Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April

File:Photo Permission Sherman - Ron Horii.pdf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file has been deleted by Bibliomaniac15 as unencyclopedic, but it is an informal permission for use the file File:Sherman_with paddle wheel cropped.jpg (now transferred to Commons), where the file description contains the link to the original file; the user has been not notified for the deletion, and nobody told the user the permissions should be addressed via OTRS! Now, the file has been nominated for deletion at Commons, and as this file contains permission, may be necessary to be undeleted (and transferred to Commons if necessary). Amitie 10g (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented at the Commons deletion request pointing this out and offering to provide a copy of the file if necessary. Hut 8.5 06:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize now I deleted this pdf without realizing that it was connected to the photo that has now been transferred to Commons, since there was no link to the image file. bibliomaniac15 08:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this relate to https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sherman_with_paddle_wheel_cropped.jpg --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. That should have been sent to OTRS, not uploaded as a PDF. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines Flight 779 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Alaska Airlines Flight 779-the old copy should have been deleted: it was crappy, did not follow basic guidelines for formatting an aircraft accident article. (old article here-http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM) The old one was deleted on grounds of notability, as there was confusion about id the people killed in the crash were military of civilian. (They were civilian employees of Alaska Airlines) The crash involved hull loss, killed all occupants on board, and started a precedent for changes in runway lighting laws (The aircraft was landing legally at the time, but the circumstances of the today would be illegal.) The cause of the crash was not the usual case of blatant pilot error, hence it is notable given the current correct information.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original AfD was 4 years ago, I think another afD should be held. L3X1 (distant write) 19:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bilcat was contacted, and G4 tag was removed per CSD:G4 L3X1 (distant write) 19:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot Second AfD has been started. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russell Reyes is famous enough. He deserves to have a wikipedia page just like his band co-members Niel Murillo and Joao Constancia. Yesterday on twitter, he was the no.1 trending in the Philippines. Please think over your decision. He is also the BPH member who got the highest score from the judges and text votes. Even Lea Salonga was amazed by his talent. If his band co-members can be on wikipedia then why can't he? Also, I don't understand why would someone request to delete Russell Reyes' article but be fine with Niel Murillo's and Joao Constancia's articles. I need an explanation. Thank you. Bphfangirl7 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect. First, he gets only passing mentions in the press, and is always connected to BPH, so the redirect make sense. Second, Twitter ratings are not considered a standard for judging notability. Third, same with votes, Notability is different from popularity to a degree. (Not always so) If his band co-members have indepednent articles about them in the press, such as would conform to either the WP:GNG or standard notability (not to mention muscian's notability guidelines, they can have their own articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. IMO, Murillo and Constancia should be redirected to the band article as well, they're non-notable outside it as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The band as a whole is notable and has received articles from reliable sources such as the Manilla Times. But with six band members, it is difficult for band members to get in-depth news stories about them. That is a problem when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's notability rules. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (people). Knox490 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Admittedly minimal discussion, especially noting one SPA who should not be counted, but the arguments are sound and compelling. The members are not individually notable, what makes them notable is common to the band, the article on the band can be expanded to include information on the members. WP:BIO1E applies to them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Russell Reyes is a famous musician in the Philippines. His fan says he trended #1 on Twitter recently. This is a case of Wikipedia:Too Soon. Wikipedia should expand the coverage of Reyes in the Boyband PH article until he has enough reliable and independent sources covering him. The material in the Russell Reyes article can be used for this. Joao Constancia and Niel Murillo should also be merged into this article.desmay (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative note. For folks who are commenting here, your comments are welcome, but please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review to understand our jargon. When you say, Endorse, you're saying, The original AfD decision should stand. I see a couple of places above where people said, Endorse deletion, which is confusing because the original AfD was closed as Redirect. Whoever closes this DRV will have a hard time figuring out exactly what it is you are arguing for. If you think the redirect should stand, you want to say, Endorse. If you think the article should have been deleted without a redirect, then you want to say, Overturn to delete. It would be useful if people could go back and update their comments to make their positions clear. I myself offer no opinion in this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – thin participation, but reasonable outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Let the redirect stand. Thin coverage.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This particular band member, as well as the other band members, should have one article that is about the band because that is the one thing they all have in common. Each band member does not have significant content outside the band to have separate articles. It would be best to simply redirect this article to the band's article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food Future, Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unable to engage in conversation as to why the page was deleted. After suggestions were made the page was deleted without applying suggestions. I am affiliated with the company but am actively trying to get the page re-instated so that I can provide sources for an admin or other editor to review so that they can update the page as they see fit. After my suggestions were made the page was deleted. Sgj 524 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. It was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Future, Inc., which didn't have a lot of participation but was unanimous. It is STRONGLY suggested not to directly edit articles on any company you work for or are otherwise compensated by, as it would represent a serious conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Looking atthe now-deleted article, perhaps part of the reason for the limited participation was that the case for deletion was so obvious, given the overtly promotional nature of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD closure. Not much participation, but it was sufficient to delete under our guidelines. I can't see the article, but based on the conversation and the comments here, I doubt it would affect my comment here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Afd closure with recommendation for User:Sgj 524

I was looking at the Food Future Inc. article at deleted wiki.. The main reason why the article was deleted was its lack of reliable third-party sources. I suggest looking at these two Wikipedia pages: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Judging from the article at deleted wiki, it appears as if your company does important work and has a good management team. After your company has the necessary reliable third-party sources reporting on it and it meets the notability requirements, your company should be able to have a Wikipedia article. Your company was founded in 2015. If your company keeps plugging away and gets press from reliable sources about your achievements, it will make things much easier to have a Wikipedia article about your company. Right now, it seems as if this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Knox490 (talk)

• Endorse AfD closure. Article does meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. desmay (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review examines failure to correctly follow deletion process; it is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Concurs with Andrew Lenahan.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article did not provide significant content about the company and failed to provide reliable third-party sources. Instead of being an informational article, it seemed more like a promotional article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree with the admin's decision to delete this article. While the closing admin believes that there are not enough sources for Gorny to pass WP:GNG, I disagree. Several good sources exist about Gorny ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). WP:GNG does not require that subjects have many sources covering them. They just have to be reliable, not connected to the subject, and have the subject as their main focus. Some of the sources used may not have met the criteria, but these do. One could argue that Gorny is borderline GNG, but he is GNG nonetheless, and it would not do any service to readers to have his article deleted and have zero mention of him on Wikipedia considering his notability and considerable accomplishments. It should also be noted that in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 17, Gorny's article was restored after another deletion attempt. I believe this AfD should be overturned to keep. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The consensus formed at the AfD, which just closed earlier, was the exact opposite of the conclusion made by the closing admin. Some editors pointed out that a few of the votes were likely a result of meatpuppetry, thus further decreasing the number of “actual” delete entries. As I mentioned at the AfD, Tomas Gorny has 8,120 Google hits—this alone demonstrates that he passes WP:N.--Jobas (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I didn't vote, and don't see any supervotes, so it should have been closed as NC or keep. L3X1 (distant write) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully understand the delete close. The sources are pretty poor and [6] is, IMO, the best of them (I think interviews by significant sources are good indications of notability). But I think it's debatable and that's just not the direction the discussion went. It's not an open-and-shut case for notability, so counting noses matters. Even if you ignore the few users who appeared to return from a wikibreak just to comment in the AfD, I just don't think you can find a consensus for deletion. overturn to NC which I think was the view of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think, based on what all has been transpiring around this article and the multiple DRVs here, that there's clearly some advocacy, paid or not, going on here. Having said that, advocacy is not a reason to fail to follow our policies. That was a bad delete close. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hobit, I counted arguments as well as votes, but the arguments won. Jclemens, I didn't delete it for advocacy reasons. Here's what I said in response to the editor who disagreed, on my talk page: "it's not a vote count: as I noted, many of the "keep" votes didn't present evidence, only statements. That Entrepreneur article was brought up. The sourcing is a lot thinner than you suggest, as was argued well in that AfD." Drmies (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. But IMO the case for meeting the GNG is a close one (as you know, I lean toward inclusion so perhaps am a bit more likely to see the GNG being met) and so numbers and arguments matter. The deletion arguments focused on either promotional issues or the GNG. Keep !votes were largely GNG and "just notable". Only the GNG arguments were strong enough to be heavily weighted. And at that point we had a split (leaning keep). I just can't get to delete from that discussion. Though honestly I might well have !voted to delete here (it's a close thing--even the good sources feel like PR spam). Hobit (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear Hobit, I know where you stand, and you know I frequently wave at you from the other side, which is sometimes really close. The comments on the (what I call) "thinness" of the sources is what brought me over to the side of deletion. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as absolutely sufficient delete in considerations to past promotionalism and then the current defense of somehow tolerating it, all of which is sufficient in policy-base, usable anytime. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I am not sure if I can vote here since I voted in the deletion discussion, but I would vote to overturn and keep. I don't think there was a clear consensus to delete. If anything, it was clear that the consensus was, at the very least, "No consensus" and that the discussion was closed with a unilateral delete decision. To be fair, I am not sure what the protocol is for closing deletion discussions either, but it would seem that if an admin had been favorable to keeping the article, it would have stayed. I know a lot of thought and consideration probably went into the decision, but the same amount of thought and consideration could have reasonably gone into a "Keep" or "No consensus" decision from a different admin. In other words, the decision was subjective (and maybe a bit hasty). Users left plenty of detailed, substantial arguments in support of keeping the article, and I know that mine may have been entirely overlooked because the discussion was closed soon after I posted it. All I'm saying is, this discussion was at least a "No consensus." Gargleafg (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Endorse. A very tough call. Would have been more easily defended as a "no consensus". Arguments are weak on both sides. The closer risks WP:Supervote by engaging directly in source analysis. I agree, source analysis reveals the superficially good sources are promotion. On the other hand, thepromotion is not blatant. I am reminded again that Wikipedia is not good for covering current business. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD was rife with problems not least of which was as Coffee noted in his relist pretty clearly some form of canvassing that all but necessitated the closer to engage in an analysis and weighting of arguments that includes evaluating the claims of the arguments. Drmies evaluated and discounted arguments on both sides, and explained as much in his close. This was a difficult close that probably could have justified any number of outcomes as being within the closer's discretion. Drmies used his in this case, and I think it was a good close for a difficult case. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, or else, what was the point of a discussion? It is undisputed that the person has done some notable things, and the argument is only about how good the sources are in support of the facts. Everyone seems to agree, some are better than others. If there's a line this is on, let's err in favor of being more informative. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the closer essentially had two options: delete and no consensus. Choosing the easy option of no consensus would have just been kicking the can down the road, to an inevitable 5th AFD in a couple of months, and likely a bunch of promotional shenanigans once again (see this for a sock farm discovered during the AFD, for example). Both options would likely have the same eventual result, and one would waste a lot more of editors' time. I can't say the close was incorrect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But aren't there in fact more than just two options? Seems to me a number of creative alternatives could have been come to. Or the finding could have been "keep" with "no consensus" as the compromise position. Kicking the can down the road with no consensus can be effective if it's to be expected that more sources will develop, as seems sure here. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist At the previous afd to this I commented "Rewrite" -- there is sufficient notability, but the article was extremely promotional--as have been a number of related articles. Despite the comments that it was unfixable, the most recent version however was adequately rewritten. It is quite rare that I defend an article written with any degree of promotional intent, and extremely rare that I disagree with the closer, but I don't think the close adequate reflected the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as AfD nominator). This debate reminds me of a similar discussion on E3 Media; after several AfDs and a deletion review, the article was ultimately deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 1#E3 Media. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - The discussion was in no way inclining to a delete as suggested by the closing editor and other editors above who decipher the same from that discussion. It is also worth mentioning that sources like the Chicago Tribune, Forbes, Huffington Post and the Business Insider are WP:RS and they are good enough to establish notability for the subject in question. Seems the person deleting forced a compromise on what was a neutral position between those who wanted the article deleted and those who believed it should be kept as per policy. I also think it is not good practice to compare a deletion or keep discussion of another article, editors should scrutinize each discussion on merits and facts otherwise that is a dangerous path to take. The person who made the last changes that led to the AFD stated his reasons just as an example "... As a former professional in the hosting technology space..." as rationale of the information he added which is against policy thus reinstating this up to the time when editors agreed the content of the article was right is the right road to take here. TushiTalk To Me 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse--Starblind put it beautifully!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per Starblind, and the fact that the sources are sub-standard and many of the Keep rationales are worse (as are some of the "Overturn" rationales here that appear to think that consensus = vote counting - it isn't). Excellent close. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Starblind's argument, that it should be delete because a non-consensus would cause a 5th AfD, is faulty. The subject was at Deletion Review in September. There, the 3rd AFD and salting was overturned because it was ruled that it meet GNG (see https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_17 ). The 4th AfD ruled delete because it did not meet GNG even though the debate was very non-consensus. Obviously, there's still no consensus now. IMO, people are pissed off at this guy because he's canvasing, self-promoting, sockpuppeting, and a host of other things; which is causing the opposition to be vigilant and determined. Good job on the opposition but deleting a subject who meets GNG isn't the right course of action -- no matter how annoying he is. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not ruled that the article met GNG at the previous deletion review - all that was decided was that the draft was sufficiently different from the previous deleted version so that CSD#G4 did not apply. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - for the solid policy-based reasons given by the closer, which at the time of this posting have yet to be convincingly challenged in the responses above. Simply put: the available sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG. I've never heard of Gorny, but after seeing an editor protest the close decision (on the closer's Talk page) because "the "keep" !votes vastly outnumbered the "delete", I was motivated to review the subject and comment. Consensus isn't determined by votes; it isn't a head-count, as the lead paragraph of our policy makes clear - but some people just do not get it. Then I come here and again see "... further decreasing the number of “actual” delete entries", and "counting noses matters". No, it doesn't. In fact, ignoring the number of participants is our only defense against sock & meat-puppetry, which appears to be rampant on this occasion. When we follow WP:CONSENSUS policy, it doesn't matter how many canvassed editors climb out of the clown car and shout their "me too!" without valid supporting argument. With that said, when a subject has both a PR firm dedicated to establishing an online presence, and paid Wikipedia editors to create articles here, yet can only manage 8000 Google hits (I've had typos return more hits), the subject is simply not that notable. It's a good close. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? You complain about counting !votes (something we are supposed to do) and then pull out WP:GHITS without discussing the sources in any way. Oyi. There are sources that meet the GNG. Sources that some PR flack probably talked someone into writing, sure. But reliable, independent sources. Are they enough for us to have an article? Sure, we can discuss that--that's what AfD is for. And there is no way that that discussion concluded "no, the GNG isn't met". TLDR: There is a prima facie case for the GNG being met (the existence of said sources) and a discussion which leaned toward accepting those sources, so there is no consensus for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we are not supposed to count votes when determining consensus; such decisions are to be made on the strength of the arguments only. If there is Wikipedia policy which clearly states that "we are supposed to" count votes, please do point it out. And I wasn't the one who "pulled out" the 8000 Google hits as a notability argument, that was another editor (scroll up); I merely responded to it. The only substantive argument at issue is whether the 3 hurdles of WP:GNG have been met: (1) that there be "reliable, independent sources", and (2) that the subject has also received reliably sourced significant coverage. There is, of course, a degree of subjective evaluation required at this step, but I still must strongly agree with the closer that an acceptable level of significant coverage has not been met, and I further disagree (after re-reviewing the deletion discussion just now) with your assessment that the discussion "leaned toward accepting those sources". It did not. It leaned, if anything, toward casting shade on other editors in the discussion, with very little discourse at all on why the thin offering of reliable sources should be considered enough. And finally, there is hurdle (3) which advises us that having some reliable sources is "not a guarantee, that a subject should be included" in Wikipedia, because (as also cited in the deletion discussion) we're not for advertising, promotion or marketing. Even those editors insisting (without substantiation) that the few sources we have are enough, still admit they are promotional (or from a "PR flack"? Oy, indeed!). This article subject failed before reaching the third hurdle, but it is still there for emphasis. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A difficult call, but delete is well within admin-disgression here. Sources might be reliable, but still smack of promo-talk. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Keep. 1990'sguy, who opened the Deletion Review said: "Several good sources exist about Gorny ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11])." Forbes, Entrepreneur (magazine), Business Insider and The Business Journals are all major business news publications and are reliable sources. Entrepeneur magazine only publishes monthly and during the ten year period between 2006-2016 Gorny had a 4 paragraph mention in a 2006 article[12], but he also had a more substantial article in 2016.[13] When the article was deleted, the person deleting the article, Drmies, appeared to be only aware of the 4 paragraph article in Entrepreneur magazine, but not the more substantial and in-depth Entrepeneur magazine article mentioned by 1900sguy who filed the deletion review. This probably was because Drmies, who decided to delete the article, was not aware of it as it may not have been in the original article and it was not mentioned in Gorny's AfD. So the deletion review serves a useful purpose. The business articles do mention Gorny's good judgments, hard work and accomplishments. And they also mention his mistakes in his business life. After reading these articles about Gorny's life from these reliable sources, I also learned some of his strengths and weaknesses. For example, his strength is his attention to detail in creating user friendly products, his greatest weakness appears to be his thick Polish accent. So on the whole, the articles do not paint Gorny as some kind of superhero who does not make mistakes or has no weaknesses, but rather paints him as very successful businessman who overcame various hurdles and made some mistakes along the way. This is what I would expect reliable sources to do and this is exactly what they did. Getting into these high profile business publications and having some in-depth articles in them is not easy. It takes having significant business accomplishments and it also greatly helps to have an interesting business story. And Gorny satisfies both of these criteria. Gorny is not borderline GNG. He cleared the GNG hurdle. Knox490 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I'm being pinged left and right--we are not the news. We are not a promotional vehicle. We are not a depository for resumes. As was pointed out in the AfD (and in past AfDs), this article was the briefest of all biographies once the PR was stripped out of it, based on just a very, very few sources. If there's two articles on him in the web version of The Entrepreneur, which is a very business-friendly magazine with a high PR content, that still does not make him clear the hurdle as easily as is suggested here. And note that this is an "email-interview", about the easiest form of journalism one can imagine--and it's "written" not by a journalist: it is a super-friendly piece by a "guest writer", who is the CEO of a social media marketing firm. If you want to know more about this man, here he is. In other words, we're not talking about journalism here, and we should ask ourselves whether this counts as a reliabl source in the first place.

