Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February

< January 2014	Deletion review archives	March 2014 >

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting that the closure of the discussion for the deletion of article Carl Freer from December 2013 be overturned and allowed to run for a better consensus to be reached in the discussion. I have previously discussed this with the closing administrator who advised that I come here.

The page was recommended for deletion in December 2013. I made the recommendation as the article is a BLP that appears to be an attack page. The subject of the article is mentioned as being involved in a failed business and also lists alleged criminal activity. Although I have made edits to the page in an attempt to make it more neutral, I still feel that the only notability for the subject would fall under WP:CRIME, and that he falls way short of that guideline. While WP:GNG could be considered, there is not substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are 2 articles that seem to meet reliable source guidelines, but being accused of fraud and having 2 articles about it wouldn’t really meet notability. Assuming this person came out and admitted that they did everything stated in the article, I still do not believe in my opinion that he would meet notability guidelines.

That aside, after recommending the article for deletion, I see that it was previously recommended for deletion in May 2008 with the result of the discussion as no consensus. A link to that discussion can be found here. After reading that discussion, I see that there are neutral point of view issues with this BLP all the way back then. The talk page also shows a good history of such.

The deletion discussion from 2013 which can be found here was originally relisted after 10 days as there were no votes. Then on the 2rd of January, a keep vote was provided by User:Universaladdress. This user has a history of pushing a negative agenda on the page which I will not detail here but you can see on the talk page and edit history. Then, there were two keep votes with one stating “I came to Wikipedia to look the guy up” and another that states “per Universaladdress.” Neither would be rationale for keeping the article and the first vote was from a user whose only contribution was to the deletion discussion. Another keep vote followed by a user who stated “as the two above me have given no reason at all for Keep I will……It is within the criterias for WP:GNG.

This article is attached to three other articles which appear to be used as attack pages. The first is Tiger Telematics which was the parent company to a video game (the second article) called Gizmondo. The third page is for Stefan Eriksson who was also a board member of Tiger Telematics.

I planned to leave additional rationale or request additional information from users about their rationale; however, the discussion was closed as keep a day after the final vote was made. So, the first 7 days there was no discussion at all. It was relisted on the 31st and closed on the 4th with only 5 days of discussion, and a day after 4 keep votes came back to back to back. When I logged in to leave a comment, I saw that it was closed.

I have asked for a review from the BLP noticeboard and there was 1 editor who stated that they agreed with some edits made to the article. However, there was no other discussion on the noticeboard about the BLP violation that I believe the article is. I also made a request on the neutral noticeboard with no one responding to that request.

As much as I respect the process of deletion closure, I feel that the consensus of the deletion discussion was not interpreted properly as that was not enough reasoning other than votes (2 without rationale, 1 with a wrong interpretation of WP:CRIME, and 1 that would count even though I don’t agree with). I realize that just because I disagree with the rationale in the discussion does not mean that this could be overturned. I would ask that it be reopened for discussion as I feel that there was not enough information for the closer to make an appropriate clear keep decision of the article.

I would ask in the least that the article be reopened for additional discussion in order to reach a more clear consensus. I apologize for such a long writing but wanted to make sure that I provided as much information as possible. I also apologize if I am in the wrong place to request this be done. If I am, please kindly point me to the correct board where I can make this request.--JakenBox (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're in the right place, but I think the consensus in the discussion was clear, and in my view it was based on policy. Our BLP rules say we're to remove unsourced negative material about living people. They don't say we should delete articles about living people. They don't say we should remove well-sourced negative material about living people.
We also have a rule about attack pages, which is at WP:G10. Among other things, G10 empowers our sysops to delete unsourced pages that disparage their subject. This page does disparage its subject, but it's well-sourced. I think this guy deserves his Wikipedia biography, and I'm not minded to protect him. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I tend to agree with Marshall. It seems that the sources are accurate and therefore worthy of inclusion. If anyone could provide reasoning behind the sources being invalid, unreliable, or otherwise just not worthy I'd consider it further of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Any other closure would have been perverse. The requester is free to relist the article if he still feels it should be deleted. ✄ (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the consensus was to keep but there is a stronger case for this being an attack page than S.Marshall suggests, albeit not a speedy-deletable one. WP:Attack page, a policy, does not seem to demand lack of sourcing before a page can be treated as an attack. In particular it says

"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person".

So, depending on people's opinions of the article and its prior versions, there could have been a policy-based decision to delete. I suspect the discrepancy between the policy and the G10 criterion is a mistake. Thincat (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that does look like an error in WP:Attack page.—S Marshall T/C 21:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus and applicable policy. If anything, this article is unfairly favorable to its subject; it looks to me like the claim he won a judgment against Patton Boggs for defamation is incorrect; the cited sources seem to say only that an order throwing his case out was reversed; the case itself apparently is still pending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and additional - Sorry for the delayed response. I wanted to let the discussion run a little bit before chiming in with my 2 cents. This is kind of long winded, but hopefully addresses everything that has been discussed here over the last couple of days.

The article states that Tiger Telematics Inc was a Swedish company. If that was the case, it would be denoted as “AB” and not “Inc.” Inc. would indicate it was a U.S. company. The article states that the subject was convicted of fraud. I do not see anywhere in any of the references where it states that he was convicted of fraud. I cannot see the piece from The Times as it requires a subscription. It would be nice to see what it actually says if someone has access to it. The L.A. Times reference does not state that the subject was convicted. The word “convicted” is only used in connection with a subject by the name of Stefan Erikson who also has a Wikipedia page. The L.A. Times piece states that Freer was “sentenced” but does not state anything about being tried or convicted. I am not sure how German courts work, but regardless, stating he was “convicted” is drawing a conclusion from a reference and not stating what the reference actually says. It also says that they “suspected” him several times over the last decade, but that he was “never charged.” The 3rd citation from Eurogamer doesn’t state anything about criminal charges or fraud so not sure why it is being used as a citation for that content. Reference 12 uses the word “found” in regards to searching the subject’s home, but the Wikipedia article uses the term “raided.” Not sure where raided came from and again it is being used to draw the subject in more of a negative light.

The Wikipedia article also states that Freer and Erikson were “business partners.” There is nothing in any reference that states that they are business partners. The original reference used an SEC filing showing that they were both on the board of directors. This is again drawing a conclusion. Are all people on a board considered business “partners?” This is trying to lump these two together as hardened criminals.

As far as an attack page goes, I believe that it fits the definition. What I was hoping to comment about on the last deletion discussion is how it would not fit the definition of WP:CRIME. For him to meet the guidelines, his “criminal” activity would have to leave a lasting impression. First, there is nothing I see that says he was ever convicted of a crime. If he was convicted of the crime that it states in the article, then how would such activity meet the threshold of a lasting impression. I see that there was an argument that he meets WP:GNG, but that would mean that anyone who is ever convicted of fraud and has an article about them in the L.A. Times would meet WP:CRIME and WP:GNG. I just don’t see how that is. I don’t see how deleting his page is “protecting” him. If he did wrong, then let’s compare it to WP:GNG and WP:CRIME and see if he meets the threshold. I do not believe that it does.

For WP:CRIME, it also states that “a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there “is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.”” Well, at this time there are 2 such articles (Tiger Telematics & Gizmondo). Much of the information in the article about this subject is about both of those. In fact, stating that the Gizmondo is the “worse selling handheld game of all time” is a great statement, but for the article about Gizmondo, not Freer or Erikkson.

Sorry to ramble on. I guess I just see that there are currently 4 articles that are intertwined about the same thing, a company that went out of business. Obviously there are some pissed off investors and there will be whenever a company does not succeed and profit. I just don’t see using Wikipedia as a sounding board for them or whoever else wants to put up information on this guy.

