Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May

Template:La Reine Margot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Userfied version: User:TonyTheTiger/Template:La Reine Margot

Recently Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_20#Template:La_Reine_Margot was closed as delete by Plastikspork. In discussing the closure with him, it was clear that he closed on the consensus among discussants (Jc86035, Robsinden, and Frietjes) that the template (which can be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/Template:La Reine Margot) was redundant with {{Alexandre Dumas}}. There are 16 links in the template at issue. At the time of the discussion 4 of those links were included in the Dumas template and a fifth has been added since the discussion closed. All of the disscussants ignored the 11 historical characters and a consensus resulted that ignoring the 11 historical figure links, the other 5 were largely redundunant with the Dumas template making the template unnecessary.

The closer made no evaluation of whether the historical figure links should have been ignored. My issue is that the reason for ignoring the other 11 links when evaluating redundancy contravenes a well-honed guideline on WP:BIDIRECTIONALity. A wide array of active editors have contributed to the guideline, especially the removal and exclusion of language that supports removal of content such as historical figures from templates. The proponent of this specific TFD discussion, Robsinden, has been attempting to expand the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL directive to include such language since 2013 and has been using his expanded version to delete templates since that time. For an understanding of the longstanding and well-supported consensus against such language is as follows:

• On March 23 2012, Boghog sought approval to add this directive via a well placed discussion board request at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_5#Stating_the_obvious, which he decided was uncontested on May 14, 2012.
• On May 14, 2012, Boghog added language to WP:CLN that read "Finally every article that transcludes a navbox should also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.".
• About a year and a half later, the directive gained prominence at CLN when Robsinden employed shortcuts supporting the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL link with October and November 2013 edits: [1], [2] and 3.
• Also, in October 2013, RobSinden made his first attempt to expand the BIDIRECTIONAL language at [3].
• This change went largely unnoticed until Pigsonthewing was the first to take issue with RobSinden's expansion, on February 15, 2014.
• RobSinden attempted to restore this language on April 3.
• I called the expanded directive into question one week later on April 10.
• Then RobSinden attempted to restore the content over objections by others (myself, Nikkimaria & Bkonrad) no less than three times in the next 24 hours ([4], [5], [6]).
• Attempts to expand the directive have been hotly contested with at least a half a dozen separate discussions to attempt to restore and delete the expanded text:
  1. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7#Bidirectional_navboxes.3F started May 15 2013 by Thincat
  2. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7#Bidirectionality_revisited started September14 2014 by Boghog
  3. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_9#Tweak_bidirectionality started June 27 2015 by Montanabw
  4. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_10#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements started November 19 2015 2013 by slakr
  5. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_11#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_considered_harmful.3F started May 9 2016 by Andy Dingley
  6. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_11#Proposal_to_clarify_BIDIRECTIONAL started January 31 2017 by WhatamIdoing

• Overturn Given the history of the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL directive in the WP:CLN Wikipedia editing guideline, it should be clear that RobSinden's stance that "every article linked in the navbox should normally have the template transcluded" is not the consensus opinion and thus templates that include historical figures (whose articles should not include every literary work template in which they appear) are not problematic for that reason. The reasons presented in which historical figures are discounted in this discussion are creative representations of RobSinden's stance. Unless the historical figures are discounted as if they should not even be on the template there is no argument against this template. We should not allow a template to be deleted for a reason that has been deemed to be without merit over again and again within an official guideline. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, as I pointed out in the discussion, the first line of WP:NAVBOX is Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. The navbox did not achieve this with the historical figures, it only facilitated navigation to those articles, something which can be achieved through normal linking from the articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RobSinden, we have gone over this again and again in the six previous discussions at BIDIRECTIONAL. An article linked in a template need not include that template the template still provides navigation to all articles as a hub. It is much like the airport hub and spoke system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – The main argument in favor of deletion was it was redundant and the nom of this deletion review has provided no reason why the template is not redundant. Boghog (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boghog I have stated above that 11 of the template's 16 links are not redundant. I am questioning why these 11 links are being ignored since there have been extensive policy discussions regarding such links in templates and whether we should promote their removal. Even you seem to be ignoring them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarify BIDIRECTIONAL. Experienced software developers might recognise RFC:2119, and those who don't could probably benefit from reading it. The problem here is the word "normally". In conventional English, this is taken as meaning that most cases will apply the rule, but it recognises that there are implicitly some exceptions where the rule does not apply. In 2119, the distinction is drawn between SHOULD (i.e. "normally") and MUST (in all cases), again recognising that using the weaker form of SHOULD rather than the essential form of MUST implies that there are cases where the opposite is true.
  On WP though, this is instead interpreted as "If it says normally, or most, or in general" that excuses a bulk edit or edit war to remove it, as if utterly forbidden. This excuse is in ALLCAPS, thus can be used to excuse any behaviour at 3RR or at ANI. Editorial judgements about the quality of the resultant article are of no value, for the remover has the power of Greyskull POLICY behind them. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Andy Dingley, BIDIRECTIONAL means that an article should only include templates that include that article. There have been six debates which have essentially attempted to expand the language of BIDIRECTIONAL to say that links that are included in a template should be restricted to those links that will include the template. This expansion would have provided policy based removal of template content from WP like the template at issue here. These debates have been unsuccessful and the language has remained unchanged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your point here.

BIDIRECTIONAL states this, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Note that it includes the word "normally".

Are you taking "normally" there and "should" in your comment above in the RFC 2119 sense? i.e. that in most cases they will apply, but that it's recognised that there are exceptions? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley note that the reason I am pointing to the history of BIDIRECTIONAL is that there have been repeated consensi to remove language that the template nominator has insisted should be the prevailing consensus. Many editors have actively attempted to curb his attempts to delete template content like this whether in whole or in part by proactively removing language from the guideline that he has tried to insert. My point is about the language that has been repeatedly removed and not that which continues to exist. The removed content has significance. This deletion is an attempt to delete regardless of what the consensus is regarding this type of content removal. Yes an ad hoc deletion can be appropriate, but in this case the necessary reasoning is that both the original content links and historical content links both be unnecessary. I am not satisfied that there is any reasoning that the historical content is unnecessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Even though I don't know what this particular template said, I generally agree with your analysis about the mindless-rule-following nature of the underlying problem. The "guideline-approved" path out of that maze appears to be to re-format the navbox into a vertical shape, called it a "sidebar", and put whatever you want in it. Template:Psychology is rigidly subjected to that rule, no matter what makes sense in a given situation; Template:Psychology sidebar is exempt. If TonyTheTiger wants editors to be able to find relevant pages, then a REFUND and a quick little cosmetic re-formatting should solve his problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WhatamIdoingk I am not understanding your participation if you have not clicked on the userfied version of this template at the top of this page and have not read the prior TFD enough to understand that this is a debate about whether the links in that template are redundant with those in {{Alexandre Dumas}}. I am requesting a REFUND because the over 2/3rds of the links in the template at issue are not in {{Alexandre Dumas}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment was in reply to Andy Dingley's comment about the widespread disregard for editorial judgment, as evidenced in the rejection of this navbox. It would probably make more sense if you read it as a reply to the comment that was immediately before my reply, before you inserted another comment between the two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • WhatamIdoing, Well if you are saying that this discussion was decided wrongly, then an overturn opinion would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Realizing there have been a number of discussions and RfCs on the topic, there should probably be another one. As it stands I've got to weakly endorse the outcome. After reading the history of this, I'd say it's fair to say that there isn't much in the way of consensus on the issue, but guidelines-as-written and the vote count both weakly point to deletion. I'd have also endorsed a NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, the argument for deletion was that the core navigation provided by the template was redundant, and the majority of the participants in the discussion agreed. DRV is not a second TfD. Frietjes (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The TfD looks fine, properly closed, rough consensus was against TonyTheTiger. The underlying BIDIRECTIONAL issue may need more work, more discussion, but it is not an issue to be resolved at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse rough consensus in the TfD was definitely in favour of deletion. The argument for this was that the template links were redundant and the links to the historical figures weren't helpful. This looks perfectly reasonable to me and I'm not seeing a clear policy/guideline contradicting this view. Hut 8.5 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I do not see consensus in that discussion. There was a fundamental disagreement, and it was not resolved. (I do have an opinion about this,but I'm not going to argue it here. The place to ague this is at either a renewed and more extensive discussion of the template, or a general discussion of the appropriate guidelines. What is clear to e is theat the key argument in the TfD. that it's included in the Dumas template, is simply false. This is in a great deal more detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, clearly I endorse my closure, but I still don't get why TonyTheTiger hasn't added this "important" list of historical figures to La Reine Margot (novel). Or is this something that mobile viewers shouldn't see? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Isik Abla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted against WP:STALE and in spite of discussion then occuring on [User talk:Isik Alba1] Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comments: Page was nominated for WP:G12 (copyright violation). Newimpartial contested the deletion, as only about 75% of the content was a copyvio. I concurred, removed the offending text, and noticed that the remainder was overly promotional with little left to salvage (and zero references). Thus, I deleted it WP:G11. STALE has nothing to do with this, and as I have repeatedly stated on my talk page, simply contesting a speedy tag does not automatically make it invalid (though again, the G12 was successfully contested). Primefac (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) You mean User talk:Isik Abla1, the talk page of the user who created it, I take it? I see no such discussion there. WP:STALE has exactly nothing to do with why the page was deleted, and I can confirm that it was a copyright violation, nearly in its entirety, since its first revision. (And, typically for copyvios, the content was so unsuitable for Wikipedia that a deletion as unambiguous advertising would also have been defensible.)
  Unless you have and present a very strong argument that this was in fact not a copyright violation, this review is likely to be closed in very short order. —Cryptic 02:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Cryptic, I believe they are referring to Draft talk:Isik Abla. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is where I wrote the objection. WP:STALE sets out a number of criteria for deletions from Draft space, which do not include WP:N or the likelihood of a Draft becoming a Wikipedia article. It seems to me that this was a good faith draft, and that in spite of the WP:COPYVIO the appropriate course was to delete that content, and allow someone to rewrite it. This is particularly the case since the Draft had only been recently rejected at AfC, and not for reasons of WP:COPYVIO. It is fine for Primefac to say that G12 was overturned, so then he used G11, but that isn't really how SD is supposed to work, is it? A bit of a shell game, if nobody can see the notice before deletion.

  In any case, all I am really saying in this context is that its deletion (and that of the talk page) should be overturned so that in can go through the MfD process. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, well, color me unconvinced. This would still have been deleted if it went to WP:CP (not MFD, as demanded on Draft talk:); nearly half of even the post-revdel version is either directly infringing or deleteably-close paraphrasing; and it's a G11 regardless. —Cryptic 02:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's fine to be unconvinced, but this was one of series of SD nominations that did not meet the criteria posted in the notice (as far as I could tell) and I just wanted procedure to be followed, which I don't believe it was. WP:COPYVIO reads:

    "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." This is not what was done. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Followed from Primefac's talk. If the content was G11 eligible it would have also been G12 eligible because that criteria clearly states that where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving it is able to be applied. Excessive copyvio often is present with G11 eligible drafts and new pages because the marketing people just recycle. Since I can't see the article, and I trust Primefac's judgement on most thing's implicitly, 75% match for copyvio plus advertising is a good speedy candidate. Cryptic's further analysis of more copyvio is an additional argument against restoration. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of what's not from the cited site is from [7] and (according to Google; Facebook doesn't show me a thing with NoScript on, so I can't confirm) [8]. The only paragraph I can't source is the one starting "Today, Işık’s programs are broadcast in 160 countries on five continents in five languages", and that's the G11iest of them all. —Cryptic 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (nb: I've just speedied another copy of this at User:Cottona/sandbox. —Cryptic 03:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

If it's a real problem, then it must be dealt with. My issue was procedural, since the article in question was deleted without discussion, and against my Prima Faciae objection. I have no sympathy with actual spam generators. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying hard to believe that because you recently found a new wiki career protecting spam by trying to close MfDs with "procedural close", seeking to have spam undeleted, and now removing speedy tags from obvious spam cases. I'm thinking of going to ANi over your nonsense when I'm on a computer not mobile. Legacypac (talk)

You can believe what you want, but you are the one repeatedly violating WP:CONSENSUS, Legacypac, not me.Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this to be closed, per Cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted against WP:STALE and in spite of discussion then occuring on User talk:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the SD, I looked at the userspace draft and did not see any evidence of WP:SPAM; I therefore removed the SD tag which the nominator, Legacypac, then re-added. Admin then SDed the Userspace page in spite of the discussion ongoing on the talk page. CSD G11 is unambigious advertising, and I don't see how this deletion could possibly have met that standard. Therefore I am calling for a review. Newimpartial (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Valid speedy. Justified deletion. We are a little more tolerant in draft space than user space, but this would have been a good speedy anywhere. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

after looking at it, I would say "justified deletion"--it is stretching G11 a little. But I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive. This is the proper place for questioning discussions on deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad faith nomination with block requested for nominator. See ANI. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm done with the nominator. I told him I might take him to ANi if he kept up this nonsense protection of spam. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow endorse disruptive review request. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Expanding since this is still going on: my further endorse rationale can be summed up by Lankiveil: restoring a sub-stub with no sourcing only to send it to MfD is an affront to commonsense and a waste of everyone's time. I'll echo others that say G11 is a stretch, but now that it's been applied how exactly is wasting another week of everyone's time at MfD in the interest of the encyclopedia? IAR is justified in not overturning here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IAR is never an appropriate reason to speedy delete anything. By definition, speedy deletion is allowed only for pages that would be uncontroversially deleted every single time without exception. Every single one of those cases is listed in the WP:CSD criteria, so if it does not meet the letter and spirit of a criterion then its deletion cannot be uncontroversial. If an uninvolved editor disagrees that a page meets the speedy deletion criteria then it does not meet the criteria (and this page is full of people doing exactly that). WP:IAR is only for actions that clearly improve the encyclopaedia. Deleting pages that do not have consensus to be deleted is the exact opposite of improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that restoring one sentence that was used to hang spam links on only to send it to MfD to be deleted, which no one is suggesting it wouldn't be, is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. I'd agree with you on everything you say: I would not have tagged this page as G11, but now that it is deleted does restoring serve a purpose? TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that IAR shouldn't be used in speedy deletion. But it's done all the time, every day, with much more substantial and much less hopeless pages. Try paging through CAT:CSD in the early morning US time, say around 6 or 8:00 UTC, and watchlisting all the improperly-tagged articles instead of declining them; somewhere between 80% and 100% of them end up redlinks whenever I try this. There are much, much better pages to be bringing to DRV if your goal is strict adherence to the criteria as written. —Cryptic 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't have speedied this - remove the external links, and it's no worse than an A7 (and thus not deleteable in userspace) - but two short sentences completely abandoned for three and a half years is hardly worth getting worked up over. —Cryptic 06:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if you think so, but it wasn't a bad faith nomination. I hope you can see that. Newimpartial (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nyttend, DGG, and Cryptic: Requesting temporary undeletion for review if one of you wouldn't mind. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I would normally provide the tempundelete, in this case I'm going to decline. The article was clearly of no value to the encyclopedia. It consisted of three external links to commercial sites where the subject's music could be purchased, and just enough text to hang the ref tags on. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The text was "Shy Kidx is a EDM project out of Italy.[1] They have released 3 tracks for sale on iTunes[2] through Epitaph Records.[3]", last edited (except for addition and removal of a db-g11 tag) in 8 November 2013. RoySmith's characterization of those three "references" is accurate. —Cryptic 15:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. But, more than that, I strongly caution Newimpartial to reconsider their argumentative and combative style. While we welcome any and all newcomers who want to help the project, there is a learning curve. You have waded into a highly technical and nuanced area of policy and are picking battles with some of our most experienced editors and administrators. That's not productive. You were given some excellent advice when it was suggested you join the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy project. That's a good way to get involved in some of the behind-the-scenes work of building the encyclopedia and learning about our policies. I encourage you to follow that advice. I also encourage you to read WP:NOTHERE. If you continue to pursue the non-productive arguments you have been embroiled in, myself or some other admin will surely invoke WP:BLOCKP to prevent further disruption of our work. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator presents a superficial case for WP:TROUTing the re-tagger & deleting admin (a removed CSD tag calls for a discussion), but the correct way forward may be to warn User:Newimpartial of WP:Disruption and possible WP:BLOCKs. I haven't read the unlinked ANI threads, but that appears to be the proper venue, given what I see at User_talk:Newimpartial#Userspace_deletions and User_talk:Newimpartial#Removal_of_CSD_template. I see an allegation by Newimpartial of "Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations" as justification for CSD detagging. This is a serious allegation. I ask User:Legacypac to enable User:Legacypac/CSD log, to turn it on using the preferences panel, for transparency. A qucik random check of contributions reveals a lot of tagging and some bad tagging [9][10][11][12] (NB this search is biased as it can only find CSD taggings on undeleted pages). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The one-line article was created three and a half years ago and left to rot. It is a complete nonsense to retain it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn regardless of how many experienced editors the OP may be going against here, this was not unambiguously promotional and should not have been deleted under G11. Yes, the page doesn't have any particular merit, but nevertheless it doesn't qualify for G11. Hut 8.5 20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, this was unambiguous advertising, given the ratio of text to external links where you could buy this artist's music. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Even if that's true G11 requires that the page would need a fundamental rewrite in order to make it not promotional. Deleting a few links is not a fundamental rewrite. Hut 8.5 06:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the promotional material is removed, you have an unsourced substub. Overturning to retain such low quality "content" would not be in the interests of the project, and would represent an affront to common sense. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn. This was not unambiguous promotion, and so not speedy deletable under G11. It was not in article space so none of the A criteria could apply. It was not nonsense, a test page, vandalism, a hoax, the recreation of previously deleted material, the creation of a blocked or banned user, a technical deletion, at the request of the author, deleted by the WMF Office, an attack page or copyright infringement. Therefore it does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. The correct course of action for something like this is MfD. I would almost certainly recommend deletion at MfD, but this does not justify a bad speedy deletion because speedy deletions that do not meet the criteria are one of the most harmful things that an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as not meeting any speedy deletion criteria per the above. More important than a one-line article here is the cavalier attitude of DRV participants who should know better. It doesn't matter if it was trash: Nominate it at MfD and let the process run. Speedy deletion for things not covered by speedy deletion criteria is among the worst things an admin can do with the 'delete' button. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Hard to believe one could back so much spam into so few words. I am puzzled by Newimpartial's striving to retain spam.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn.

