclusion from this discussion is that very few voters cares about the policies, they just want the article to be deleted (or kept). And if I had closed it other way, they would accuse me in a supervote (this happened in the past as well). I will never ever close any porn AfD discussion again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anyone could blame you for that. I think this one could have been closed as delete, but NC was a reasonable reading. Welcome to the crossfire of someone else's war. Hobit (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reliable source cited in the article is The Daily Dot, and its coverage starts with the words "Porn star Karla Lane told the Daily Dot...", so the coverage is simply quoting her and is not independent. The only thing that it verifies is that Ms Lane said those words, not that those words are true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, it's the old question about if an interview counts as a RS for WP:N. And if you read out essays on the topic, the answer is "generally yes it does". And _this_ interview is about her experiences and opinions. At the very least we know what she's said are her experiences and opinions. And if you read the piece it is significantly more than a fluff interview. Plus there are other sources that, while not mainstream, are independent of the subject. And mainstream isn't a requirement for being a reliable source... Hobit (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources are characterised by a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Do you really believe that any of the other sources have such a reputation? They are promotional web sites for the porn industry, which have a reputation for peddling fantasy, especially when writing about individual performers, rather than fact. Our dear leader got it right when he compared the content of such sites to kayfabe. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not got the first clue if, XBiz or "the porn corporation" are RSes, though I'd tend to guess that they get things right in their field of interest. Do you have some knowledge otherwise, or are you just assuming because they cover porn, they are likely not reliable? And the Daily Dot is reliable. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• XBIZ certainly isn't; they're a component of a PR business which regularly hosts press releases and faux articles to promote their clients. Here, for example, are the press release originals for the two XBIZ "articles" used as references.[19][20] Not an RS, and certainly not independent. Just putting lipstick on the pig. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Any ideas on Porn Corporation? Hobit (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's your standard porn-promoting website making its money directing websurfers to pay sites. I really doubt that any "interview" asking questions like "What size are your beautiful juicy tits?" qualifies as an RS. And, since every post on the site seems to be credited to one "69violets", it's almost certainly a self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'm a bit loath to do research on such things from work for obvious reasons. Still, we have one solid source, so WP:V issues are met and SNG arguments are perfectly reasonable. So I stand by my endorse, though deletion would also have been a reasonable read of consensus. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interviews are good for basic info, as they are essentially WP:PRIMARY sources. We don't use memoirs and interview to source the careers of historical figures or business people. If we were to accept the Daily Dot source, we'd need to preface every sentence sourced from it as "According to Lane..." That would not fly in any other field; I see articles on business people routinely deleted if their bios are based on self-congratulatory interviews and puff pieces. I don't see why that would be different for adult entertainers. They are business people and should be treated as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You may want to check articles on sportspeople, 99% of which are only sourced to one page of sporting results, where an athlete's name is mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly right; it was recently noted in the discussion at Notability:People: We have statistics for that (...), and what they do show is that what are drowning other bios are not entertainment celebrities, but minor sport biographies, which constitute something like HALF of all bios created. If we want to tighten the criteria, we need to do something about that. --Piotrus. This seems to the issue of WP:NFOOTY and similar SNGs, but that's not the reason to keep articles of (minor) adult entertainment figures, per WP:Other stuff exists :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but this is actually a more general question about a relation between GNG, BLP, and specialized criteria. BLP is not an issue because whatever little info is in the article(s), it is (quasi-)reliable sourced. And the specialized criteria are there to make sure that even if the article currently does not pass GNG, i.e. there are no reliable sources demonstrating notability, it is still presumed, provided it passes a specialized criterion, be it PORNBIO or NSPORT, that such sources exist somewhere in reality and can be found and added to the article. Most of the AfD closers operate in this modality. There are two ways to improve the situation: either run an RfC and require that GNG should be met in any article irrespective of the specialized criteria (and then the specialized criteria are not needed at all, and 90% of our bio articles must be deleted), or to gradually improve the specialzed criteria. Dragging closures based on specialized criteria to DRV with random motivations is not the way to improve the situation. (Though with this particular article, it is indeed important that the award was later deleted as non-notable - though at the moment I closed this nomination I could not yet know it).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Akhter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After twenty-two days, the discussion had only one vote (delete) and a comment (pointing out irrelevant facts). The discussion should have been closed with a finding of deletion, or, at minimum, a sound explanation of why the nomination was inadequate. Three other editors (MSJapan—Lemongirl942—JJMC89) and I have asked the closer for an explanation (permalink), but none has been forthcoming. Rebbing 12:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What is at issue here is that the NAC apparently must have counted replies, and assumed a keep vote on the comment. Unfortunately, that's not how AfD works. To vote, one must explicitly do so, and we aren't supposed to be counting votes, but evaluating the quality of content. Moreover, in terms of quality of the rationales, a deletion rationale was given (twice), and no keep rationale was given. The editor seems to only relist articles dealing with India and Pakistan, and is not responding to anyone on their talk page. This is a problem. MSJapan (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish neutral. I disagree with MSJapan about the need to explicitly vote. We're not voting, we're engaging in a discussion. The fact that Fosterzone didn't format his/her comment in the traditional bolded word style, doesn't change the fact that it is an argument for keeping. It's not a very good argument (citing two sources which are clearly not in compliance with WP:RS), but if it's going to be ignored, it should be ignored on that basis, not because it's not an explicit vote. I probably would have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but I don't think NC is wrong. In any case, I think it unlikely that DRV is going to overturn a NC close to delete, so you'd probably do better just re-nominating it at AfD, if you feel that strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This could have easily been closed as delete - and I think most admins would have done so; I certainly would have - and so wasn't an appropriate non-admin closure. I read the closer's refusal even to acknowledge the questions on his talk page as tacit admission that the close isn't defensible, or at the very least that he's uncomfortable with it. And if you're doing administrative tasks, WP:ADMINACCT should apply to you, whether or not you actually have the bit. Overturn. —Cryptic 16:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with the part about WP:ADMINACCT. Refusing to respond to (multiple) reasonable talk page queries is completely inappropriate. I hadn't noticed that when I made my comment above. So, I'm striking my endorsement above, not because I think the NC decision is so out of line as to need overturning, but to indicate my displeasure with snubbing the queries. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically the outcome was that after 22 days of discussion only one user cared enough to !vote. In the circumstances, "No consensus to delete" with NPASR is within closer's discretion. Let's endorse but specifically say that a speedy renomination is permitted, as there is now reason to think there might be some actual participation in the discussion. I would specifically like to applaud this user for plucking up the courage to close instead of relisting yet again. AfD is clogged up with discussions that have been relisted because in 2016 so few people give a crap about actually commenting and looking for sources, but plenty of users are available to do quick, conflict-free, low-attention pseudoadministrative work such as relisting. I'm considering proposing a rule that says that for every AfD you relist, you should make a substantive comment in another.