So, to sum up this long story above, I am just asking that the deletion discussion be opened back up. I would send it to deletion discussion for a 3rd time, but fear that I will be chastised as disrupting Wikipedia. If someone else here is willing to do that, I would gladly go on and discuss the information I presented above. If at least the 2nd nomination can be opened up so that there can be a more thorough discussion, I would welcome that as well. Sorry for the essay, just trying to get everything out there.--JakenBox (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate. I think now that attention has been called to it the article will be deleted at afd2 , but it will be at afd2, not here. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with a vote of 4 keeps to 1 delete (the nominator), the closing admin would have no choice but to close it as keep. There's no reason it couldn't be renominated, but with a unanimous vote just a couple of months ago I question if there's any realistic chance of a different result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Corey Parchman – Nomination Withdrawn – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed too soon--consensus not yet established. The discussion was relisted and then closed without additional comment less than 12 hours after relisted with both Keep and Delete positions in active discussion. Asked closing editor to reconsider here. All I'm asking is for the AFD relisting to run its course. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting one. I saw this earlier when I was looking at AfD and raised an eyebrow; far as I can see the sequence of events was that Slakr relisted it and then Daniel deleted it. It's unusual, but as far as I can see, not actually irregular. I can see no evidence that Daniel is aware of this issue as yet, so I'd like to reserve my position until Daniel has had a chance to consider what you say on his talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was any bad faith involved on the part of User:Daniel, I just think it was procedurally incorrect. Something I've been guilty of many times myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope of DRV. "Deletion Review should not be used:... when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination". Most people are not on Wikipedia every hour of the day and waiting under 5 hours for a reply, during which time the closer has not edited, is not an attempt to "discuss" the matter, it's a box-tick. ✄ (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, not sure that 5 hours is sufficient for "[asking] closing editor to reconsider". I'm happy to undelete and reopen the debate per your comments on the procedural issue (if someone else could do it on my behalf, that'd be great, I'm on some very slow internet at the moment and page loading is a bit of a chore); I will note however that coming here such a short period of time after posting on my talk page isn't the best course of action, as noted by those above. But, on the matter at hand, if someone can undelete and reopen on my behalf, that'd be great. Thanks all. Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment let me get this straight because I'm confused: I made a mistake by opening a DRV too soon after you closed an AFD too soon? I believe it's reasonable to begin the DRV fairly quickly in this case, and I don't think your move was in bad faith. Discussion is not a requirement for starting DRV, and I saw this more as procedural than anything else so I didn't see the need. May I apologize and move on?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, discussion is a requirement for starting DRV, unless there is a substantial reason not to do so. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I quote from WP:DRV: "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page." Clearly not a "requirement" but certainly suggested.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ugh, I'll take responsibility for that. When we discussed this in... what, 2009? 2010? I was very much against making it mandatory to consult with the closer. I didn't want the closer to be the gatekeeper for DRV----I felt that some newer users, in particular, might find sysops to be quite intimidating figures and might be put off by the need to ask them, and the process for starting a DRV is arcane and confusing to the uninitiated even without any extra procedures of this kind. I wanted to set the bar low. Stifle's view has always been that it's better to keep things low-key and wherever possible the closer should have the opportunity to correct any mistake or consider any point raised without the need for a formal procedure like DRV. I think we'd agree with each other that an inexperienced user could be forgiven for not speaking to the closer at all, but for an experienced user it's a matter of etiquette. How long to leave it for the closer to reply is a judgment call, and this might perhaps have been just a tad quick off the mark.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, apart from the procedural issues with this DRV as noted above (which are very poor form), most of the Keep votes except that of Paul McDonald were conditional, noting that the subject would be notable if they played in a particular league, but a reading of the comments shows that this was far from certain for most participants. I'd have closed as no consensus, but Delete also seems reasonable under the circumstances. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse - one admin thought it might be helpful to relist, another was able to determine consensus without further commentary. Nothing really wrong with that. The reality is that the article's creators failed in their burden to establish notability and a couple of people were willing to provisionally keep the article if notability could be established. That's not really the way it works anyway. We don't create articles and then later see if we can find sources to substantiate their existence. The close was fine but I imagine even the closer would agree that if sources can be found to substantiate notability in the future (by whatever standard) there would be nothing wrong with recreating the article. Stalwart111 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- most of the keep opinions were contingent on there actually being sources to verify the content of the articles. Since those sources never turned up it's reasonable to infer a consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as reasonable, there was enough time. Encourage acceptance of the closers offer above to reopen to consider further opinion/information, although I'm not seeing further information being offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn While I still think it was procedurally closed too soon after the resisting, it looks like the result is going to be the same.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Security Industry Specialists – Recreation allowed. – Sandstein 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I would like to have the page Security Industry Specialists un-deleted. I created a minimal page to start with due to limited time, but C Fred killed the page before it had a chance to develop. SIS Inc. is a company that has been the subject of news coverage for its allegedly anti-union stance and its treatment of employees. Solarlive (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have not undeleted this because the content was solely a controversy section without any inline citations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to find sources that talk about Security Industry Specialists' treatment of its employees. Quite a lot of sources. What strikes me pretty clearly, though, is that they're not sources about Security Industry Specialists. They're sources about Security Industry Specialists' attitude to its staff. It's going to be an intensely political topic, and a controversial one. In short, difficult. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's processes don't handle difficult subjects very well. Our processes try to produce simple outcomes, and I'm afraid that what we often get are simplistic outcomes.
The simplistic outcome we're looking at here is really bureaucratic and unhelpful. At a technical level, C.Fred was correct to delete this as an A7 because the narrow, simplistic definition of A7 was met. So the correct outcome is "endorse". Whoopie doo, go DRV! Another triumph of helpfulness for our content creators!
But I think we can do better than that. After thinking about this, I feel that what the sources are really about is the Service Employees International Union's campaign against Security Industry Specialists. Looking on SIS's website, I find they've got a whole page whining about how the unions are persecuting them, which is pretty good evidence that there's something going on that Wikipedia ought to cover. But SIS are not their employment policies, and they're not their labour relations problems, so we've got to find the right title for the article and it isn't Security Industry Specialists. Any article with the title Security Industry Specialists that actually reflects the sources would be hopelessly POV, because it would be about labour relations and not Security Industry Specialists. No compliant article can exist with that name.
I'd be tempted to begin with a subheading under Service Employees International Union. We'd need to set up a redirect from Security Industry Specialists to the subheading, on the basis that Security Industry Specialists is a likely search term for someone looking for the controversy.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation. The deletion was valid, in a technical sense. The claims are referenced, but to offline sources which makes them difficult to verify (not impossible though, I can't imagine that articles in Business Insider and NPR are difficult to locate if you put a bit of effort in). That said I don't see why we shouldn't permit the recreation of the article, so long as it correctly identifies why the company is notable (per WP:CORP), and does not give undue attention to one particular aspect of their business, such as their HR policies. For whatever it's worth, I have a COI of sorts here in that I'm a lifelong trade unionist and proud of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Responding to the two comments above. First, my concern was that the article did not correctly identify why the company is notable per WP:CORP, and that's why I deleted the article. The only proven assertion of significance is that they provide security for Google, and that's not enough; there were other allegations mentioned in the article, but they were just allegations. So, the article was headed down a slippery slope away from WP:NPOV. Also, I did locate the sources cited in the article and read them: they were substantially about the dispute and not the company itself. All that led to my decision to delete. So that others can see what I was working with, I've restored the history, though the title is the {{TempUndelete}} template.

I think S Marshall raises a valid point that the dispute that SIS is embroiled in may be the topic that better warrants coverage that SIS itself, kind of a corporate parallel of WP:BLP1E. I don't think there's enough in the article for a stand-alone article on the controversy, but mention in another article may be in order. I'm not sure the SEIU article is the best place for it, but that's my personal opinion; if other editors agree that's the best place, I'm open to restoring the history but leaving the page as a redirect; we've then got the history for the purpose of merging it into the article on SEIU, labor disputes in the US, or whatever place seems the best fit. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

allow re-creation. The argument above "that they're not sources about Security Industry Specialists. They're sources about Security Industry Specialists' attitude to its staff" is not relevant. If this is the notable thing about the company, it's appropriate content. There is no corporate parallel to BLP1E, and attempts to make one have been repeatedly defeated. That US law treats a corporation as a person for its own purposes, is not relevant to what we choose to do at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and listing at AfD or userfication. All fair comments above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion was wrong, even in a technical sense, and I am surprised any experienced admin would think otherwise.. The indication of plausible significance need only be plausible, it does not have to be referenced, it does not have to be enough to support notability . notability is determined at AfD (or Prod), not at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn CSD and re-create. I don't want to dump on @C.Fred:, I'm sure the deletion was done in good faith. But, I agree that A7 doesn't apply: does not indicate why its subject is important or significant was not met. I'm not saying it's important or significant for sure, just that the article asserts this, which is enough to disarm A7. I do have some concerns that calling out a specific person by name might have WP:BLP implications, but that's another issue which can be easily dealt with editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2014