  Cryptic noted above that the page's text was:

  Shy Kidx is a EDM project out of Italy.[1] They have released 3 tracks for sale on iTunes[2] through Epitaph Records.[3]

  RoySmith described the references as: "It consisted of three external links to commercial sites where the subject's music could be purchased, and just enough text to hang the ref tags on."

  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. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

  The page's text clearly is not "exclusively promotional". It clearly does not have to be "fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". The commercial external links can be easily removed.

  The policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says:

  The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media.

  Since WP:G11 is not met, and no other speedy deletion criterion has been mentioned as being applicable here, the speedy deletion must be overturned.

  The appropriate place to discuss whether the page should be deleted is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

  Cunard (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to MfD. What Cunard says. G11 clearly didn't apply here and without any valid speedy deletion reasons, the deletion has to be overturned. Trying to justify this deletion with "not worth to retain it" or "would not be in the interests of the project" misses the point of DRV, i.e. to determine whether the deletion was within policy, not whether the page might have been deleted anyway at another venue. The page's "worthiness" can be discussed at the appropriate venue but DRV is not it. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's footnote: just so that everyone is on the same page: I do not support the retention of this particular draft; I nominated it originally in large part because as non-admin I couldn't see it, and was trying to assess a wave of draftspace MfDs, several of which seemed to stretch criteria. Today my attention was drawn to this, [13] the text of which seems to encourage CSD-tagging and AfC submission against prevailing policies, in order to "resolve" stale draft tags. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You untagged the page before it was deleted. How is that not being able to see it? —Cryptic 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Cryptic; I waw confusing it with another case that I requested thst the admin undelete but which I didn't take to this forum. I should have re-read my own request.

This one I untagged without checking the referencing, and then it was gone. Honestly, I thought at the time that it should have been discussed, but I also wanted to see the content because I couldn't remember what it had been and wanted to learn from the case (which I sure have). Sorry for confusing the matter with my earlier post. I do think the Category description reveals the process by which these overly enthusiastic CSD tags, mainspace transfers and AfC submissions are being generated. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial it is puzzling you are seeking to undelete something you don't want to retain. Many experiemced editors have counciled you to stop fighting deletion process and policy. You said you would, but here you are again, trying to say the long standing guide conflicts with policy. Roughly half your total edits concern telling everyone else the no one else understands MfD and CSD process and policy in favor of SPAM. Seems you WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was seeking to undelete something I no longer want to remain. Does that make more sense? And the "long standing guide" quite clearly conflicts with the results of last year's consultations and the resulting WP:STALE, as I believe you know.

And the majority of my edits are both unreverted and in articlespace, thanks. Many of the rest are talk page participation, etc. I don't tell anyone that "they don't understand" anything, and I have been even more careful with issues of tone, recently. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn, and restore draft, with the option to list at MfD. I don't see anything at WP:STALE or at Category:Stale userspace drafts that suggests, much less authorizes, using speedy deletion of legit drafts merely because they are stale. If there were any such suggestion, I would remove it as clearly against policy. DES ^(talk) 22:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse  The petitioner cites no record of discussion with the deleting admin, so there is no dispute to consider; and while there are multiple issues that give pause, this is not a WP:IAR situation to discover a problem not already reviewed by the closing admin.  The remedy at this point is a new article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split between User talk:Nyttend#Recent userspace deletions and User talk:Newimpartial#Userspace deletions. —Cryptic 02:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but after review I want to stay focused on the big picture and the core issues here.  Out-of-process Deletion Reviews are not the way for identifying out-of-process deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see how this is an out-of-process review; I have looked again at the deletion appeal instructions, and don't see any requirement to cite the discussion with the deleting admin, which consisted of my question here [14] and their answer here [15] before I asked for review. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This review is in no way out of process. The instructions mention as one of the proper uses of DRV: if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed. The instructions also say not to open a DRV: when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, but such discussion did occur and was linked above. There is no requirement that this be linked in the nomination statement, and it was mentioned early in the discussion, if I am not mistaken. That multiple experienced editors have opined that an OVERTURN is justified pretty well demonstrates that this is a proper DRV, even if their opinion does not prevail. A deletion not within the precise guidelines of a CSD, nor following any deletion discussion, is inherently out-of-process, and cannot be "justified". Such deletions should normaly be brought to DRV for review. Had I learned of this from the nominator, say via a Teahouse post, i would have opened a DRV myself. DES ^(talk) 05:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This review is in no way out of process"?  This is hyperbole, and does not leave room for a reply that advances the conversation.  "Multiple experienced editors" is a fallacy because their experience may or may not be relevant.

If it is true that the role of participants is to research and locate a discussion with the deleting admin, why did DGG not make the report as the first respondent?  You yourself state, "...it was mentioned early in the discussion, if I am not mistaken."  This is a rather short discussion that you can't find the mention. 

Why is the discussion on the talk page of the deleted article only being reviewed by admins? 

I think you are dismissing the big picture, which is that if you are willing to give a blind eye to process irregularities at DRV, you weaken your objections to process irregularities of CSD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who initiated this deletion review, Unscintillating, I do not understand what you are saying. Both the article and the talk page of the article on which I originally commented were deleted. As a non-admin, I could then no longer see them. This is therefore the context of the review as a whole. I can't see anything out of the formal process whatever. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, when I wrote above that This review is in no way out of process I meant exactly what i said. Neithre I nor anyone is willing to give a blind eye to process irregularities at DRV because there have been no process irregularities at DRV. The DRV process does not require a link to or a mention of discussion with the deleting admin, so failing to provide it is not in any way a process irregularity. The procedure merely requires that such a discussion have occurred. If anyone doubts or challenges that, a link or links can be provided (by the nominator or anyone who cares to), and one was provided as soon as the issue was raised in this thread. Prior to such an issue being raised, there is no particular reason for anyone to provide such a link, so it is not true that the role of participants is to research and locate a discussion with the deleting admin because that is no one's role in particular when no issue has been raised about such discussions. Three is no big picture here except the willingness of some to overlook a blatant misuse of the deletion tool. Deleting a page, however horrid it might be, that does not fit any of the criteria and then failing to correct this error when asked to do so, is a breach of the deletion policy and of WP:ADMINACCT. If we had admin recall, this would surely be grounds to use it. Note that even if there had been a process irregularity here (which there hasn't), it would not involve misuse of admin tools, and so would be far less serious. DES ^(talk) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as to "experienced editors let us look a bit. DGG wrote: I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive.. DGG is an editor with lots of experience with deletions, speedy deletions, and deletion review. Hut 8.5, Thryduulf, Jclemens, Cunard, SoWhy, and myself all called for the deletion to be OVERTURNed. All of those are editors with significant experience of deletions and deletion review, if I am not mistaken. AS for myself, I patrol Category:CSD regularly (as my deletion log and contributions log will show), I have participated in quite a few DRV discussions over the years, and I was one of the group of editors who created the current DRV process out of the old VfU process. I really think all that should be enough to absolve the nominator of having made an out of process much less a disruptive nomination here. DES ^(talk) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, also, please restore draft. The artist is notable as per WP:MUSICBIO and included in other versions of Wikipedia, such as the Portuguese version. Wikipedia is a global community, not reserved for US artists only. Pbigio (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per Pbigio's argument that the draft might meet MUSICBIO, which means that there is a reason for the MfD beyond just process, which I did not see raised until now. As for my comments about disruption that others have mentioned: I've struck them because I do believe this nomination was in good faith, but at the time was a part of a set of behaviors that got the nominator warned against participation in the deletion process without more experience when it was brought up at ANI using this as one of the examples, and it was in that context that my original comment was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn without prejudice to an MfD if someone wants to. I don't feel this is overly promotional once the links are removed, I also think there is a credible a claim of significance. I don't think this has much of a chance as an article, but I don't really grok our music guidelines, so I could be wrong. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the entire two sentences that were on the page have been posted in the thread, an overturn is not really helpful to anyone wanting to write an actual article on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Ignoring the article wizard boilerplate, you have to remove ~60% of the wikitext to get rid of the promotional material. That counts as a "fundamental rewrite" in my book. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maritime science fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Draft:List of maritime science fiction works (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<When the article was deleted with conscientious (lack of reliable sources) User:Fixuture> saved them as drafts upon my requests. Other users including User:J 1982 were working to improve this draft before we submit it for review. But Draft:Maritime science fiction and Draft:List of maritime science fiction works were deleted without warning and consensus. We tried to have the drafts un-deleted at Wikipedia: Requests for undeletion, but were instead asked to come here by the deleting administrator User:Orangemike Taeyebar 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 268#Draft:Maritime science fiction and here for reference. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On the one hand, I can't approve of G4-ing drafts that are being actively improved, based on afds of their mainspace versions (especially when the afds aren't cited, and I have to go hunt them down myself). On the other, they were deleted for lack of external referencing, not their current content; and while the new source in Draft:Maritime science fiction is a good start, it's not anywhere near enough to overcome the deletion discussions. Maybe it would be better to work on them offline for the time being? —Cryptic 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really struggling to figure out what the motivation for G4'ing these drafts was. Sure, they're incomplete and would make poor articles in their current state, but is that not the basic point of the Draft namespace? Am I missing something here? As far as I can discern, the objections to this seem to be totally procedural at the request for undeletion and I'm really struggling to see why it was G4'ed in the first place, and why this (apparently fairly harmless) draft can't be worked on. ~ mazca ^talk 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft. There's nothing that makes this subject inherently unsuitable for the encyclopedia. The AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction) found it lacking in sources, but if people are going to research better sources, draftspace seems like a perfectly reasonable place for the article to live while that happens. If they never find adequate sources, so what? It hangs out in draft. If they do find sufficient sources to address the issues from the AfD, then it'll be worth moving back into mainspace. Honestly, I'm doubtful that will happen, but there's no harm in letting it live in draft space while people work on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what Lankiveil points out in his comment below. Draft space is a tool for improving the article, which means addressing head-on the issues raised in the AfD. It is not a quick path to side-stepping the AfD consensus; moving back into main space needs to be strictly conditional upon finding good sources to establish this as an accepted genre. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The harm comes from the fact this draft is from Taeyebar. Maritime science fiction was deleted by consensus last year, along with List of maritime science fiction works and the category. Consensus was Maritime science fiction is a setting, not a genre, and there is no academic coverage of it as such. Taeyebar was using it to edit war, inserting it into the lead of multiple articles. Taeyebar put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. You should be aware that Taeyeaar's history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple previous warnings posted on his Talk page. Taeyebar may find other sources that talk about it, but they won't be academic and they won't establish it as a proper genre or subgenre. It is very likely Taeyebar will reinstate this draft as an article again, and there is every reason to believe he will then again use it to change the genre in the leads to multiple articles against consensus, taking up other editors' time yet again. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're describing is essentially a content dispute. WP:CSD is not a tool for resolving content disputes. If the problem has risen to the level of disruptive editing, there's better tools to deal with that. Perhaps seek a topic ban prohibiting the user from editing related to genres. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft. rDraft space is a place where articles can be improved to the extent that G4 will no longer apply. Every opportunity should be given for this, unless the draft is actually harmful (advertising, copyvio, serious BLP problem, and the like--none of which seem to apply here. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft per DGG. Note that if the user is so problematic that they've been banned, then G5 would apply. Failing that, no CSD operates on the basis of who is editing the content in question. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 doesn't apply to pages in draft space for improvement, and it doesn't make sense to use it on them. Hut 8.5 19:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - "[G4] excludes ... content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That quote ends with "(but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)". Hobit (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfDs. They were clear decisions that the topic is unsuitable. Pretty significant new sources are required to overcome the deletion reasons. DraftSpace should not be allow to serve as a shadow-Wikipedia for deleted topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that is exactly one of the things that draftspace is for and should be used for. When an article is deleted as having insufficient sourcing, moving the content to draft space to allow editors to work on it, specifically including finding and adding sources, is explicitly allowed by the tems of G$, and is common practice, and benefits the project. I have made such moves myself in several cases, as well as moves of things tagged for speed deletion under A7 (or A1 or A3). And what we are endorsing or overtunring her eis the G4 speedy, not the AfD result. Of course, a mov back to mainspace is conditional on improving the sourcs to the point tha tthe old AfD does not apply, and is subject to a further AfD. If done when clearly improper, that would be disruptive editing. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Draft space is suitable for bringing a Notable topic up to par, not so much for a non-notable one. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn first of all, I'm not thrilled with the admin's response at WP:REFUND. This draft was not deleted per a deletion discussion, so I don't buy their argument at all. Secondly, per DGG, draft space should be used for this. And given that it apparently was being actively improved (including a new source) it's fine. And they Godsy's argument also implies that unless the admin is claiming this is here to "simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", G4 is improper. And given that no one has yet made that claim, I don't see how we can endorse a G4. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion. The topic was found unsuitable BECAUSE there are no sources discussing it. Therefore it fails GNG because its not a real topic. Putting the pages in Draft space for 10 years while people search for nonexistent sources (or hope it becomes a thing) is not appropriate and a circumvention of deletion process. There is also no Kitchen science fiction or Prairie science fiction . Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's no Kitchen science fiction, then what's that fuzzy stuff I found growing on the yogurt in my fridge? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously it's Kitchen science fact. —Cryptic 18:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see the history. Where is 10 years coming from? The AfD was in 2016, is there a history of this pre-dating that? And the claim is that at least one new source has been found and added to the draft. Finally, why does it matter? We want to give people a place to cooperate articles. If folks are actively working on this, how does it help to delete this? (That is not intended to be a rhetorical question). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The figure of 10 years is not coming from the history. The history of the drafts only goes back to August/September 2016 and the history of the article deleted at AfD to July 2016. Hut 8.5 17:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 years is a realistic estimate of how long it will sit in [16] before being deleted again. I should have been more clear. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what harm would be done if this did sit in draft space for 10 years? I see none. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• restore draft and trout the deleting admin! G4 clearly says that pages "converted to a draft for explicit improvement" are excluded from its purview. This draft was being worked on, and at least once source had been added. Whether enough sources could be found to restore to mainspace no one knows and, it does not matter. (In any case a small edit could describe "Maritime science fiction" as a setting rather than a sub-genre, thus negating the argument that it isn't a sub-genre, with the rest of the draft unchanged.) There is really no such thing as an exhaustive search for sources, particularly in the field of SF where sources can be both highly reliable and quite obscure. So the argument that no sources exist and this can never be a valid article falls to the ground. And if someone does want to make that argument, it should be done via an MfD -- speedy deletions are for clearcut cases. I agree with the comments by RoySmith, DGG, and Hobit above. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft per DES and DGG, and trout the deleting admin for a wildly inappropriate speedy deletion. G4 explicitly excludes content that is being worked on in draft space, this is content that was being worked on in draft space. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft it is common for admins to restore copies of deleted articles to user or draft space for improvement. That wasn't the explicit case here, but the same principles apply. No clear reason for the G4, and it falls within the exclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore draft per User:RoySmith, with an added caveat that said restoration is not a licence to move the article back to mainspace without addressing the concerns raised in the AFD that caused it to be deleted in the first place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• restore draft G4 does not apply to draft space works in progress. per DGG. per DES. The thing needs to be reviewed at AfC before returning to article space. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suitable as a {{wiktionary redirect}} as a page repeatedly created but has no encyclopedic value. May be fully protected if necessary. feminist 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This DRV seems to be an appeal of the 2016 deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Sesquipedalophobia, closed by User:MBisanz. The Wiktionary entry is at wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this really need a DRV? Given that the option of a wiktionary redirect wasn't discussed, and (given how little known such redirects are outside of RfD), probably not available to the participants as a possibility in the first place. Anyway, I don't think this should be retargeted to wiktionary, as readers searching for this word are better served by the search results, which consist in two entries: Self-referential humor (where Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is given as an example) and the spelling variant Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (which is a wiktionary redirect and as such could guide users to the relevant wiktionary entry). – Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title's salted, so it needs discussion somewhere. DRV isn't any less reasonable a place for it than WP:RFPP. —Cryptic 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiktionary redirect sounds very reasonable to me. My prior involvement with this was closing a (now very old) RfD that deleted a large number of stupid and/or obscure phobias with unhelpful redirects that weren't mentioned in the target article. This isn't an encyclopedic topic, and is unlikely to be covered as anything other than a joke, but it's well served by the Wiktionary page. ~ mazca ^talk 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unconvinced that the word actually exists, assuming that a "word" means not just a sequence of letters that somebody has made up, but something which is actually used in real language. A Google search turns up blogs, Twitter, wikis, etc, and online dictionaries, all defining the "word" or commenting on its existence, but I have not found even a single example of anyone actually using the word, nor even of anyone referring to any example of the word being used. At least some of the hits have used either Wiktionary or Wikipedia as their sources, and in view of the lack of any examples of actual use it is highly likely that all of them ultimately derive from such unreliable sources as Wikipedia, blogs, etc. I will not be totally upset if the outcome of this discussion is that the page is restored as a link to Wiktionary, but I think it is better not to do so, because my belief is that for Wikipedia to give any support at all to such a fake "word" is unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search for Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia insted (notice the extra p in the middle) you get a somewhat higher number of results, but again there are pretty few of them pre-2000. And of course it's not a word the people normally use, it's a made up word, yes, and one that has been made up specifically as an example of self-referential humour. And that's what it's known for. – Uanfala (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did search under both spellings, and it is more than just "not a word the people normally use": can you give me one example of anyone ever actually using it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone here claims that the word is used non-self-referentially. But that's beside the point. – Uanfala (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a 1980 book source about "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia":
      1. Coon, Dennis (1980). Introduction to Psychology: Exploration and Application (2 ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West. p. 455. ISBN 0829903038. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