  Remember, we are talking about an encyclopedia, not a rehash of what was published in the glossies the last few years. I am very concerned that this lowering of standards is detrimental to the overall quality of the project--never mind that I am concerned that we are being used for promotional purposes, and guided by editors who cannot easily tell the difference between real news and glossy promotion. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Drmies, I readily concede your point about the authorship of the more lengthy Entrepeneur magazine. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Some people are stubborn and never concede points. I do my best to not be one of them.There is another legitimate point I wish to make. The Business Insider article, which in an in-depth article on Gorny, was written by Eugene Kim. Kim "was an enterprise tech reporter for Business Insider. He previously wrote for Fortune Magazine Korea, where he covered tech and startups. He has a degree from NYU and a master's in journalism from Columbia University."[14] Fortune magazine is one of the premier business magazines in the world. Columbia University is one of the top universities in America and in 2015 it was ranked the 21st best university in the world. Kim obtained a masters degree in journalism from this prestigious academic institution. Kim's article mentions Gorny's business mistakes and his business successes which is what I would expect from a journalist. Kim does indicate that Gorny's life is inspiring and that is entirely accurate given Gorny's background. So we have at least three in-depth articles from reliable sources that are major business news sources. Although there were some complaints from the delete side of the aisle about the Business Insider article, there was nothing inaccurate about the Business Insider article and it was written by a very well-qualified journalist in terms of his education and work experience who reported on Gorny's significant successes and some of his failures as well. Furthermore, Gorski has reliable news sources mentioning him in relation to his company Nextiva such as Inc. (magazine) and The Arizona Republic (which is the largest newspaper in Phoenix).[15][16]. Knox490 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Drmies, Another important point: I established that Gorny has 3 in-depth articles from reliable sources which are major business publications. At this point, the best the delete side of the aisle can do is to unreasonably argue that Gorny's notability is amibiguous. I would strongly argue that it is not all ambiguous. Nevertheless, according to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment... When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." Has Tomas Gorny been asked if he wants the article deleted? Knox490 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you haven't done that, and the Inc and AZCentral sources aren't about him. Throwing in "unreasonably" doesn't help your case. Your last question seems like an attempt at reductio ad absurdum that misfired: the question is ridiculous. Knox, kindly stop pinging me. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Drmies, in hindsight I believe I needn't have added my rhetorical question until you reviewed the journalistic qualifications of Mr. Kim and had a chance to take the appropriate action. Kim easily has double the journalistic qualifications of most journalists in terms of his journalism education and his job experience is excellent as well. Since you expressed a significant importance to the authors of sources and since Business Insider is a very prominent online business website that has the online circulation of the Wall Street Journal and the article is balanced (mentions Gorny's business successes and failures) and accurate, there is no reason why the article should not count as a reliable source. It would be entirely understandable if you took exception to the article if it contained an inaccuracy and did not also mention some of Gorny's business failures, but this is not the case. If you could address the Business Insider issue, it would certainly be appreciated. Knox490 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User: Drmies, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination), despite having a high opinion of Forbes magazine, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said, "The Forbes article is possibly acceptable (and it is a very friendly opinion piece)". I looked that the article and the interviewer asked a series of open ended questions relating primarily to Gorny's business life, his business successes/failures and some other sundry matters as well. On the whole, it seemed like a typical interview for a business publication. Nothing overly promotional as the questioner did not shy away from asking about his business failures. Specifically, she asked probing questions regarding his failures and the resulting states he found himself in due to his business failures. Some of the questions relating to Gorny's failures and bad investments were "How profitable was the business?"; "What happened to that company?"; "Did you have other investments?"; "If you were broke, how did you start another company?" and "How did the crash of your previous company affect the way you ran the new business?". Now granted, the ledger sheet of Gorny's successes far outweigh his failures, but if that weren't the case, he probably wouldn't be covered in-depth by Forbes and the other prominent publications I cited. Nor would he be mentioned by the other publications I cited. Prominent and reliable business publications generally cover people are who are more successful than unsuccessful on the whole and their articles should not quickly discounted as being "very friendly opinion pieces" just because a business person's business life is on the whole significantly more successful than unsuccessful.Knox490 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- This was within admin discretion and, yes, Wikipedia definitely needs better mechanisms for defending itself from being used as a billboard. Reyk _YO! 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think you have missed the point of a DRV. I hope you know it is also within the admins choice to close as keep, merge or redirect or even as a no consensus. For this case the discussion here was opened because en editor felt the admin didn't close the discussion with the proper choice that reflects at the AFD debate. As for suggestions to improve Wikipedia there is Wikipedia essays for that. TushiTalk To Me 07:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that missing the point? Saying it was within the admin's discretion is saying that there were multiple valid closes to choose from based on the discussion, and that the closer uses his judgement to pick the one he thought was most in line with policy and the discussion. If it was within an admin's discretion, it is not the place for DRV to substitute another close. If you go over to move review right now you'll see a perfect example of this same principle. Review boards don't change a close unless their was a procedural mistake that could have changed the outcome, or if the close was so out of line from the discussion and policy and guidelines as to make it not within their discretion. Neither of those is the case here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The close seemed to assert the closer's own view of the matter rather than summarising the consensus or lack of same. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and likely keep - I voted for keep in the deletion discussion based on my argument that the sources are in-depth and meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I would think the close should be overturned and the page kept, as that is the direction the discussion was heading when closed. I would agree with DGG in that I don’t think the close accurately reflected the discussion. A "no consensus" close I would understanding but I don't see how a "delete" came from that discussion. I also agree with Andrew D in that the close seemed more like the closer’s opinion and not a reflection of the discussion. I don't see the point of even having a deletion discussion if the close does not have to reflect the consensus in the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article. The Gorny article used some reliable sources. The Forbes and Business Insider articles are balanced stories. The source analysis in this deletion review shows there are some good sources that were used in the article. Overturn as there was/is no consensus to delete. Keep with no consensus is being proposed as a compromise position by several editors. But there are enough reliable articles for the article for a straightforward keep decision. Tomas Gorny is a notable person within the tech/business community who meets minimum WP:GNG requirements.desmay (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, alot of the comments including the :Keep" note the sources included self-published and authored profiles, so these are not independent for WP:GNG, which is after all a suggestive guideline, not a policy, yet policy is what supports deleting promotion, not keeping this. How else would we interpret such a policy as WP:What Wikipedia is not? In fact, the users who had clear COI continued using "But has sourcing" as a defense. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't disagree with the closer... keep it deleted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article. The Gorny article used only _some_ reliable sources. After you trim away the extra padding sources {from the same author or organization} per GNG, and after you trim away sources from those called in to cover his self-promotion event called Next Con not {Independent of the subject}, there aren't enough. It should be deleted {because it violates what Wikipedia is not} as also stated by GNG, because being a businessman in America isn't a claim to fame or notability. Making and losing a million dollars, and giving people obvious advice on what to do or not to do in small business is routine. Carter2020 (talk)

• Endorse - The closer took a great deal of care in closing this discussion and explained in detail how the consensus had been reached. Obviously this was quite a time consuming AFD to close with, unfortunately, a large amount of inconsequential discussions disparaging editors, obvious canvassing and socking.

The closer did exactly what is required by the guidelines -"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Clearly, half of the !votes offered no policy based explanation for the !vote. There was quite a bit discussion on whether the sourcing met all of the requirements for WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The DRV discussion is not a place "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion." I concur that the closer's policy based analysis was correct for the reasons stated in closing the AFD and I see no policy or guideline that should reverse the decision. CBS527^Talk 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation from scratch – It's fine for admins to check sources and the depth of coverage regarding subjects to assess notability prior to performing a close, particularly for an AfD discussion with diverse viewpoints and opinion such as this one. All discussions such as this should involve the closer performing an assessment of sources, which helps to ensure accuracy in the process. Including a caveat in my !vote here of allowing the article to be recreated from scratch to omit any promotionalism, which most of the users opining for deletion were concerned about in the AfD discussion. Conversely, several views in the discussion asserted that the subject meets notability standards. This may be an example of borderline notability on Wikipedia, but in my opinion per my own source searches, the subject meets WP:BASIC, perhaps on a weaker level. The close comes across as a form of WP:SUPERVOTE (essay) relative to the discussion that ensued; most, but not all of the delete !votes were based upon promotional aspects of the article, rather than the notability of the subject, but the close was based upon the closer's assessment/opinion of the subject's notability. Others are allowed to disagree with this assessment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to register, I strongly agree with allowing recreation also. Looking at the Nextiva draft it is clearly notable (100,000 businesses using it). Hard to see how founding such an enterprise isn't noteworthy. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - After reading through the closing statement again, the large majority is related to what was contained in the discussion. The comment about the Forbes article could come across as a form of WP:SUPERVOTE although I don't believe that was the closer's intent. As this was such a difficult AFD discussion to close, it appears the closer wanted to explain, how in the closer's best judgment, a consensus had been reached.

With that being said, NA1000 has brought up some valid points. IMHO, I still feel the close of this AFD was done properly (as noted in my !vote above) although allowing recreation with a caveat to omit any promotional material may be a viable alternative. The one thing that is holding me back on this choice is, based on articles history and the previous unsalting of the article, it looks like, for the time being, it is going to be very difficult to have a stable article devoid of promotionalism. CBS527^Talk 13:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep: It appears that multiple editors have colluded in order to WP:GAME the system to collectively block the existence of not only this article, but Nextiva (the company founded by Tomas Gorny) as well--and they're the same editors. Repeated nominations of the Tomas Gorny article for deletion, despite the fact that verifiable references exist to prove the subject's notability, is disruptive to the project. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:17, 26 April 2017

If you have evidence of that file a notice at WP:ANI. This is not to proper venue for accusing editors of collusion. CBS527^Talk 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep For purely procedural purposes, the decision made by the closing administrator did not reflect the consensus to keep the article that was formed at the AfD. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep. Before this article was deleted, the article included information about Tomas Gorny and seemed to serve as an educational piece. The article had several credible sources includeing a source from Forbes Magazine, a source from the Huffington Post, a source from Business Insider, and other reputable companies confirming the subject's notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"other reputable companies confirming" It helps to actually show, since all these are simply assertions, not confirmed proof by the fact. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Still absolutely no one has actually shown how we should ever accept such clear COI involvement, since we have after all: WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:COI and WP:Paid (latter being WMF legal policy); that the article simply had new changes means nothing and even if it was, relist is the only viable option, not fully overturning to keep, since there was established consensus such article contents were unacceptable, and have always been by our set policies against promotionalism. The Forbes itself was examined and found to be unconvincing, so simply claiming "It's a source" is not a convincing argument. Such completely far-out arguments as "The article was always acceptable" are never accepted, since the AfDs themselves show that's never been the case at all, especially since the talk page itself has had numerous concerns every week and every month and that itself violates any policy, because it's specifically using Wikipedia as a free webhost. By our using this policy, there's no gaming the system but defending obvious involved promotionalism is in fact a damaging hit to Wikipedia itself. Although the WMF has never regularly involved itself in WP in exchange for the community handling it instead in normal cases, they have in fact found that such covert promotionalism is against every single fundamental policy, thus one we ourselves use every day. In fact, the revisiting at the 1st DRV showed restarting was allowed if it improved the article, therefore the simple statement of "[now] it is going to be very difficult to have a stable article devoid of promotionalism" and this being clear in all past AfDs as well, it actually emphasizes our need for removal since it serves no benefit to WP at all (even when emphasized by claims as "There were not enough good edits". SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One driver numbers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer seems to have made a simple head count instead of weigh up the merit of the different arguments. WP:PERNOM, WP:USEFUL and WP:DGFA explain why four of the five keep contributions should have been given little consideration. If those instructions are correctly followed little meaningful arguments in favor of keeping the article remain. I have discussed with the closer, but was unable to find a solution with them.Tvx1 12:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Support closure. L3X1 (distant write) 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This user is a participant to the contested AFD.Tvx1

• Support-See User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One driver numbers (2nd nomination) for my take on the issue.Further,WP:AADD is an essay; not a principle/policy and it do not even clearly ask the closer to discount !votes of the type Per Mr. X---it's merely an guide to make an AFD discussion ideal from all spheres.And not surprisingly, the nomination and the lone delete !vote(it too took the same way--which is now opposed by the nom) also fails the mountain-esque barrier of WP:AADD.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the closer. You can't come here to endorse your own close. That's really poor behavior. Of course you support it. DRV is intended for independent editors to judge the closers actions, not the closer themselves. Besides if you are convinced that none of the presented arguments at all were very meaningful, then why did you cherry-pick keep as a closing action? Wouldn't relisting have been a far better option then? Tvx1 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely no rule against AFD closers posting here, it's done commonly and would look far worse to ignore a DRV entirely. AFD closers should be able to explain and defend their close if there's a DRV, and doing so is in no way "poor behaviour". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Explaining ones closing actions is of course ok, but actually going as far as !voting endorse/support on one's own closure is not. That judgement should be left to independent users.Tvx1 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where exactly are you seeing this rule? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse clear keep close. Nothing else would be justified here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Based on the discussion, no other close was really possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please read my DRV rationale as to why were here and why I think the keep arguments were given to much consideration. The closer has now admitted that they don't consider any argument to be very meaningful per the AFD guide. In that case at the very least relisting would be the far better option instead of closing as keep or delete.Tvx1 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article. 5,000 page views in month would seem to indicate the article serves a purpose (Wikipedia:Purpose). One man's trivia is another man's treasure. And for race car fans, this article has some value.Knox490 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Delete the article. Wikipedia needs to be consistent in sports articles. Other sports don't have something like this. The article is not encyclopedic because the information is trivialdesmay (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of similar lists in other sports. See category:Lists of retired numbers, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't disagree with the closer... keep it deleted. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zppix:, are you commenting on the right log entry? This article was closed as keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore i commented in the wrong location. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as this close was fine. People may wish to see such a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concurs with Knox490.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. There were two arguments presented for deletion: (a) the material is only of interest to Formula 1 fans, and (b) the content is redundant to material present elsewhere. I frankly don't think the first of these is a valid argument at all: provided something is encyclopedic, the fact it may only be of interest to a limited number of our readers isn't a problem. The second argument is more a matter of opinion than anything else, and most of the participants didn't agree with it. Hut 8.5 06:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture This (New Zealand band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please reinstate and KEEP the article - Picture This (New Zealand band).