John Schlossberg – No consensus, relisted. Opinions are divided about whether the "delete" closure was correct or not. In such cases DRV closers may choose whether to relist the deletion discussion. I'm doing so here because several editors have argued that the closing statement appeared to be in the form of (only) an opinion on the merits rather than in the form of an attempt to summarize the discussion. A relisting will allow the editors who participated here in the mistaken belief that this is a repeat performance of the AfD discussion to voice their opinions in the correct forum, and it will allow another administrator to write a closing statement that discusses which consensus, if any, emerges from the discussion. – Sandstein 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Almost all of the deletes voters made the irrelevant case that he got coverage because he was related to someone. Whether or not he'd get as much attention if he didn't have famous family members, is not relevant. The person clearly passes the general notability guidelines for the significant coverage they got in reliable sources about themselves and their activities. This was previously at deletion review for the same reason [1]. Today (U.S. TV program) has a piece on him(watch the video for significant coverage). [2] He has also been given ample coverage in the New York Post [3] and other newspapers. [4] So it isn't just about his family. Recently he even got coverage for an idiotic hoax about him. [5] I tried to discuss this with the closing administrator at [6] Dream Focus 19:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn no consensus. To add in support of DreamFocus.. most of the Delete votes are premised on the essay WP:INHERIT ("He's only notable as a Kennedy"). INHERIT is often treated as a rule, but it's actually an essay. When there's a contested case like this and GNG sources exist, the essay probably shouldn't overrule the guideline. -- GreenC 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the debate really could not have been closed any other way, as consensus was clear. The community has the right, as a matter of editorial discretion, to decide to delete an article based on any argument they find convincing- whether it's a guideline, policy, essay, or even something scrawled on the back of a napkin. Clearly people felt that applying the exact wording of the GNG would lead to an unsatisfactory conclusion in this case and there is nothing wrong with that, because our policies and guidelines are descriptive of what's done in practice. They do not lock us into prescribed actions. Reyk _YO! 00:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I did this for the earlier DR, and I'm doing it again. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Given that everybody will decide this on their own feeling for what WP ought to contain, and whether being a celebrity figure, or related to one, is sufficient for notability, there is no consensus in either direction. I predict we will be discussing this at annual intervals, and the results will be random, depending on who joins the discussion--though I suppose they will move towards consistently delete if people start taking a very _serious_ view of our purpose. I don't see that we should-- , we should try to avoid a feeling of self-oimportance. I could equally well have argued in the other direction--I cannot realy permanently convince myself either way. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While strongly agreeing with Reyk that we can agree to delete articles even when the criteria in the notability guidelines have been met (and vice versa), I am not at all sure that the AFD discussion led to any such consensus. Would not "no consensus" have been a better summary? Thincat (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stupid article that touches on two more important issues. First, what notability is and what it's for. Notability has bugger all to do with the subject's accomplishments (which is why Prince George of Cambridge has an article). It's simply about the coverage the subject has generated in reliable sources. Second, the current content of the article is irrelevant to AfD! If it's fixable then AfD should be deciding to fix it. Absent copyvios, major BLP issues etc, the only basis on which AfD should normally be deleting material is because it's unfixable, i.e. the sources don't exist. Roy Smith's closing statement appears to focus on the current content of the article instead of its potential content, and it appears to confuse the subject's accomplishments with his notability. In my view the close was not within discretion, and I would overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, DRV is not a place to have a second bite of the cherry. Consensus was quite clear in the discussion, and no good reason has been offered to overrule that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. The problem with having an article on him is not the fact that sources went in depth on him, but how they don't indicate what he is notable for- only his ambitions. If they mentioned what he is known for, be it socialite, author, politician, physician, or something, then it would be better to keep. Being a college student and part of Yale's journalism section isn't notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. GNG is the north star, and essays don't trump them. We have guidelines for a purpose, and this is one -- so non-consensus essay views don't trump consensus project views.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Wide coverage of the subject in reliable sources makes it pass the GNG by a considerable margin. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 17:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Notability is not inherited, this person has not done a single thing noteworthy in his own right. This had no adequate rebuttal, so the strength of argument was assessed properly by the closing admin. As always, absent a clear case of error or misjudgment, one does not get to substitute their own point-of-view for the closer's. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John_Schlossberg has been viewed 47946 times in the last 90 days. [7] Six people said keep, seven agreed with the single purpose account nominator that the article should be deleted. There was no consensus to delete. It should've been closed as no consensus. Dream Focus 06:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether seven-to-six is consensus or not, the delete votes had stronger arguments (particularly from people like @Nightscream: and @Gloriamarie:), and weight (strength) of arguments wins over number of votes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think the strongest arguments were ones proving the person clearly passed the WP:GNG for their achievements and activities, not the people arguing that he only got coverage for who he was related to. But since people couldn't argue on that, no consensus would've been the proper close. Dream Focus 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - we need to be careful to make the distinction between the closer misinterpreting consensus and one side or the other failing to adequately advance their position. The context in which someone receives coverage is important if they would otherwise not have received said coverage had they not had a notable relative. The keep crowd (more than once) acknowledged that the coverage wouldn't exist were it not for his relatives but suggested that didn't matter. Of course it matters (and even if it technically didn't, consensus in that discussion was that it does). According to the delete crowd, a college student elsewhere with similar interests and achievements wouldn't warrant anywhere close to the same level of coverage - the innocuous minutiae of his life is covered because of his famous ancestors. The closer interpreted consensus and not liking the result is different to the result being wrong. Stalwart111 22:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: just hit the nail right on the head. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... but that's not the rule, and it never has been the rule. It's a misunderstanding of the rule. Notability is not and has never been about the subject's accomplishments or achievements. Again, I point to the example of Prince George of Cambridge, a baby whose most notable achievement so far was a humungous dump in his nappy. He's only famous for who his relatives are, but only a complete imbecile would suggest deleting his article. See? Notability is about whether there's coverage in the sources. If there is, he's notable, QED.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedys are not royalty, and this John Schlossberg person is not heir to any throne, so I think that's a false equivalence to draw. Perhaps a better comparison would be children of movie stars; we do not routinely create articles on them even though they can be expected to be gushed about in various gossip magazines. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I wasn't saying the Kennedys are royalty. Clearly, I was saying that people can be notable even when they're entirely without meaningful accomplishments. I happened to use an example who was royal; but I could have listed dozens of others who aren't. If I'd used Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards, a man who's famous for not being very good at ski-jumping, as my example, would you have told me John Schlossberg isn't an Olympic athlete?—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, because WP:NOLYMPICS means he's automatically notable. Prince George of Cambridge was nominated for deletion - three times, one of which resulted in deletion (before his birth). Can anyone explain how he is any more notable now than when any of those discussions took place? He's not. He's "notable" for having famous parents which is exactly what WP:INHERIT is designed to weed out and exactly why editors continue to be "guided" by it. In general, it's a good principle, if for no other reason than it allows us to weed out the children of movie stars, though many of them would pass WP:GNG having had their otherwise non-notable lives chronicled without refrain (see this discussion and this one). What is being argued here, it seems, is that the Kennedys (like the royal family) are famous enough that their children and grandchildren should be allowed to bypass our guidelines and be included anyway. If that's the community WP:CONSENSUS, fine. Otherwise, our guidelines should be applied consistently and should be applied here in the same manner as elsewhere, which is what was argued in the AFD. Stalwart111 23:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERIT is an essay which editors are free to disregard. In fact, the whole of WP:ATA is just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AfD, and it's full of really shaky logic. SNGs like NOLYMPICS deserve a little more respect, but should still be treated with caution. Any wikiproject can come up with their own pet SNG and these can be significantly at odds with community norms. If in doubt the GNG is the best fallback, because it's a reasonably objective test that cuts through a lot of argument.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community generally disagrees with this point of view, as there have been several high-profile bios deleted solely on notability-is-not-inherited grounds, e.g. Michele Bachman's husband, Al Gore's son, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's maid. You cannot argue to overturn a deletion discussion solely on "it's just an essay" when said essay has seen wide acceptance by many, many editors over the years. I'd urge the eventual DRV closer here to disregard any calls to overturn based on this bad argument, given the precedent and support WP:NOTINHERITED enjoys. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Thus, the source of wp:notability is the observer, and not the topic. With family members, such attention is divided, such as in the title "JFK's grandson", where attention is directed to the grandson, but a portion of attention also goes to the grandfather. Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, arguing that the mentioned deletions took place because of a contrary interpretation of WP:ATA is not helpful. Trying to explain these deletions as an emerging tenet of WP:NOT doesn't explain John Quincy Adams. As to the idea that individual editors can decide if a topic is "significant" or "important", WP:N says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." The vehicle in WP:N to build consensus is to argue that even though the topic passes WP:GNG, it is still not "worthy of notice". If such consensus is built, the remedy for reliable material in the stand-alone article is merger. Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GNG might not explicitly mention achievements/acomplishments, it is suggested that the subject of a source has done something noteworthy, otherwise there'd be no point in writing it. However, being a college student or part of its journalism section, again, is not notable. If you got information on me from different members of my family and my friends, would that automatically make me notable? Not unless I was known for something noteworthy, be it for my profession, my acomplishments, or perhaps even the lone survivor of an event where many were killed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Wikipedia's full of biographies of people whose "accomplishments" or "achievements" amount to silicone implants, botox lips, spray tans and leaked sex tapes.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the instance of leaked sex tapes, one would essentially be a porn star. As for Botox, implants, and tans, perhaps it would be due to them receiving significant controversy for those or maybe holding a record for most frequent use of it. They could also be socialites noted for those things. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn wp:Notability is not inherited, it is not defined by being related to someone wp:notable, it is not defined by a family connection, it is not defined by news coming out on a blog, it is not defined by the topic doing something significant, it is not earned, it is not achieved, it is not defined by doing something en:notable, it does not require a showing of significance to society, and it does not require an explanation of how the topic is en:notable. A source with the title "JFK's grandson" is attending to the grandson and not the grandfather. A topic is not presumed to not have wp:notability because he/she is a college student. WP:GNG does not require coverage of significance, it requires "significant coverage" wp:Notability is not defined by an article on Wikipedia. So once these erroneous arguments are struck (both keep and delete) from this AfD, we see that Wikipedia has some serious problems with basic understanding of the WP:N guideline. No editor argued WP:IAR, or attempted to argue that even though the topic passed WP:GNG, it was still not "worthy of notice". No editor argued to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, even though the tabloid aspect of this topic was mentioned. The closer did some research and argues that the sources are reporting something that is not WP:RS reliable in the context. At this point, the closer should have stopped the close and prepared a !vote. The close implies that Wikipedia articles must talk about the topic's "accomplishments", then continues by confounding wp:prominence and wp:notability. I conclude that the closer has not taken down the numerous invalid notability arguments for the simple reason that the closer is not familiar with the WP:N guideline. This is disappointing given the unusually high quality of WP:N analysis to be found in this AfD. In summary, a careful reading of this AfD shows complete consensus that the topic passes WP:GNG. I am going to add a WP:IAR/AfD2/post mortem comment here, which is I think the section on Career has a problem with both WP:NotNewspaper and WP:CRYSTAL. Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I commented above). I'm sure the delete !votes were not in accord with the notability criteria but for my money they did not need to be. Guidelines are for guidance and do not have to be followed if the result would be unsatisfactory for the encyclopedia. I think non-guideline-based arguments should provide cogent reasoning and in this AfD many of them did. However, none of this matters here because the close was no good. It did not come close to summarising the nature of the consensus or distilling the essence of the discussion. It seems to me it was simply a !vote, and a rather well worded one at that. !votes go at the bottom of an AfD discussion, not at the top. Thincat (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete – What event is this dude notable for? I couldn't find any evidence of notability other than happening to be JFK's grandson, which is in itself not a claim to notability. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He is certainly not notable for being a Yale student or part of its news team either. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and also writing newspapers for the New York Times. Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems like the "keep" votes were a case of WP:LIPSTICK and/or WP:MASK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Epicgenius possibly means "endorse the deletion". Thincat (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Wikipedia is not a supermarket tabloid. Hekerui (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a cookbook, a prayer book, or a rail ticket. Seriously, what is this with people going "Wikipedia is not a %random_thing%" as if it was a good point and relevant to the discussion? Are you trying to imply that the "keep" side do think it's a supermarket tabloid? If so, then that's an unusual way to characterise the opposition in what's supposed to be a collegial debate. The question of whether Wikipedia's a supermarket tabloid is unrelated to what everyone else is saying. The actual debate appears to be about whether DRV is prepared to enforce the NOTINHERITED essay.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep - considering both John's family connection as well as his relatively wide media coverage by various reliable sources and many secondary ones, and the fact that he's a writer (for some reason no one mentioned this here, and often being a writer is notable just for itself). John published a few articles at the New York Times and is a frequent writer for Yale Daily News and Yale Herald. -Yambaram (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A call to overturn that merely disagrees with the close will be counted for precious little in the final tally of DRV. We're here to review the close, not re-argue the discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- A call to overturn the close on the basis that it was unreasonable certainly ought to be counted as a valid opinion. Correct process means, among other things, being reasonable.