  But with that said, the fact that the closer was unresponsive to talk page queries after reasonable time had expired is completely indefensible.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Beamking (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Need to restore any previous notices and/or discussion related to pages that were deleted under CSD or XFD in order to determine what degree of help/education to give this editor. Recommend un-deleting/history-merging with current version of the page, adding deletion-related discussions to current revision, then revision-deleting all versions prior to 10:51, 28 August 2016‎ to protect the editor's intent (there is no need to make the previous contents of that page public except with respect to deletion-related material). Recommend at least two administrators concur before un-deleting. Note that there is a recently-created article by this editor at XfD. Also: I did not attempt to notify Bearian as he is on WikiBreak. I will leave a note on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be restored outright. The user was only able to get his talk page deleted by making a promise not to edit with that account; he's broken that.
  The deletion-related revisions were the twinkle notifications from these two taggings of Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited. —Cryptic 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beamking: If you previously promised to not edit with this account and your recent use of that account was due to forgetfulness, I recommend you ask that an administrator block the account so that you do not accidentally edit with it again. If you promised to not use this account but you now intend on resuming editing with that account, I recommend that you get in touch with the administrator that you previously made the promise to and see if it is okay. If your previous behavior would have earned you a block or other sanction, you may have to accept that sanction as a condition before you resume editing. If not, then you will at least need to accept that anything that was done for you based on that promise may be un-done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic: Thank you. I requested revision-deletion of the 3 affected versions of the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll go along with the consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side to Side (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please see the talk page of Side to Side (song) for a more expanded discussion, but generally this topic is now notable enough to warrant an article, and it has already received an understandable consensus that the article should be recreated by users. Here's a snippet of what I said on that talk page:

"This song is notable, as I stated plenty of times before, because it already meets the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. It is true that this article does not HAVE to be created, but I have recreated this article not only because it's notable per WP:NSONG, but it's also because I wanted to simply contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. Let's take a look at the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. This song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," as clearly seen through the 20 or so reliable sources in the article that I recreated (this edit). There's actually about 262,000 news results that show up on Google News with the search query "Side to Side Ariana Grande ft. Nicki Minaj" Also, because this song is now a single as of August 30, (Archived Source) it has become more widely known than when the song was only part of the album in May. A music video has been released on August 29 that has since almost received over 35 million streams on YouTube. This song was performed at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards for the first televised time on August 28. An extremely vital factor of why this article should be recreated is because the single "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." (WP:NSONG). The song has charted in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and was #1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. In fact, just recently the song has charted at #1 on the New Zealand Heatseekers Chart for the week of September 5. (Chart here) Why isn't the topic notable for an article, now that we know the song is recharting in multiple countries because of the single release? I've created some lesser-known songs' articles where there were only about 2-5 charts that the song has charted on, and I know that's enough to warrant a new article (Some articles include You & Me (Marc E. Bassy song), Alarm (Anne-Marie song), Hurts So Good (Astrid S song), among others). —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

The song has since then recharted in many countries, including the UK, Scotland, France, etc. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. I closed the AfD. I have no particular opinion on the outcome here, but do want to comment on how to put forth a good argument. The nomination above is very hard to read. Partly because it's a big block of text, but also partly because it wanders around in a confusing mix of introducing new data, re-hashing old arguments, and meaningless puffery. I think what you're trying to argue is that since the AfD, new events have happened. Teasing apart the blob of text, I think that boils down to:

1. This song is now a single as of August 30
2. A music video has been released on August 29
3. This song was performed at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards on August 28.
4. The song has charted in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom
5. It is #1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles.
6. It is #1 on the New Zealand Heatseekers Chart for the week of September 5.

Now, at least, somebody can look at this and quickly see what has changed since the AfD. They may or may not agree that this is enough to change the consensus, but at least you've made their jobs easier. Like I said, I have no opinion on the outcome. I'm just taking advantage of a teachable moment to hopefully improve the quality of DRV nominations. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no comment on merits on the content and simply admin'ing the decision, but will note that a proper title should be decided here if it is restored. If it changes later, so be it, but we have two titles to choose from, Side to Side and Side to Side (song). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was already consensus on Talk:Side to Side (song) to move that article to Side to Side (disregarding the notability discussion). Plus, there is no reason to disambiguate since Side to Side currently redirects to Dangerous Woman (album). —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against you, I'm just trying to make sure all questions are answered here and it was still an open discussion when it came here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An extremely vital factor of why this article should be recreated? Seriously? It's a disposable pop track. Take a stress pill.

  Anyway, firstly, we should endorse the original closure which was in accordance with the consensus and facts at the time. Things have changed a bit since. Reasonable people might disagree about whether they've changed enough, but the original closure was fine.

  Second, okay, it's verifiably a single now, it's verifiably charted in some fairly obscure charts, it arguably passes NSONGS. It's not outrageously wrong to turn it from a redirect to the album into a stub which links to the album. SomeoneNamedDerek is clearly passionate about the subject. If we work with him and let him write this, then maybe his next article will be one of the redlinks we need filling in. Flora of Europe. Indonesian Art. You never know!