         The book notes in a footnote:

         *Obviously by combining the appropriate root word with the word phobia, any number of unlikely fears can be named. Some are acarophobia, a fear of itching, zemmiphobia, fear of the great mole rat, nictophobia, fear of backing into doorknobs; phobosophobia, fear of fear; and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, fear of long words!

      Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Would be reasonable as a soft redirect to a sister project due to it being a topic with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that has been repeatedly recreated. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What a joke. A non-existent word being suitable as a redirect, whether soft or hard, merely on the basis that someone tried repeatedly to push it into Wikipedia? Keep deleted with prejudice. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Bishonen: I can't view the deleted history. Was the page repeatedly recreated by the same user or IP address or different IP addresses? If so, I'll reconsider. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone object if I temporarily restore the article for study by DRV reviewers? Since 2006 there are about 100 edits, with plenty of vandalism and joke edits, and occasional good-faith ideas. If we are mainly concerned about abuse, then leaving the article deleted with the title permanently protected against recreation is about as useful as replacing it with a protected redirect to Wiktionary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tempundeleted for review (and semi-protected). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore as a soft redirect to wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. Here are some sources I found about the subject:
  1. Coon, Dennis (1980). Introduction to Psychology: Exploration and Application (2 ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West. p. 455. ISBN 0829903038. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes in a footnote:

     *Obviously by combining the appropriate root word with the word phobia, any number of unlikely fears can be named. Some are acarophobia, a fear of itching, zemmiphobia, fear of the great mole rat, nictophobia, fear of backing into doorknobs; phobosophobia, fear of fear; and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, fear of long words!

  2. Blows, William T. (2016). The Biological Basis of Mental Health (3 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 356. ISBN 1317479025. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     Ironically, the word for 'fear of long words' is hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

  3. Korgeski, Gregory (2009). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Phobias. New York: Penguin Group. p. 209. ISBN 1101149434. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     Words, long (hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia)

     Fear of very, very, very long words. This term is interesting and there are various histories of it given, but the etymology is clear as river mud. Take a deep breath: hippopoto- refers to back to hippopotamus, which has been used as a basis for words meaning large since the mid-nineteenth century (in the word hippopotamine); this itself comes from the Greek term for hippopotamus, which was literally river horse, or hippo- (horse) combined with potamos (river). Monstros in the middle is from the Latin monstrum for large or evil omen. Sesquipedal means a foot and a half long word, from the Latin sesqui meaning one and a half and pedal from the Latin pes, meaning foot—then of course, we add the 'o' as glue and the -phobia, and there it is. Easy as pie! It is, of course, a joke term, despite the fact that there are probably many students who do fear having to learn to spell very long words.

  4. Sahakian, Barbara; LaBuzetta, Jamie Nicole (2013). Bad Moves: How decision making goes wrong, and the ethics of smart drugs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 0191645532. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia | Long words

  5. Latta, Sara (2013). Scared Stiff: Everything You Need to Know About 50 Famous Phobias. San Francisco: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 97. ISBN 1936976501. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words): Well, this may be a real phobia of spelling bee contestants, for whom the name itself would give nightmares.

  6. Kress, Jacqueline E.; Fry, Edward B. (2016). The Reading Teacher's Book of Lists. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. p. 178. ISBN 1119080932. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia—fear of long words

  7. Burnett, Dean (2016). Idiot Brain: What Your Head Is Really Up To. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 55. ISBN 0393253791. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The book notes:

     This process implies that literally anything can become the focus of a phobia, and if you've ever seen a list of existing phobias this seems to be the case. Notable examples including turophobia (fear of cheese), xanthophobia (fear of the color yellow, which obvious overlaps with turophobia), hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words, because psychologists are basically evil) and phobophobia (fear of having a phobia, because the brain regularly turns to the concept of logic and says, "Shut up, you're not my real dad!").

  8. Lawrence Jr., Calvin (2015-11-13). "Friday the 13th Fears (Paraskevidekatriaphobia) and Other Unpronounceable Phobias". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2017-05-30. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The article notes:

     Sesquipedaliophobia is the fear of long words, which has morphed into the contrived hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. By either spelling, of course, sufferers would have been hard pressed to read beyond the headline of this article.

  9. Tearle, Oliver (2014-10-10). "The Longest English Words to Ever Appear in Literature". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-05-30. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

     The article notes:

     There is a word for those who are scared of long words. It is the suitably long ‘hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.’ There is also a word for somebody who is fond of using long words: sesquipedalian. It stems from the Latin for ‘a foot and a half,’ and was first used to denote someone who is given to longwordiness in Elizabeth Gaskell’s 1853 work Cranford (or at least this is the earliest instance the Oxford English Dictionary has yet managed to unearth).

  10. Shuey, Karen (2016-05-21). "Berks speller taking national competition in stride". Reading Eagle. Archived from the original on 2017-05-30. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

      The article notes:

      Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.

      This could be one of the words that Caroline Allen will have to spell at the Scripps National Spelling Bee next week in Washington.

      But don't worry. If it comes up, she knows it.

      "It might actually be my favorite word because it means a fear of long words," she said. "How funny is that?"

  Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" has been discussed in seven reputable book publishers:

1. West
2. Routledge
3. Penguin Group
4. Oxford University Press
5. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
6. John Wiley & Sons
7. W. W. Norton & Company

Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Already decided at AfD that it is not an encyclopedic topic. There is currently one mention of it in the article Self-referential humor. Redirects and soft redirects interfere with searches. Soft redirects of mainspace titles to Wiktionary are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the sources Cunard listed are enough for meeting WP:N as an article, but probably not enough (IMO) to overcome WP:NOT issues. That said, the redirect seems quite reasonable, but I can't find a guideline that talks about mainspace titles being redirected to Wiktionary. Is there such a guideline? Hobit (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project, and more specifically (but more briefly) at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary. —Cryptic 16:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore redirect meets our style guidelines for when to do this (repeatedly recreated and unencyclopedic). If this does couase problems with searches, then I guess the guidelines need updating. But for now, seems both reasonable and rules-consistent. And thanks to Cryptic for finding that. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the sources I listed are not enough to overcome Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources probably are not even enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability since only the third source provides somewhat significant coverage of the subject while the other sources are mostly just a sentence long.

    Another possible redirect target is to List of phobias. Talk:List of phobias says:

    Entries on this list should all be supported by a reference to a reliable source, either on this page or in a linked article. Phobias which are medical conditions require a link to a medical reliable source. Please do not add entries to the list unless they are properly sourced.

    The inclusion criterion just requires that the phobia be referenced to reliable sources, not that they be notable enough for an article. So if editors think a soft redirect is bad, then another option is a redirect to List of phobias. This would require adding an entry about the term sourced to some of the references mentioned here.

    I am fine with either option. I am fine with just a soft redirect to wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia for now without prejudice against the redirect target's changing in the future.

    Cunard (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. We do not have encyclopaedic content about this topic and there is consensus that we don't want an encyclopaedia article about this topic. There is strong evidence that readers are looking for content at this title on Wikipedia. Wiktionary has relevant content, so why on earth would we not point people there? Our primary goal is to educate people, and in this case a soft redirect is the best way to educate people. If vandalism is a concern then the soft redirect can be (semi) protected just like any other page. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't want to point readers to wiktionary because in this case the search results are more useful than a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Pescod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Evidence for notability

• This man is running a highly controversial semi-independent government agency in a city-state of 8 million people with HK$21.6B budget.
• His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, in a move seen as entrenching of pro-establishment interests in a highly visible and increasingly embarrassing project, as was his promotion to chief of the Authority.
• While he was Director of Housing, he was involved in a scandal in which public officials (incl the Chief Executive) were found to have illegal built structures on their properties.
• He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.
• Many other less notable Hong Kong civil servants have articles. See Rita Lau.
• He has an entry on Chinese wikipedia—zh:栢志高.

PRESS HIGHLIGHTS Pescod takes the WKCD underground (2016), Pescod elevated to top post at West Kowloon agency (2015), Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO (2015), Illegal structures found at housing chief's property (2012).
Please note that I am only including English written media.

Further argument Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.

Is the man running Hong Kong's most ambitious ever arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) really less notable than Robert Hammond?

See also

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 03:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List at AfD. The article is badly written, and the subject almost certainly does not meet WP:N, but neither of those justify WP:CSD. It comes close to either WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) or WP:A7 (No indication of importance), but I'm not entirely convinced it meets either. At least in the current draft, there are a few passages which are close paraphrases of existing material, but it's not bad enough to justify WP:G12 (copyright infringement). So, bring it to AfD, which is the right place to determine WP:N questions. On the other hand, if we endorsed the speedy deletion here, that wouldn't be a terrible outcome either. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose there's not much to be done about A7, as I've stated all the claims of significance I can think of, but how can I improve the article with regard to G11, the paraphrasing and the poor writing? Any suggestions would be most appreciated! —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This article links to multiple sources that might plausibly pass the WP:GNG, so I don't see how we can endorse the A7. Send it to AFD, unless an administrator takes issue with the close paraphrasing (which I haven't checked; not having checked was the reason I didn't do the restoration, revdel, and relisting here myself).
  nb: I'm unilaterally making the editor and edit summaries of the deleted revisions visible; it was just the content that was problematic. —Cryptic 23:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD per my previous comment at DRV. I think there are sources enough to address WP:N, but that's for AfD. And given the fairly local nature of some of those sources, I can see why others might disagree. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the G12 but now that that problem has been rectified, Overturn. The A7 was not valid as there are sources that might conceivably demonstrate notability. Whether anyone then wants to take it to AFD is up to them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and Restore This is clearly not an A7 as it stands, not even within the range of judgement. Whether it would pass an AfD is another issue, which should be considered and decided at an Afd IF anyone cares to start one. Do not automatically list at AfD, leave that to a nominator who will do a WP:BEFORE search and make a good case for deletion, if there is such an editor. The copyright issue would have been reason for deletion, but has been dealt with. I expect it will be found notable at an AfD, but no one can be sure. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Tiger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discussed my rewrite with the closing admin.

I have rewritten the article at Draft:Waking the Tiger.

Here are two reviews about the book:

1. Newton, Ruth P. (March 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
2. Roden, Ann (September 1998). "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences (Book Review)". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4 (3): 340. Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

1. 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. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

The book has received reviews in two peer-reviewed journals: Psychosomatic Medicine and Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #1.

Only one editor commented in the AfD after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until after the AfD close.

Cunard (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect. Cunard does not dispute the validity of the decision. Cunard, you should withdraw this and simply move the article to mainspace. Anyone can create a new article at the topic of a deleted article; there is no requirement to get a new consensus. Of course if it is very similar to the deleted one then persons who participated in the AFD might notice it and object, which would be a ding to your reputation i suppose, but that is not the case here. --doncram 03:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what Cunard originally did. I advised him to withdraw the move and seek consensus for moving the rewritten article to mainspace. I think the best outcome would be a consensus-based determination of whether the draft merits inclusion in mainspace. bd2412 T 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then your advice was suboptimal. Anyone can put anything in mainspace at any time, with the caveat that some things are obviously disruptive and should be dealt with as user conduct issues. If the article is not G4 eligible, which this one isn't, then anyone who continues to disagree can seek a further deletion discussion. DRV is not a required--or even encouraged--stop when the reason for any previous deletion has been addressed in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having some process to obtain community approval for a new article on a recently deleted topic prevents editors from being accused of evading the outcome of the deletion discussion by, for example, adding just enough new material to claim that the article has overcome whatever objections constituted the basis for deletion. Conversely, such a process would prevent spammers and advertisers from engaging in exactly such tactics. I am not suggesting that this revision falls into any of those categories, but it is useful to preempt potential objections. bd2412 T 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds a tad bureaucratic. One important consideration, which I think could be considered critical if there were to be guidance written around this, is that Cunard had no prior history with the article (I'm assuming this is true, it would be checked by checking the article history). If Cunard were to improve the article, move it back to mainspace, to see it deleted again at AfD, he should be precluded from ever moving it again, unilaterally, back into mainspace. Until precluded, as a previously uninvolved editor with the article, I think he should be about to put it back in mainspace on his own judgement. I think article rescuers should be encouraged, subject to a pattern of bad rescued evidenced by deletion of their rescue products. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If Cunard believes the reasons for deletion are overcome, I advise that he should move it to mainspace, notifying AfD participants, and see if it gets nominated again. If re-deleted, recalibrate what you think constitutes overcoming deletion reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This says that Cunard is a strong inclusionist, but not with seriously aberrant !voting. I see no reason to say Cunard is unqualified to decide when reasons for deletion voiced at AfD have been overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore draft, or possibly overturn AfD close to relist. The new draft is substantially different from the one that was deleted. The major objection at the AfD was that there were insufficient sources. New sources have been located. Some of them were presented during the AfD, but nobody evaluated them. If I were reviewing the AfD discussion with an eye to close it, I almost certainly would have not closed it, but rather relisted it, with a relisting comment that the job over the next week was to evaluate the sources that had been presented. I have no opinion on the quality of the new article, or of the sources presented. My objection here is that the process seems to have gone off the rails. Our primary function during an AfD is to review the sources. That was not done. Therefore the AfD is defective. And the events after that have just been pointless bureaucracy. So, put the draft back into mainspace, and if anybody is unhappy with the sources it now has, they are free to bring it back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It's right to put the improved draft into mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I might well !vote to delete (or merge?) this in an AfD (I'm not sure I buy that those sources are reliable though I've not looked closely I've got grave doubts about the level of peer review in alternative medicine), but doncram et. al. are right, this doesn't belong at DRV--it should just be recreated. I suspect Roy is right about the original discussion, but given it doesn't really matter, I've not thought about it much. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move this out of deletion review ASAP User: Doncram wrote: "This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect." I concur with User: Doncram. Knox490 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, let me do this tomorrow, 1 more day for further comments. I am hesitant as it may indeed be brought to another AFD and possible repurcussions.--Jondel (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Cunard: If I restore it , it will look like I wrote it. --Jondel (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the draft is moved into mainspace, its history will be moved along with it. It will look like you moved it, not like you wrote it. bd2412 T 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be best to wait until Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20#Waking the Tiger is closed by an uninvolved admin, who will move it to mainspace. The deletion review will run for at least seven days. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't be restoring it then but will be watching the progress of this review.--Jondel (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this would appear to be in scope of DRV, which according to the blurb at the top of the page may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Given that we're talking about new sources, that would seem fair. I haven't had a look at the draft myself and remain neutral as to whether recreation is justified in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, DRV can be used for such cases. But it is not required. If it were, we'd protect every title deleted at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