As previously mentioned, writing for a newspaper isn't really notable, even less so for a school/college newspaper. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse appears to be an attempt at a second round of AFD rather than a genuine problem with process (see: DRV is not AFD round 2). Arguments based on WP:NOTINHERITED are routinely (and rightly) discounted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I should mention is how WP:BLP1E indicates that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of film accents considered the worst – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the "keep" closure was correct. Even after discounting opinions that appear to be intended to re-argue the AfD discussion rather than discuss the merits of the closure, there is no consensus to undo the closure, and so it is maintained by default. A relisting would not help, since the original discussion was relatively well-attended. – Sandstein 08:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

WP:LC,WP:NOR This may seem like a small matter, but I assure you... it is a fight for the very soul of Wikipedia. I fear that in our efforts to be collegial and generous of spirit, we've habituated ourselves to some pretty bad stuff. If this isn't listcruf, then the notion of listcruf is -dead-. And friends, that’s a problem.
"Keep" argument 1: The list is "harmless." Wrong. Articles that aren’t deleted right away have a tendency to infect substantive ones via links. Keeping articles that otherwise shouldn’t exist on the grounds that they’re “harmless” is a good way to ensure they eventually cause harm.
“Keep” argument 2: It cites notable sources/good content. Ok. Dave Kehr at the Chicago Reader wrote a negative review of Apocalypse Now. Kehr is a professional film reviewer and the Reader is a notable source. So now I get to create a list called "Films considered the worst" and include Apocalypse Now.
My point here is that websites exist that use statistical modeling to aggregate opinions of movie reviews, but I doubt any such analysis of movie critics' opinions of actors' accents exists. In which case, this is original research. Empirically aggregating opinions is a very difficult thing to do. A few movie critics saying the accents in a movie are bad in no way constitutes reviewers' consensus or opinions in aggregate. Atlantictire (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close was well supported by the discussion and well explained by the closing administrator; ample evidence that it's a notable topic. "No consensus" might have been an alternative, but the end result is the same. We don't need to destroy the village in order to save it: discussions have already started at the talk page about refocusing the article to discuss the topic of movie accents in a more general fashion, using the sources already produced; a much better use of editorial resources than setting this on fire. -- Arxiloxo(talk) 04:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this "destroying the village?" I think I addressed why the admin's rational for keeping it was faulty. You've said it was sound but have provided no justification. Explain.
Arxiloxos voted "keep" in the original deletion discussion. It should also be noted that one of the most adamant advocates of keeping the list changed his mind in favor of deleting it.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Roy Smith; I found the closing statement clear, complete, and helpful. I see there's a constructive discussion going on on Talk:List of film accents considered the worst, which looks likely to lead to an intelligent solution and I think that discussion should be allowed to continue. To be candid, I do think this is a really crap idea for a list. I see that there are sources, but I feel that the fact that there are sources doesn't in itself make this a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. If I had participated in the debate I would have said "delete".
At a technical DRV level, I think the correct close would have been "no consensus to delete" rather than "keep". Historically, DRV has been reluctant to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" on the basis that it's an overturn with no practical effect. I shouldn't think we can get to a "delete" outcome from here, but DRV's decisions have been getting weirder of late so I suppose it's possible; if that does happen, then would the closer please note that it's important not to delete the list's talk page until the discussion there is complete.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - while I probably would have closed the discussion as 'no consensus defaulting to delete', the close was well within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but when is something outside admin discretion? Is that what this is about... admin discretion? Not whether terrible, unjustifiable decisions are being made and terrible precedents being set? Maybe I'll go make a List of books considered the worst, including everything for which I find 2 or 3 negative reviews by professional critics. I'll argue that it's harmless and I have reliable sources. Atlantictire (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the AfD closer. I agree with those who suggest that no consensus might have been a better close than keep, but at this point, it seems like a meaningless distinction. I also agree with those who suggest that effort put into arguing process would benefit the encyclopedia more if it were put into fixing up bad articles (which this one certainly is). I also agree that this is a horrible title for an article, but that wasn't discussed in the AfD comments and I didn't want to go there in my close. In any case, thank you to everybody for your feedback (seriously). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of house pets considered the worst. Seriously, what's to stop me from creating this?--Atlantictire (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be a better idea than an article on sexuality in Star Trek.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of examples of sexuality in Star Trek considered the worst.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia articles considered the worst -- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia users considered the worst oh wait... Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