  Thirdly, someone typing "side to side" in the search box is probably not looking for a pop single. They're probably an ESL speaker looking for side-to-side the idiom, which Wikipedia rightly doesn't cover and Wiktionary rightly does at wikt:side-to-side. So what should actually happen is the creation of a disambiguation page at Side to side which includes a soft redirect to Wiktionary or the article about the song. The article about the song does belong at Side to Side (song).

  Hope this is helpful and makes sense; I was interrupted several times while composing it and it may be less coherent than I'd like.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the language that I used in that quoted section; I was simply annoyed that the article was previously AfD'ed even though it passed WP:NSONG. Regarding your third point about disambiguation of Side to Side, I do not think Side to Side should be turned into a disambiguation page at the time being as there is only one "topic" on Wikipedia that covers the query "Side to Side", that being Ariana Grande's song. Perhaps in Side to Side, Template:Wiktionary could be included, but that's really not necessary and probably stretching it. Here's a few examples:

1. Beat It isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Michael Jackson's song, but it does have an entry wikt:beat it on Wiktionary.

2. Appears isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Ayumi Hamasaki's song, but it does have a short entry wikt:appears on Wiktionary.

3. Acércate isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Ivy Queen's song, but it does have a short entry wikt:acércate on Wiktionary.

4. Cherry Pop isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Alexandra Stan's song, but it does have an entry wikt:cherry-pop on Wiktionary.

5. She Wolf isn't a disambiguation page, but it does have an entry wikt:she-wolf on Wiktionary. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Annoyed Overturn. Now that the song is a single and has charted, it looks like the situation has changed since the AFD. I don't get why some users insist on bringing songs by major artists to AFD when sources exist, it just seems like a waste of time. At least clear out all the garage bands and the unsigned "up-and-coming" types first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, bureaucracy at its best. And {{trout}} the bureaucarts please. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is absolutely waste of time. Some users just need to calm their butt down and do something else here on this encyclopedia, instead of questioning the article for an official single by a major international artist. Do your Google, tons of sources there for this song! Bluesatellite (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have made my case clear in this instance and previous instances - the consensus was to Redirect the song (which had at least 6 different pages/titles). Redirect, not delete (although, we don't need 6 of the same, so 5 of them should be deleted). Two days later, when yet another person came by and tried to edit the redirect, I invoked the original redirect consensus. Which is where I still stand. Enforce the original consensus (which is barely a week old). Revisit the idea in the future. Not tomorrow. Not next week. The future. I vote to keep Side to Side (Ariana Grande song) as a redirect and to delete the rest. And I believe an edit block would be appropriate to prevent someone from trying to write an article in a few days. Kellymoat (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my case clear as well - there is no reason why there shouldn't be an article on Ariana Grande's new single. If it meets WP:NSONG, it's enough for an article to be created. This topic meets 2 of the 3 factors listed in WP:NSONG (Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups). It has a sufficient number of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Therefore, an article can be created on Side to Side. You haven't given a valid reason why there shouldn't be an article on the topic, or why the topic is not notable enough to warrant an article per WP:NSONG. We should really be worrying about unsigned and unnotable artists, albums, and song pages that currently have an article on Wikipedia and are left unnoticed, as suggested by Andrew Lenahan. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn @Kellymoat:, why are you targeting this page? A page for this article should be created, it is notable it has begun charting in numerous countries such as Australia and New Zealand, will debut in the coming weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100, a high-profile performance and a music video also add to its notability. Why don't you find other pages that do not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability? You are specifically targeting this page because you don't want it here. Why is it that a page devoted to There's a Girl a song that did not chart on any music chart, is not well known - evident by the two sentences on the article's page even exist on Wikipedia? Why don't you remove pages that actually fail to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia, without targeting pages that don't actually need to be deleted. I firmly stand by my vote that there should be a page for "Side to Side" by Ariana Grande. It's ridiculous that there is even a discussion taking place over the creation of a page for a song that is quite popular. (43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