There was discussion that this band could not be found in Rolling Stone Australia at the date listed in the article's reference section. However nobody checked a hard copy version of this magazine to verify that they do indeed appear in the magazine.

Picture This (New Zealand band) must also be listed in the Wikipedia page called 'List of Bands from New Zealand' under the alphabetical section for bands starting with letter P. There is currently an Irish band with the same name who have mistakenly been added to this NZ list of bands. This is totally incorrect and there must be disambiguation between the two bands from the different countries. An Irish band does not belong on a NZ band listing page. Please remove the Irish band from this Wikipedia page. Please KEEP and reinstate Picture This (New Zealand band). They were a part of the 80s NZ band scene and prominent NZ Musicians have comprised their lineup. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldsApart5 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV request was placed at Wikipedia talk:DRVPURPOSE. I have moved it here. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a place to express your disagreement with the valid consensus of a deletion discussion and obtain a second opinion.
  The question of inclusion on the list and removal of other bands can be taken up through WP:BB or on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I have fixed the List of musical artists from New Zealand article by removing the incorrect Picture This. Since bands on that list should be blue-linked, the band should not appear on it at all. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wilona (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Also see Citra Kirana, Senandung Nacita, Najwa Shihab, Dian Pramana Poetra. These are all improper applications of CSD by Sphilbrick, because CSD is meant for unambiguous cases. At least admin Sphilbrick have already informed Sphilbrick that the created of banned user and the application of G5 was improper, but they refused to undelete and asked me to take it to DRV. CSD is not meant as a tool to bypass consensus; it would be fine to list these articles at AfD if so desired. Andranik Mkhitaryan talk 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you talk to User:Sphilbrick? It might help. He might be able to explain what you are jabbering about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The articles were deleted properly in accordance with WP:G5, created by confirmed socks of Joanna Gunadi. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article is not only restored in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Сибирская республика and ru:Википедия:К восстановлению/18 февраля 2013#Сибирская республика), but also got the status of a good article there (ru:Википедия:Добротные статьи and ru:Википедия:Кандидаты в добротные статьи/22 апреля 2015#Сибирская республика). On this topic the following is found:

1. http://www.dissercat.com/content/protsessy-suverenizatsii-v-sibiri-fevral-1917-1923-gg
2. http://sun.tsu.ru/mminfo/000063105/323/image/323-174.pdf
3. http://oldvak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/yuridicheskie/NikitinAN.doc
4. http://www.archive.org/details/sibirsoiuznikiik01guinuoft
5. http://www.dissercat.com/content/programmnye-ustanovki-i-politicheskaya-praktika-kadetov-sibiri 245
6. http://www.dissercat.com/content/vzglyady-oblastnikov-na-sotsialno-ekonomicheskoe-i-obshchestvenno-politicheskoe-razvitie-sib 241
7. http://www.dissercat.com/content/otechestvennaya-istoriografiya-sibirskogo-oblastnichestva-60-e-gody-xix-veka-20-e-gody-xx-ve 493
8. http://www.dissercat.com/content/buryatskaya-diaspora-v-mongolii-etapy-formirovaniya-i-razvitiya
9. http://www.lib.ua-ru.net/diss/cont/64587.html

--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone summarize the above wall of text in English please? Stifle (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stifle: I removed the Russian and left the English. The gist of it seems to be that the topic is notable and should be restored. However, DRV isn't the place to make notability arguments, the question is whether the AFD (from 2013) was properly closed.

• Endorse but also Relist at AFD, since the last one was over 4 years ago, and things can change. The article isn't deleted, there's a fleshed-out article in the history now, but it's been converted to a redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I propose to restore a separate article as having significance (see Russian version of the article) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, citations from references were important for understanding the significance of an article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good close. Further discussions and decisions should occur at the redirect target talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I propose to restore a separate article as having significance (see Russian version of the article) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article. The Russians are in a much better position to evaluate the reliability of sources, notability, etc. Knox490 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knox490: could you clarify your intent?. The AfD was closed as a redirect. Given that, I'm not sure what you mean by Keep article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to have an article than a redirect. Knox490 (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Approximate translation:
• 1. Sovereignization Processes in Siberia (February 1917-1923) § 4.1. Formation of the Siberian statehood and its liquidation - the theme of the thesis and the author's abstract on the Higher Attestation Commission. [07: 02.02.02]. Higher Attestation Commission in the Russia) doctor of historical sciences Sokko, Alexey Vladimirovich. Taken from http://rudocs.exdat.com/docs/index-172947.html Writes: In the first paragraph "Education of the Siberian statehood and its elimination" shows the process of the formation of the Siberian republic, governed mainly by the provincial Siberian government. The ideology of regionalism was the ideological basis for the creation of a new state." Sushko Writes in the "§ 4.1. Formation of the Siberian statehood and its liquidation":" The formation of the Siberian republic in the summer of 1918, and later its liquidation testifies to the reversibility of the process of formation of civil indentity and its transformation into nationalism. Having survived incomplete half a year, the Siberian statehood left behind a small number of few supporters." The text is in the Russian State Library and I can send it by e-mail (Scanned text). --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 2. SIBERIAN NATIONALISM AND Struggle for power in the province (MARCH 1917 - NOVEMBER 1918) - also Sushko. In this source "The overthrow of the power of the Soviets and the subsequent declaration by the Provisional Siberian Government of the Declaration on State Independence of Siberia on July 4, 1918, determined the transition of regionalism to the status of state ideology. A future historian should unequivocally point out that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic, GK recalled. Hins [26. 121]. At the heart of the state ideology of Siberia could lie only Siberian patriotism, promoted by the provinces. <> With the formation of the Provisional All-Russian Government - Directories, Siberian nationalists agreed to self-destruct the Siberian republic, t. Believed that "it was impossible to go to Moscow with regional slogans" [33. P. 22]. With the appearance of the declaration of November 3, 1918 "On the transfer of supreme power in the territory of Siberia to the Provisional All-Russian Government," Siberian nationalism loses its political significance." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 3. Nikitin Alexey Nikolaevich . Statehood of "white" Russia: formation, evolution, wreck (1918-1920): Abstract of the dissertation Doktor nauk in the Jurisprudence: 12.00.01 - [Template:M used without a valid code. See documentation.]: Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2007 . Quotes "In the second paragraph" Autonomous Siberia: parliamentarism or authoritarianism ", the process of forming statehood in Siberia is being investigated ....The next extremely important measure aimed at strengthening the statehood of the Siberian region was the declaration of the Provisional Siberian Government of July 4, 1918, "On State Independence of Siberia." This act proclaimed international personality, unlimited and independent state power, headed by the Provisional Siberian Government." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 4. K. Hins. Siberia, the Allies and Kolchak. Volume 1 - A future historian should unequivocally point out that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic for 4 months." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 5. Chronicle of regional movement in Siberia (1852-1919). Quotation 1918, July 4. Omsk. The Provisional Siberian Government adopted the Declaration on the State Independence of Siberia. (GARF, F.5871, Op.1.D.92.L.8.). ru:Декларация Временного Сибирского правительства о государственной самостоятельности Сибири. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, AV Sushko's works on Siberian separatism are used in the theses of other authors. 180. Sushko, A.B. The processes of sovereignization of the peoples of Siberia during the Civil War. Omsk: Omsk State Technical University, 2009. - 334 p., 2. 245. Sushko, A.V. The Process of Sovereignization of the Peoples of Siberia in the Years of the Civil War Text. : Monograph / A. V. Sushko. Omsk: OmGTU, 2009.-336 p., 3. 241. Sushko A.V. Regional rule and state power in Siberia (March 1917-November 1918) // Social and political life of Siberia. XX century. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. -Novosibirsk: Science, 2004. Issue. 6. - P. 54 - 68., 4. Xx-ve 493. Sushko AV The National Question in the Periodical Press of Western Siberia (March 1917 November 1918): Dis. Cand. East. Sciences. -Omsk, 2002.-270 p. 494. Sushko AV Siberian Social-Democratic Periodicals on the Autonomy of Siberia and Siberian Province (March 1917, November 1918) // Social Democracy: Revolution and Evolution. - Omsk, 2003. - Part 1.- С. 95-102. 5. Among recent works, the publications of the Omsk researcher A. V. Sushko, devoted to different aspects of the formation of the Buryat Community in Mongolia, in particular, the coverage of the role of the Buryat intelligentsia in the pan-Mongolian movement and the Buryat-Russian conflicts on the territory of Transbaikalia during the revolution and civil war. I also draw attention to the list of publications here http://www.peeep.us/f8f6a974, and Also on http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13855828. I also draw attention to this quotation. "In addition, temporary state formations are not limited to only individual governments that operated in one area or another. The concept of "state formations" is much broader, it includes among other things other subjects of political activity - parties, society, individual citizens - and they can not be ignored when studying agrarian policy. "- http: //www.lib.ua- Ru.net/diss/cont/64587.html --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So I can restore the article itself or need an administrator's solution? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but have a Russian speaker review the article to make sure it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines as far as notability/reliable sources. desmay (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD per Anachronist to allow evaluation of the new sources presented here. Relisting at AfD and listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia would be more likely to attract feedback from Russian speakers (desmay's suggestion) than a discussion at Talk:Siberian Republic (SmokeyJoe's suggestion), which is not watched by many users.

  Cunard (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also fine with directly restoring the article to mainspace without prejudice against any editor bringing the article to AfD. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Good. WP:AfD is not cleanup. We have an interested author right here and now who can work on the sources. AfD is for deleting never-appropriate articles, not for article building recruitment, although that happens in practice (WP:ARS). Let him have at least a week, and then allow any editor to renominate at AfD if it is not looking fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Concurs with Knox490.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Renzoy16: could you clarify your intent?. The AfD was closed as a redirect. Given that, I'm not sure what you mean by Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep. This article seems informational and contains a lot of sources. It would be best to have someone who understands Russian to review the sources to determine if they are credible and reliable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline recreation. The original closure is not contested here, this is a de novo argument for notability. But the requester would have had to show which of their sources are new or were not considered during the AfD, and they would have had to describe in more detail, for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, which of these sources are reliable academic publications and describe the subject in sufficient depth. Without such information, as a person who can't read Russian, I can't determine whether circumstances have changed substantially since the AfD and a recreation is warranted. It seems to me that, given the substantial attention that Russian history has received internationally, there should be English-language sources to be found for any really notable political entity in Russian history.  Sandstein  19:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Autonomous Siberian Republic', 2. When an independent Siberian Republic was declared on 23 July 1918, 3. July 4, 1918 Siberian Republic, 4. some kind of independent Siberian republic, 5. On July 23, an independent Siberian republic was declared, 6. A separatist Siberian Republic was formed in Omsk, 7. "The Siberian Republic', Millard's Review of the Far East Vol., 8. The Siberian Republic, 233; --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. History must at least record that there existed for four months, July to November, 1918, an independent Siberian Republic of which № 1 from http://scholar.google.ru/scholar?q=+%22The+Siberian+Republic%22+1918&btnG=&hl=ru&as_sdt=0%2C5 --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There is no real question that such an entity existed. But looking at the AfD, the question was wether it was distinct from Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk). None of the above give the least evidence that it was. But perhaps we should have a renewed discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on European History of Law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer completely ignored the strengths of the arguments made in the discussion. All deletes are based in sound policy-based and notability-based arguments. There is no independent reliable attesting to the notability of this journals. The sources provided are completely trivial, no additional ones have been given, and searches for them have come up bare. Even the keep votes agreed there are no third party sources establishing notability. This should be overturned to delete. (Note, the article has been deleted in the past for lack of notability. It was recreated, and notability was no more established now than it was then.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid because of WP:BEFORE. We haven't exhausted finding suitable merge targets, for this journal and hundreds of others. This journal is at the least offensive of non-notable journals. Not promotion, not fringe, not fake, entirely scholarly. Admittedly I haven't verified that the editors are real academics. I thought we were in agreement at WT:NJOURNAL to improve guidance on these very problems, and given your limited time, why waste it on this trivial skirmish. Roy in effect gave us two months (WP:RENOM) to sort it out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have called it "no consensus". The status quo on journals in general is unsatisfactory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer's analysis, while may not be compelling to all, demonstrates a review of the !votes and a thoughtful consideration thereof. No Consensus would also have been reasonable, but given the totals, a delete outcome, which I presume is what you're seeking here, does not seem objectively reasonable given the arguments made. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are not headcounts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're not, but closing against a numerical preponderance requires a much higher level of policy superiority on the numerically inferior side. I'm just not seeing that here, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closer's analysis. "Ignore All Rules" is a policy-based rationale, by the way, somehow the review is being based on a "lack of policy-based arguments," which is a stretch. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I copy here what I just posted on the closer's talk page: "AfD is not a vote. Just counting votes is not how an AfD is supposed to be closed. !Votes that are not policy based should be ignored. In your close you claim that the contents of the article can be verified. Well, they can, but only if you accept sources provided by the journal itself. Given your close, I guess we now should keep every article on journals published by OMICS Publishing Group, too. After all, their existence can be verified by looking at their websites, which claim that they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. As an aside, I have many years of experience with academic journals and so does Headbomb. I find your characterization of us us as "people whose arguments to delete consist largely of finding the correct chapter and verse of wiki-policy to cite" to be mildly insulting at best." The argument put forward by SmokeyJoe is nonsense: the AfD was open for 2 weeks. If sources were not found in that time, they just aren't there. Again, the reference to BEFORE is doubting the good faith of the nom: I am very familiar with academic journals and know where to find sources. I assure SmokeyJoe that BEFORE was adhered to. Finally, IAR may be policy-based, but I doubt that it should be applied to cases where we have zero independent sources. If this article stands, we should be consistent and start writing articles for all OMICS and SCIRP journals, too. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• PS Perhaps it is good to have a look at the original nom, too: this article seems to be part of a concerted effort to promote this journal (note that articles have been created on 12 different wikis, each one by a different SPA). --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – within discretion. Discussions about "notability" are not over matters of policy and people are free to express their opinions, and have them considered. WP:Notability suggests appropriate standards but that document is intended to reflect consensual standards rather than to set them. WP:Verifiability is a policy, and a very important one, and it received less discussion, possibly because people were distracted by ongoing attention to notability. We require reliable sources for anything that might be challenged and the discussion tended to take the view that these particular sources are reliable, even if not independent or substantial. The ideas expressed during the AfD were thoughtful and the closer was right not to overrule any as being not based on policy. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Randykitty and I both work in this area,we have jointly played a considerable part is establishing the guidelines, and about 95% of the time we agree. Once in a while we don't. and it is usually over such articles as these: relatively small journals in the humanities of soft social sciences. Our standards have been developed for the sciences, where there are selective indexes, and inclusion in them is a reasonably clear indication of notability. I do not think our usual standards of indexing apply in fields where where are fewer selective indexes., such as this. We have to go by some judgment of the significance within the subject field, and people can disagree. It's essentially a question of IAR, and there are no rules about when to use IAR, expect that for individual instances the majority in a reasonable discussion of established editors to use it is sufficient to establish a consensus for that case. (for anything other than a specific case, wider consensus is necessary). -sometimes I agree with it, sometimes not, but if there is a clear consensus, I accept it. We've done that here, If the decision were wholly irrational , that would be another matter, but otherwise, just as we make the rules, we can make the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, well within closer's discretion and the reasoning is not off the planet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Statement from closing admin (neutral on outcome). I've looked over my close once again, and am once again satisfied it's reasonable. I have however struck the part of my statement which compared individual editors. It's the arguments that count, not the people. My close was based on the arguments, and I should have left the closing statement at that. My apologies for any inadvertent offense. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have closed this as NC, but Keep, to use an Americanism, is not completely out of the ballpark. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Keeping an article when it's been acknowledged that there are zero independent sources is an extraordinary outcome. That would not normally satisfy WP:V, and that argument was raised in the discussion. The close did not address this. Those of us who work in journals are well aware of the paucity of independent sources. That means you work to change the guideline, not just ignore all the rules because we happen to like this journal (for the record, I have nothing against the journal). I have no idea how the closer reached a keep result (as opposed to no consensus) in the face of the numerous policy-based arguments raised which were not refuted. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have backed out my close. This seems to have generated far more controversy than I intended. I think it's pretty clear if this DRV went on that my close would get endorsed, but the goal here is not to win the DRV, it's to write an encyclopedia, and having a close that's so contentious doesn't advance that goal. So, I've backed out my close and somebody else can try again. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is about one of the richest billionaire in India. Suddenly the user @jzg put it to speedy deletion under G11 policy. We are requesting continuously for a justifiable reason from him but most of the time he is not replying and if he replies its all a dismissive response. How can someone delete a page directly and in fact when its the case about a highly reputed person. If something was promotional he could have highlighted that section or could have informed the modifier to look after it. Page has more than 80+ highly reliable sources including Forbes and many other international and national level publishers. Please restore it. Didgeri (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temp undeleted, but it reads as really promotional - and thus as a G11 candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a G11, as it survived an AFD debate. It could be sent to AFD again, but G11 no longer applies. - Bilby (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article has a couple of instances of promotional language which can easily be fixed. This isn't a case of unambiguous promotion, which G11 requires. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at AFD -- this isn't the first time JzG has unilaterally speedy-deleted a fully-fleshed out and well-sourced article without explanation, nomination, or review. His responses to polite requests for explanation here and then here were met with terse non-helpful non-answers. Spam? Where? As a general rule, admins shouldn't take unilateral action to delete an article except in the most obvious circumstances, and this wasn't it. The community, not JzG, should have an opportunity to decide if deletion is justified. What justified the hurry? It isn't all that hard to put a db-g11 or afd template on an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It was previously kept at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishna - so it is ineligible for speedy deletion, regardless of anything else. user:JzG should know far better than this, and the non-response is unjusifiable. 'm wondering if they continue to hold the community's trust as an administrator? Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm wondering about that myself. Glancing through JzG's logs, I find:

  • Marc Denis (radio personality) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, and not unambiguously promotional or non-notable.
  • Countable Corp. · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, COI but not unambiguously promotional, and likely notable, although it has one edit from a confirmed paid editor.
  • To You, Moscow · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - this is an article about a film that he deleted as A7, but A7 doesn't apply to films.
  • Ball of Wool · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] - another article about a film, deleted as A7, but A7 doesn't apply to films.
  • Intralase SBK · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, not unambiguously promotional but needs cleanup; I would have moved this to draft space instead of unilaterally deleting it.

  That's just from a brief look. I know JzG has been combatting articles from a particular band of paid editors, but these (especially the A7 ones above) don't seem to have been deleted for any valid reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intralase SBK was an article on a commercial brand for a specific type of optical laser procedure, entirely written by two people who sell the treatment. The main sources for Countable included iTunes and Google stores. To You, Moscow, appears, from the tiny amount of text in the actual stub, to be web content, not a film, and thus eligible (I did check, and the source was a Russian animation website). Ball of Wool, you're right, I thought it was web content because the sole source was again a Russian animation website, so I undeleted it, thanks for pointing out my error. Marc Dennis may or may not be notable, but this article was basically a PR bio. I don't have a problem with people reviewing these things though. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try to remember that a conflict of interest is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Thanks for correcting, but in the future please avoid unilateral deletions like this. And when you are asked to explain on your talk page, please reply with details and civility for a change. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as G11 is not a speedy criterion applicable to previously-kept articles. The plethora of inappropriate speedy deletions is concerning, especially from an administrator whom we all know knows better. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an open and shut case of ineligibility, considering it survived an AFD. But I don't see any indication that this was anything other than a minor and correctable error, lets put the torches and pitchforks down shall we? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think 'pitchforks' is unnecessarily inflammatory. JzG has another DRV open on this page for a similar G11 deletion, just two days ago. Trends in poor administrator tool use are best addressed directly and promptly, and in a factual manner, focusing like you just did on the difference between expected and actual processes. This is not ANI or RFArb, but rather a forum in which feedback is focused on getting the outcome and process right. I know firsthand what DRV pitchforks look like, and these aren't them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is that has been an outbreak of spamming - the article below was written by a PR person about a book authored by a friend of his and who he promoted widely on Wikipedia, and DGG concurs that it's spam, so I don't think it's at all reasonable to conflate the two. But I don't have a problem sitting back and letting other people judge. I try not to feel ownership here. I saw the article as egregious puffery, others don't, that's fine. However, I might be a bit burned out after the Vipul business, so maybe it's time for a break from focusing on abuse of the wiki. That does tend to induce paranoia over time. I will go back to read-only for a while I think. That is usually the best way. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly preferable to burning out! Been there, started seeing everything as vandalism... Be sure to go do something you enjoy, rather than needing to 'protect the wiki'--it's good to feel pride in ownership, but bad to let the vandals steal your joy. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how did you figure out that it was written by a PR person and his relation with the author of the book and all. Really didn't get your weird logic Didgeri (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Send to AfD. Probably should be redirected to Patanjali Ayurved. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn.

  I have the same view here as the one I expressed regarding JzG's speedy deletion of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 12#Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.

  Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion says:

  This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. ...

  The deleted page was not "exclusively promotional", and the deleted page did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION".

  As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion notes, the criteria for speedy deletion "specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media".

  The deleted page did not meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion, so the speedy deletion must be overturned.

  Cunard (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. I read this in the AfD: Strong keep: A 94% stake holder of a ₹5000 crore company Patanjali Ayurved.[17]. & in news not just for that.[18][19]. This person is a billionaire and is clearly notable. It does appear that the article whitewashed some matters, but an article not being NPOV should not be a reason for deletion for notable people. NPOV and Notability are two different matters. Making an article more balanced is a lot more efficient than starting from scratch. People go to Wikipedia to find information about notable people and expect to find articles on these people. Putting a NPOV template until an article is made more NPOV makes a lot more sense than hastily lighting AfD and delete torches.Knox490 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep - I had stated in the AfD that the article has problems but should be kept--my opinion has not changed here. The article is still in need of cleanup and needs to be closely watched for the re-addition of hagiographic content, but the article in its current state is not G11 material. --Finngall ^talk 21:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hickey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Additional sources added to Talk page, though there are more out there to be sure. In addition, he is the creator of Datomic (which meets notability guidelines, though I will admit the article as it currently stands needs some work) and ClojureScript (which currently redirects to Clojure, but is also potentially a debatable redirect given precedent set by pages like CoffeeScript). As such, it no longer makes sense to simply redirect to the Clojure page. I am not a frequent wikipedia contributor, but I feel that merging and redirecting to Clojure was a mistake, and that in light of additional notable work by Mr. Hickey, it is appropriate to have a page that references not just his work on Clojure, but also Datomic, ClojureScript, his persistent hash-array mapped trie implementation which was picked up by other language communities, and so on. Devin Walters (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Start a draft. I'm not sure this needs to get dragged through the heavyweight DRV process (especially since the AfD was five years ago). Discussing it on the article talk pages and gaining consensus there seems like it would be sufficient, and certainly less administrative overhead. Be that as it may, I suggest that the best way forward would be to write the article in draft space (i.e. Draft:Rich Hickey) and then start a discussion of it (either here, or on the talk pages). If there's a concrete article for people to look at and evaluate, it'll be easier to gain consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Start a draft. I closed this AfD nearly 6 years ago - the version that existed then didn't show much independent notability, but there's no harm in creating a new draft and submitting it, especially as some extra sources appear to have surfaced. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow reversion of the redirect, based on new sources, and the old AfD decision being a very close call. No need for drafting in DraftSpace. Devin will bring it up to scratch immediately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Use draft solution. The Draft:Rich Hickey is the best solution given that the sources need to be evaluated in terms of their reliability. Knox490 (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow reversion of the redirect User: SmokeyJoe is a veteran AfD participant. He indicates the article has new good sources. The AfD was close. There is no need for a draft in draftspace. User: SmokeyJoe is confident that the article will be turned into a good article immediately. The creator of the article Rich Hickey is the the creator of Wikipedia’s article Datomic which meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. The editor has a good track record so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that the article will be improved and have good sourcing.desmay (talk)

Journal on European History of Law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was closed NAC by Kharkiv07. I tried discussing the issue with them, but they seem to be on a break, so I am taking this here now. My request to Kharkiv07 was to re-open this debate, because none of the three !votes cast were actually policy-based:

1. "Potential keep", by Peterkingiron, who acknowledges that it is difficult to find sources for subjects like this, but argues that "peer-reviewed journals are probably notable", without any further evidence.
2. "Keep", by DGG, who argues basically that "cultural bias" is at work here and that "specialized humanities journal, for which our usual standard of being included in major indexes may not be effective." I disagree with that reasoning regarding cultural bias ("I'm all for countering cultural bias by creating articles on notable topics that are neglected by WP. However, I don't think it's a good idea to use "cultural bias" as an argument to keep subjects that do not have any coverage in third-party sources and simply are not notable") as well as the assertion that such journals are rarely included in major indexes (see the similar European Journal of Health Law, which is included in a whole slew of such databases).
3. "Keep", by the article creator, Legalhistorian11, who argues that the journal is notable because it is held (subscribed to) by several prestigious libraries. Legalhistorian11 repeats the (incorrect) argument that journals like this are rarely included in major databases (see preceding).

As the !votes cast were not (even remotely) based in policy, I think that closing this AfD as "keep", while correct if votes are counted, is not correct. I understand that at this point a "delete" close was not possible, but the correct action to take would have been to relist this discussion and request !votes that are more solidly based in policy. I therefore request that this discussion be re-opened for further discussion. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that this is a contested non-admin closure, I am summarily reopening and relisting it in my individual capacity as an administrator.  Sandstein  15:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Express Flight 3411 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was snow closed while it was in full course. Many opinions were being posted. Lots of arguments were presented for both sides. There a number of SPA contributions, so a thorough review after it has run its full course is warranted, rather than simply head count with clearly took place. I discussed with the closer and asked to undo the close, but they declined and requested to come here.Tvx1 17:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- the discussion had high participation and no way it was going to close as "delete". if there are still concerns about notability, suggest re-nominating in a few weeks. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you sure? It was only in its second day of the seven an AFD normally has at least. With events like these, interest drops with every day that passes.Tvx1 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse good closure. In 3-6 months when the news cycle dies down you can try again if you think it isn't notable at that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not me who "tried". I am not the nominator.Tvx1 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad phrasing, I meant the generic you there. Sorry if it came off as flippant. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus was clear, even if I disagreed with it.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WaltCip. I didn't agree with the consensus either, but it was still consensus. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or relist - Although the discussion could have been carried out for the entire week, it would likely have resulted in "No consensus". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was clear consensus on this discussion to keep, and that probably would not have changed even if a full length discussion had been conducted. The closure was correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep the article. There is no reasonable way the discussion could have ended in a delete outcome had it continued. The consensus had grown increasingly strong as the discussion continued, with by my count 30 of the last 31 votes being in favor of keeping, so ending discussion at the point where it was ended seems appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Discussion appeared split in the early hours but after a day turned to near-unanimous Keep. The exceptional volume of contributions itself speaks of the event's notability. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I dislike AfD templates remaining on highly trafficked articles, especially when there is zero chance that the discussion would have resulted in a deletion. If concerns still exist it can easily be re-nominated in a few weeks or months. AusLondonder (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse !Vote ratio was overhelmingly moving toward 'keep', with good policy-based arguments. DonFB (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear consensus to keep the article. What is needed is a better understanding of our policies and what an encyclopedia vs a news paper is to begin with not a deletion review-- Moxy (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted Delete, but I agree with closure. I will co-nom with you in June. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Endorse -- this is mustard after the meal, but I endorse Sandstein's closure of the AfD, and RoySmith closure of the DRV. (Note: I voted to delete, but the number of supported keeps is simply overwhelming, so the decision to close was proper.) Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page and its entire history were deleted after less than one day of controversial discussion. If there is a redirect target, the default is to keep the article history unless there is a good reason not to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The discussion was closed prematurely contrary to WP:RAPID and WP:STEAM. The related discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 shows that the consensus is shifting in this developing story and so a snap-decision is too hasty. If there is BLP concern about the state of the article while it is being developed, the page could be moved to draft space or courtesy-blanked while the discussion takes place. Deleting the full edit history in the midst of this intense activity seems disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it was clearly headed for a redirect or delete close. Black Kite split the baby here, which was justified because the history had several BLP issues as can be seen on the talk page. Good snow close. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @TonyBallioni:, assuming that "it was clearly headed for a redirect or delete close", why not keep the page history per WP:R#KEEP, bullet one? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the BLP issues. Removing it from the page history was justified and good in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, per the BLP issues, but I'd also point out that R#KEEP refers to deleting a redirect, not deleting an article and replacing it with one. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was a SNOW close, no chance for another outcome. The good reason for deleting the article history is that it was created to attack the subject. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-The good reason to delete the article history was that it was primarily an attack page.Iit was near-unanimously headed for a delete close.Black Kite's closure was perfect.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There were serious BLP issues, through no fault of at least some of the editors concerned. If the article history is to be restored, there will be need of very heavy oversighting. Best to leave deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close; there was only one 'keep' since ~7AM this morning- and that was an SPA with faux reasoning. Discussion was clearly trending heavilly towards del/merge. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- I initially voted "redirect", but due to the page (as created by the now indef blocked editor) being virtually an attack page, I changed my vote to "delete". Good & timely close. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- there is no other way the discussion could have ended. Reyk _YO! 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Kjroots and Reyk. L3X1 (distant write) 17:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus was clear.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus, good close. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was clear consensus on this discussion to delete, and that probably would not have changed even if a full length discussion had been conducted. The closure was correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not only delete and I want the entire edit history oversighted. It appears that it is not the same person. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I aware it was the same person - however some papers claimed the passenger on the plane was a different David Dao, who was obviously not happy about being portrayed as having legal issues in the past. I don't think it needs oversighting. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In this LA Times article, it is confirmed that the Elizabethtown, KY David Dao is the same David Dao who was on the flight, and that the internet rumors that he man on the flight was a different David Dao are false.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The discussion was IMO incredibly one-sided. There were only a handful of keeps compared to heaps of delete/redirect arguments, and most of the so-called opposing arguments came from one person - the now-indeffed creator of the page who responded to nearly every delete with the exact same points until they were eventually blocked. Looks like this deletion review is headed in the same snowy direction. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The policy-based arguments were very much on the delete side, as was the overwhelming consensus. Perfectly appropriate WP:SNOW close. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Redirect is the absolutely the right outcome. The page was an attack page at one point with unrelated criminal charges from the past, therefore should not be preserved. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Independent of the United Express flight 3411 Incident, Dr. Dao is not notable. His life and accomplishments do not fulfill WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. His felony conviction is of local or regional importance but does not rise to the level of national or international notability, he is known for a single event - what happened to him after boarding United Express Flight 3411 this past Sunday. His life prior to his assault has no bearing on his fulfilling the WP:GNG parameters. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an improper application of CSD G11 by JzG. I'll post my position from my discussion with JzG on their talkpage (slightly edited):

Leaving aside notability, CSD G11 is only in the case of unambiguous promotion, with little chance of dissent. JzG is free to believe that the article is completely promotional, but I don't think so; and I doubt I'm alone in this opinion. If it goes through AfD, I won't object.