endorse It is not good for people to take themselves too seriously. for a project like WP, it's even a little ludicrous. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and then we can continue to peruse this ridiculous article. I sympathise with the closer in trying to maintain decorum. BTW "it is a fight for the very soul of Wikipedia" seems hyperbolic. Thincat (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'd have closed it as no consensus had I not been involved in the discussion, but overturning "Keep" to "No Consensus" is just silly policy wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Even having !voted Delete, I don't see how this could have been closed as Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Well that's it then. Better to "maintain decorum" then have any kind of standards. May as well create a sockpuppet account that comes here to socialize, write garbage lists and vote "keep" on everything. Look for lots and lots of "considered the worst" lists, guys. Good job!--Atlantictire (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But our standards are decided by community consensus. A list, like any article, is compiled from disparate sources and the community has to decide what is disallowed by WP:SYNTH. Different people can quite legitimately have different opinions. Regarding WP:NOR, the article has the stance of reporting critics' opinions, not the accents of actors, and the article's supporters consider these opinions have been reliably sourced. Why the critics' opinions are of any interest is beyond me – but then lots of other topics are of no interest to me either. Thincat (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred Wikipedia when the admins were highly intelligent, had exacting standards, and insisted that the place wasn't a democracy. They weren't shy about deleting things either.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Supervote. ✄ (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me any list like this is covered by WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, if as claimed only one person has criticized or said an accent is "the worst" whilst not raised by others covering the same context, then it's likely to be an npov problem and should be fixed by editing. If after sorting those out if there is anything left the article subject is probably no better or worse than many I personally wouldn't bother with. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fix this with editing. Unless you're a statistician, you're not going to be able to sample and aggregate reviews in such a way that credibly approximates "critical consensus." If you are a statistician and you do this, then it's original research. The only semi-credible "considered the worst" lists draw on data aggreating sites, like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Even then, the "consensus" is compromised by the fact that many media outlets refuse to allow those sites to use their reviews.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's bullshit. Applying WP:UNDUE has never called for detailed statistical analysis (WP:NPOV be damned if it does). It should be pretty obvious and uncontroversial that only one person saying "x is the worst y", is not any significant weight to that view point. Regardless my comment says "If after sorting those out if there is anything left" - yes I believe there is a good chance there will be nothing left (though I'd rather hope Dick Van Dyke's English accent in Mary Poppins would be in) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm saying WP:UNDUE should definitely not call for "detailed statistical analysis." Nor should we be sending out ballots to film critics to vote on "All time worst accents in a film." My point is that you can take any category of anything, find experts calling instances of that category "the worst," and compile a list. It means nothing. That list is NOT actually a list of film accents considered the worst. It's a list of accents someone was able to find at least one critic disparaging in a noteworthy publication. Big difference.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I suggest NPOV is the way to clean this up (and possibly even remove every entry), to which you reply about requiring statistical analysis to achieve that, excuse me if I am somewhat confused then as to what your first answer was going on about, if it wasn't addressing application of WP:UNDUE - presumably it was just a random response to push your viewpoint again? "It's a list of accents someone was able to find at least one critic disparaging in a noteworthy publication." - which is exactly where WP:UNDUE comes in - no statistical analysis should be required to determine that giving full weight to a single opinion is giving it undue weight. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. BLP is quite strict. The closure incorrectly draws a distinction between "allegations" and "reviews" which simply doesn't exist. That an actor had a poor film accent is potentially controversial, and therefore falls within BLP. At the very least, the article should be stubbified to just those entries with multiple sources. I would do that now, but I'm afraid of provoking an incident. That is a Bad Thing, however, because WP:BLP specifically says to remove first and ask questions later. --N Y Kevin 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Addendum: I would like to note that an off-wiki discussion[8] has drawn the attention of some (small) portion of reddit to this article. In that discussion, someone noted their disdain for this article, and I provided instructions to initiate a deletion discussion. My intention at the time was to educate anyone reading my comment about the deletion process, and when I first wrote it, I was unaware of the recent AfD (i.e. the one whose merits we are now debating). I since added a note asking people not to renominate, but said note linked to the AfD, which may draw attention to this discussion in particular. It is my hope that this does not disrupt the DRV process; nevertheless, I feel the participants in this discussion deserve fair warning in case disruption does occur. If anyone from reddit is reading this, please do not participate in this discussion unless you've personally examined the issues at hand and reached a conclusion grounded in Wikipedia policy. --N Y Kevin 23:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is irrelevant. Sourced comments about the public performances of a performer are acceptable material, un;less the sourced are actually malicious. These are not comments about their private life, or otherwise irrelevant to their public career. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with that. These are opinions and not factual statements. If we're going to implicitly claim those opinions are correct (by including them in the article at all), we should at the very least have multiple independent sources saying the same things. While we're on the topic, what exactly are the criteria for inclusion in this article? --N Y Kevin 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHO KNOWS. Metacritic has a weighting function based on the popularity and prestige of the critic and the media outlet he/she writes for. Are you telling me Wikipedia editors are going to start assigning weights to critics and their reviews? Because that's the only way to have a list like this that actually means anything. By the way, I love how people on reddit are agreeing/disagreeing with this list like it's a bloody blog post. B/C IT'S A BLOODY BLOG POST.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete - per nom. Unencyclopedic listcruft. We're not here for shit like this. BMK (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Some people consider certain film accents horrible which others consider good. It depends on the person's taste. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 February 2014

Leslie Cornfeld – Recreation permitted. – Sandstein 08:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a résumé. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then contacted me, and I said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions. User NinaSpezz (talk · contribs), acting with a declared COI as a representative of Ms Cornfeld, supplied a number of references, and has provided a rewritten draft on the talk page. I have tweaked it slightly and moved it to Draft:Leslie Cornfeld. I think it is now good enough for the mainspace, and bring it here for review before restoring it. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing sources that provide substantial coverage of this subject or really any assertion of notability that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Which achievements and which sources do you think establish notability? The article also needs to provide context in the opening paragraph. Not all our readers are NYers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, that's not an unreasonable request at all.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Recreation, this is exactly how the process is supposed to work. Bravo to everyone involved. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Restore - As nominator for NUKEANDPAVE for old article, I was asked to come look at the current draft. It is much much better than before and, imho, worthy of being an article. Thank you for all those who put in hours or work to make this happen. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 February 2014

Antrim Forum – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

its an Olympic style training facility with references and a picture and everything Evangp (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply astonished

Evangp (talk · contribs) has created a large number of venue stubs, and Antrim Forum appears to be typical. These venues are, I think, reasonable content for a collection of all human information, but individually they sit ill with our guidelines on whether individual topics belong on stand alone articles. I suggest that Evangp might work on a more generic modern theatrical venues, and produce a merge target should this astonishment proceed to grief at the hands of (policy adhering) deletionists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - astonished or not, consensus was interpreted correctly. Your disagreement is with the people who supported deletion, not with the admin who closed the discussion. Stalwart111 14:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer appropriately assessed the consensus that emerged from the deletion discussion and no evidence has been presented that would invalidate that consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Correct interpretation of consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy There wasn't much discussion and so there wasn't much of a consensus. Overturning is not appropriate but a sensible way forward would be to userfy the topic so that it can be developed further as there seem to be plenty more sources out there. Fodor describes it as "One of Northern Ireland's most important leisure complexes, regularly hosting international tournaments." and there are plenty more references in other books such as The Ulster Year Book and The Story of Antrim. The article Antrim, County Antrim now just has a red link for this important venue and so such alternatives to deletion should be preferred per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Appears to be purely a matter of disagreement with consensus, no evidence that the closer didn't follow AFD policy. Indeed, the discussion was even relisted once. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the article here User:Evangp/Antrim Forum, check out my great new references, please. Evangp (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 February 2014