So, what you are saying is that my opinion doesn't matter? Even though it may not even be my opinion, it is the result of a previous vote. By the way, I hope you know the rules regarding sockpuppets. Kellymoat (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not a sockpuppet, my IP address changes all the time, I am the same user. I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter, I asked you why you are targeting this page, what is so bad about this page that you want it removed? Like I said, there are pages like the one I mentioned above that need to be looked at not "Side to Side". (43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Have you nominated that page for deletion? Of course not. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention that you did not nominate it for deletion. Sorry, the song was previously voted on. I voted here. There is nothing more to say on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I brought attention to it doesn't mean I need to be the one to nominate it for deletion, it was an example to show that a page for "Side to Side" should be created. A brief look at your talk page shows these two messages posted by another user, "Please do something meaningful to Ariana Grande project, not just destroying" and "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Side to Side." While I still do not understand why you are targeting this page, those comments do give some insight to any user as to why you might be doing this. This is not an article to be targeted, there are other articles that should be looked at.

(43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, well, now I have to respond - because you have called into question the validity of my edits based on comments left by others.

It is really quite simple. Both of the comments that you quoted were from the same user, U990467. Who happens to be one of the users that SomeoneNamedDerek requested to come and vote because he knew he would vote in favor of the page. A user who, I may add, is trying to get Ariana Grande nominated for "best of WP". HOWEVER, what you failed to bring up in your failed attempt to discredit me is this - "I didn't disrupt anything. In fact, the opposite is true - you did. "Side to Side" (and the half-dozen pages with variations of the same title) had an open discussion/vote for how to handle it. It was decided that we redirect to the album page." Nor did you bring up this - "Please note, you have had this same conversation with others this morning, all of which told you the same thing that I said. Also, the page(s) in question has been taken back to my version, and has been page protected for a year requiring admin permission to edit."

Sorry, but, even though he was quick to send out a baseless warning (which makes me look bad), admins locked the page to prevent him (and others) from editing the page against consensus. They didn't block me from editing. They didn't revert it to his edit. They locked two of the six Side to Side pages. A third one has since been locked. So, really, this entire discussion that you bought up to question the validity of edits has just added extra weight to the things I have said -- We have already voted on the song. Redirect it to the album.

Kellymoat (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand what you're saying but I'm confused over why this page was deleted in the first place. It was clearly visible from the start that the song would become notable, a performance and a music video came out on the same day and the song began rising on digital music store charts around the world. Your initial request on another discussion to redirect the page was too soon, it's like me opening a discussion on the page of Sia's new song (that came out today) and requesting the page's content be deleted and redirected, it's clear that you were way "too soon" in regards to "Side to Side" and that is why the decision should be overturned. (58.164.107.247 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, it is based on factual events of the past. It is not a fortune teller. It cannot predict the future. A non-notable article shouldn't be allowed to exist in hopes that someday it becomes notable. In your example, the Sia song should be deleted because it is not notable. However, I'd like to point out, that you are talking about me as if I am the sole individual making decisions - I am not (and if I was, the issue would have been closed long ago). A consensus vote of 'not notable' on "Side to Side" that occurs under one title variation can easily be applied to another title variation. So while you are accusing me of being too quick to judge on one instance, you are neglecting the previous instances where those decisions were made. If memory serves, my initial vote was to delete. But the consensus was to redirect. Since then, that is all I have been saying "consensus is to redirect".

If it becomes a page, I am going to edit it the same as I edit other pages. Until the consensus to redirect is overturned, I consider it policy to redirect the song.