With all due respect, I believe this is an appropriate use of non-free content. The subject is not a particularly high-profile individual and is deceased; procuring a free image does not seem to be realistic. I am requesting a community review, because the deleting admin has refused to restore the file. Thanks, FASTILY 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and either keep or list at FFD - The image was captured from BBC video. If anyone has a problem with the content, please take this image to FFD. If FFD is unnecessary, then reinsert the image to the article as fair use image. Prove that BBC puts commercial interests on this screenshot per terms of use. Otherwise, removing the non-free image and pressuring an editor to find a permissible free image illustrate disregard on common practice of uploading non-free images of deceased persons. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  – Further note: In regards to NFCC#1 (irreplaceability criterion), the issue is no longer about the image alone. The issue is also the subject. She experienced a very disturbing trauma that had affected her life. Since then, she had fought injustice and addressed the issue similar to her experience. (Forgive me for euphemisms.) Sure, asking for a free image very soon after her death is highly inappropriate, especially in the time of mourning. However, I was convinced that it's sometimes inadequate not to seek a permissibly free image. Nevertheless, after a failed RFC on setting up a waiting period in a "hard wording" manner, I was close to fully believing that there is nothing wrong with uploading the image soon after a person's death. Unfortunately, after the deletion of Robert Miles image, I guess case-by-case basis is... our only way for now, i.e. status quo. However, if this is taken to FFD right after DRV, I would expect same ol' arguments on the whole image itself and the subject, Jill Saward. Then I would expect arguments saying that she was a very low-profile person, even with some televised appearances, like BBC. Back to Saward, I had asked some of her relatives to lend me permission to use one of the photos of her one month ago or so. However, I've not received one reply since. Maybe the nature of procedures to obtain a free image is very difficult to apply to the subject. And even her tragic past and her hard campaign to fight injustice make the ability to obtain a free image very highly sensitive and difficult. Still, trying to raise the general issue would lead to perennial proposals or failed attempts to reach compromises, but I'll leave the whole general issue to the community. Meanwhile, in the case of this image, re-removing and deleting the image without discussion is less productive than re-discussing it over and over, which is... up to others. And orphaned images get deleted in seven days. I think the use of this image should be acceptable to help readers not only identify Saward but also consider how her life went. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost forgot: commons:File:Jill Saward 080627b.jpg was uploaded on Commons and was awaiting a verified permission, but then it got deleted because the permission has been still missing. Also, Commons is "severely understaffed" and backlogged for months. The projects and Commons are interdependent on each other, and such issues with Commons would affect all projects in general. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  – Switching to unsure per S Marshall. George Ho (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I deleted the original image, and I have no objection to anyone else restoring the image for any reason. I am under the opinion that WP:NFCC #1 has not been established as of yet, which was the original rationale for deleting the image, but if others disagree, I hold no problem with them restoring the image. I do note that there are plenty of red herrings being thrown around, such as NFCC #2, which I have never (as in not once) ever invoked in any manner with this image. So that argument holds no water, and is a worthless rationale for restoring this image. If, however, any other admin has reason to believe that the situation has changed regarding NFCC #1, I raise no objection to undeleting this image. --Jayron32 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could not raise the NFCC#1 issue because... it's been gone over a bunch of times and pointless to me. Also, there have been too much disagreements over how replaceable non-free images of deceased persons are. I found the NFCC#1 issue more tiring to argue anymore as it's not yet resolved. George Ho (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not pointless, but the whole community is divided over the issue. It happens to every FFD nomination on such images. Maybe I can argue NFCC#1 again, but you'll hear same ol' arguments again and again. Non-free images of deceased persons have become a general issue, yet we are still using case-by-case as status quo, which is... becoming slowly less effective. George Ho (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on when they were deceased. A person who died prior to the prevalence of copyleft licensing is far less likely to have had properly licensed images created of them while they were alive, also people who died before the advent of digital photography also have a greater claim to NFCC because photographs were harder to come by (there are more pictures taken per day nowadays than were taken during any given decade of the print photography era). Claims of NFCC for a person who died in 1975, for example, are more likely to hold water because a) there was not a licensing structure (like GFDL or CC) which allowed for easy sharing and b) There was much less likely to be photographs (unpublished or not) which could be now released under such a license. For someone who died in, say, 2010, the likelyhood of finding and/or licensing an image becomes much easier. That's my position on NFCC #1. Again, I don't claim that any other NFCC criteria has been missed here; only this one. Free images of this person could be reasonably expected to exist or obtained given that they lived in an era of such images. --Jayron32 15:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore non-free images of dead persons are generally assumed to pass NFCC#1. This person has been deceased for a decade. That is not a reason for speedy deletion though... the reason for speedy deletion should only be misuse of a press photograph when that use harms the press agency's ability to make money. However, the BBC is non-profit, making the question murkier, and the photograph old enough that NFCC#2 doesn't apply. At least this should be restored and brought to FFD. At most, it should be restored and not brought to FFD . Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Magog, my apologies. The person was deceased in January 2017, i.e. four months ago. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was deleted 4 months ago, why the delay? Stifle (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the user talk page of the admin who deleted the image, Stifle. Also, the images were discussed in general, yet a proposal to update NFC failed. George Ho (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree with Magog the Ogre that there's any murkiness. The BBC's operations in the USA, which is the jurisdiction that matters to Wikipedia's lawyers, are not non-profit. It's a commercial operation out there. BBC images are not crown copyright, they're copyrighted in the same way as any other news broadcaster. It's reasonable, in this case, for editors to to contact the subject's estate asking them to release an image on a compatible licence and this should be the first resort.—S Marshall T/C 15:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep picture deleted. Wikipedia is not above the law. If BBC's operations in the USA is a commercial operation and not a government operation, then Wikipedia needs to consider this matter and not violate the law in terms of posting this picture unlawfully. My guess is that the picture was posted due to ignorance of the nature of the BBC in the USA as I myself thought the BBC is an entirely government operated operation. Knox490 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No body is suggesting Wikipedia is above the law. The question is whether the use of the image complies with the NFCC @Knox490:. Amisom (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore As the subject is dead, replacement with a free image is inpractical and NFCC is therefore met. Amisom (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  NFCC covers more than just one point, so no merely being dead and taking a free image being impractical doesn't mean all the NFCC criteria are met. NFCC#2 respect for commercial opportunities for example, as it's being used in exactly the same role as commercial organisations perhaps wouldn't be met, and to pass NFCC it has to pass all criteria. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. NFCC1 is probably met, but this image won't meet NFCC2. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse since "not particularly high profile" and "deceased" are not NFCC criteria. If a free image or not can be procured is one of many issues and other such as NFCC#2 not substantially addressed. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Levine (judge) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was speedily deleted one day into an Afd discussion. I sort of forgot about it at the time but then the subject came up again the news again I decided to follow up.[17][18] [19] The basis for speedy deletion was "Fundamental violation of the spirit of BLP" - not one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This is not a g10 because it is impeccably sourced.

I never got a chance to defend the article at the afd. Notability is not so much of a question here. He has been a New York City judge for a long time and has received continuous coverage throughout the years from from various secondary sources, some better (ABA Journal) and some worse (NY Post). I can obviously relate that it is mostly negative article about a BLP. However I combed all available sources for something positive but could not find anything. I invite anyone to find something positive about him published in any sort of source and I would not object to its inclusion into the article in order to create some sort of balance. However if the only available news coverage is negative it is not my fault and deleting the article because it does not say something nice about him amounts to censorship. I can try to tone it down some but can't make up counterpoints that can't be found in any available sources. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an impeeccably sourced article can still be a g10. This was an article on a very minor political figure--a traffic court judge -- who has been challenged in the local press for irrationally harsh decisions. I do not consider it encyclopedic material. Unlike what I normally do, I am not restoring it for discussion. If any wants to see what it is about, they will find the information via Google, published in the local borough newspapers and the most disreputable of the NYC newspapers. It might be in the mirrors of deleted articles, but if so, I'm not even going to link to them on-wiki. As I see it, this is not a matter of trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but of _{trying to right little wrongs.} But of course my judgment may be off, and I leave the matter to others. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was, as the nominator states, a "mostly negative article about a BLP". But more than that, an extremely minor public servant for whom we wouldn't normally have an article, and certainly not one that reads more like an angry Yelp review than an attempt at a neutral encylopedic treatment. Now, I get that there's a possibility that some people have grievances against this subject which are perfectly valid; that may indeed be true. The problem is that the place to address those grievances isn't Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"extremely minor public servant" is itself an extreme description (for lack of a better word). Admittedly the man is not supreme court judge but he is a judge nonetheless. Besides, a person's profession does not determine whether they are notable. The determinant factor of notability is consistent coverage in secondary sources. Furtermore for purposes of this discussion the issue isn't even whether he is notable.The issue is whether this was speedy deleted on proper policy grounds. And it wasn't. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's well sourced and not biased in it's coverage, I don't see how it can be a G10. And I don't think the deleting admin should be endorsing their own speedy here without noting that they are the deleting admin. (Struck false statement--I'd misread) So list at AfD unless there is an actually claim of unsourced negative material. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looking at the deleted article, it's a reasonable candidate for a WP:BLP speedy, even with sources. And, if the AfD wasn't closed early, there's no way anybody would be arguing that the existing comments didn't constitute a clear consensus to delete.. Having sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement to keep an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ. It was open for around one day. I did not get a chance to make my case. Of the 5 deletes, two were IP's with pretty much no other edits. I would have voted to keep obviously if it were not closed early. Not fair at all to describe this as a consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to a full AfD. A traffic court judge is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the sources Brewcrewer notes above are not focused on the judge's private life but rather on public conduct. WP:DUE on a notable figure who has solely negative coverage in RS'es demands that we write a correspondingly negative article about that figure: the misconception that such an article would be an attack page or against BLP is unfounded. Mind you, I have no view of the original article, so I am assessing this based on the content as described here. Also, can someone link the actual, if aborted, AfD above? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies there. That section gets us to Public figure, which has the (rather circular) description, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs. Looking a bit further, I found ETHICS: DEFINITIONS OF "PUBLIC OFFICIAL" AND "PUBLIC OFFICER", which says, Eight states exclude members of the judicial branch from their definition of public official (see the link for more context). They don't go into detail on exactly which members of the judicial branch might be excluded, but certainly a traffic court judge is well on the low end of the judicial branch spectrum. So, does WP:PUBLICFIGURE apply here? Possibly, but not with any certainty. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've read that a bit closer, and discovered it has a New York specific section, but reading that, I see that it includes things like, officers and employees of state departments. That's an extremely wide definition, and I don't think anybody would take that to mean that WP:BLP doesn't apply to every employee of every state department. So, that's sort of a dead end. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is in New York and your link with 8 states is not New York. He is a public figure in the most practical sense. He sits in a public courtroom and decides a few dozen cases in front of hundreds of people every day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) He's a public figure. He's a public official receiving coverage for doing his public job. It's not even worth arguing because 2) Public figure doesn't mean "that WP:BLP doesn't apply"; BLP always applies. What doesn't apply is WP:NPF, the opposite of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This isn't Star Wars Kid here (see the talk page if you don't know the history), this is a grown man who has been repeatedly accused by other New Yorkers (!) of being too rude. If he's truly NN, let's indeed delete the article, but a speedy isn't appropriate and BLP isn't a justification for deletion of a public official's unflattering article based on DUE RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD link fixed. The actual content has been courtesy blanked, but it's still visible via the history link at the top of the AfD page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, having read the discussion in detail, I am even more appalled at the arguments advanced both there and here, which have absolutely nothing to do with BLP as written. I challenge everyone who thinks the article is a BLP violation to cite specific clauses in BLP which they think apply. I'll wait. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specific quote from WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It's telling that the major source used in the article is the New York Post, which *is* a tabloid. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy has specific criteria, taking a random quote from the page doesn't speak to the specific criteria of the policy. Also saying "major source used in the article is the New York Post" doesn't make it true. The major source utilized in the article is the Staten Island Advance, the newspaper of record for an area of a half million inhabitants. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- the AfD for this article was heading for an overwhelming delete consensus even without the speedy deletion, so I'm not sure what relisting will accomplish. It's also likely that G10 was the correct call in any case. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was open for around one day. I did not get a chance to make my case. Of the 5 deletes, two were IP's with pretty much no other edits. I would have voted to keep obviously if it were not closed early. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn He's a public figure, and the information pertains to his duties of said office. Whether this makes him notable is an issue for AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm fine with giving leeway on a traffic court judge as a non-public figure. As DGG stated, an impeccably sourced article can be a G10, and I'm willing to trust his judgement as well as the judgement of the commentators at the AfD. If he wanted to close it as SNOW, that would also have been fine. Either way, its a good deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Please provide any policy-based support for your assertion that an impeccably sourced article can be a G10. 2) Please provide any policy-based support for your assertion that a judge can be a non-public figure. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) As written unsourced negative BLP is only one of the reasons for deletion under G10. Negative unsourced BLP is only one way that something can be an attack page, and republishing negative material from sources that do not have a reputation for having strict journalistic ethics doesn't save an article from being deleted this way. 2) He's a traffic court judge who would be unknown to the vast majority of people even in his jurisdiction. I'm fine counting that low of a position the same way as a low-ranking civil servant, who would clearly not be a public figure. 3) It was headed towards a SNOW close regardless, and the deletion would be good on those grounds even if you removed the G10 factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) If negative unsourced BLP is only one reason for G10 deletion, which alternate G10 criteria applied? 2) Most notable articles are unknown to the vast majority of people. Your assertion, while almost certainly true, is irrelevant to whether the article subject is a public figure, notable, both, or neither. 3) SNOW is not G10; G10 is not SNOW. The issue isn't whether a full discussion would have changed the outcome, but whether the G10 was even in process. Nothing I've seen from you or anyone else has remotely suggested that actual criteria for G10 were met. Again, I cannot see the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there was a clear consensus to delete at the AfD, and (for what it's worth) I thinked that consensus was plainly right. The references did not contain significant coverage of this judge himself as a person, only of the speeding incident. So he didn't meet the notability guideline hence deletion being the right call. Amisom (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Far from clear. It was open for less than 2 days, two of the deleters were IP's, and I did not get a chance to make my case. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure of the relevance that two of the delete !votes came from anonymous users, but even if we discount them, I see four users arguing for deletion and two arguing for keep. In addition to witch, as I said above, I think the delete !votes were plainly right.