Hedgewars – I'm loath to relist something that clearly isn't ready for primetime and I think those arguing to restore this really need to come up with an encylopedic draft for us to look at. I'm afraid that this "obsession" towards our concept of notability is the basis on whuch we maintain a minimum quality of article content here so whether you like it or not you need to work with the GNG not decry it. If an IP wants to work on this I'd be happy to userfy this to my userspace but truthfully, you really should start again. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I originally restored this article blindly because I didn't realize it had gone to AFD. After seeing it went to AFD, I decided to re-delete it and open this DRV instead. This article is very clearly not a G4 candidate. It has been substantially updated since it was last deleted due to an AFD in 2009. The history shows about 75 edits since the original deletion, from a wide range of users. There is an argument to be made for its lack of notability, but we need an AFD discussion for that. This AFD was left open for just over 24 hours before being closed due to an inappropriate G4 deletion. This does not allow the time necessary to determine consensus on this issue (and I note that only two editors had even commented on the AFD). I'm opening the DRV because I believe this is not a G4 candidate and a full discussion needs to be made regarding its suitability on Wikipedia, given its current state. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ~~for now~~- If a repost of a deleted article does not address the reasons for the deletion, then it is a G4 candidate even if it looks superficially different. I have seen G4 deletions upheld at DRV on those grounds. Reyk _YO! 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaand now that I've seen the article I'm convinced that overturning and listing at AfD would be a bureaucratic waste of time. Reyk _YO! 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List at AFD (I have not seen the article). Speedy deletion only applies to "the most obvious cases" so if the DRV nominator here thinks it was not a G4 candidate then, with hindsight, the speedy was mistaken. The comments at the one and a bit AFDs do not suggest any harm will come from making the article visible for discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unless evidence is brought forth that the situation is really any different than it was last time. It also had a pretty spammy feel, so I'm uncomfortable with having it restored if it has no reasonable chance at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
original deletion reason outdated

I want to point out that the original deletion (5 years ago...) was done with the reason "Non-notable video game." (RHaworth).

I do not see how that reason still holds, considering that Hedgewars is very popular these days:

It is the most-downloaded software on gna.org: During January its windows client has been downloaded 87393 times from gna.org! http://stats.gna.org/download.gna.org/usage_201401.html (compare that to warmus with 9182 downloads...)

The popular german site chip.de mirrors the windows download and the latest release version there has over 50.000 downloads with 350 ratings (96% positive) http://www.chip.de/downloads/Hedgewars_32453115.html

Youtube users upload new videos of it all the time http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=%22hedgewars%22&search_sort=video_date_uploaded

It was included on the CD's of various magazines ( e.g. the nz PCWorld http://imgur.com/FOJ5xPS and some german magazine which name I currently don't remember)

There are a lot of reviews of hedgewars in many different languages out there (e.g. http://www.tuxarena.com/2010/12/hedgewars-awesome-open-source-worms-like-game-for-linux/ http://www.giga.de/spiele/hedgewars/ http://www.linuxforu.com/2009/09/linux-game-review-hedgewars/ ), they are just not that easy to find (unless you search for hedgewars and "last month" in the weeks after a release)

And I don't see why they don't count as 3rd party mention, just because they are not commercial pages. It's not like many commercial magazine/site would suddenly decide to review a FOSS game that was released the first time 6 years ago. Statements like "Only blogs and download sites mention it." (SharkD) seems a bit discriminatory against free open-source games to me.

PS: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place or style to post my position on this - While I use wikipedia a lot (as in view, not edit), I'm afraid I am not really familiar with administrative/editorial protocols :) sheepluva (talk) -- yes, I'm affiliated with the non-commercial free open-source project in question —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So. I get the feeling from some of the stuff written (won't survive Afd, spammy) that people are ignoring the links we are putting to prove notability. I'd also like to note we'd be happy to incorporate these into the article if that's what it takes, although I've heard that it is COI to do that, but, eh, if we are just moderately augmenting, perhaps it'd be ok.

So. I'm going to put all the links to reviews and references together in one list.

http://www.pcprofessionale.it/2008/11/17/download-del-giorno-hedgewars/ - print run of 60k
http://m8y.org/hw/hw-ct.jpg - print run of 320k, article appeared in print
http://hak5.org/tag/hedgewars - video review
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=105

References by way of the psych study that used us, which described the game in a fair amount of detail and included screenshots.

There are others, but these seemed moderately reputable.

I hesitate to include, too many since probably only a few count as notable by your standards but we've had many reviews by FOSS software/gaming sites. At the very least this points to having a fairly high profile at least in the FOSS world (as if being the 5th FOSS game in the Ubuntu softare centre wasn't evidence of this already)

If these are usable I can post many more.

At one point, (Ubuntu 12.04?) a screenshot from the game was on the http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop page in the Games section, but they keep redesigning that. From a quick site:wikipedia.org Hedgewars google search, seems like people created pages for it under ru, de, pl, es, fr, it, zh, and ko - there were also a fair number of pages referencing Hedgewars across the board. I realise this has nothing to do with 3rd party sources - that's what the scans and links above are for. I just thought it might help point out that this isn't spammy, and that in the FOSS game world, Hedgewars is fairly high profile.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article deleted was all primary source material, the sort of thing that would be expected on the publishers website. Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic. If you had a registered Wikipedia account with a contribution history across a range of articles, then we'd trust you with a userfied version that you could make "encyclopedic" in style. As it stands, I fear that you'd just resubmit in-universe description, how-to play guide, and promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was addressed at me and/or the other person above - but either way: thank you for clarification. I do understand that most of the page is misplaced/not relevant (from what I can see most of it was added by the same person - I don't know if that was a dev or not, the name doesn't seem familiar to me at all) - and I don't think we question that the page needs to be cleaned up. But why delete and salt the page when you just could remove all the non-relevant sections - those which wouldn't make sense to be kept even if their were non-primary sources for them (control keys, version history, people, etc) - and slap big "citation needed" and "primary sources" notes on top of the few remaining, but relevant, paragraphs? (maybe even with your quote "Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic." to further help the people to understand why and what should be fixed? --sheepluva (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start with an independent commentary, such as a review, from a reputable source, that is not serving as promotion. You also will need to explain your WP:COI, and why enthusiastic authors for the topic are not interested much in contributing anything else. It may be a little unfair, but once Wikipedia has turned on its WP:NOTPROMOTION alert, the bar is raised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... Speaking personally about this, I'm only here because you deleted the wikipedia article to a game that I've contributed to for 5 years, which has a pretty high profile in FOSS gaming, so I felt deserved its place here. I've hardly touched the article so while I'm an enthusiastic defender of the article's existence, I'm hardly an editor. I'm only offering to edit the article merely to slap in the reviews noted above and satisfy that criticism about the content (which appears to be a new criticism after the notability thing has been hopefully shot down - but that was the initial reason for deletion I believe). While I contribute periodically to certain things, occasionally finding someone with an account to do the upload of an image, I don't really have the time to do more than that, and certainly don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia politics and formatting. The article was not written by the devs, while it is a convenient article to point people at when they want some piece of information, we hardly need promotion. We aren't exactly making any money off of this. Sure our feeling are hurt, and thus the heated response. But, yeah, wasn't COI in the first place, and I have no particular desire to do anything COI now, but, I was just pointing out that I could easily work those links above into the article if one of you was unwilling to do it. I'd also like to note that, yes, the article does reference google code and ohloh and such... but I'm sure that could stay if a few more sources were added from the list above. Mozilla Firefox's article is 56% mozilla.org links, and also, yeah, has ohloh and such as well...

Oh, and, I have to say, I don't get the deletionist obsession about notability. I mean, how does stuff like this really hurt Wikipedia. If articles have insufficient sourced content, put a banner at the top, add sorting on disambiguation/meta pages based on popularity/someothercriterionlikeeditorvotes and let people work this out for themselves if they happen upon an article. But certainly "DELETE" seems to be a poor response to an objection over quality. Putting something at the top would have been a good start... In the time we've spent arguing about this, one of you could probably have tossed those review links into a few places on the page and deleted whatever you felt didn't belong there, and generally made everything presumably AOK. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100002023/wikipedia-should-delete-the-deletionists/ (situation described there sure sounds familiar)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. I don't think it will survive AfD, but that's entirely beside the point. There are good reasons why we have discussion-based processes, and an AfD is not just a discussion for discussion's sake.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the XfD2 close "speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4" to "SNOW delete" (per XfD2). It could reasonably be relisted "for the full seven days". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It is clearly not acceptable to have someone nominate an article for deletion, and then five years later use their tools during an AfD to unilaterally overturn the previous DRV. On top of that, there was a salting. Skimming the article tells me that too much of the material is IINFO. I looked at one of the links above and it shows that the topic has attracted the attention of researchers in Finland. This means that the world at large has and will have a long-term interest in this topic. I suggest incubation. Unscintillating (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, never more than a purgatory for not quite blatantly unsuitable material, now dead or moribund? I think that the authors are MUCH better advised to practice by contributing to other articles until they are at least autoconfirmed, and then requesting userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The G4-deleting admin is ~~WP:INVOLVED~~ involved, single-handedly overturned a DRV, and in doing so terminated an AfD. The article was not a G4 candidate. There is no substantive purpose to restoring the article to mainspace when it can go to draftspace, and if a revised article comes out of WP:Drafts, it can be nominated for a new AfD. Resuming the current AfD is WP:BURO. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it was a bad G4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Why do you say RHaworth was WP:INVOLVED? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review the WP: document before I posted, and I wasn't trying to imply anything that I hadn't already said, so I will amend my previous comment. Sorry, Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the project tries to promote the undeletion with the help of fans [9] Matthias M. (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... ok. What's the problem here? I asked people to provide you with references (needed for notability) and asked wikipedians for assistance (who would know the politics, and possibly be able to help with cleanup). If there's any actual issue in this post, let me know, and I'll fix it or pull it. (yes, I wrote it)