Kellymoat (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is you were way too soon, you didn't even wait a week when chart entries are released. I know you're not the only one but you're one of those people that has decided to come here to this new discussion so I'm talking to you, I'm not talking to anyone else. It is clear now that the song is notable, there are many news articles discussing the song, the song has begun charting again such as here in Australia and in neighbouring New Zealand so it's notable. "Someday it becomes notable" what are you talking about, it's notable at this current moment, is it not? It's very silly that the page was deleted in the first place and like I said you shouldn't have supported its deletion/redirection if you didn't really know about it (clearly evident by the fact that you're saying it's not notable), this is a prime example of overzealous deletion. (58.164.107.247 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just to add on, I hope you realize @Kellymoat: that the song was actually notable enough to warrant an article even before the AfD. Even though the article that was put up for AfD at Side to Side had minimal sources and didn't actually have a charts section, the song had already charted in many countries as part of the album release back in May 2016. The song is beginning to rechart again in many countries due to the release of the single and popularity after being performed at the VMAs. In the recent AfD, you mentioned that "if it becomes the biggest song ever, we can revist the idea of having a page." It doesn't need to be the biggest song ever to have an article created on the subject. No where in WP:NSONG does it say that a song must be #1 in a country for the song to be notable enough for an article to be created. You seem to ignore me throughout this discussion - PLEASE tell me why this song isn't notable NOW (That is, September 6, 2016). You keep on referring back to the AfD, which was on August 29. This deletion review is supposed to look at the changing events after it was marked to be redirected. Why isn't the song notable for an article to be created? Your vote is invalid if you cannot refute that this song is notable now. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- at the time, the close correctly reflected consensus so I'm not going to criticise the closing admin. If the situation has changed since the article can be re-created. Reyk _YO! 07:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation the closure was correct at that time. The song is now clearly notable. I guess most editors voting "Overturn" above are simply unfamiliar with DRV terminology and do not mean to criticise the original closure. SSTflyer 10:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on title: I support having the article at Side to Side, and take care of readers looking for a dictionary entry with a {{See wt}} hatnote. SSTflyer 12:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-create page without spending more time quibbling over the AfD/DRV terminology. I agree that this sort of XfD nomination, where the subject may not yet be notable but is highly likely to be within a week or two, are often unproductive. No opinion on the pagename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As this discussion continues to drag on, note that Side to Side debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at #31. So can this be closed now and allow article recreation? It's going to start to rechart in many countries at a fast pace. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think so, but it might be best of an uninvolved administrator were to close this discussion first. I'd do it myself, but I've already commented, so someone might claim I'm biased, even though I've never heard this song in my life. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Corner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Soumen491 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Deletion review Priscillacorner Wikipedia page[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close, literally no reason given to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)-Soumen491 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) we can have a more discussions on these subject so better sense prevail[reply]

Let it open for more discussions not closed

• Endorse- No reason given for overturning. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Soumen491 (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Endorse but I think let's give it one shot more for it[reply]

Lloyd Greif (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'd like this article to be restored and moved to user space, if not kept in main space. I would like editors at WikiProject Finance to have a chance to look at it, as the administrator closed it only two hours after they had been notified by another editor (and thus were given no chance to look at it). In the AFD, there were five Keeps, five Deletes and three Userfys. Thus if you take into account the Keeps plus Userfys, it makes sense to move it to userspace (ideally User:Zigzig20s/Lloyd Greif), at the very least. Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned in my AfD close, this was a close call and I have no investment in the outcome. I have no objection to moving this to user space. I did not do that myself, partly because the request for that got lost in the noise, and partly because having the full review is not a bad thing. I'd rather be overturned in broad daylight than bury this by quietly userfying the page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith: I think it's completely unnecessary to drag this on. If you just move it to userspace, WP Finance can take a look and we can try to find more sources. This whole episode has been excruciating and I wish it could end right now because I have been feeling extremely unwanted and undervalued since this began.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved this to User:Zigzig20s/Lloyd Greif, which I see you've already discovered. Please understand that much of this confusion would have been eliminated if you had simply come out and asked for exactly what you wanted, and bypassed all the extraneous stuff about who's friends with who, HIllary Clinton, accusing people of harassment, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, as nothing remains to be done.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Y. Wilson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted with the contention that Wilson is not notable as one of many general leaders of a multi-million member worldwide Church because he had only received sufficient coverage in the Deseret News. It was argued that the Deseret News is not an independant source. Since then, the argument has been made that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The Deseret News and LDS Church News have since been determined to be sufficiently independent of the LDS Church. Additionally, on August 1 of this year, keeping with the Church's practice of rotating responsibility, Kent F. Richards was succeeded by Wilson as the executive director of the Church Temple Department, a position that puts him in direct responsibility within the Church for all temple-related developments. But here's the kicker: Wilson's new assignment, though later confirmed by the Church, was originally posted in an independent Philly newspaper that is about as far away from being biased towards the LDS Church as anyone can get.