  However, if you are correct that the consensus was "far from clear" then no doubt this DRV will go your way and the decision will be overturned. Amisom (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuzzy math and a argument from authority logical fallacy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. But you haven't persuaded me to change my !vote here @Brewcrewer: and I don't think you're helping yourself by hectoring like this. If the consensus support you, good for you. If the consensus doesn't support you, except it and move on. Amisom (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I know you're not changing your mind and if I thought otherwise I may not have hectored you. I also moved on. I still have a right to point out the fallacies of your argument.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if you do actually - in addition to which, clearly my position isn't as unarguably fallacious as you see to think because other people editors are agreeing with it. Amisom (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You're as guilty of beating the deadhorse as I am ;) It takes two to tango. Perhaps if you stop repeating the Argument from authority and Circular reasoning I would stop pointing out its logical fallacies. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one trying to browbeat people who had the nerve to disagree with me in an open consensus-buiding process. On WIkipedia, reliance on consensus is not considered argument from authority. But of course, you're objectively right and everyone else is objectively wrong I suppose. I think you need to go over WP:IDHT again. Bye. Amisom (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep on repeating you're objectively right because the consensus agrees with you. WP:CONSENSUS does not decide that something is right or wrong. It is just a policy here. I recognize and appreciate this policy and if I lose my argument to a consensus of editors then it will not be the first time and it will not be the last time. I will move on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I never once said I was objectively right because the consensus agrees with me. THat was maybe you projecting. I simply said that the consensus agrees with me and that's what matters. Maybe the consensus is objectively wrong and you're objectively right (although quite hubristic for you to say that). More likely, it's not a question with an objective answer but a matter of opinion without a 'right' asnwer, meaning that nobodys view is more important than anyone else's. I think we're done here. Amisom (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  lol I quote you a few comments above this one: "clearly my position isn't as unarguably fallacious as you see [sic] to think because other people editors are agreeing with it". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "I think we're done here." Amisom (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; there are a lot of sources there, but that is different from being "impeccably sourced'. It's a pure one-sided hit piece (which is why I'll not be restoring it for DRV review reasons). I wouldn't be opposed to an article being developed on this person if it were even handed, but not developed from this BLP nightmare. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and keep. The judge is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. He also also generated enough citations from reliable sources due to reporters considering his conduct as a judge to be newsworthy. His conduct is newsworthy because it is out of the ordinary. Wikipedia needn't be a "reality police" if the sources turn out to be all negative. It is up to the judge to generate positive press via his public or personal conduct and public relations efforts. So the NPOV stipulation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is not violated. Wikipedia also does a public service when it documents public servants operating outside societal norms either in a good way or bad way. When you take the job of a traffic judge and take an extremely hard line, you are responsible for accepting the judgments of society via a free press. And frankly, many people are aggravated at many governments extractinh money from the public in a petty/unreasonable way such as going over the speed limit by a very small degree (1-3 miles per hour), unreasonable seizure of vehicles, not taking into account extremely extenuating circumstances. Finally, from a human interest point of view, people like articles on exceptional/colorful/extreme/corrupt judges who have become part of the historical/journalistic record ("hanging judges", Judge Roy Bean, etc.). Knox490 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you're not putting Roy Bean and Brian Levine in the same bucket? I know it's a crappy way to measure anything, but searching for Bean generates 286,000 hits. Searching for Levine generates 5,000. And, looking at the Levine results, on the first page of ten results, there's only a single one in what would qualify as a WP:RS, and that's in the New York Post, which meets the letter of the reliable source definition, but it's pretty much bottom of the barrel as far as news media goes. This fails WP:BLP. This fails WP:N. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. This fails WP:SOAPBOX. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it fails WP:10YT as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ghits prove the point you are trying to oppose. In the Levine ghit page, links 4,5,and 6, are reliable sources. In the Bean ghit page not one of the links listed is an RS. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Except (a) Bean died more than a century ago so the BLP issues are different, and (2) we are not here discussion the merits of the decision but whether or not it was properly made. Amisom (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. I think given he is a public figure (all judges are public figures, even low-level ones), and the article is based on coverage of him in reliable sources, that speedy delete/premature close was inappropriate. If an article on a public figure is purely criticism, then so long as that criticism is found in reliable sources, there are two possibilities: (i) there exists positive coverage in reliable sources that should be added for balance, or (ii) reliable sources are purely negative, in which case a purely negative article is compatible with WP:DUE. I appreciate the argument that even if he is a public figure, he is a rather minor one, and that while the sources used are strictly speaking reliable sources, they are not the highest quality reliable sources. That said, I think the matter is sufficiently borderline that permitting the AFD process to run to its completion, and allow all the relevant issues to be fully debated, would have been more appropriate. I think speedy delete should be reserved for open-and-shut BLP violations, and I don't think an article about a public figure (even a minor one) repeating criticism of his public acts from reliable sources (even if not the highest quality ones), falls into the category of an open-and-shut BLP violation, whether or not the article should ultimately survive the AFD process. All the criticism of him is about his public acts as a judge (with the exception of the allegation which he himself violates traffic laws while driving, which while not strictly speaking about his public acts, is at least relevant to them, since if true it would imply that his public acts were hypocritical)–if the criticism of him was about aspects of his private life that had no relevance to his public acts, e.g. private family matters, then I think the question would not be so borderline and it would be much of an open-and-shut case in which speedy delete would be appropriate, but that isn't the case here. SJK (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot of confusion in this discussion. What we're reviewing is the only thing we can review: DGG's decision to delete the article out of process. DGG's grounds were that this was a slam piece. And the fact that this was the decision that DGG made has consequences, which are:-

1. We aren't reviewing the AfD, which was curtailed long before it could be said to have reached any conclusions at all; and
2. Anyone can create a fresh article with this title, provided it isn't a slam piece, without a DRV.

If your position is that you don't think a good faith editor should be able to write any article about Brian Levine the judge, then I think you'll need an AfD that runs to completion and reaches a consensus to SALT. The alternative is to convince the editing community that a judge isn't a public figure, and although I admit that Wikipedian decisions have been surprising me of late, somehow I don't think you'll do that.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#State specialty court judges, "Such judges are not inherently notable". A close reflecting this with respect to a traffic court judge is appropriate. bd2412 T 20:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I can't seem to connect DGG's actions with a discussion close about inherent notability.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BLP does not trump WP:DUE; a well sourced article must be compliant with both. If all the RS coverage a notable individual gets is negative, we must not avoid coverage because of that fact, nor go scrambling for something positive to say in a sense of false balance. WP:BLP tells us to avoid tabloid or sensationalist sources. OK, cut them out. What's left? Write a WP:DUE article based on all of that, and then if it's entirely negative, let it be an entirely negative BLP, because BLP is not about being nice it's about being right. BLP is about avoiding un- or under-sourced negative pieces, or alternatively having no article at all on a marginally notable person. It's not a filter through which articles should be run, it's a process by which we assure that we do the right thing, which is not always the comfortable thing. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Alliance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As discussed with the closing admin here I believe the closer improperly considered the trailing delete votes for the following reasons:

• The nominator both cited a lack of notability in the nomination statement, and later acknowledged "no prejudice against merge".
• WP:ATD outlines a list of outcomes preferred by policy to deletion, and per WP:ATD-M "Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear."
• Several sources were brought up during the discussion. After relisting, five delete !votes were added, only one of which addressed merging ("Most of the article could be into the episode lists...") and favored it. Two delete !voters, posting before sources had been added to the AfD, argued against a merge.
• In interpreting these, I believe User:Sandstein clearly erred in assigning weight:
  • To the extent that these delete !votes were interpreted as "don't keep as a separate article" there was no policy-based reason to interpret them as opposing a merge.
  • On the other hand, to the extent that these delete !votes were interpreted as "delete and don't merge a thing", they each failed to articulate a policy-based objection that would overcome WP:ATD-M

Either way, reading consensus as 'delete' when a merge argument had been advanced and never refuted is inappropriate. For this reason, I believe the proper reading of a policy-based rough consensus in this specific case should be merge, and ask that it be Overturned to merge Jclemens (talk)

• Endorse I don't think there's any way that discussion could have reasonably been closed as a consensus to merge. It's also not especially clear where one might merge it to, as we don't seem to have articles on most episodes of this series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- there's no way the discussion could have ended any other way. There was a relist, and opinion thereafter was unanimous to delete. I think the closer was right to give less weight to votes that merely asserted the existence of sourcing without being able to provide any. Finally, if someone wants to suggest a merge then they also need to suggest a plausible target- and I don't see one. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that I don't like the idea of interpreting votes in a certain way when they did not say that. I'd be annoyed if someone did that to me. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Trying to claim that delete votes should count as secret merge votes is unusually poor and nonsensical reasoning, even by DRV standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point isn't to reinterpret votes: the last several !votes, as posted, are contrary to policy. The two choices are to 1) evaluate them as non-policy-based and discount them, or 2) interpret them as something more nuanced, which would then include potential merging and be countable. Either way, Sandstein's close accorded them more credit towards a delete-without-merge outcome than is reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that those votes were against policy. People are allowed to recommend deletion rather than merger, especially when nobody has been able to suggest a merge target or identify any content that should be merged. Those votes stand. Reyk _YO! 04:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Multiple editors, including the nominator and a delete !voter, raised the possibility of a merge. There were two separate merge targets brought up during the discussion. I entirely agree that editors are entitled to !vote "Delete, and I specifically reject the merger of this content per XYZ rationale"... but that didn't happen in this discussion--if it had, I would have no basis to challenge the weighting of those !votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The delete consensus in the AfD was pretty clear, just from the head count point of view. It became even more so when you consider that several people arguing to keep simply asserted that sources existed, but failed to produce them when requested to do so. A Google Search finds enough uses of the term Eastern Alliance in articles, that I could see re-creating Eastern Alliance as a WP:DAB page. We used to have a dab page, but it was deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (disambiguation). The arguments put forth in that AfD made sense given the page that existed at the time, but that shouldn't preclude a new page with better entries. If such a page were to be created, then an entry pointing to some appropriate existing Battle Star Galactica article which discusses the topic would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is not so much about the article, but about the process. Sure, anyone can recreate a better article, and no attempt was made to improve the article during the AfD, in large part because deletion was not, and is not, a policy-based outcome for an article with a merge target whose defect is simple non-notability. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "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." Sandstein's error is in according any weight at all to delete !votes that contradict WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article's history per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging to facilitate a merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) as suggested by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) in the AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion, but restore history for merge as per myself and Cunard. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As one of the post-relist "Delete" !voters – I didn't !vote "Merge" or "Redirect" because I am unconvinced this fictional element is important enough to the work of fiction to actually merit a mention in any of the articles on this fictional franchise. A Wikipedia article on a fictional work should only cover major elements, and otherwise focus on critical reception, the circumstances/history of the work's production, influences from/to other works, etc. If this fictional element is too minor to be worth mentioning, then "Merge" doesn't make sense, since the content doesn't belong in any of the candidate merge targets. (And I'm honestly unsure which article should be the merge target – the franchise as a whole, or one of its particular incarnations, or some other subsidiary article?) I also don't agree with "Redirect", if the redirect target isn't going to mention this, since it is confusing to readers to redirect a term to a page which doesn't actually use that term anywhere. (And, even if someone adds a mention of this to one of the articles – how do we know it won't some time later be removed as irrelevant detail/fancruft/too much information? Then, we could end up in the situation of a redirect pointing to an article which doesn't use the redirected term.) So, that is why I !voted "Delete" instead of "Merge" and "Redirect", and I think it is a reasonable position to hold, even if admittedly I didn't make those reasons explicit at the time. SJK (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do you think that your !vote was policy based with respect to WP:ATD-M? Were you basing your assessment on the state of the article at the time, or based on the potential as demonstrated by the sources brought up in the AfD? Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was "policy-based" with the relevant "policy" being MOS:FICT#Conclusions which says "Avoid creating lists of trivia; instead, incorporate relevant information into the body of the article, and discard what is unnecessary to the understanding of the topic." I interpret that as saying an article on a work of fiction should only cover major elements of the work, not every single plot twist or minor character. I am unconvinced that "Eastern Alliance" is a major element of the work; I would say that none of the sources presented in the AFD justify the position that it is a major element. The sources presented mention it in passing, mainly in the process of plot summarisation; there is no sourcing providing in-depth critical analysis of this element, which suggests it is minor (and thus we can do without mentioning it) rather than major. I don't think I am ignoring WP:ATD-M; while it says non-notable elements of a fictional work can be merged into an article on the fictional work, I don't think it excludes the judgement that the element is too minor for that course to be worthwhile. WP:ATD-M is not the only controlling policy here. WP:ATD-M is worded permissively (could, are generally), it is not an absolute and can be overridden when there are reasonable policy-based grounds for doing so and I believe I have articulated such grounds on the basis of MOS:FICT. (I'd also point to WP:FANCRUFT, which while only an "essay" and not as such "policy", does make clear there are genuine reasons for proposing to delete some minor fictional elements rather than merge/redirecting them.) SJK (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No MOS is a policy--they are all guidelines, just like notability itself. You're far from the only editor with this misapprehension, unfortunately. Even if there's nothing in a NN fictional element article worth merging, the next hurdle to overcome before deletion is an appropriate outcome is redirection. Since Eastern Alliance is not used anywhere else, that's not an inappropriate outcome. If the objection is raised that 'no article mentions it' per WP:R#PLA, I'll again counter that normal editing, such as adding a mention of the topic, is clearly covered by WP:ATD and opine that does not provide justification for failing to opt for a redirect instead of a deletion, again in the absence of other problems beyond simple non-notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be claiming that WP:ATD-M is a "policy", but MOS is just a "guideline", and that a "guideline" can't be used to overrule a "policy". I think that is an overly legalistic way of approaching things. Especially when the policy is worded in a permissive rather than mandatory way – which in my view means it can be deviated from when good reason exists, and that good reason might take the form of a "guideline" rather than hard policy. SJK (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • My bringing up the dichotomy--as prompted by you implying that MOSes are policy--is not nearly as important as the crux of all WP:ATD: If regular editing can fix it, deletion is off the table. Everything, by definition, about an MOS can be fixed by regular editing, can't it? The unfixable things are core policies like V and NOT: if they can't be met, the discussion is over. So yeah, MOS is guideline that can't trump a policy, but that's not the biggest point: deletion is only for things that cannot be fixed with lesser means. THAT is policy, has been for years, and the other nuances like whether merging is required or optional pale in comparison to that elephant in the room. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As closer, I'd just like to mention that I think that there was consensus to delete, not to merge, and would therefore consider a restoration of the history inappropriate. WP:ATD-M merely lists possible alternatives to deletion if there is consensus in the specific instance that they are preferable to deletion; this is clearly not the case here. Otherwise we'd basically never delete an article for non-notability - the practice, however, is that we regularly do.  Sandstein  12:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair summary, and a good explanation of why the current process is broken: we shouldn't be deleting things for non-notability when there is a merge or redirect target and there's no other reason to delete it. At the very least, in order to count delete !votes to overcome ATD-M, part of deletion policy, those !votes should explicitly state why deletion is preferable to merging or redirection. We should also not be nominating things to force a merge, but that's never enforced in practice either. The resultant confluence biases heavily against appropriate curation of fictional topics--redirecting, merging, leaving edit histories viewable by non-admins for future improvement if so desired. And we wonder why the active editor base continues to decline... Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in order to count delete !votes to overcome ATD-M, part of deletion policy, those !votes should explicitly state why deletion is preferable to merging or redirection"–I thought I basically did that, although I could have made the case clearer. I hope you can see the continuity between the brief reasoning I provided in my !vote, and the more detailed reasoning I provide on this page. If you think the reasoning of the delete !voters in the AFD was invalid, may I ask why you didn't make that objection during the AFD? You are complaining that the closing admin should have discounted my !vote (among others), because in your view it contradicted policy, when I don't agree with that view, and you didn't raise your objection to it during the AFD itself. SJK (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I raised the objection to your !vote before it was logged, here in my first edit to the AfD. It was there for the latter respondents, yourself included, to rebut, or, failing that, for the closing administrator to review appropriately. Do you think I need to go around after every !vote and say "Yeah, but this still doesn't address my objection..."? I think that sounds quite badgering and pedantic, and I expect that the closing admin would look at the flow of the arguments and weight them accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You claimed that "deletion is not an option when there is an appropriate merge target". My position is and was that there is no appropriate merge target–this ficitonal element is too minor to be worth mentioning in any of the Battlestar Galactica articles–and hence merging it to any of those articles would be inappropriate. I admit I didn't make that position as clear as I possibly could during the AFD, but if we'd engaged there in the dialogue in which we have been engaging in here, it would have become clear. SJK (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough; you're one of a plurality of delete !voters who did not make that clear, yet were counted regardless as if the !votes were as policy based as mine. Had you or anyone raised that argument in the AfD, I'd've pointed out that the Eastern Alliance was already mentioned in List of Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Galactica 1980 episodes under the episode summary for #22, to which a redirect would have still been more appropriate than a deletion. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • You think some AFD !votes should have been discounted by the closing admin because you think their reasoning was insufficiently clear–but, in that case, I think it would have made sense to ask the !voter to clarify their reasoning if necessary (and even delay closure a little bit longer to allow them an opportunity to do so) rather than simply discounting it. You also say the closing admin should have closed the debate as "Merge"/"Redirect", but there was no consensus on a merge/redirect target in the AFD–indeed, the merge/redirect target you now propose was never brought up during the AFD itself–so I don't see as a practical matter how a closing admin can be expected to close as merge/redirect when there is no consensus on the target. (Finally, I can make arguments why I don't agree with the specific merge/redirect target you are now proposing, but I feel like by doing so I'd simply be further engaging in the substantive debate of the AFD, instead of doing what DRV is supposed to do, which is to focus on process issues rather than the substance of the original debate.) SJK (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just setting aside issues of process for a moment and looking for the right outcome, I think that someone who types "Eastern Alliance" into the search bar could plausibly be looking for a whole lot of quite disparate real world things, including but not limited to (1) the insurance company of the same name, (2) the Eastern Bloc, (3) the Eurasian Economic Union, (4) the Eastern European Group, or even (5) the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. They could also be looking for something to do with Battlestar Galactica, although I think it would violate the principle of least astonishment for Eastern Alliance to redirect there.