Here is a link to the version of the article before it was deleted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have left a notice on Wikiproject Economics. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing could possibly be more important than giving SEO spammers their link juice (especially when it also boosts their friends), so fill your boots. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find the article in Google's cache. Can we get a temp. undelete? Hobit (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment: this could probably be re-written without the spamlinks, which are primary sources anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Could you elaborate on what spamlinks do you mean? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The EconLib stuff written by Caplan himself, for a start. Actually, the more I look at it, it's not massively notable and should probably be redirected to Caplan's article. You could sum in up in two sentences. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I see that the article has 32 references. I count exactly four EconLog posts by Caplan there, about his own book. Even if you remove everything written by Caplan (others are in venues ranging from the WSJ to NYT parenting blog), that still leaves around 24 references. Even if you arbitrarily remove half of the remaining references, that still leaves more than 10 references. How many articles about books have this?

I went to Economics and finance book stubs and clicked on five links randomly. Knowledge_and_Decisions, The_Second_Bounce_of_the_Ball, Economics_and_the_Public_Purpose, The_World_Economy:_Historical_Statistics, Other_People's_Money_and_How_the_Bankers_Use_It. None had more than three references, and even if you include external links, none had more than five.

In my Wikipedia career, I have started three articles about books. The Man Who Loved Only Numbers (my very first contribution to Wikipedia), Anarchism: From Theory to Practice and Leg Over Leg. None have more than three references.

From WP:Notability (books), a book is notable if: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Isn't this condition easily satisfied? All I'm arguing is that CSD is not the correct way to deal with such an article. If the article goes through AfD (and people think it ought to be redirected to the Caplan article), I would have no objections. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I think the fact it does have 32 references (many of which are, as Stifle says below, regurgitated press releases) would be suspicious in itself, though. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and fix seems like a reasonable article, and other than what does look to be spamlinks, it's a decent article. Don't think it qualifies for G11. That said, I think we may be at the point that sanctioning editors for doing things like this is past due. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanctioning someone for fighting spam? Brilliant ideas, there. As for the article itself, it looks more like a reasonable press release than an actual article, and I'm not seem any sign that of any actual impact other than a few book reviews. So arguably fits as a CSD G11. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, should have been more clear. If people are using articles for SEO and that's a known problem by known editors we should do something about it on a larger scale rather than stretching G11 to cover something that (IMO, apparently not shared by those below) it doesn't fit. I am suggesting sanctioning those creating SEO-focused articles. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Borderline, but certainly not an "improper application of CSD G11". --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, basically a linkfarm to regurgitations of press releases. No objection to anyone recreating an article from scratch. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This confuses me. G11 is for stuff that that can't be easily recovered. Most of the sources sited are reliable including the Guardian and the WSJ. It would be trivial to remove the linkfarm references. I'd do so, but it's generally considered poor form to edit an article that's been temp restored. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've created a cut-and-paste draft to show what such an article might trivially look like. It does result in two relevant sentences not having cites, but I think given the nature of the claims, I'm not overly concerned. And I don't think it's G11. Link to draft. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree it is borderline, but applying G11 to it isn't an improper application of the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad G11, though consistent with current practice of bold admins having wide discretion to force issues by misusing CSD. Bad G11 because some content could be used. The article should be redirected to Bryan_Caplan#Selfish_Reasons_to_Have_More_Kids. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Bad G11. Some wishing for G5 to apply doesn't broaden G11. Until paid editing or other COI editing become objective and speediable, these things can only be sent to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Good G11. If the book is notable someone else will write about it. Material like this is better removed than kept and edited, because advertising should not be left in the edit history. However, I do not really support single = handed deletions like this. If intead the delting nom had just tagged it and let some other admin delete, I doubt that it would be even questioned here. Avoiding doubt is one of the purposes of having someone else check, not just avoiding error. I feel just as strongly about article like this as the deleting admin, but I don't do it this way. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the article written by the book author? That I hadn't noted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids was written by Bryan Caplan. The Wikipedia article Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids was written by Vipul Naik (User:Vipul).

      Cunard (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • They don't look like the same person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same person. Vipul knows Caplan and is friendly with him, and vice versa. From a quick skim of the mind-numbing detail on Vipul's paid editing activity, I don't think that there was any payment for the article. Even if there were, it wouldn't be a problem, since it was disclosed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a PR writer write to help their friend, the result will almost inevitably be PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore Hobit's draft at User:Hobit/tmp1.

  Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion says:

  This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. ...

  Hobit's draft at User:Hobit/tmp1 removed the inappropriate links and retained good sources like The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and The New York Times.

  Hobit's draft indisputably demonstrates that the deleted page was not "exclusively promotional".

  Hobit's draft indisputably demonstrates that the deleted page did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION".

  As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion notes, the criteria for speedy deletion "specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media".

  The deleted page did not meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion so the speedy deletion must be overturned.

  Cunard (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The article was somewhat promotional in tone, but insufficient to merit G11. Send to AfD if desired. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Striking my vote and comment above. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik. Obviously, like all his edits, it should be rolled back on sight. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it should be salted, or just deleted and let someone write a new article from scratch... that's an interesting question. The book itself passes WP:GNG... but there are other questions here, related to the defense of the Wikipedia. If the connection between the article author and subject is true, and the subject is an anarcho-capitalist... this is not a good situation. Anarcho-capitalism is not another kooky political belief, it's more like... you have to deal with an anarcho-capitalist editor as you would with a Sandy Hook truther editor or Jews-did-8/11 editor... You can't be a good anarcho-capitalist and not not feel fully justified in twisting and subverting the Wikipedia's rules for your own pecuniary ends... you can't shame or embarrass these people.

Given that, salt. It's a matter of WP:IAR and defense of the project against overt attack. Salting the article will deprive us of one single article on one notable book, but will discourage further attacks, so its a net benefit to the project. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: That is quite an astonishing turnaround, if I may say so. What "attack" happened here? Someone wrote an article about a book, two years after it came out? What Wiki-crime did they commit? Contra DGG, it is not always the case that "if the book is notable, someone will write an article on it", as is evident here. As far as I can determine, this article was not written for pay. And even if it was, they broke absolutely no rules here; everything they did was openly disclosed. Your comment about "all [Vipul's] edits should be rolled back on sight" has no basis in policy or practice. Finally, what is this action supposed to prevent? Vipul has already suspended operations, and it's unclear if they plan to continue. I urge you to rethink your position. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry about the 180. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik, a toxic editor. I'm also basing this on an assertion made above. That's all I can really say about that since we're not supposed to discuss these things. I thought it over, and I changed my mind, based on WP:IAR and defense of the Wikipedia, is all. It's a bad look for me but I can't worry about that and I'm not going to defend my initial mistake.

If "this article was not written for pay" then so much the worse, actually, under the circumstances. If it had been written at random, just somebody picking up an entry on the notable-books-we-havent-covered-yet list, that'd be fine. Was it? No, I don't think so. "broke absolutely no rules here"... man, you don't know who you are dealing with here. You cannot have anarcho-capitalists in your system is all. It's no end of pain and will not end well. They have to be discouraged. Just as we'd delete an good article on a notable subject by a banned user, so we should delete this, for much the same reason, and possibly salt. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Promotion spam, could potentially be re-written completely from scratch by a previously un-involved, non-conflict-of-interest, third-party, editor, NOT using same material of the promotion spam as the starting point for such a new article. I've looked over the drafts and still, even in the very subsection titles themselves, reeks of promotion spam. Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Keep in mind that this is a CSD, not an AfD. Let's compare this article to the last book you AfD'ed, Snakes in Suits. The article version when you AfD'ed it had zero, yes, zero links to any reviews or any indication of notability. Yet people found a few reviews of the book in the press (fewer than this book, by the way), and the AfD was closed as a unanimous "Keep". Almost everyone's !vote rationale (correctly in my opinion) was based on the notability of the book, not the article content (see WP:ARTN). Even now, after the AfD, the article reads much more "promotional" than the article for this book. AfD has a much higher bar to clear than CSD, which is meant for unambiguous cases. This is because CSD bypasses consensus, unlike AfD. I would urge you to reconsider your position and support sending the article to AfD instead (if you think it is worth deletion). See also my comment below, which is addressed to the page in general, rather than you in particular. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are five reviews of the book: the WSJ, The Guardian, RealClearMarkets, Wired and National Post. None of them are "regurgitated press releases". I have already noted 25 citations to the book on Google scholar, including one in Psychological Bulletin. I find it surreal that this is a CSD we're talking about, not even AfD; and people are saying that it is ok to blithely delete an article on the book without any discussion at all. From WP:CSD: Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.. Also Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Even looking at the discussion here, WP:SNOW would not apply in an AfD. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The question is if (1) subject is notable in this case I would say it is, notability for books requires at least 2 independant commentary or reviews about it. In this case I count 7 RS's discussing the book [20], [21] [22] [23] [24] including Washington Times and NPR, so there are more than enough mainstream press that have discussed it. The second requirement is that the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, which in this case I think is at least plausible. I'm not even sure it qualifies as Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. This is not a WP:LINKFARM there is no listing of links or anysuch thing that would qualify it as that. And if it was written by Vipul Naik, that doesn't change anything about what the content of the article is. Obsidi (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user was telling people about themselves by including their CV, which led to the page being deleted. I don't think this is a very good way to help new users to feel welcome. The admin suggested I come here to ask for the page to be undeleted. John Cummings (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this clearly wasn't a valid U5. That criterion only applies if "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". This user has over a thousand edits, mostly to mainspace. Users are allowed to have limited autobiographical content on their user page. And yes, deleting this page can't have been a great welcome for a new enthusiastic editor. Hut 8.5 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn if and only if the user in question actually wants it back. I don't see anything that would be considered a misuse of userspace in the deleted version. A prior version had a section that was arguably less apropros, including among other things the names of her kids. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Slow overturn. I agree with both of the other users; this person clearly is beyond a "few" non-userspace edits, and since Susan herself removed (link for admins) a whole section with the edit summary "personal life deleted", we shouldn't be undeleting anything of that content unless she asks for it. So basically, undelete the most recent Susan-edited version of the page only, and tell her to go to WP:REFUND if she wants the rest of it. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. U5 is not ever for pages of genuine contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Bad U5. Send to MfD if desired... Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline review request for lack of standing. Yes, nobody owns Wikipedia pages, including user pages, but I propose we don't act on userspace undeletion requests unless they are by the user at issue themselves, or the requesting editor provides a reason why the content of the page is important to them, personally. Otherwise we are just undeleting for the sake of undeleting, rather because there is actual content that somebody wants to have back.  Sandstein  08:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you really mean is "CSD should be rewritten to say: Any admin may summarily delete any page that should be deleted"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, what I mean is, if there is a problem with an userspace deletion, it should be the user themselves who complains about it, not somebody else.  Sandstein  11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. What I mean is that if admins misunderstand deletion policies, this review process exists to highlight issues, and to re-educate. I guess, considering your point, the conclusion better be WP:SLAP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Routes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After talking to the administrator who deleted Gray Routes page, I'm keeping it for deletion review upon her suggestion.

This is Vamshi and I am a student. I am new to wiki and this is the first article that I tried to publish. My user name is vamshidhar.18 . Link for the wiki article that you deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_Routes&action=edit&redlink=1

I follow news about upcoming startups in the media as a hobby and I recently came across this company called "Gray Routes" which I found noteworthy. However, when I searched on Wikipedia, I realized that the company didnt have a page so I thought of creating one myself. I was not aware that there was already a page created earlier which got deleted due to not having sufficient references.

I wish to highlight the fact that in the last one year, the company gained very good coverage in the media with respect to its growth and expansion. I have mentioned notable references such as Bloomberg, The Silicon Review & TechCircle as well which posit this fact.

I request you to reconsider your decision of speedy deletion. However, if you feel that the information published is some kind of advertisement, do let me know so that I can re-edit the page.

I have gone through all the guidelines of Wikipedia and I am certain that the references which I have mentioned satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia's policies.

Below are references I found on Gray Routes

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=243554798 http://thesiliconreview.com/magazines/gray-routes-technology-enabling-location-analytics-to-resolve-the-age-old-problem-of-locations-for-enterprises/ http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2016/02/08/exclusive-gray-routes-raises-second-round-of-angel-funding/ http://thesiliconreview.com/magazines/10-fastest-growing-data-analytics-companies-2016-2/ Vamshidhar.18 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read WP:CORP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Additon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted because Nick Additon, at the time, was un-notable (did not pass WP:BASE/N). He is now playing for the Lotte Giants in the Korea Baseball Organization,^[1] and thus is now notable per WP:BASE/N and his page can be restored and updated. 67.253.234.167 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List at AfD there were concerns about the GNG also, so a pure restore might not be the way to go. I'd prefer a discussion at AfD unless it's just always that case that anyone that passes this SNG always has an article. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleting admin from the deletion review is no longer active, which might a hindrance. As well, WP:BASE/N generally implies WP:GNG, considering every single major league baseball player, for example, has a page, as well as myriad KBO and Japan League players. 67.253.234.167 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore meets BASEN which means that AfD would probably allow recreation. Restore is better than allowing recreation in this case so that the IP user can edit directly instead of going through AfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, and undelete the history, if the reasons for deletion have been overcome. Advise the IP to WP:Register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Leonard Jr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reasons given by editors nominating for deletion were unproven and incorrect. Links in deletion request did not give correct search based-on topic's name. Closing admin refused to review or discuss deleted article. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'll admit that the closing admin's response to your query was rather curt, but there's no other possible way that AfD could have been closed. If you have sources, tell us what they are. Vague assertions like, Many sources US national coverage, and mentioned in NYT, books, etc. wide coverage, are never going to carry any weight. Do the searches, and present the specific links to the sources you found, so people can evaluate them. You should have done that in the AfD, but since we're here, just list them right here in the DRV discussion.