Click here to read that article. There may be some who complain that this article isn't about Wilson. I want it clear that I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that a sentence in this article makes reference to Wilson and his position in the LDS Church. That's in the third paragraph down, midway through the first line. All these facts combine, in my mind, to prove the fact that Wilson has been referred to as notable by a source completely independent of the LDS Church. For these reasons, I would like to see the article restored. Either that, or I would like it restored to my user name space so I can work on getting it fully compliant with GN guidelines. And yes, before you ask, I did take this up with the admin that closed the deletion discussion. He said I would need to post here about this for the situation to be addressed. That being said,thanks for taking time to read and vote on this. I appreciate my Wikipedia editorship and just want to ensure that this article can have a chance to come back. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, meh to userfication There are two arguments being made here. First, that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. From their about page, they are, Owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely that disqualifies them as being independent. Yes, I know there have been arguments that even though they are owned by the LDS, the navigate an independent editorial course. I don't buy that argument. They say their mission is to be a leading news brand for faith [...] oriented audiences. That doesn't sound independent to me. The second argument is that mentioning somebody's name in an article (i.e. the philly.com source) establishes notability. It does not. That's what we call a passing mention, as opposed to significant coverage. I have no particular objection to userfication, but the problem identified during the AfD was not that that the article was badly written, but that there weren't sufficient independent sources. What you need to be doing is researching better sources, and not having the old text shouldn't be a blocker for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the argument put forward for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I don't think [21] changes this - yes it's a reliable independent source, but it isn't significant coverage of the subject. He's quoted a few times on the subject of LDS temples. Actual coverage of the subject himself is limited to stating his job title, which is not significant. I don't agree with the view that Deseret News is independent of the subject, as the subject occupies a senior position in the organisation which owns the newspaper. The citations in question were actually to Church News, a supplement dedicated entirely to the LDS church, which "reinforces the church message" according to our article. My views on userfication are similar to RoySmith's and I would advise looking for better sources rather than trying to rewrite the content. Hut 8.5 13:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd likely have !voted to keep as I think that the Deseret News is independent enough for purposes of meeting WP:N (any local paper there would be covering him IMO) if not for getting controversial material. But the opinion that it's not independent enough is reasonable and the coverage that is clearly independent isn't as in-depth as many think is needed. The consensus was for deletion based on reasonable policy-based arguments, so no real choice but to endorse. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's unlikely that we would want to overturn the decision and restore the removed content. But we also wouldn't normally see a two-year-old decision as an obstacle to creating an article when the person has received a significant promotion in the meantime. I recommend that you ensure that you have genuinely, properly independent sources (note plural) linked from the article before you re-create it.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The nominator is incorrect in saying that Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. No policy or guideline says that. Some LDS officials' articles have been kept or closed as no consensus...and others have been deleted. IMO, the deletion of those articles is the correct move: Deseret News is (indirectly) owned by the LDS Church and has policies that pledge to toe the LDS line. It is clearly a paper that attempts to promote the activities of Mormons, and lacks the independence to properly assess whether or not they are notable. Furthermore, I'd note that while Wilson is quoted in the article, the article doesn't really say much, if anything, about him per se. The nominator fails to make an argument why the original AfD was flawed; the Mormon church simply being big doesn't exempt mid-level officials from GNG. pbp 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think this is one of those occasions when our notability guidelines hinder building the encyclopedia rather than help. However, people at AFD are fully entitled to acquiesce in the face of poor guidelines, or treat them as firm rules, or interpret the subjective criteria in a way that limits our range of articles. I think the close was (well) within discretion though I'd have accepted no consensus as well. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly not going to defend our byzantine set of rules as being perfect. We, do, however, have the WP:IAR trump card. I reject the argument that Deseret News is independent. I also reject the argument that the passing mention in philly.com counts for anything. If one wanted to go there, a stronger argument, IMHO, for keeping this, would be, I know these sources don't meet our rules, but let me explain why we should have this article anyway.... I'm not arguing that, I just pointing out that such an avenue for argument exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