BTW, here's a fan provided link.

http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/481850/how-to_get_free_games_fast_game_downloader/

Note that while I'm a bit surprised this would be a problem and I'll pull it if you identify one, I can't do much about the various aggregators out there which mirror us. A quick check online shows google indexing 4 of those. I suppose if it is a straight RSS feed they might vanish if I unpublish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to be told why offsite canvassing for votes is considered bad? Geez. Ok, here we go: At best, it creates pointless noise. Wikipedia discussions aren't really 'votes', and simply showing up in greater numbers won't win out against an argument grounded in policy. Also, the admin who closes the discussion has to try to figure out which comments are legit and which are the result of canvassing/vote stacking. Further, it tends to create a backlash, and if the community feels vote stacking is tainting the discussion it may lead to opposing comments from editors who would otherwise have been neutral not not bothered to comment at all. I've never seen offsite canvassing work the way the perpetuator intended it to, and I strongly suggest taking down the post and focusing on improving the article if you really want it to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I can improve the article? I was told by a wikipedian I wasn't allowed. That was one of the reasons I was asking for help.

The other was for links to show notability. I don't see either of these as causing "noise". I gotta say, from what you said above, it sounds like you think I was asking for people to vote in this irritating process, which wasn't what I asked for at all...

Frankly I find this whole deletion thing extremely distasteful and contrary to spirit of wikipedia entirely. But. Yes, if the discussion is now about quality and, I am allowed to make the edits, I'd be happy to do so. I guess the question is how. You said "focus on improving the article" - I'm pretty sure I can't do anything to the article right now, that it has been killed...

I went ahead and put a note on there saying we were NOT looking for votes, but rather for references in press and people to offer to help clean up the article and satisfy concerns on that front (assuming we are ever allowed to). Heh. Actually, is amusing you're talking about "focusing on improving the article" since I just noticed you voted to "endorse" which as I understand things at this point, would make that impossible, forever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does allow article drafts, which are kept either in userspace or draft space where they can be worked on. If you are the creator of the game or otherwise have a conflict of interest, you should not be working on the article yourself. Someone even on your own forum had an excellent idea though: move it to Wikia, where notability, verifiability, and COI aren't as much a concern. If you could get a good article with every point reliably sourced there would be no objection to it being considered for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Every point reliably sourced. As noted, even Firefox is 56% internal cites, and that's not even considering the references to code sites which were what the existing article does. But. Yeah, that's been my understanding, the COI thing. So I haven o idea how to resolve that, apart from asking around for someone interested. Thus the post on the forum. And, the wikia thing is an awful idea. Sheesh. Dead links on the List of Open Source games on Wikipedia is just so sad and an indication of a misplaced agenda. Have you seen the number of articles killed for the top deletionists? Even if they were working 40 hours a week, no vacations, they'd still only be able to spend a few minutes considering each one. I'm not sure what drives them apart from possibly a desire to try and transform a rich and endlessly deep wiki into encyclopedia britannica. But. Ok. I'll add something to the post looking for someone who has the experience to do this draft thing, and maybe link their work here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2014

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) – Endorsed. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Both AfDs were closed as redirect, but User:Eccekevin reverted both, claiming that he had found new sources. While improper, he's possibly right that being on the National Register of Historic Places gives these buildings notability. Could the closes be reviewed with the new information he's provided? Thanks, ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, I'm about to go off to class, so I don't have time to go into more detail. Maybe later.)[reply]

Endorse the XfDs. NB. DRV is not for reviewing subsequent de-mergers. However,...

User:Eccekevin has boldly spunout these articles. This should not be called a "revert" in the WP:BRD sense, but a WP:BOLD action. The XfDs are not part of the editing process. You, User:Ansh666, reverted. Your reverting is quite reasonable, as Eccekevin has not provided significant new sourced material to overcome the consensus seen at the XfDs. The proper thing to do now is to discuss, at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Eccekevin subsequently did an improper thing (edit warring). The pages should be redirected as per the XfD, and left redirected until there is a consensus at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame to do something else.

I recommend consideration of expanding the material at List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame before seriously making a case to spinout individual halls. I note that the individual halls do not look to meet the third party sourcing requirements of wikipedia-notability, and that Wikipedia:Alternative outlets may apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that they are individually on the National Register. The Main and South Quadrangles as a group of buildings are on the register. This is an historical district, (like the one I live in , which includes about 100 houses. The individual houses are listed & briefly described in the documentation, but that doesn't make each individual house on the register. One or two buildings in the district are I think individually on the register, which is another matter.) We have consistently not included the individual buildings in a historical district--not that we couldn't--we're not paper, and could accommodate the probably hundreds of thousands of articles, but because they are not of encyclopedic importance--the register documentation for the individual buildings in the district is sufficient.

But let's suppose for a minute that these two buildings were individually on the register--the relevant information would be about the building, not, as at present, about the alumni who lived in them for a year or two. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this DRV for? I closed the Badin Hall discussion as 'redirect' because that seemed to be the clear consensus. If someone wants to challenge the merits of that decision, then DRV is the place to do it, but I don't see that anyone has challenged it. Other than that, I fully agree with the comments of SmokeyJoe and DGG above.

Okay, thanks all. @Amatulic: (you forgot to sign) Eccekevin has challenged the closes on his talkpage, among other places. He doesn't seem to want to take it to the proper venues, though. Sorry that I wasn't able to provide links, but the discussion is mostly split between User talk:Eccekevin#Sorin Hall (University of Notre Dame) and User talk:Ansh666#St. Edwards Hall, and another recent AfD that closed as keep.

I fully understand that DRV isn't supposed to be used to confirm AfD results, and that doing so could probably be seen as pointy behavior, but it was intended to be a proxy DRV for an editor who probably doesn't understand how. DGG has confirmed the suspicions I had about notability, and SmokeyJoe has provided reasonable steps moving forward. Should this stay open? ₆an⁶sh₆ 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted both to the redirects per the XfDs and per WP:BRD. Proposals to spinout should now be discussed at Talk:List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe is right. This really isn't about the AfDs, both of which were pretty commonsense closes (disclaimer: I closed one of them). If there's consensus for a standalone article again, though, I don't mind. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the procedure though I disagree on the substantive outcome and would have argued to the contrary had I been aware of the AfDs when they were being debated. Anyway, I don't intend to argue the merits at DRV since this isn't the place, and I don't see closure as redirect as preventing recreation and expansion once notability can be established. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a merger for Badin Hall, see Talk:Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame). I don't see a hint of wp:notability here. There was an industrial school from 1897 to 1917 that might merit a stand-alone article if there are sources. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Constitution Party of Alabama – Endorse closure. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing admin overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion and inserted his own opinion, pleading WP:IAR. There is no possible reading of the lengthy discussion that could result in a consensus anything resembling "merge all articles", with the majority of responders leaving thought-out comments that at least a significant number surpassed notability guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I read the consensus that way. At most, to me, a few articles deserve to remain un-merged, not a "significant number". That is just how I read the consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the close, it is a good solution for a bunch of very weak articles that were not going to be straight deleted. Was the close a WP:supervote, demanding rejection at DRV? I don't think it was, the close seems to reflect a reasonable call of "rough consensus". However, it is a big call affecting a lot of articles, and there was specific case objections. There was no consensus to delete. I suggest that the situation should be considered a weak consensus to merge, with details to be discussed at Talk:Constitution_Party_(United_States). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Disclaimer: I am the original nom for the AfD. So add or subtract what you will from the weight given to my opinion.) The argument employed by the appellant seems to be based on a couple of questionable propositions. First that the AfD discussion was a democratic process. And secondly the implication that there was some deliberate malice in the Admin's decision. The outcome of an AfD discussion is based only in part on the weight of opinion one way or another. Much more important is the cogency of the arguments. In this respect, I think the closer got it right. And his very thoughtful short essay only reinforces that view. There were a lot of divergent, and at times heated opinions expressed in this discussion. But with everything said, a judgment needed to be made based on the arguments laid out. And I concur with that judgment with one exception. I see no need for an appeal to WP:IAR. As to the implication of some sort of malicious intent, I saw that thrown around a bit in the discussion, including some directed at myself. I see absolutely no evidence to support such a suspicion. His conclusions seem to represent well one side of a disputed AfD. As long as his conclusion was based on the belief that the arguments from that side were more compelling, I think he has done his job. I will close with the following quote from a notice put at the top of the disputed AfD discussion. "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. " -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The administrator action of RoySmith was to not delete the articles, in accordance with the discussion (which looks like a no consensus). The merge decision is done through regular editorial discretion. Looking at the articles, most of the content is basically a repeat of the national platform and a repeat of the same national candidates, over and over again for each state. There is very little substantial in the articles to distinguish one state chapter from another. So on the whole, RoySmith's decision to call this a "merge" based on a sound argument is more than reasonable, it seems like the correct decision. If a state chapter does develop a life of its own to stick out among the others, it can always be split out again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Modify (though it was a good effort at closing)