  Overall, I think the right outcome of this whole family of discussions is to create a disambiguation page called Eastern Alliance, and once I got there, I was pleased to see that this can be done in a way that complies with everyone's position because it's not needful to disturb the AfD close at all. Any content merged from the deleted article to a Battlestar Galactica-related article should of course be attributed, but that can be done by one of the methods listed at WP:PATT (and I'd suggest the dummy edit with the list of contributors). So you get to a bluelink and a compliant content merge without an undeletion... because the outcomes the two sides are seeking here are not mutually exclusive.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National liberalism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article didn't improve since 2009, and I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong. I think it should be redirect to Civic nationalism Rupert Loup (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Rupert. This AfD is so old (2009) that the right thing to do is to list it at AfD rather than DRV. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• National liberalism is a variant of liberalism, while liberal nationalism is a variant of nationalism. The words say it. The article could be improved, but deleting it altogether is not a solution. Btw, there are some sources specifically on national liberalism. --Checco (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This had 3 valid entries at the time of deletion and was only a goddamn prod in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Iudaeorum (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as contested prod. Nothing wrong with the original deletion, since it was an expired prod. Next time, OP should contact the deleting administrator first before coming here. Reyk _YO! 03:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Kent Foreign School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This appears to be a clear keep or at the very least a no consensus. It seems to have been already pretty much established at another DRV for a very similar school that the much-cited RfC does not give carte-blanche to AfD closers to ignore keep opinions and delete secondary school pages when the discussion has clearly not reached a consensus to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Necrothesp very kindly gave me a heads up before coming here so I thought I'd drop my two cents in.

Generally speaking, I do my utmost to not discount any editors' !votes when assessing XFD discussions, but in this case, the keep arguments seems to run up against WP:SCHOOL and the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.

I don't think anyone here will defend the sources in the article in question: they were terrible, ranging from a mostly-blank listing on a spam website to an apartment rental website. One reference pointed to the school's official website, which is only proof that the school exists, and made no claim to notability. Both WP:SCHOOL and now WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES state unambiguously that a school should meet the GNG -- and there is simply no feasible argument that this school does based on the sources we have.

If my decision is overturned, then that is because (despite all evidence in policy and guideline pages) secondary schools are exempt from the GNG. If that's what the community wants, great -- but we need to amend WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to actually say that, because at the moment they do not. A Train^talk 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that was what the RfC was actually about, despite claims by the deletionists that it was about the longstanding consensus that secondary schools are notable. Unfortunately there was no consensus to amend the guidelines themselves, but that doesn't undermine the existing consensus or the right of editors to cite such consensus without their opinions being discounted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the RfC so I won't comment about what it was or wasn't about. I just know that I took it upon myself to close an obviously contentious AfD that had been overdue for resolution. In doing so, I consulted every relevant guideline and policy page, and they all told me unambiguously that the keep !voters were making arguments that did not fall within those rules. If an administrator is expected to make decisions based on unwritten arcana then we're in a very weird place. A Train^talk 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the RFC, the notability guidelines—e.g., NSCHOOL and ORGSIG—rejected the premise that schools were automatically notable. So, if, as you claim, the RFC changed nothing, it left in place the guidelines which require schools to have received significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Therefore, it seems reasonable to keep the article due to this fact alone. Also, the school does have a lengthy article written about it at Huffington Post. And the Huffington Post article is very favorable. The school is also accredited and the picture of the school on their website would indicate it has a decent size student population. Knox490 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: Anyone can write for Huffington Post. Blog posts from HuffPo have long been considered unreliable unless written by an independently notable writer. A Train^talk 16:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion from RSN does not conclude with that statement, and it's from five years ago. Moreover, the author may well know what they're talking about, they've published a number of articles in the Huffington Post, and guess what, they have an article, Emanuel Pastreich, which isn't bad. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for overturning the close below—schools should be kept because we've usually kept schools—contradicts the "schools" RFC, which explicitly found that the community rejected that circular reasoning. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that I have restored the article pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think what Necrothesp means to say is that inclusionists have been jumping onto discussions like these in order to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and they feel their hobby horse deserves to be exempt from the consensus of the larger community. Rather than accept that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid they intend to fight each of these deletions. A Train made the right decision in this AfD (in keeping with GNG and the related RfC) and it would seem that politically-powerful administrators now seek to bully their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Insofar that assessing consensus is about strength of policy/guideline-based arguments, it was clearly accurate. I hadn't made up my mind yet, but the keep arguments were almost entirely based on the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is explicit in its incorporation of the RfC outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. A Train's explanation in the closing note was clear, well reasoned, and consistent with policy. I encourage editors to take particular note of A Train's lack of "prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing." Rather than disputing the deletion, the encyclopedia would be better served by a well sourced article about this school, if one can be constructed. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep as there was no serious attempt at actually consulting or finding such independent sources which the users here are suggesting, therefore it's WP:Systematic bias and something we shouldn't take so lightly. To even absolutely eliminate the possibility of Drafting as we have before, speaks for itself the bias, and something that is inexcusable. While I will say there would need to be changes, again, that's something explicitly available for Draftspace. While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. To quote one relevant thing: "Even if one interprets the RfC as saying there is no consensus about what should be done with schools, it still leaves it as true that 99% of all high school AfDs have in fact been closed as Keep for many years , even before we wrote the disputed guideline" in which reversing everything is not explaining how we're any different now. Simply stating that Wikipedia is changing is not a defense as the same could be said for actually deleting advertising, not defending it, regardless of the large or detailed arguments some may give, since that itself is in fact not policy. Like with schools, there's never been a serious concern aside from apparently needing better sources which once again can be consulted in by speaking to local users, not some random English-speaking person. To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all, simply that there were questions about it. Once when sign into policy that any school can be deleted onsight will be a different matter, but that itself was never concluded at all. To actually quote the School Outcomes, it has strongly been clear that such time-wasting AfDs are no use to anyone, including any opponents since that's not the optimal goal of Wikipedia: To delete schools, yet defending such blatantly abusive advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all". Actually, that is precisely what it says: Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed. A Train^talk 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "must or will be discounted" there at all, so all we would have are suggestive notes, not confirmation; even then, because of it, we would still consider that vague (what is "may be" and are convincing exceptions entirely excluded?) Even then, the quote itself never says anything about barring all attempts at still making an argument. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This request is indeed an example of bullying--by those who have their own private misreading of the RfC and wish to impose it on everyone. Fundamentally, the compromise under discussion was not that we accept all high schools as notable, but that we make an exchange, that we treat all high schools as notable (with some rare exceptions) and simultaneously that we consider all lower schools as not notable (again, with some rare exceptions). The point of it was not to change the notability requirements, but to deal with these particular subject areas in a different way, in order to avoid just this sort of discussion, whee every individual school will be challenged and argued exhaustively all the way to deletion review. Doing so is not a good use of AfD,and not a good use of deletion review. This can be shown by the results. The RfC said only the schooloutcomes did not have enough consensus to be quoted. It also said there was no consensus to change the practice of considering schools notable. I consider the RfC conclusion remarkably unhelpful, but if we are to go by it, it is open to argue that every school should be considered notable, and also open to argue that they should not be, there being no consensus either way. It would have to be left to the interpretation of the people at the individual afd and the closer. So what do we see here: the zealots are, first of all, listing for deletion not the least likely schools, but international schools in countries where there is known to be a difficulty in sourcing: in other words, they have selected those articles which are most likely to be justified but where there is a strong cultural bias about sources--they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias to delete as much as they can regardless of merits, and regardless of the probability that print sources could be found in the appropriate languages. And then, when the decision in a particular case goes for them, they argue the closer had the right to choose, and when it goes against them, they argued that the closer did not have the right to choose. Personally, I do not have any great interest in high schools as a topic--I have always tended to be considerably deletionist about local topics, as was noticed as far back as my RfA ten years ago. What I do have a personal interest in -is consistent decisions, and in being able to concentrate discussions of cases that actually need them-- such as the often ambiguous question ofwhether something is too promotional to be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) adjusted wording DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullying? A few experienced administrators (et al.) repeatedly stonewall discussion of various schools, repeatedly dismiss policy/guideline-based arguments, join in all of these discussions where something is contested, and declare that all must abide by a past compromise that runs contrary to our notability guidelines -- and those challenging them are bullying? There may have, at one point, been consensus to keep all secondary schools that verifiably exist, but I see no evidence of that now. Consensus can change, and many aspects of notability have indeed evolved. In fact every time this has been put to the test in an RfC, guideline proposal, etc. (those that I've seen, anyway), the result has been that there is no consensus or that the community leans in the other direction. When there is no consensus, the same group declares that the purported status quo should continue rather than the discussion being evidence there's no consensus to operate according to this firm rule (based at least in part, ironically, on an argument that there are no firm rules). NOTBURO, sure, but IAR is for exceptions, not a systematic undermining of the policies and guidelines that have achieved broad consensus in order to implement a measure that does not have that kind of broad consensus -- and a kind of measure we are fully equipped to work with should that consensus actually exist (i.e. SNGs). they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias is also an offensive assumption of bad faith. I've not nominated any school, and have trouble thinking this is actually part of the nominators' motivations. I do want to be clear that despite these unfortunate word choices, I don't think you're acting in bad faith or trying to force something (or at least not intentionally). I've found many of your explanations for how the compromise came about to be reasonable. But I don't think it's tenable, and I don't think it has the kind of support any broad measure like this should have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DGG. Also, does anyone _really_ think there aren't sources for this school? Or that deleting the article helps Wikipedia in some way? 99%+ of high schools in the US meet the requirements of WP:N. The same is likely true of other countries, but we have a hard time finding those sources (not in English, not on-line, etc.). These are good and reasonable arguments that can be summarized as "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" and should be respected as such. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: The HP article cited in the AfD (which I missed when reviewing that discussion) means that we have a potentially strong (very detailed at least) independent, reliable source (in the US press no less). That greatly weakens the delete !vote claims and makes the claims in the close problematic. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn DGG said this better than I possibly could ever have. Most secondary school discussion where someone takes the time to look through foreign language sources (print and offline) comes up with some sort of sourcing that provides the basis for meeting WP:N. We have long established that North American secondary schools will almost always meet our inclusion requirements, and we have no reason to believe that secondary schools in other parts of the world wouldn't if we had access to the sources. This argument is in fact rooted in the RfC close and in our guidelines. Discounting those arguments here was wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I didn't have read beyond the closer invoking "the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". That RfC was closed wrongly and should never be invoked in any circumstances (the vote was 48-48 which would normally default to no consensus to change, beyond which the closers frankly admitted that they weren't able to understand and process some of the arguments; it was just a supervote, is all, which you do see sometimes.) There are some rules here which are silly or artifacts of old history or some dysfunctional process, and this is one of them; just ignore it and Bob's your uncle. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So just to be clear, Herostratus: you want this Deletion Review to find that I improperly closed this AfD because I followed the current guidelines as written? A Train^talk 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm in Catch-22. This is nuts. A Train^talk 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC actually did close as no consensus to the question asked. The closers then gave commentary as to what the felt this meant. It has led to some confusion in my opinion. There actually isn't a guideline on schools. You have two essays: WP:OUTCOMESBASED and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is up to the participants in an individual AfD to decide whether or not each secondary school brought up for discussion should be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There actually isn't a guideline on schools." That is not true, sir. WP:NSCHOOL states: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. The guideline then suggests consulting SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which currently recommends discounting SCHOOLOUTCOMES arguments in AfD discussions.

It's comments like this that make me feel as though people voting to overturn have not actually put themselves in my shoes and are making purely tribal arguments. A Train^talk 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, TonyBallioni, but I'm having trouble parsing this. Do you now agree that ORG/NSCHOOLs is the relevant guideline in this case? If so, how exactly was the closing administrator in this case supposed to interpret that guideline? Because both ORG and WP:N explicitly expect "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- something that the article in question clearly did not have and not one single person arguing to overturn has yet even attempted to argue so. A Train^talk 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them. As Hobit has pointed out, no one seriously contests that schools in Asia are likely the same as schools in North America in terms of sourcing. The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying WP:NPOSSIBLE in light of WP:SYSTEMIC and Wikipedia's general consensus that North American and European secondary school have enough sourcing to be notable. This is in line with the second bullet of the RfC close which was References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying WP:NPOSSIBLE in light of WP:SYSTEMIC and Wikipedia's general consensus that North American and European secondary school have enough sourcing to be notable." Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we all agree that this argument outweighs the explicit text of WP:N, WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Can you please show me where in the AfD in question that argument was made? A Train^talk 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not using my words, but DGG's and SwisterTwister's !votes were along the same vein. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SwisterTwister's argument is impossible for me to parse so I won't try to interpret it here. I think it is much more accurate to describe DGG's argument as essentially channelling "long-standing precendent", as was every other Keep !voter (except for the one who cited WP:NSCHOOL, an argument that was effectively rebutted during the AfD.

But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that ST and DGG both made your argument, that still leaves the majority of Keep editors making arguments based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which (again) is explicitly rejected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself as it stands. So how exactly is an administrator who isn't a partisan in this particular fight, and is just following policy as written when closing this AfD supposed to arrive at your desired outcome? A Train^talk 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them - WP:LOCALCON. ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.") ORG and N are guidelines that apply to schools. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not. When the subject at hand is notability of a school, based on N/ORG, the result shouldn't be "yeah but this handful of editors has decided not to do that". In one instance, you could call it IAR, but when it's applied systematically to every instance, that's just going against the established consensus (which, on Wikipedia, is reflected in policies guidelines). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reasonable close; I find Rhododendrites's argument persuasive. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. In the close, the closing admin did not address Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs)'s source, this lengthy article written by Emanuel Pastreich from The Huffington Post about Korea Kent Foreign School. No one at the AfD addressed Alanscottwalker's source.

  The closing admin wrote in this DRV:

  Just FYI: Anyone can write for Huffington Post. Blog posts from HuffPo have long been considered unreliable unless written by an independently notable writer.

  But this argument was not made in the AfD. It is incorrect for the closing admin to discount The Huffington Post article when no one at the AfD disputed the source.

  And as Drmies notes above:

  That discussion from RSN does not conclude with that statement, and it's from five years ago. Moreover, the author may well know what they're talking about, they've published a number of articles in the Huffington Post, and guess what, they have an article, Emanuel Pastreich, which isn't bad.

  This strongly indicates that this article passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

  There was a rough consensus in the discussion to keep based on The Huffington Post article and editors' arguments about the longstanding precedent in years of AfDs to retain verifiable secondary schools.

  Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cunard, but how could there be a rough consensus based on that one Huff Post article that you yourself say that "No one at the AfD addressed"? A Train^talk 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a source is put forward as counting toward WP:N and A) no one disputes it and B) it is a reasonable source on the face of it, then yes, I'd say that the discussion should to be interpreted as having accepted the source as counting. If you, as closer, think it should not count, then that's a reason to relist (requesting further discussion about the source) not to just assume that the source doesn't contribute toward WP:N. I realize you have arguments above about why you think it isn't a reliable source, but that's really an argument for the discussion, not one the closer should be making. And that's important, because it would give people an opportunity to dispute that argument (I do think your argument is flawed). Hobit (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article had already been relisted twice. WP:RELIST says that third relists are an extraordinary measure to be avoided. The person who posted the link didn't even say that they were using it to make a Keep argument. A Train^talk 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that closing a discussion like this is difficult, and I do appreciate the fact you chose to do so knowing nearly any close could generate problems. That said, I am seeing a lot of problems here. There is what looks to be a reliable, in-depth source in the discussion. No one disputed it and I'd argue it is in fact a reliable, in-depth source. As a closer, you just can't ignore it. Next, WP:RELIST specifically gives permission to relist for a 3rd (or more) time if needed. "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation...". Finally, him saying "keep" or not isn't hugely important. In this case, I agree it would have clarified the thought. But heck, maybe he wasn't sure the single source was enough. The point is that there what appears to be a reliable in-depth source provided in that discussion. Your close indicated otherwise. Again, I appreciate the work (really), but I feel you made a number of mistakes here _irrelevant_ of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion. No matter how this goes, I just hope you take those thoughts and issues on board. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or Relist: The closer's comments about Huff Post show they should have participated in the discussion not closed it. The closer came to a conclusion, independent of the AfD about the Huff Post - so were not closing, and that conclusion appears to be extremely faulty: 1) Their own Quora source (which they apparently did independent research for) contradicts the closer's claim here, that "anyone can write for the Huff Post", as that source explicitly says the editors of the Huff Post choose who to publish; and 2) The closer then goes beyond the AfD to unaccountably take issue with the author of the Huff Post piece, Emanuel Pastreich, an academic in South Korea. A closer should not misrepresent sources as they have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post link has nothing to do with assessing the consensus of the AfD. I did not do any research when closing the AfD: the role of the administrator is to assess the policy arguments and the consensus. The HuffPo article was posted late in the debate as an "FYI" and it was ignored by every editor in the debate -- it had no impact at the time.