As a practical matter, if you used to use a different account, the best way to move forward would be to add a note to your user page (I'm guessing that would be User:ChangalangaIP) stating what the old account was. Then everything is totally transparent. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that tip I will do that now. I have requested from closing admin that the article be temporary restored or at least made so I can put it in my sandbox. There are sources and refs in the article or do I basically have to rewrite it from scratch again? It was not that easy to write since I did not want it to be promotional in any way. For example, the subject was awarded something by his peers called "Superlawyer" which I guess is a thing but I left that out since it seemed promotional/possible advertising, but it looks like an honor bestowed by his peers voting.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is from the original article, which the participants of the AfD reviewed and found lacking. Perhaps I didn't express myself well the first time, but what I was asking was if you had any new sources, which were not available in the original AfD. It sounds like you don't, so this DRV should be closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. Do you have some relationship with the subject? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero relationship with subject. I am a fan of his work. Yes to answer your question about other sources, they are multiple, national and numerous. Putting them all in would make the article look promotional imo but I did request editor feedback about what would make the article better and never got any. (also contacted "deleting" editors on their talk pages to ask).That the article was "lacking" is not what was given as reasons for deletion. I could probably make the article more lengthy or more sources, and whatever it would take to improve it. I guess I could write an "improved" version? The subject will probably be on TV again this summer, so even more details about the subject may become available. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What people are looking for is some sources which are (1) Directly about the subject, so not passing mentions, not merely quotes from the person, or mention that the person is representing some else etc. (2) The source has to be reliable, blogs more often that not will fail this, anyone, you, me, my pet cat, anyone can setup a blog and write whatever we want on whatever subject, there would be no indication that anyone else has an real interest in that, or that it's fact checked, or indeed that the person writing hasn't just made it all up. (3) It has to be intellectually independent, the subjects own website, or website of companies they work for, or PR agents etc. etc. aren't independent and so don't help for assessing notability, since of course they are likely to write about the subject, much the same way my personal site or my companie's site has info about me.

Even getting those there will still be a level of judgement applied. Many editors object to a high reliance on "local" sources, since local media tend to be "biased" towards representing information of local concern, a local paper (say) will likely write about local students who are perceived to be doing particularly well in some competition or another, this usually doesn't indicate that anyone outside that local vicinity (let alone worldwide) will have any interest in that person.

So what's being asked for here is to list a few (say 3 or 4) of the sources which you think are best based on the requirements of addresing the subject directly in detail, are intellectually independent and are published in reliable sources. No one can comment on your believe there are numerous sources in the abstract, they need examples to tell you why they are good or bad. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapse the irrelevant noise in this discussion. Drv is not a venue to attack opposing voters or impugn their motives. Do it again and I close this. The only relevant thing is to provide the reliable sources meeting GNG that you claim are in existance, if you can't just say, so we can close thus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore (by nominating editor article creator) Well that was what I was trying to do by pasting the cached version. ^[1] Could be used as a source. Subject is covered extensively throughout this book. Also ^[2] Also, all mentions in the article about being a tv lawyer, can be better sourced, there were actually so many national TV networks and publications as sources that I did not put them in article because I thought it was redundant. Featured prominently in The Killing Season on A&E for example.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion review is a venue to discuss and address failures to follow the deletion process or policy. It is not a location to get a "second bite at the cherry" and make new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at AFD. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well please keep in mind that I rarely participate in AfD and have never done a deletion review before. So I can see where I myself did not follow the AfD process correctly (asked questions on deleting nominators talk pages for one instead of AfD). As far as this venue, the review process, thank you for stating what may be obvious to people who are regulars but I am sorry I'm ignorant about it.TeeVeeed (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules are not always obvious, so it's understandable that new editors don't know them all. My suggestion to you is to read up on the WP:DRVPURPOSE to understand what Deletion Review is for. What you're claiming is that the other editors in the AfD were wrong. That's item 1 on the not list in WP:DRVPURPOSE. You should also read WP:GNG, and WP:BIO to understand what we require for an article about a person, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources we require. At this point, it's pretty obvious that this DRV is not going anywhere, so you could save everybody some time by withdrawing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but, I have not found yet how to withdraw, and two I think that it is pretty clear that reason number 5 "if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." applies? Not by other editors or closing admin but by myself. Also the technical prob. with linked "news" etc in the AfD. In the event that I can withdraw this, I plan on re-submitting the article after trying to improve it, since I have most of it in my sandbox anyhow. I don't feel like venue shopping this matter, and again, sorry for mistakes here but it was linked as "the next step" in the closed AfD, so I thought it was the thing to do. My question is, IF the article is improved with more sources and ref. is that a good idea for what to do here? Thank youTeeVeeed (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no official process to withdraw a DRV, but if you just write something here saying that you want to withdraw it, some admin will come along and handle the technical details. There's no reason an article can't be resubmitted later, in improved form. The best way to do that would be to work on it in draft space, i.e. Draft:James J. Leonard Jr., and then go through the Articles for Creation process. But, please understand that there's no guarantee that a new draft will be accepted. And, looking at the version that was deleted, you have a lot of work ahead of you to research the kind of sources that we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Figure skaters from Harbin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:Sportspeople from Harbin is becoming a large category. The way to diffuse it would be by sport. The reasons proffered for deleting the category initially was that it is too specialized for the sport, but it forgets that for some cities (Harbin being a city of over 10 million people and a city known for producing winter sport athletes) it is not too specialized for the city. Nlu (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I'm counting seven articles with a disambiguation (figure skater) in Category:Sportspeople from Harbin and there may well be more articles with only the person's name, so a subcategory would be justified. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Category diffusion has to be on a point that represents an accepted subcategorization scheme for both of its parents; the fact that one parent category may warrant diffusion does not entitle it to special treatment denied to other comparable topics. The fact that Harbin's basic sportspeople category might be large enough to merit diffusion does not get to override the fact that subcategorizing the figure skaters category by individual city is a bad idea — because the moment we allow "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin, people will automatically take that as license to start "Figure skaters from (City)" for every other city that has one figure skater from there too. So if you'd like to shoot for a comprehensive overturn of the consensus against "individual sport intersected with individual city" categories in toto, then you can always take that to a centralized discussion somewhere else — but no, we can't grant Harbin a special standalone exception to an established consensus that would still be applicable to every other city and every other sport. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page

  Nlu's argument in the DRV nomination:

  The reasons proffered for deleting the category initially was that it is too specialized for the sport, but it forgets that for some cities (Harbin being a city of over 10 million people and a city known for producing winter sport athletes) it is not too specialized for the city.

  is "significant new information [that] has come to light". This argument was not significantly discussed at the CfD.

  Because "Category:Sportspeople from Harbin is becoming a large category", I agree that the proper way "to diffuse it would be by sport".

  The fact that Harbin's basic sportspeople category might be large enough to merit diffusion does not get to override the fact that subcategorizing the figure skaters category by individual city is a bad idea — because the moment we allow "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin, people will automatically take that as license to start "Figure skaters from (City)" for every other city that has one figure skater from there too. – that editors may automatically take "Figure skaters from (City)" for Harbin as license to create "Figure skaters from (City)" for all cities that have only one figure skater is not a sufficient reason to prohibit the recreation of Category:Figure skaters from Harbin.

  Cunard (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the word "is" is (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The definition of "is" is (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After the original redirect pages were deleted, "Meaning of the word 'is' is" and "Definition of "is" is" (using single quotation mark) were created as reincarnations of the original. I asked the creator about this; he said that the redirect was necessary. Then I asked a request for undeletion, but the admin who deleted the originals did not respond. Therefore, the discussion was archived. I welcome comments about those. George Ho (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is difficult to work out what is being asked here, and then difficult to find a prima facie case for it. The 2009 RfD deletions were clear. If they are question, "Endorse". The recreations should be deleted for the same reason.
  The use of a term is not a justification of a redirect. The notion that redirects are required to enable search functionality is archaic and currently nonsense. Patchwork redirects based on editors guess of what unskilled encyclopedia users might want is obviously hopeless with regards to comprehensiveness or completeness. The answer is, instead, the automated search engine. Both the Wikipedia search engine, and a Google search of Wikipedia, will find terms in Wikipedia if the terms are subjected to any coverage in Wikipedia, and if they are not covered there should be no redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being less clear, SmokeyJoe. I was in a rush while nominating the deletions for review. I'll be clearer by proposing this: Maybe either undelete as original redirects to Lewinsky scandal or re-create as redirects to Copula (linguistics). George Ho (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both. No redirects. Any request to download these titles should see the user sent to the search engine. They are not plausible titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But no objection to relisting, as it has been so long, and several others would like to discuss the case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, not plausible search terms. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I find them plausible enough. I also do not se that they will cause any harm or confusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore I don't see the harm of having another discussion now. Eight years is a long time and views may well have changed. Hut 8.5 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist basically per Hut 8.5, it seems reasonable to have another discussion after 8 years. I don't know how useful the redirect would be, so I'm loath to just say "restore". Hobit (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And noting that I agree with Patar also who has a very strong argument IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (Closing admin) Keep deleted, the arguments for keeping the redirects are no stronger now than they were 8 years ago. (George Ho, sorry I didn't respond on my talk page, I'm not around on Wikipedia all that much anymore.)-Aervanath (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, or failing that relist. The "is" quote from the Lewinsky scandal is possibly the most famous quotation to come out of that. The first is a direct snippet from that quote, and the second is a common misquotation of that snippet. Anyone who actually wants to know what the definition of "is" is, would search for "is", not this phrase. With that in mind, the search results for this are pretty useless. The first only gets to the Lewinsky page as the 4th result, while the second only gets to Lewinsky on the second page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page

  Patar knight's strong argument that these redirects are plausible search terms was not discussed in the RfDs so this is "significant new information [that] has come to light".

  I also agree with Hut 8.5 and Hobit that it is reasonable to discuss this again after 8 years.

  Cunard (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, but really, Meh. The point of a redirect is a navigational aide which takes a term that somebody is likely to type into the search box, and points it to the most relevant article. It seems difficult to imagine anybody typing these phrases into the search box, so they're pointless redirects. On the other hand, redirects are cheap, so it's difficult for me to get too excited about these pointless redirects existing. I'd be perfectly happy to relist this instead, so the community can decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin De728631 (talk · contribs) deleted

• Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page;
• Category talk:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

De728631 is a sporadic editor, and may be gone for days.

The G4 tag was disputed, in the history and on the talk page. The talk page was non-trivial, with a forward-looking discussion, and was G8-exempt tagged. Note the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories‎. G4 was not applicable, because the redirect, now in widespread use on categories deleted at CfD but in continuing use, is substantially different to what was discussed at the original CfD. Also, in line with discussions, and what I characterised as a "contested consensus" redlinked-usercategories are no longer tolerated. One admin, User:BrownHairedGirl, who has been driving these developments mentioned allowing one redlinked usercategory to continue, but what is really needed is a proper CfD discussion. If the category is to be deleted, emptying the category has to be on the table. Note that deletion of the category technically fails to delete the category, it is still there, still fully functional, and populated.

Perversely, for technical reasons, the populated red-linked category is more disruptive than the blue-linked redirected category.

Please undelete both, and list at CfD. There really needs to be formal discussion, and the proper place for that discussion is CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, without prejudice against a new CfD. The raison d'être of this category is its non-existence and creating it effectively defeats its purpose. The CfD argued against the existence and recreation of the category page, not against one or another particular content it might have had. Any difference in content (even if not as cosmetic as this time) is immaterial. If another CfD is desired, then it could be started: there's no need to recreate the category beforehand. As for the overall change in attitude towards red-linked categories, one recurring theme of the discussions behind that was allowing this single exemption. A proposal was tabled to standardise the name of this category, but in the absence of any further discussion, the status quo remains that this is the de facto exempt category and I frankly don't see the point of making any more fuss. As for the category's talk page, it was tagged as G8-exempt, so it might have been deleted in error, maybe De728631 could undelete it? – Uanfala (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my error of deleting the talk page. I have restored it for reference. As to the main page, I'll leave this to other non-sporadic editors. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - We cannot keep ignoring consensus just because we want too! - The CFD discussion was closed as Delete in 2015 and so 2 years later the consensus should still apply now, If we have another CFD discussion now it could then be used as a precedent in another 2 years if this CFD was to be closed as Delete and inshort we could be having a CFD every 2 years!,