• Overturn I think this is an overuse of "independent". The subject is not the LDS, but this particular individual, and it is independent of him. (I would of course regard the newsletter of a particular local congregation not independent of the head of that congregation, but to carry it this dar is like refusing to use Catholic sources for notable catholics. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think what you're saying about source independence goes to far in the other direction. If an article is about an LDS official or an LDS entity, its subject is indeed the LDS. Theoretically, you're advocating something where any LDS official (or any other LDS topic) could be sourced only with the Deseret News or other sources connected with the LDS church. As for Catholicism, particularly recent Catholicism, I feel the same way: Catholic leaders need sources independent of the Catholic Church. pbp 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LDS sources do not necessarily prove that a person connected with that church is notable, but they do at the very least prove that someone has a particular position in the church. If there is a presumption that everyone in that position is notable. I think there is or should be that presumption here. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we here, again? I think I just read an argument that the reason for the original deletion in 2014 no longer applied, and/or that the subject has received more coverage. If so, just go make a new article (Userify->Draft->mainspace) which addresses and resolves the original AfD, no DRV needed. I agree with DGG that the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of this article subject to be used as an RS in a BLP, FWIW, but I don't think that 1) DRV is necessary, or that 2) overturning a 2014 AfD decision is needed before re-creating an article with 2 years of further coverage. Jclemens (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, and my "endorse" above is merely to say I think the AFD was closed properly and I was not implying we shouldn't have an article. The reason we are here is that the nominator very properly asked the deleting admin for undeletion and was directed here.[22] So, if I had been misunderstanding what we are being asked for, I would allow userification. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme be fully above-board about this: if the DRV is close as endorse/no consensus/userfy but the article is still recreated, I will again AfD it. I believe the only course defensible in policy is that it should be deleted and stay that way. The only difference between when it was deleted, PROPERLY, and now is that there's an article that quotes him but doesn't really describe him. Deseret News wasn't independent of LDS leadership in 2014 (as RoySmith notes above, they freely admit to being a cheerleader for the LDS) and it's still not now. Reliability is a red herring in this case, as it is a different issue from independence. pbp 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semil Shah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At User talk:Drmies#Reaching the decision at the Semil Shah AfD, the closing administrator declined to "transparently explain how the decision was reached."  Please undelete for review as there are sources in the article.  A quick analysis of the !vote count shows that there was a split between WP:DEL8 and WP:DEL14, and a keep !vote.  I think this is a fairly easy review to relist, although I also suggest attention to the point that it is important for all AfDs to know the WP:DEL-REASON, to know if the deletion was a notability deletion, or if the deletion also had content criteria.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an incredibly clear AfD, and Unscintillating's insistence on being explained the obvious is close to harassment. I invite anyone to look at the AfD, and then to look at Unscintillating's comments on my talk page; feel free to peruse the archives as well. Then, look at Unscintillating's keep votes, what they consider reliable sources, and how they think notability is established. It's a volatile mix of disruption and incompetence, and I'm not playing their game anymore. In the meantime I'll restore the article, gladly, for y'all. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It was deleted for both reasons - the individual fails the appropriate notability guideline, abjectly, and the article is transparent spam. Did you even look at the article, or its sources, or the afd? —Cryptic 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no other way this could have been closed. I could understand asking the closing admin to clarify a close if it's a contentious close call, but this one was extremely clear-cut. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus was clear, and in accordance with policies and guidelines. The stated goal of companies like S&P Capital IQ (main source for the deleted article) is to comprehensively and indiscriminately crank out a profile of every single senior corporate executive under the sun. Such an indiscriminate directory listing cannot confer notability on Wikipedia, unless there is consensus that all senior corporate executives are notable. Such consensus simply does not exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]