It's true that I don't consider HuffPo blogs to be a particularly reliable source, but my opinion on that is irrelevant when discussing if my closing decision was correct. A Train^talk 15:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, you have failed, because you imposed your view of the Huff Post on the close when the issue in discussion is notability, which always hinges on view of sources. Not only is AfD not a vote, you just cannot claim per policy that "information" about sources is "irrelevant." - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The role of an administrator closing an AfD debate is to determine whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus. I did not impose my view of Huff Post on the debate -- I noted that it was irrelevant to the debate, because no one cited it to make an argument. Not even you, the person who supplied the link, used it to deploy an argument. You just wrote "FYI". A Train^talk 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huff Post source on the school is not in the AfD discussion because it is irrelevant and only incompetence by the closer could could imagine such a thing: a source on the school as a matter of policy and guideline is relevant. In your own close you hinged your argument on your claim that the school merely exists, and has no sources, so to claim that school sources brought forward in the AfD are irrelevant is impossible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so is the role of the closer to robotically count votes or is the role of the closer to extrapolate arguments based on vague argumentation? It seems to me that for some folks in this debate (I'm still thunderstruck by this) the only role of the closer is to ignore policy and arrive at their pre-determined conclusion. I'm going to step away from this discussion before I get jaded. A Train^talk 16:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who decided to defend your close by editorially evaluating a content source and its author and misrepresent or mistake both in doing so -- in the future, don't do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different question. Let's say that article found in the discussion was a NYT 4000 word piece that was just wonderful and perfect as a source. Would you still have closed this discussion in the same way? Hobit (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
• There are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. They're at User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES#Does citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES make sense?. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
• Examining the February 2017 RFC, I found that the closers made a mistake. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community:", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).

Therefore your closing statement of "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" isn't valid. I don't fault you. It does say that. It's just that it was put in wrongly. It wasn't determined in the RfC, it was just some person's (or people's) opinion put there under the aegis of the RfC and I think that that's incontrovertibly demonstrable regardless of one's opinions of the merits. How or why this happened doesn't matter. People are imperfect. I'll work on rolling back this mistake, but I'll need to get some fighter cover first, so we'll see.

It is a conundrum because you were given a bum steer. It's not your fault. But even so, we need to do what's right without fear or favor, so with no disrespect to you or your service I stand by my vote to relist. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Per Cunard and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Blatant, textbook, WP:Supervote. The close does not reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It would have been preferable for admin to relist given the newly provided source, and taking it upon themselves to (incorrectly) assess the source, which was otherwise not discussed, and close the discussion with a !supervote was wrong. In any case, there was clearly no serious effort to look into Korean sources (Google is admittedly not very good at this), many of whom exist and deal with the school in depth:
  • The school drama club production is national news in The Korea Times,
  • the director of the school was charged with forging university admissions documents as reported by The Chosun Ilbo in 2001,
  • the school was suspended in 2000 for embezzlement of funds and acceptance of unqualified students, which resulted in a punitive warning which no other South Korean international school received again until 2008 as reported by The Korea Times.
  • And assorted other mentions in South Korea sources [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (last two are by the same Huffington Post writer, but for the Korea Edition, whose editor presumeably is different from that of the main site and whose decision to include them for a Korean-speaking audience is evidence of notability). There's lots of material here to write a shorter, more balanced article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article about this school had no reliable third-party sources. No such articles must exist about any topic, per WP:V. The closing admin properly considered our basic sourcing policies determinative, especially now that it has been clarified, as explained in the closure, that they also apply to schools. If there are now better, third-party sources, the article can be recreated based on them.  Sandstein  10:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing WP:V and WP:N. In any case, WP:N only requires the sources exist. Which they do. And at least one was known to at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N requires that sources exist. But WP:V requires that they are cited in the article, because only this makes the content verifiable to the person reading the article. At the time of the closure of the AfD, no reliable third-party sources were cited in the article, just a bunch of iffy-looking or dead websites. This made deletion effectively mandatory.  Sandstein  17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. The key phrase is "must be attributable" not "must be attributed". And now that sources exist you are saying the old version must be tossed away rather than used as a starting point because at the time of the AfD there were no reliable sources in the article? I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus is not a vote, and the closer followed accepted practice in discounting illogical votes (e.g., an unelaborated "Keep per NSCHOOL") and those that flatly rejected community consensus as reflected in the notability guidelines and the recent "schools" RFC. I find it interesting—and I think the closer was entitled to take into account—that not one of the "keep" voters thought the Huffington Post piece was worth mentioning in the discussion. (Disclosure: I voted "delete" below.) Rebbing 17:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not one of the delete !voters said anything about it either. So we've got what looks like a good source that no one disputed. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a circular argument recently rejected by the community to be a guideline, it was right to discount those. The source added late to that discussion provided a new argumentation venue that should have been mentioned as reason for relist.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep Consnesus was clear. AfD closers can't override consensus just because they don't like it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smartyllama Explain this. You only say that there was a consensus to keep, something that does not look like it is there on the first glance, and when discounting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, well, then... it definitely does not go to the keep side.Burning Pillar (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Pescod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion Article was speedily deleted by user:SouthernNights under criterion WP:A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). The original speedy deletion tag added by user:Chrissymad did not cite criterion A7. I exchanged a couple of messages with Chrissymad before the page was deleted, then spoke to SouthernNights who directed me here (see user talk:SouthernNights#Speedy deletion of Duncan Pescod).

Evidence for notability

• This man is running a highly controversial semi-independent government agency in a city-state of 8 million people with HK$21.6B budget.

• His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, in a move seen as entrenching of pro-establishment interests in a highly visible and increasingly embarrassing project, as was his promotion to chief of the Authority.

• While he was Director of Housing, he was involved in a scandal in which public officials (incl the Chief Executive) were found to have illegal built structures on their properties.

• He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.

• He has an entry on Chinese wikipedia—zh:栢志高.

Press highlights: Pescod takes the WKCD underground (2016), Pescod elevated to top post at West Kowloon agency (2015), Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO (2015), Illegal structures found at housing chief's property (2012). Please note that I am only including English written media.

Further argument Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.

Is the man running the most ambitious arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) Hong Kong has ever seen really less notable than Robert Hammond?

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy with leave to list at AfD as desired. May meet WP:N, clearly over the A7 bar IMO. Also worried the deleting admin was citing notability requirements in an A7 discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD its a notability concern, so it should be sent to AfD procedurally since there seems to be some argument for WP:N. That's where further discussion belongs, not on DRV or user talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeonggi Suwon International School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Despite an RfC declaring SCHOOLOUTCOMES an invalid keep criterion, Dennis Brown closed this AfD agreeing to the "appeal to tradition". If SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to avoid, then I would think closing an AfD based on that rationale is also invalid. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closer's reading of the consensus to keep, and there was no mention of OUTCOMES in the closing rationale. Votes, and strength of argument leave little doubt as to the consensus. OUTCOMES only has a marginal, secondary, and incidental importance in AfD closures. It may or may not be an argument to avoid but its use purely as a work of reference is not governed by policy and irrespective of what OUTCOMES actually documents, there are plenty of other ways of demonstrating that the general practice not to delete high schools clearly exists and is evidenced in long-standing precedent. That practice will will almost certainly continue until it is banned by policy - which was not the result of the cited RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Written policy is merely an echo of actual practice at Wikipedia, or at least it should be since we are not a bureaucracy. Written policy doesn't force our hand, and is simply documenting what is already consensus, and Wikipedia has always been this way. Most policies did not have RFCs to be established, for instance, they were common sense. Here, it isn't a case of using OUTCOMES as a document, it is about my knowledge of community expectations and consensus that guides me, and my experience in understanding how the community as a whole views cases like this. While I can't ignore a single RFC (held in a place most Wikipedians don't go), I would find it insufficient to completely undo all tradition as consensus is more than a single discussion. Consensus is based on real world practice and precedent. My job as closing admin is to understand previous similar cases and overall community sentiment and weigh votes accordingly. In this case, the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments when compared to recent and not so recent cases. In short, I stand by my original closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't unreasonable, of course, but regarding I would find it insufficient to completely undo all tradition as consensus is more than a single discussion -- what would be sufficient to override the inertia of tradition, if not a well-attended RfC that was advertised in WP:CENTRALIZED? It seems like what goes beyond that would be formally proposing a policy or guideline to contradict that which already goes against our guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. I am a firm believer of reading discussions as is, and not discounting !votes simply because they don't mesh with a closers' (inherent) biases. We have two fairly strong opinions: one in that the school does not meet GNG and the other that the community commonly keeps articles on high schools. Given that both have considerable and similar support, that would be my reading of consensus in this case. Fuebaey (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see the closure as a fair reading of the consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I see no policy or guideline-based rationale in any of the keep !votes, whereas those arguing to delete point to a lack of sources to be considered notable. The keep votes seem to be lawyering the RfC (the close for which includes a statement explicitly contrary to the circular outcomes-based logic) rather than presenting any evidence of the notability of this particular school. Insofar as these discussions should be closed weighing the arguments against established policies and guidelines, it seems like it should be overturned. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus- there wasn't consensus reached in this discussion (though the delete votes were IMO stronger), so it will default to keep. But I'm saying overturn because I do not agree with Dennis Brown's overruling of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC by fiat. That is a precedent that should be explicitly overturned. Reyk _YO! 23:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To call the close an "overruling of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC by fiat" gives the RfC too much credit and the reality of traditional outcomes and precedent too little. The fact is, my close was consistent with the overwhelming majority of similar cases in the past. Consistency is something we strive for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The RfC was self contradictory--it did say not to cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but it also said there wasn't consensus to change the practice that all high schools are notable. So the argument is just as good as it was, except for not doing the quotation. Even if one interprets the RfC as saying there is no consensus about what should be done with schools, it still leaves it as true that 99% of all high school AfDs have in fact been closed as Keep for many years , even before we wrote the disputed guideline. A close on that basis is valid and will remain valid, just as long as it avoid citing the guideline.

WP:N makes it perfectly clearly that we can decide on notability in each case according to the consensus at the individual discussion. Even were we to have a guideline that schools were always notable, it will still be open to an argument that this particular one should be an exception; even if we had a guideline that high schools were never notable, it would still be open to argue that this particular one should be an exception.

This discussion makes clear why we have this practice: it is not because of intrinsic notability , or any principle of content inclusion. It's a simple matter of a working compromise to avoid having every one of the hundreds of thousands of potential high school articles be argued individually--and fought, just like this one, as far as possible--and with the results , as they were before we had the compromise, depending mainly on who showed up for the particular debate,--notability depending on endurance. Remember, this is a compromise--the other side of it is that no elementary or middle school will ordinarily be considered notable unless there are special factors. If the compromise falls, those will go right back to AfD also just as they used to. And then, in addition to going to great trouble to yield only essentially random decisions, we will have so much less time and energy at AfD to deal with the material that really needs to be dealt with: promotionalism, puffery, thee pushing of special interests. Everyone will lose. Even if I thought it would be better that we have very few high school articles, I would still prefer to have the compromise and accept them rather than to have WP suffer through the arguments. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: You say: "The RfC was self contradictory" but SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and the RfC said that while sources on schools may be harder to find, the subject would still have to pass GNG. Your ILIKEIT argument, couched with terms that the aggregate has adhered to OUTCOMES for 10 years because they were told to remains invalid. I encourage the long-time editors to embrace the fact that Wikipedia is changing. You cannot either hold onto how things were or insist that institutional momentum cannot change. I find this behavior to be an exceptionally bad example and really raises questions of competence for me. If, however, we're just going to make stuff up and keep or delete articles based upon the mob we can mobilize, I will quickly disassociate from AfD, as it's becoming a court without statute run amok with ill-thought calls to precedent, which is really just making the same mistake over and over again because we always have. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT is an argument agains fans, it would apply if I said I wanted to keep the article because I went to the school. But if you are misusing the term to say that I like article on this topic in general, I don't actually like many of the weakest of the high school articles--my argument is just that keeping them is a practical compromise. I could as easily say that using an ambiguous situation to remove the relatively strong articles of a type instead of the weakest is an IDONTLIKEIT argument about the type of articles. As for "without statute," you are right that we actually have almost no statutes--essentially everything is in fact subject to IAR. I think you're wrong not to accept the compromise, but I do not say that your refusal to recognize that WP runs by consensus which usually requires compromise is getting close to a question of competence. Is everyone else opposed to you also incompetent? I don't think I have ever referred to an opponent in a WP argument in that manner. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim that you like this article specifically or articles about schools generally although you seem to be an inclusionist. You seem to think that your viewpoint is the consensus, little people like me be damned. You like the "political compromise" of OUTCOMES because it lets editors like you and your ilk force your will in contravention of guidelines when you think it useful. Your invocation if IAR (which I think shouldn't exist, at all) proves my point. Perhaps I should make an ad hominem attack and claim IAR, too? The compromise to which you refer is not mine to accept. I abide by the community consensus. There was an RfC and they decided. Had it gone the other way I wouldn't have made this argument at DRV. I don't care either way. Just to illustrate, I have supported WP:DIPLOMAT. The community disagrees. I have since !voted to delete articles about diplomats over and over, again and again because unlike you, I don't offer what I would like as if it were the law. I remind you that although you are a member of ARBCOM it's not your place to offer opinion at forums like these and claim it must be so. For that reason, I find you and many of your fellow admins incompetent to the task and worthy of public rebuke. Please confirm for me that DGG thinks that Wikipedia should just operate upon the chaotic aggregate's opinion at the time rather than have any sort of documented best practices as determined by the majority. Because if you're just going to make stuff up then perhaps we as a community need to ask if we want to tolerate that. I know I don't. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per DGG. The consensus in this AfD was to keep the article, and the arguments made explained the reasons why we normally keep secondary schools, not just OUTCOMES. The RfC reached no consensus on the actual question asked. This has been one of the essential missing pieces of the conversation: it was a no consensus RfC where the closers explained what they thought the implications of that no consensus outcome was. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Therefore, it seems reasonable to keep the article. The school has about 600 students too. It has solid backing too. The article indicates: "The school is the result of a partnership between the Gyeonggi Provincial Government and Suwon City with Dr. Thomas J. Penland, Headmaster of Taejon Christian International School."Knox490 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The result in question already is "Keep", so that would not be overturning it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no-consensus--We have two category of opinions:1) the school does not meet GNG--So let's delete it! and 2) the community commonly keeps articles on high schools and sources may be found--So let's keep it!.When the head-count leads approximately to a tie,(K-7,D-6) I don't see how the closer closed as keep;with no explicit reasoning.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus. Probably should be no consensus. Certainly isn't delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though a NC reading would have been a fair close too. That said, I'm strongly in the "we keep high schools" camp and anything else, is, IMO, kicking a hornet's nest for no reason I see as having a useful outcome. WP:POINT etc. etc. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have closed as no consensus, but that's functionally the same as keeping. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Strictly speaking "no consensus" would probably have been a more accurate close, but keep is not so egregiously off that we can call it totally out of the realm of admin discretion. And both would have had basically the same result. If you feel very strongly about it, consider renominating at some future point if it doesn't gain additional sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close reflected the discussion. "Delete" was not a plausible close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Several endorsements mention that "no consensus" may have been most accurate. I would argue that in a matter as contentious as secondary school notability, there is an important difference between no consensus and keep, despite the immediate practical effect. The core of the problem is that there is a group of editors claiming there is consensus for a particular view. That claim is rejected by others, who point out that this consensus only exists as that group's claim, rather than via any typical consensus-building processes we rely on for matters of e.g. presumed notability. In fact, it has been proposed and failed (most recently in the RfC, which was closed in a way explicitly rejecting the presumption of notability). Closing as keep because people said keep without even attempting to address the reasons for deletion feeds the problem and validates the already-rejected "keep because we keep" approach to AfD. If you don't think those arguing to delete effectively made their case either, no consensus makes sense, but don't endorse just because of the practical outcome. If you endorse, it should be because you believe the closer was correct in saying that the keeps presented the more compelling arguments according to policy/guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably a difference here. And the closer made that determination. I would also have endorsed a NC close, but keep is perfectly reasonable given that discussion. And it's not "keep because we always keep" it's "keep because US high schools almost always meet WP:N. Overseas schools generally do too, but finding sources is a lot harder (may not be on the web, sources likely not in English) and systematic bias is an issue." That's a large part of what references to SCHOOLOUTCOMES are about. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There's plenty of daylight between keep and no consensus for this type of article; I don't see how you can take a discussion that divided and say keep, without further explanation in the close. Dennis Brown is more impressed then the "keep" voters than I would have been; they didn't engage with relevant policies and didn't address the complete lack of sourcing. There's a lack of perspective in that discussion from editors who should know better. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for reasons similar to what Hobit has expressed. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a fair reflection of the discussion. There seems little point in overturning to NC if the ultimate outcome (keep) is the same.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMX-25 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) -