In short consensus for the CFD was to delete so I see no valid reason to start a new one. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • The removal of so many redlinked categories, leaving five residuals, not counting the few newly created, is the factor that justifies a new discussion. User:Bearian's recreation as the redirect was quite justifiable. User:De728631's improper G4 brings us to the point of WP:WHEEL. Also note that this is in the light of the point well made, that these jokes are old, shallow, and disruptive of valuable maintenance tasks. There is pleanty of scope in Wikipedia to protest, in essays, where the protest can be articulate, unlike protest by populating redlinked categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I'm not sure I get your point about the protest. Of course it's possible this category could also be seen as a sarcastic statement about the state of user categories until recently, but it's essentially just an ingeniously simple piece of self-referential humour. – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, it was User:Bearcat who recreated the page as a redirect. While this was not "substantially identical to the deleted version", i.e. a category page, I still thought the speedy deletion rationale to be valid. The CfD was closed as "delete". Had there been consensus for a redirect, it would have been noted in the CfD closure. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target did not exist yet at the time of the delete discussion; it's a new consensus that was established by a centralized discussion about how to handle redlinked user categories earlier this year. The issue is that because Special:WantedCategories detects and lists redlinked user categories, but simultaneously has a limit on how many categories it's capable of detecting, the redlinked user categories were crowding out the mainspace categories that the page is intended to catch. Accordingly, the consensus was established a few weeks ago that redlinked user categories are now to be redirected to the target in question, so that people can keep them on their userpages without interfering with the operation of a necessary maintenance tool in the process. But user categories have to be kept off WantedCategories entirely — any redlinked user category either must be created as a redirect to that page or must be depopulated if there's a consensus that it's especially inappropriate for some reason, because the number of user categories on WantedCategories is expected and required to never exceed zero. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: This is valuable information which casts a new light on this case. Did you mean this centralised discussion which was also linked at the category talk page? With regards to this new consensus and the need to keep WantedCategories clear of user page redlinks I would agree to restore the redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The treatment of a previously deleted page is not permanently locked in to the original result of a deletion discussion. Previously deleted categories can be recreated if the basis for their existence improves in the future (e.g. a former SMALLCAT that now has a higher number of potential entries than it did at the time of the original discussion); categoryredirects can be repointed to a different target than the original discussion identified if there's a valid reason for that to happen; and on and so forth. A new consensus was established about how to handle redlinked user categories, precisely because the limitations of Special:WantedCategories required a solution that got the user categories off of that list — so that is allowed to supersede the results of an older CFD discussion, and is not permanently precluded just because it wasn't the original discussion's conclusion. The number of user categories on WantedCategories has to be zero, so the only options available here are either the redirect or total depopulation — it cannot be left as a permanent speedbump that the categorization project is forced to work around but can never clear off WantedCategories in any way; every single thing that ever appears on that list must always be removable from it in some way, with no exceptions period. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though there ought to be some caution about the above statements (the relevant RfC hasn't been formally closed yet), I agree with Bearcat's reasoning and I do endorse this approach to deleted user categories in the general case, but this category we're discussing now is different. First off, it's currently being discussed elsewhere (and recreation even isn't an option that's on the table there). But there's another matter as well: this should be really obvious to anyone who's read the title of the category or who's had a cursory look at its CfD, but I guess I might need to spell it out. Most other deleted user categories were deleted at CfD because the community decided they are crap and shouldn't be kept. Now they're being recreated as redirects because we don't want crappy categories cluttering the WantedCategories listing, and we don't want to police the user pages having them. This category's CfD discussion, on the other hand, was different and can be summarised as follows: the category is good, users should be allowed to have it on their pages, but since the category makes sense only if it's red-linked, it shouldn't be recreated. This is a very different situation, and I don't see how the current general approach to user categories could override this specific consensus. Of course, this consensus can be overridden with another CfD, to which I wouldn't object. – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WantedCategories has to contain exactly zero user categories. Not "no user categories except for this one because reasons", but "no user categories except nothing because nothing". Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand why this should be desirable, but I don't think there's anything near consensus for such strong injunctions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Why is there a need for this zero tolerance policy in WantedCategories? Is it for technical reasons, because of WP:REDNOT, or was it decided somewhere by consensus? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maintenance queues always have to be completely clearable. Even if they get backlogged, it has to be at least possible for them to be emptiable to absolute zero — no maintenance queue on here can ever have permanent speedbumps stuck in its queue that it's not allowed to do anything about, because the whole point of the maintenance queues is to clean up the stuff that's not complying with our maintenance requirements. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a given maintenance queue includes stuff that there's community consensus doesn't need cleaning up, then this is a problem of the queue. – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • So to sum up what I could gather from the lenghty RfC: because there are objections to the forcible removal of such redlinks from user pages (see also previous CfD), one alternative would be redirecting them to that single container category. This would at least satisfy the no-permanent-redlinks condition of WantedCategories. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The queue is automatically generated, and there's no technically feasible way to "blacklist" anything as "should not appear on this list". You're free to think that's "a problem of the queue" all you like, but it's a problem for which this was the only fix that's even possible for anybody to undertake. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, and I'm sighing over what a complicated situation we have here. There is extensive discussion going on at WT:User categories, and we need to have a consensus there before any sort of speedy anything will make sense, so please restore it temporarily, pending further discussion – which would best be consolidated in one place. There are all manner of issues that still need to be discussed and worked out. This isn't simply a matter of a consensus from a few years ago, because there has been ongoing discussion about possible changes in consensus, and these categories are at the heart of the matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've partially changed my mind, and I now endorse the argument given below by BrownHairedGirl. That really makes the most sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. I don't have a sysop's magic buttons anymore, and I can't recall exactly what I did. So let's undo it and start over. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but not emptying. A few months ago, there were hundreds of permanently redlinked user categories, which cluttered up Special:WantedCategories and seriously impeded both clearance of a humungous backlog, and ongoing cleanup of the ~100 new redlinked categs generated every day. Through a combination of measures, that forest of clutter has been reduced to a few lone remnants, of which this is the most widely-used. It was User:EEng who suggested keeping this a lone remnant, and I agree. Because it is so well-populated, it sorts to the top of the list, and is easily skipped. The whole point of it is keeping it red, so undeleting it would perversely defeat its purpose.
  The problem has largely been resolved, and I see no meaningful gain from continued wrangling over this categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The agreement of two editors, User:EEng and User:BrownHairedGirl, in passing conversation to establish a long binding rule for everyone to follow is a little unsatisfying. It is actually about as bad as the clique of CfD-ers in 2007 who established the hyper-restrictive usercategories practice. It really should be subject to a proper CfD, with all stakeholders notified. The decision to "delete but not empty" strikes me as perverse, and is a particular decision taken by BHG in many separate CfDs recently that played a large part in driving this to a head. The self referential joke is now old and of no continuing value. There is a clearly a relaxing of tolerance of usercategories, and so these protests against usercategory police are also old. In general, "delete but do not empty" should not be a result. If a category is unacceptable, the colour of the link doesn't matter. In any case, this is too complicated for the CSD#G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, leave me out of this. I just made the suggestion. EEng 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did good to make the suggestion. I just don't think it is sufficient on its own to justify to justify speedy deletions. Agreed, it is definitely not your faults. In fact, none of this should be seen as a fault-finding exercise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @SmokeyJoe: that sounds a bit hyperbolic. Two editors cannot make a binding rule; they can propose, but the community decides. My !vote at this DRV counts for no more than anyone else's.

My own personal preference would be very much to have no redlinked usercats, and I agree that the joke is stale. But the ~27 editors who currently categorise themselves in this category clearly disagree, so I am advocating a compromise which both sides can live with, so that we can all stop arguing about this and get on with other tasks.

Maybe a full CFD discussion would reach some other sort of consensus, but I don't see much sign of it. And CFD, with its keep/delete choices, is ill-equipped to deal with a category whose advocates want the page to remain deleted.

Joe seems annoyed by my closure of a few CFDs, but seems to have forgotten that my purpose in doing so was to centralise discussion (per WP:MULTI) rather than arguing the same point of principle in a dozen separate discussions, and to break the futile cycle of CFD-deletion/bots empty categ/editors repopulate the redlink/redlink-is-turned-blue/back to CFD.

That RFC hasn't reached a formal consensus, but for now we have a sort of kludgy compromise which allows editors to get on with their work. That's my main priority, and I don't see how a full CFD is going to get us to any better place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An unjustified speedy deletion, explicitly contested by me, if unchallenged, would appear to uphold a small agreement as the basis for admin fiat over categories. Category police. It is the wrong way to go. CfD is the right way.

At CfD, as opposed to WP:CSD#G4, there is scope to discuss further options, and most certainly, to discussion "deleted and empty".

I am not annoyed by BHG's closure of a few CFDs, as while they were not consensus closes, they did lead directly to an RfC addressing the issue directly. The RfC is very interesting. I learned a few things. BHG even changed her mind, and later so did I. The RfC is, however, it is too complicated to be closed with any meaningful result, like most RfCs not initiated with a good question.

The kludgy compromise needs to be ratified by a CfD, not by a dubious G4. Bearcat's (not Berian's, sorry) creation of the redirect was justified. Speedying it was not. The purpose of this DRV is to review the deletion, a deletion that I call unjustified. The purpose of CfD is to discuss and decide on what to do with specific categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this subsequent discussion, and I still agree with BrownHairedGirl. I think that the larger discussion can still progress, without needing to relitigate the deletion process. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new question has never been litigated in a deletion discussion, which is why G4 was inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is, it's not just this one category. There are three other versions of this exact same thing on Special:WantedCategories too, because somebody's own choice of how to phrase this category name varied from the standard. And again, WantedCategories cannot contain permanent speedbumps that the people who work with it are expected to just perennially work around and neither resolve nor clear — the acceptable number of do-nothing entries on that list is zero. Not "four special cases that aren't harming anything so quit whining": zero, with zero exceptions for zero "special case" reasons, period. I don't give a flying donut what people who don't work with the categorization project think about whether this matters or not — the people who do the work in a maintenance queue are the ones who get to decide how much disruption we're willing to tolerate of the tools we have to work with to do it. The people who work with WantedCategories are the ones who get to decide how many "never do anything and just leave it here permanently" entries WantedCategories should or should not contain. Bearcat (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am sorry, but this discussion (and any ensuing CFD) is an example of Wikipedia disappearing up its own navel. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 :) I would only add that such a discussion might actually be good for the project, as it soaks up any unspent editorial silliness and stops it from spilling into the parts of the encyclopedia that actually matter. – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus at CfD. Amisom (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what's in question here. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Amisom (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that questioning the original decision isn't what the nominator raised for discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm content to leave it to the closing admin to decide. Thanks for your input though Bearcat. Amisom (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer. If the deletion is endorsed and until some other consensus is achieved via CfD, the category should be re-salted to prevent further bunfights every time a well-meaning passer-by creates it unaware of the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (Deletion log); 23:04 . . Nyttend (talk · contribs) deleted page Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page ‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Creation defeats the point)
  Yet another admin's heavy handed misuse of CSD. Perhaps they need to read the opening line of WP:CSD again? Creation defeats the point? The whole point is in dispute. G4 and worse G6 should not be used to defeat active discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not heavy handed, Just common sense!, It clearly does defeat the purpose of the category and if you cannot see that then god help us all. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You, someone directly involved as a member of the category in question, are able to judge that other opinions, expressed by multiple other editors, some here most at Wikipedia_talk:User_categories, are to be rejected per commonsense to the point that a page should be out-of-process speedied under a non-applicable criterion?

Administrators may ride roughshod over continuing discussion, using administrator privileges? This is not to you "heavy handed"?

This history of actions here, the SALTing, the bold mass-closing of CfDs with one person's peculiar preference, the recreation through SALTing, the two misused CSDs, this is the cusp of WP:WHEEL. The points made in polite discussion at WT:UCAT have been trampled by bold admin actions. The disputed purpose of the category is not the real issue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: it's all very well to point to procedural flaws. If you want to go down that path, then I'd just say that your list is very selective, and misleadingly presented. I could set that out in much more detail gain, but you already know the points if you want to acknowledge them.

However, en.wp is not a bureaucracy. We have has a loong RFC which didn't reach a clear conclusion, but out of all the drama we have arrived at a kludgy solution which most editors can live with. I see no sign that the balance of opinions has changed significantly, so another RFC would just absorb yet more huge chunks of editorial time. How is that productive? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTBUREAUCRACY is not a CSD criterion. I opposed deletion of the category redirect, agreed with you that the joke is old, disagree with you that "delete and do not empty" is a way forward, and in the face of that consider the G4 and then the G6 an abuse of process and unacceptable. The answer is not another emotive RfC, but a simple CfD. Undelete the category and list at CfD. Decide by consensus, not by deletion tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I closed those CFDs as "delete and do not empty" not because that was a way forward, but precisely because it was a way nowhere. As I explicitly noted in those closures, it was a way of restoring the status quo ante, to allow a centralised discussion on what to do about redlinked usercats, rather than have about a dozen simultaneous CFDs essentially discussing the same point of principle. See for example WP:CFD 2017 January 4#Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery.

That was all discussed at the January RFC, where there was no consensus.

Maybe this time round it could be done as one CFD rather than a dozen of them, but the problem with using CFD to decide this is that none of the usual CFD outcomes (keep/delete/merge/rename) address the issues here, which is that a) ~25 editors (at latest count) want these categories deleted but not emptied; b) nobody actually wants the category kept as a blue link.

So whether the discussion takes place at CFD or RFC or elsewhere, it will be all the same old arguments. I don't see how rehashing them at CFD will be any less heated to having them at RFC, or produce a different outcome.

In the end this all comes down to the simple core question asked at January RFC: does deletion of a category allow editors to remove it from userpages? That's a policy question, not a CFD question.

Unless and until that question is answered, a CFD is just a way of generating heat. It's now 3 months since the previous RFC started, so maybe a new RFC might produce a different outcome ... but I doubt it. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus hasn't been established, and the use of G4 and G6 was inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objecion to starting a new CfD, but until that happens the current consensus (established at the last CfD in 2015) is against the creation of the category. G4 was just maintaining the status quo. – Uanfala (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G4 didn't apply because the content was very different to that discussed at CfD. The mass creation of category redirects was broadly accepted, with no formal challenges, except for this one where you G4 tagged. When I contested that tag, it should have prevented speedy deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content (even if not so superficially different as in this case) is irrelevant because the CfD's outcome was against the creation of the category and it wasn't contingent on it having a certain content. The class of user categories that a mass creation was broadly accepted for did not include the current category, and its exemption was explicit in the discussion that sanctioned the mass creation. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you'd like to think, but it isn't true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse What purpose would restoring this category serve? SmokeyJoe makes a legalistic argument to restore a page that was created by accident that should not ever be created by its very nature. It's SALTed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the opening line of WP:CSD mean what it says or not? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aphmau's page was deleted because it was said to be in violation of A7. A7 states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC), "this applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." This deletion review will be about negotiating this claim.

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for basic criteria, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I have listed independent sources as follows:

• http://shortyawards.com/9th/_aphmau_
• http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/aphmau.html
• http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/aphmau-29789.php

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for any biography, "The person [needs to have] received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Aphmau, has been the recipient multiple digital YouTube rewards, such as the Graphite Award, Opal Award, Bronze Award, and multiple physical awards as well such as the Silver Play Button , and the Gold Play Button .^[3][4][5]

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for creative professionals, "The person [needs to be] regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" Aphmau is regarded as an important figure, as she is in the list of the top 1000 most subscribed channels on YouTube, and that she is in the list of the top 750 most viewed channels on YouTube.^[6][7] She is number #650 in the list of most views, and #920 in the list of most subscribers. Another example is that Aphmau is cited by her peers in the show Wonder Quest (web series). She plays a supporting role as a character named Akira.

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for creative professionals, "the person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Aphmau's work has won significant critical attention by being nominated in the "Gaming" category of The Shorty Awards.^[8]

In the Wikipedia policy for notability of people, it states as of 02:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC) that for entertainers, "[the person must have] a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Aphmau has over 2,600,000 subscribers on YouTube, and has a collective view count of over 1,000,000,000!^[9]

In conclusion, I think with this body of evidence that Aphmau is notable enough to follow Wikipedia's Notability's guidelines for people.

-- Unsigned 4 April 2017‎ Jamesjpk (talk · contribs)

• Endorse I don't think an article which said the above would have been deleted under A7, but this article didn't. Instead it went into great detail about the subject's personal life (her schooling, how she met her husband, her pet dog, etc) and didn't cite any sources other than YouTube and Twitter. It did include the subscriber and view counts but didn't make any claim about them being particularly important. Given this deletion under A7 was perfectly reasonable. There isn't anything stopping you from writing another article about this person as long as you address the reasons why it was deleted, such as by including the above information in the article. Hut 8.5 06:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article as deleted had no explanation of why "Aphmau" was notable or important, and the deletion was correct. As said, a new article could be created explaining and proving why she is in fact notable, if that is the case. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looking at the deleted article, it's abundantly clear that WP:A7 applied. As pointed out above, there's nothing to prevent a new article from being created, but please note that such an article would need to meet our notability guidelines, including reliable, third-party sources which cover the subject in depth. Looking at the sources presented here, I don't think any of those would meet that requirement. Just those sources alone would preclude another WP:CSD deletion, but I strongly doubt they would be enough to survive WP:AfD. And, given that the article has already been deleted twice, a third deletion decision, at AfD, might well result in the title being salted. So, if you're going to try again, do your research and do a good job. You might want to try starting with Draft:Aphmau and going through the WP:AFC process to get some independent review first. Full disclosure: I am a YouTube employee. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see Draft:Aphmau already exists. Sadly, this appears to be an almost exact copy-paste reproduction of the deleted article, the only difference being the addition of a few more highly dubious sources and a bunch of spammy external links. The chances of that passing a WP:AFC review are just about nil. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the worst of the external link farm. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remind the creator that even if the article is restored from speedy as no longer being a valid speedy, or moved into article space from Draft, the decision on whether to keep it in WP will probably be made at a likely future afd, not here. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. What the nominator appears to have missed is that

1. the sources they proferred here are not reliable ones — a person is properly sourced when they're the subject of media coverage in newspapers, magazines or books, not when they have a profile on a user-generated public relations site like Famous Birthdays, or the website of an organization they're directly affiliated with, or a statistics page in a statistical directory; and
2. the awards they listed are not major awards that constitute an ANYBIO pass. That criterion covers an actor winning an Oscar or a BAFTA, a writer winning a Pulitzer or a Giller, a musician winning a Grammy or a Juno. It does not mean that anybody who wins any award is always automatically a valid article topic — if it did, we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's.

Deletion is not necessarily permanent; if a new article can be created which makes a better case for her notability and references it to better sources, then nothing stops somebody from doing that. But nothing shown here constitutes compelling evidence that this version satisfied our requirements — what's been shown here is that Jamesjpk misunderstands what's required in the first place, not that BigHaz acted incorrectly. And considering that so far the new draft version is mostly getting sourced to Twitter tweets and her own and other people's YouTube videos, rather than to reliable sources, I still don't have any confidence that Jamesjpk has actually gained any greater understanding of what it would actually take to get that draft approved. Bearcat (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Guillermo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure by J947 (talk · contribs) should be reexamined by an administrator. The "keep" opinions were few and relatively weak. Only one editor made a substantial "keep" argument, and the other "keep" opinion was a WP:WAX argument. Granted, the "delete" opinions weren't the best either, but nobody from the "keep" side addressed the IP editor's (correct, in my view) argument that "both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as 'significant coverage'".  Sandstein  09:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I probably would have closed this as delete, but I don't think the close is totally out of line. The delete arguments would have been stronger if they had more specifically addressed the two added sources. The IP editor said, both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as "significant coverage". That would have been a stronger argument if the editor had addressed the proposed sources individually, and in more detail. As it is, it's hard to tell just how much effort went into evaluating them. Also (and I admit this may not reflect policy), I would have given more weight to that comment had it come from an established editor instead of an IP. In short, I agree that none of the arguments on either side were particularly well stated, so NC isn't an unreasonable conclusion, despite the delete-leaning headcount. I'm going to stop short of actually endorsing the close, but would have no objection if some other admin felt it should be re-closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have probably closed it as delete as well, but the discussion is pretty poor and the close is defensible. I'd support a relist; that article deserves a stronger discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The closing editor specifically said that a further AFD would be possible, I'm curious as to why we're here rather than just listing it again. No consensus isn't how I'd have gone, but it is defensible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Let it go. See WP:RENOM for getting it deleted. It's another poorly nominated AfDs. User:Re5x, as nominator, the onus is on your to make a rationale to delete, not just to throw something up for others to look at. Drop the "seems to"s when nominating. Don't nominate unless you are sure it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have expected a delete outcome here, but the deletion !votes really are poor (the keeps are worse...), so NC might just be the best close. I'd have suggested relist, but there were already enough of those... Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the input, everybody. A renomination seems to be the best way forward, and I'll do that as soon as I get around to it.  Sandstein  07:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Guillermo (2nd nomination). This can be closed as far as I'm concerned.  Sandstein  10:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

The closing admin also noted, "The National Trust's "50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾" campaign, launched in 2012, may be more worthy of its own article, but I remain unconvinced that E3 Media's part in it was essential. On a quick read of the links you provided for it, I don't see E3 Media mentioned, except in Design Week, which is indeed a full-out good source for E3 Media (now apparently called "e3". Bah!)." I agree that the Design Week article is "indeed a full-out good source for E3 Media". It was published in 2012, so that demonstrates E3 Media has received more recent coverage and has received continued coverage.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see closing that debate as delete (though I'd say relist and NC would both be better), but the reason given (old sources) is pretty much exactly not what we should worry about when evaluating sources. overturn to relist seems like the best way forward, though having a different admin close it might also make fine sense. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had my say as quoted above; I'm only here to temporarily undelete the article so people have a better basis for discussion. Done. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• When you look at the comments on all four AfDs then I believe that there is a strong consensus to delete this article. The press coverage (IMO) is either trade press, local press or incidental to another story. Several editors have made the same point. Shritwod (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles in The Times, BBC, and The Guardian are not "trade press, local press or incidental to another story". Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  These sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" and are "more than a trivial mention" because they each provide multiple paragraphs of coverage about the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (note: I !voted delete on both the 3rd and the 4th AfD). Based on the number of AfDs and the fact that the same (insufficient, IMO) sources were being offered at AfDs #3 & #4, I fully agreed with the decision to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There was clear consensus the sources, wherever or whenever published were trivial and this is shown by the listed analysis in 2 users alone; the only defenses used would he WP:ITS NOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT (specifically because of the trivial contents) and WP:ITEXISTS. Keep Deleted. SwisterTwister talk 16:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The sources read like regurgitated press releases and lack the necessary detail to count towards notability. Its all rather trivial. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe the reputable publications The Times, BBC, The Guardian, and Design Week would publish articles that "read like regurgitated press releases". Do you have links to the press releases you believe these articles were regurgitated from?

  If multiple paragraphs of coverage from such reputable UK publications is insufficient to establish notability, then what is?

  Cunard (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on a slow news day to pack pages sure. Certainly there is a lack of depth to the writing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- despite the extreme excessive length of the sole keep !vote, the other participants were not convinced that the sources presented amount to sufficient coverage. This was a reasonable close. Reyk _YO! 19:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Cunard applies a low threshold for the word "significant" that doesn't reach the level demanded by WP:CORP. This is a complicated matter, there are reams of discussion on the word "significant" at WT:N, I think it is much more productive to attempt to discriminate on whether the sources provide transformative coverage. Secondary source material is needed, which does not include repetition of facts. Reports of facts do not support Wikipedia-notability. What is needed is analysis, commentary, criticism, broad comparisons with competitors, intellectual transformation of the data reflecting the intellect of the author of the secondary sources. The sources listed by Cunard in the AfD are both repetitive of product information, and indicative of a non-independent author.

"E3 MEDIA is now one"

"E3 Media specialises in "

"Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery defied everyone's expectations when, while revising for their final exams, they started digital communications company E3 Media from their bedsit"

"E3 Media provides "

"E3 Media is growing out of its Bristol base"

All present-tense continuing and promotional. None of the sources are past tense critically analytical.

When it comes to a self-promoting active corporation, newspapers can't be trusted to be independent. All of the newspaper excerpts scream non-independent, probably some kind of a deal for coverage if not outright payment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the newspaper excerpts scream non-independent, probably some kind of a deal for coverage if not outright payment. – you are saying that Jenny Knight of The Times, Will Smale of BBC, Adeline Iziren of The Guardian, Chloe Rigby of Bristol Evening Post, Sam Dunn of Western Daily Press, Richard Tyler of The Daily Telegraph, and Tom Banks of Design Week (the journalists quoted at the AfD) all have been paid by E3 Media to violate their journalistic integrity.

  This is a serious WP:BLP violation that should not be made without evidence.

  BLP applies to project namespaces too. From WP:BLPTALK:

  Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.

  How does saying without proof that these journalists are being bought by "probably some kind of a deal for coverage if not outright payment" not "ris[e] to the level of defamation"?

  Cunard (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am definitely and decidedly saying that the excerpts sound like promotion, and they are not providing historiographically secondary source information. I don't know the authors, or the newspapers (what they are now, now that newspaper income streams have been gutted), what there Terms and Conditions, or Disclaimers are, or what counts as journalistic integrity (beyond fact checking, and I suggest no doubt of any of the reported facts). Newspapers and other popular periodicals are very poor notability-supporting sources for commercial products, independence for WP:N purposes is not to to be assumed lightly. WP:CORP is a very restrictive threshold, more restrictive than the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the sources I provided were published between 2000 and 2005 before "newspaper income streams have been gutted". WP:CORP does not require "transformative coverage" that does not just repeat facts. It merely requires "deep coverage" that "extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization".

  WP:CORP does not exclude newspapers from establishing notability.

  Your accusation that the journalists are probably receiving payments to write promotional articles attacks their professional integrity and honesty. It attacks their personal character and reputation as journalists. No reputable publication would hire a journalist who unethically accepted payment to write a promotional article masquerading as independent journalism. That is why per WP:BLP I ask you not to make such a serious charge without proof.

  Cunard (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I read WP:N and WP:CORP differently. "Depth of coverage" implies transformed secondary source content. There is no depth in repetition. The several sources are just repeating routine announcement information. There is nothing qualitative in the reports. They are not deep. Newspapers have always been complicated, from one page to the next they change from stories, to reports, back to stories, and then explicit opinion, then directory information, then sports. The stories imply notability, the reports do not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC) "Some marketing fluff picked up by the media doesn't make it a notable company", as someone said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It smacks to me more of lazy journalism on a slow news day. Need a story? Recycle a press release. It happens all the time, even in the best publications. Shritwod (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've have expected a more complete closing statement, given the sources presented.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also bewildered by the idea that a lack of recent sources leads to a "delete", and perplexed by the idea that someone's paid the BBC, The Times or the Guardian for an undisclosed advertorial. That's a total misconception of how the BBC or the UK broadsheets work.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore the speculation on how it may happen then. The sourced material offered reads like "marketing fluff picked up by the media". It looks like undisclosed advertorial, but you're are right, it is better ascribed to a slow news day. I would expect these major news outlets if practising real non-independent reporting would do so with more subtlety.
  Real point: Mere repetition of marketing information is not "depth of coverage" and doesn't pass WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really puzzled now. To me, this source by the BBC business correspondent for the South West, combined with a piece in The Times and an interview in The Guardian, looks like a one-way ticket to notability-land. And with all due respect for Bishonen's well-presented argument, notability isn't temporary. If they were notable in 2004-05, then they're notable forever. And with a notability debate where the GNG is passed, I'm as uninterested in WP:CORP as I am in any other SNG. But I'm unaccustomed to disagreeing so completely with my friend SmokeyJoe, and I'm wondering if there might be something I've failed to understand.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:S_Marshall, it is definitely a borderline case, and having applied my source analysis method and fallen on one side, I amy be arguing with a strength out of proportion. It's probably due to my other friend, Cunard, who annoyingly has slightly more endurance, intelligence, and pedantry with me and over many years has consistently won every argument. Surely this one, where it is him against the world, I can pile on and get a win?
  You, I never find argumentative, but more thoughtful and nuanced. The BBC source is pretty good. I think diverge with your "uninterested in WP:CORP as I am in any other SNG". There are exactly two SNGs that stand without reference to the GNG, they enjoyed consensus before we phrased the GNG (I was there), even before WP:N was accepted. They are WP:PROF, which allows an article even where the subject fails the GNG, and WP:CORP, which disallows articles even where the GNG is met. The BBC source is good, but I still read it as a promotional piece. It is almost a puff piece. If I were marking it for as an analytical/commentary piece, I would give it 3/10. Why do newspapers write these things? It is not a lack of integrity, but their efforts to maintain value of the newspaper to their readership, and if the subject assists them in doing that, then where's the problem. I am familiar with organisational engagement with the media. Integrity is well defined, and everyone sails close to the wind. On any non-commercial topic, I would say yes, the sources demonstrate interest in the subject. On commercial topics, I agree with the higher bar of WP:CORP. If I don't see any hint of critical commentary, and if there is no cross-brand comparisons, I have learned to be wary of accepting either the "independence" of the source, or the "depth of coverage". Repetition and puff are not depth. Interestingly, I largely developed this view from being beaten by Cunard when I erred on supporting contributors, assuming good faith attempts to contribute until it was clear that they were intentional and committed promotionists. In this case, I am suspicious of Kangaroogirl (talk · contribs), as well as unimpressed with the highly ambiguous name, and my inability to find how this topic connects to anything else in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the byline for that BBC Story- BBC News business reporter in Bristol and Cornwall. It's a local news story. Or The Guardian - check the byline: [email protected].. what is that? Doesn't look like a news article to me. An advertorial feature? In this Telegraph article the mention of E3 is purely incidental. I can't even see E3 mentioned in this cited Express article. Other articles seem similar, and I don't believe that trade press and local news establishes general notability. Heck, even little old me has more press mentions than that and it certainly doesn't mean that I should have an article about me. E3 is a PR company, that is has managed to rustle up some fairly thin publicity about its own business is not unexpected, but I strongly believe that a few mentions here and there do not establish notability. But in fact surely that isn't even the point of this discussion? After four AfDs the editor consensus was very strong pro-delete (yes, I know it's about arguments rather than votes). Shritwod (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Like The Guardian and The Times, the BBC is a nationwide (actually international, but UK-focused) media organisation that uses local correspondents. The South West, which that particular correspondent covers (Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Bristol) has more than 4 million residents; it's larger, more populous and has a higher GDP than many countries. It's true that he isn't Kamal Ahmed or Robert Peston, but we wouldn't disregard something from CNN just because it came from their Chicago correspondent, would we?

  The Guardian interview is of course a primary source and it's only really of interest in that the Guardian chose to publish it. I agree that its contents aren't very valuable for article-writing. There are undoubtedly low-grade sources about E3 Media. But this doesn't mean the high-grade ones don't count. I think the BBC article is easily the best, and the one that should form the main source of the article. The Times is the second source that pushes it over the threshold for GNG.—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, let's talk about the article in The Guardian. Sure, it looks like a news article, but if I Google the domain in the byline (i.e. worksmartcommunications.com) I only get pages from the Guardian from those sections that used to drop out of the middle (i.e. the Money and Education supplements). This seems to me to be filler rather than a serious journalistic article. I can't even find any evidence that a company of that name has ever existed in the UK, although the writer Adeline Iziren does seem to have written several freelance articles for newspapers on various subjects, but most of them are similar in tone to this. I guess it comes down to how you interpret the authoritativeness of such an article. But as I said before, isn't it an argument for an AfD debate and not a deletion review? (Or am I wrong?) Shritwod (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I did say "There are undoubtedly low-grade sources... this doesn't mean the high-grade ones don't count". If the Guardian source is filler then it's filler. In order to be notable, only the best two sources have to be decent ones. As for whether this is an argument for AfD, you're right:- normally yes it would be. In theory DRV, is restricted to reviewing whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus. (In practice, when there's a genuine problem with the deletion process we do whatever it takes to correct it. Although not relevant to this case, there are occasions where we think the closer correctly interpreted the discussion, but the discussion itself was defective; and we're inconsistent about how we handle that, sometimes going for "no consensus to overturn", sometimes going for "relist", and more rarely, we re-litigate the whole thing from top to bottom, which can occasionally overturn a "keep" to a "delete" or vice versa. That's not common.)

  Bishonen isn't a person who often has her closes overturned at DRV and in fact I don't recall that ever happening before, but in this case her whole position (the one with which she opened the debate) is roundly contradicted by WP:NTEMP, so there's a good prima facie case for closer error here. If we establish that the closer did make a mistake, then we usually then try to work out whether that mistake was substantial enough to lead to "overturn". In order to do that, we would need to show that there's honest doubt about whether the conclusion was correct, and I don't see how we can show that the mistake was substantial without pontificating about notability.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. And I think if there had been a single AfD for this article then there certainly wouldn't have been enough debate, but overall there are three quite recent AfDs that I think show a strong consensus when read together and in fact for the very first AfD in 2005 it was deleted. My assumption was that the article was deleted taking all of that into context. Shritwod (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]