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25 - On the topic of the article there are a large number of authoritative sources in different languages (on the delete discussion page), so the removal of the article in general is unclear. And yes in the rules (as an example Wikipedia:Notability) there is no explanation that non-created ships are automatically insignificant. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that no attempt has been made to discuss this with me prior to listing at DRV, as required by the instructions, nor did the filing user notify me that a review had been requested. Procedure seems to have been well and truly ignored, and since Vyacheslav84 was heavily involved in the very recent AfD and has provided no new evidence, this appears to violate WP:DRVPURPOSE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know about this rule and thought that I should go right here. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet you managed to read the instructions on how to list it... Stifle (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion- The AfD very clearly reached consensus to delete, and this DRV provides no new evidence that either the participants or the closer got anything wrong. "I disagree with the outcome" is not a reason for it to be overturned. Reyk _YO! 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Reyk, I think if you carefully re-read the XfD for "delete" versus "redirect", and keep in mind that WP:N does not mandate deletion if there is a redirect target, then "very clearly reached consensus to delete" is not so clear at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse JC correctly read consensus here. This is an attempt to redo AfD, which isn't the purpose of DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The consensus was to delete. And User: Parsecboy gave what I thought was sound reasons. User: Parsecboy wrote: "longstanding consensus is to keep articles on ships only after construction has begun, based on the principle of WP:CRYSTAL. There are some exceptions when projected ship designs are independently notable (for instance, the repeated, failed projects to build a copy of Titanic), but that does not seem to be the case here." Knox490 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what is unreliable or divining specifically in the article? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to redirect seems like an obvious redirect case given the issues and !votes. Am I missing a reason why a redirect is inappropriate? Probably best to keep the history also as it will help if and when sources come into existence (which seems possible) Hobit (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Listing non-compatible with WP:DRVPURPOSE items 1, 2, and 5 of "deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)q[reply]
  • "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. 2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;" --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and we are using it for reason 1 (2 is not applicable as it was not a speedy deletion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As per the discussion, this is an unbuilt ship. It doesn't exist. WP:CRYSTAL. There are no good sources. RE: "And yes in the rules (as an example Wikipedia:Notability) there is no explanation that non-created ships are automatically insignificant." True. Ignore that "insignificant" is not an applicable word. This is why there is AfD, and WP:N is only an imperfect predictor and mustn't be treated as an algorithm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL - And what is unreliable or divining specifically in the article? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we temp undelete please? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what sense? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • An admin can temporarily undelete the article so we can view it for the duration of this discussion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The purpose of this discussion is not to re-review the article or to re-run the AfD, it is only to decide whether the closing admin judged the consensus at the AfD appropriately - and there's no need to see the article for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Disagree. The closer should have looked at the article. If the fine call of the close it to be reviewed, the article matters. Short of copyright violations, or offensiveness, it is very unusual at DRV to have temp-undelete requests denied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • By all means ask the admin who deleted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • You mean User:Juliancolton? You know, it gets a bit funny asking the deleting admin once it is at DRV, because the deleting admin, while expect to comment and answer questions, is supposed to take a back seat. Meatball:DefendEachOther and all that. Usually, the first admin who sees a request does the temp undelete, replacing the content with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. My question here is whether there was anything on the page worth merging. I suspect not, and if not a fresh redirect can wrap this up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article began life on enwiki as a translation of ru:SMX-25. The final version was very similar to what I'm getting out of Google Translate for that article. (Though it was much more polished than a machine translation, and the sourcing was different.) —Cryptic 01:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I believe this. For some reason I cannot access a google cache version. I can access a google cache of the talk page, and the Russian article, and images under the same title, and searching for these things was difficult due to the name not being a technically good search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (to "Redirect to DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons"). The delete arguments did not counter the notion that the topic should be worth mention at this target, and did not assert that the history needed deletion, and multiple participants made this reasonable suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Redirect with history deleted" is probably a good outcome from here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative sources are sufficient for a separate article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant here, as we are not re-running the AfD discussion, we are only reviewing the analysis of consensus when the AfD was closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no question that consensus was against a separate article. It was between "redirect" and "delete", and on the redirect side there was not even much of "merge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete or possibly Redirect. I think delete is a reasonable reading of the AfD, though a redirect would seem like a reasonable reading too, so I think this discussion could be closed as either. These was certainly no consensus for keeping the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just another thought - the delete result was to delete the standalone article, and I think recreating as a redirect would not be a violation of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. But given that people proposed a redirect, no one gave any reasons to not redirect, and a redirect on the face of it seems reasonable, it probably should have been closed as redirect. Not something I'd bring to DRV, but since we are here, I think it's a reasonable thing to be pointing out. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done the WP:BOLD thing and created the redirect per Boing! said Zebedee and WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the Cebuano Wikipedia needs a article as they are the biggest Wikipedia without article witch was deleted for a bad reason when its notable for having lots of articles Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I was tempted to close this as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. The AfD, while not well attended, was unanimous, and there's nothing in this nomination other than, I don't like the result. But, I did want to make a comment. Looking at the statistics, I see this wiki has 4 million articles, with only 160 active users and 4 admins. And, a depth score of 1.11. I'm assuming this wiki consists largely of auto-translated content from other wikis. Or is there some other explanation for those numbers? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's only a redirect so the article tells you how it reached that size. Visiting the wiki and pressing random page a few times also tells you, it's mostly machine generated stuff like North_Perrott --104.247.220.13 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm having trouble parsing It's only a redirect so the article tells you how it reached that size. What's only a redirect? What article? Could you give specific URLs? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Pre-afd version. —Cryptic 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see. Thanks. I agree that there's an interesting story here, with respect to Lsjbot (which I didn't know about before, so happy to learn something new). I'm not sure there's enough there to justify a stand-alone article about ceb.wikipedia.org, but it certainly should be mentioned at the redirect target. Instead of just pointing to List_of_Wikipedias#Detailed_list, perhaps it should point to a new section in List_of_Wikipedias which at least mentions how ceb was built. Or, maybe it should point to Lsjbot itself (although, I can't entirely get behind that idea). I actually find Lsjbot kind of a frustrating article. There's so many questions left unanswered there. The big one being whether Lsjbot is actually doing the language translation or if it's just a wrapper around some pre-existing translation tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, nominator merely expresses disagreement with the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- I don't see any other way that discussion could have ended. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but Permit expansion Though the article as deleted did not meet notability , there is something interesting beyond just the number of articles. The manner in which they were created, if I remember discussions on the various lists, was by machine translation -- a few other projects than ours' have done similarly. There might well be references outside WP also.. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
  • What references exist are about the bot that created essentially the entirety of the project, not about its output. —Cryptic 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Being Filipino myself, part of me wanted the article to be kept, but as seen in the AfD, significant coverage simply does not exist for the wiki, even in Philippine sources. The consensus at the AfD, as limited as it was, was unanimous. As an aside, this discussion has become pretty snowy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not have been closed any other way. I note that all of the information in the article before redirection is in the table at the target, in much better format. If more information exists, add it to the target article until there is agreement there to WP:spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse reasonable close based on both guidelines and vote count. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have gone through WP:CORP of wiki and I strongly feel this company has got enough coverage in independent and renowned third party news sites like Silicon review, Tech Circle and Bloomberg. I understand some administrators are not aware of these sources but I request them to consider my request for undeletion. I tried contacting administrators who deleted our page and but no satisfactory response was received. I also wish to highlight the fact that the page is a very basic outline about the company which I wanted to publish because of its renowned credentials. I appreciate if someone peruses the latest page I have created and suggest changes such that the page gets displayed on Wikipedia. Vamshidhar.18 (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse We JUST had a DRV on this less than a month ago. Please don't open another unless your company's level of notability SIGNIFICANTLY changes. Repeatedly renominating for no good reason is disruption. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse per above and no attempt made to discuss with deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Zamolska (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was clear consensus to keep page, or at least close as "no consensus" by virtue of a 10-6 vote in favor of keeping, which cannot plausibly be interpreted as consensus to delete. Additionally, the subject clearly meets WP:NCYC and people saying it should be deleted in spite of that boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closure was clearly a supervote, as there was no way to interpret consensus the way it was. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Overturn- completely agree with Smartyllama, seems like an illogical result given the discussion that was generated XyZAn (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be overturn, then, XyZAn? Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my bad Smartyllama,! XyZAn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist; obviously I can't see the article anymore to judge its sourcing myself, but the close does very much read like a supervote. I think, given this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawel Brylowski, there needs to be a discussion about the SNG (WP:NCYC) and sources used in cycling articles, since that's very much at the root of these AfDs. ansh666 23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's quite a complicated issue. My initial thought was "This indicates that WP:GNG is being taken as a policy which must be followed". That is what the closer's comment says, after all. But on further consideration, that's not it. What's in play is that WP:NCYC specifically is being deprecated. And this could be and probably is functional. AFAIK WP:NCYC was written by some cycling enthusiasts and pushed through in some low-attendance discussions with a lot of cycling enthusiasts participating. And the result is the existence of articles, like this one, that after all are kind of ridiculous, that are nothing but a bare list of statistics from what may be iffy sources and where nothing is known or said about the subject beyond a listing of race times. And why need we be beholden to that. We cannot be required to host bad articles by a small coterie of editors.

We had a similar situation some years back where WP:PORNBIO was pushed through with ridiculously lax requirements, resulting in articles about people who appeared in movies but without speaking parts and whose real names weren't even known (WP:PORNBIO has since been reformed). And people attended the AfD and argued "meets WP:PORNBIO", which was true. And they were ignored and the articles deleted anyway because who cares what a few enthusiasts have managed to get "enacted"? And this was proper IMO.

I submit that this is the situation here. In in a situations like that, the closer is justified in standing on WP:GNG. It's not a vote, and the suspicion is that too many of the 10 keep votes were acting as cycling enthusiasts rather than strictly as encyclopediasts. The closer was justified in ignoring what may be an overly broad special notability standard. And cycling enthusiasts are advised to reform the rule so it covers articles that are actually going to be kept. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, AFD is not a vote, and most of the "Keep" opinions were very feeble and overlooked the fact that WP:NSPORTS still requires an article to pass the WP:GNG. These opinions were correctly discounted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse- I agree completely with SW's close, and Lankiveil's comments on it. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer should have considered all policy-compliant arguments and judged consensus from those, but instead overrode consensus with reference to a guideline. That is not the purpose of guidelines. If there was a consensus, it was to keep. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- AFD is not a vote(as the prev. !voter seems to imply), and most of the "Keep" opinions overlooked the fact that WP:NSPORTS still requires and is essentially dependent on WP:GNG. Herostratus also puts the reason behind discounting such !votes beautifully.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think this closure is a stretch too far. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to argue that an article should be kept because the subject meets some SNG, even if that person doesn't have evidence to hand that the subject also meets the GNG. WP:N explicitly says you can demonstrate notability this way. Arguments along these lines should be taken into consideration and not discarded or given reduced weight. (It is also reasonable for AfD participants to conclude that an article should be deleted in these circumstances.) It is true, as the closer pointed out, that SNGs point to circumstances when subjects are likely to meet the GNG, but it doesn't follow from this that the SNGs are meaningless and you have to show evidence of passing the GNG when challenged. AfD participants have discretion with these issues and I don't think it was a good idea to force a decision on them. Hut 8.5 06:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with no prejudice to relisting (I was the AFD's original nominator). User:Herostratus makes a very valid point to which I have little to add, except stress once again what User:Lankiveil that NCYC explicitly says itself it cannot overrule GNG, a fact that a number of people seem to ignore on purpose. I can only apploud the closer for ignoring the majority, and considering the quality of the arguments - not easy, given some pressure they have already received from the vocal sports-fan minority. On the final note, editors interested in improving NCYC and making it more like a proper encyclopedic citeria then the current sports-fan-written everything-goes one, are welcome to participate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Tightening_up_of_WP:NCYC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Michig and Hut 8.5. This is essentially a bad-faith super-vote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would point out that Wikipedia:Notability itself does say, in the lede (emphasis added): "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right..." which WP:NSPORTS is one of the guidelines listed in the box on the right. So NPROF and WP:NMUSIC and so forth, and the many other sub-guidelines of WP:NSPORTS such as WP:BASEBALL/N do offer some protection against robotic application of WP:GNG IMO, and I would caution against WP:GNG being applied as a policy that must be followed. But then WP:GNG it itself just a guideline, and all this allows the closer some wiggle room, and since just WP:NCYC appears to be a bit loose it's valid for the closer to deprecate it somewhat. If he applied his same "compelled to follow GNG" point to WP:NPROF or even WP:BASEBALL/N I would not feel as sanguine. But as thinking people we're allowed to take all these factors in consideration. Herostratus (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see this discussion has been pinged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, which, fine, but its not a vote. Lets approach this as Wikipedians and not cycling enthusiasts. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The closing admin has misdirected himself. Meeting GNG is sufficient but not necessary to have an article; there are several other ways including subject specific notability guidelines. In the presence of no consensus to delete, the closure seems to me to have been in error. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per WP:WHYN: "Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Hut's argument would make a "presumption" not a presumption at all but an iron rule that we have to have an article, explicitly based on no actual evidence, but rather based on mere assertion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that nobody can point to significant coverage in reliable sources during an AfD does not necessarily mean that the subject does not meet the GNG. It might simply be that there are sources which haven't been found yet - the GNG depends on the state of the topic and not the article. When a typical AfD participant attempts to find sources for something it's likely to consist of a few minutes spent Googling the subject in English and reading some of what comes up. This is going to miss potential sources for many topics. (One contributor to this AfD cited a printed source in Polish, I doubt anyone else tried to find such a thing.)
    If the subject meets some SNG then yes that can be taken as a presumption that a comprehensive search would find sources meeting the GNG, and that can be used as evidence of notability. An AfD is also entitled to come to the opposite conclusion. The obvious example would be something like a recent tech startup, where any potential sources are almost certainly online. The closer of this AfD is the one creating the "iron rule", by saying that the AfD has no discretion in this matter and that as soon as someone brings up the GNG then the SNG (or at least this SNG) is worthless.
    And no, determinations of notability based on SNGs aren't assertions with no evidence. SNGs are created based on evidence and experience of community members from deletion discussions as to which topics are likely to have sufficient coverage to confer notability. Nor can you just assert that the subject meets an SNG, at least not without coming up with reliable sources to back up that assertion. Hut 8.5 19:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. because this discussion had extensive research of sources including by a Polish writer, who nominated it for deletion, the closer most certainly did not say just because someone raised the GNG. No sources researched were found or presented to show that we can write actual biography article -- they are all, including that book, just routine sports statistics of all participants in an event, not about her life. And this person competed several years ago plenty of time to generate and find GNG sources. You have created an iron rule of keep based on routine sports statistics, and you have construed it as no "presumption" at all, because such a presumption has to have a way to fail or it is an iron rule to keep and V requires the burden and the onus be on those seeking to include content. No amount of Original Research that says "I don't know, maybe" saves content on Wikipedia -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless to wave your hands and say there might be sources out there somewhere, especially when others have looked and found nothing. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep consensus was that he met the SNG and that that is enough for keeping the article. And contra Alan's argument above, we don't have an iron rule that we have to have an article. Rather that we can have an article if consensus supports it. Which it did in this case. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]