(A) Disclaimer, below I !voted "Merge most, keep a couple";

(B) I was on the receiving end of non-civil and non-AGF remarks from the appellant DroversWife which I chose to ignore but am sad to see such remarks form the basis of his appeal. His assertions that the closing admin "overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion" might merit sanctions if this subject were already under DS. Even though DS doesn't apply (yet) such remarks are not the sort of strong reasoning that is supposed to guide the closing or delRev process.

(C) Modify this way In 2010 the Colorado party came in #2 in the race for governor, an easy factoid to overlook in the original AFD. Once one focuses on Colorado a reasonable reaction is "Omg, that's huge!" I can't fathom why that chapter shouldn't have an article of its own. I also can't think of a reasoning-based way to draw the line between that chapter and most others who had ballot access but didn't do nearly so well. So in sum, I think any state that had ballot access and fronted candidates should be kept, but all general stuff about the party should be reduced to two sentences saying "The (state chapter name) is the (state) affiliate of the Constitution Party (USA). It's platform reflects the major points of the national party." Then list ballot access and electoral history and anything else that is special. Such text would purge the redundancy while keeping the state-specific stuff, which admittedly in many states in minor. But remember that a candidate who gets just 1/100th of 1% can still break a tie between the major parties, which makes the fact they were in the race at all determinative. Treat other US third parties (greens, libertarians, whoever else comes along) the same way.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado and several other state articles were not included in the nom as I concluded they had a reasonable claim to notability independent of the national party. This was not a shotgun nomination. I looked at all of the state party articles and only nominated those that I felt had no reasonable claim to independent notability.-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I entirely agree with Sjakkalle.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Sjakkalle I note that Lexington62, who has an obvious COI as he is editing on behalf of one of the state parties[10] has removed the AfD templates from some articleswith the edit summary "There is/was clearly NO CONTROLLING AUTHORITY to any of it and it appeared to have a political agenda since neither any of the Libertarian or Green Party state pages were similarly attacked". The claim of bias needs to be rejected, I don't think anyone has been working from that pov. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Also agreed with Sjakkalle. Any admin who was going to close that was going to have to make a judgement call which was destined to be appealed to DR, but RoySmith's decision seemed to be professional, well-explained, and based on Wikipedia's overall goals of providing useful content. --Aristeo (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going through the process of changing the AfD tags on all these articles to AfD-merge to's. It will be up to the merger to decide which are worth keeping, I guess. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking care of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just doing my (self-appointed) job. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Muhmmadsabir – Endorse closure but blank page. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This one is difficult because, technically speaking, everyone followed the rules here to reach a keep decision. Two users cited their opinion, and someone (non-admin) made a closure. However, the reasoning on which the keep was decided is quite obviously flawed.

Despite the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT contention of the main "keep" vote on this discussion, it is undebatable that this page is nothing other than a personal sermon by the user, who has literally zero other contribution to any of the projects. This is as textbook a violation of WP:SOAPBOX as it gets. The user is here for one purpose and one purpose only: to espouse his point of views, all while doing so in the wrong language for the project, and not even bothering to help the encyclopedia. On Commons, I even had blocked this user for continuing to create content out of scope (unlike on English Wikipedia, such things can be deleted on sight on Commons). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just blank it, and the other one too. MfD would be better participated if it wasn't filled with busywork cases that don't need deletion. Yes, it's a NOTWEBHOST violation, but it is sufficiently well dealt with by being blanked. If the author (a new account, Created on 15 January 2014 at 07:35) actively objects, then with the subsequent conversation he is one step closer to becoming a contributor. If the author never returned, then blanking is de facto deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't think the "keep" reasoning at the MFD was flawed in any way at all. Even if a page breaches a policy, that does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the page should be deleted. Perhaps it doesn't matter too much, or perhaps there is some way in which the editor can be helped or the page can be remedied. These sort of MFDs (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pravin Kumar Sonu is a case I particularly remember) are unnecessary and damaging. Thincat (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blank it. Easiest way. Relist to MfD if user returns and opposes blanking (and does not modify it to be better aligned with userpage policy and/or start contributing to encyclopedia). This is a text-book case of out of project scope userpage. Keep reasoning was seriously flawed, page contains typical G2 test edit material along with religious WP:NOTWEBHOST sermon. MfD process is not working due to non-existent participation. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see no communication with the closer mentioned in the nomination, and this is the place to start. I don't see that the text here is a sermon or even an essay, and is more likely to be what are felt to be high-minded viewpoints for people reading his/her page to consider. I have a specific concern here that this page and User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro are indexed on Google. What can be done about this? Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2014

Shamar Stephen – I'm going to just delete this and that should be the end of the matter. Bottom line, this shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe a "no-consenus" closure is incorrect. An unopposed and supported deletion nomination should be treated similar to a WP:PROD and the article should be deleted. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I briefly discussed the issue at the closing editor's talk page. I don't see any reason to think this is a "bad faith" closure at this time, I just merely believe it is an incorrect one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have certainly been cases where unopposed deletion nominations have been treated as PRODs in the past. I'm not aware of any discussion or consensus that indicates this should always be the case, and I would be very averse to establishing this as a general rule; the fact that someone's nominated material for deletion certainly doesn't always mean it should be deleted, even when nobody has shown up to disagree. As Wikipedia's number of active editors continues to decline, we'll find cases like this, where there's been very little discussion, becoming increasingly common. Our present practice seems to be to relist the deletion discussion until some more people weigh in. The result of this is that our XfD pages are clogged up with discussions in which nobody is interested. It's a problem that needs wiser heads than mine to solve.
However, this specific case is easy. The only thing about the nomination that I'm disagreeing with is the blanket statement that "An unopposed and supported deletion nomination should be treated similar to a PROD". The actual discussion, although brief, does indicate that the sources were carefully examined and did lead to a unanimous consensus to delete, and this should have been the close. Overturn to delete.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. In a thinly-attended AfD the option of WP:SOFTDELETE is certainly available to the closer, but I don't think we should lay down rules about when to use it, and I agree with SM that in this case delete is the correct outcome. I see from the closer's talk page that a number of his no-consensus NACs like this have been challenged, and he has agreed to stop making them. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per others. This is a straight-up deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: Hi guys, I made the 'no consensus' close per the essay at Non admin closures and the guideline here:

"AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new [which it was], or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination." (emphasis added) And:
"If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:" (emphasis added).

With only one endorser, it is clear that there is little discussion. Also note that the no quorum guideline also provides some leniency; it allows a close endorsing the original proposal, which was to delete. While closing as 'no consensus' may not have been the best choice of action, it certainly wasn't incorrect. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, your close was incorrect, the sensible options were to either relist or delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been relisted. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A third option would have been to comment on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete per JohnCD. PhilKnight (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Delete- as this is generally what should be done with uncontested AfDs. Reyk _YO! 01:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete - re-listing or commenting would have been preferable options here, not non-admin closing as no-consensus. Live and learn. Stalwart111 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter I would have closed as delete, adding my own judgment that this is a very clear-cut example of not meeting the requirements for athletes. But it could simply go to AfD2 immediately. We are having increasing numbers of uncommented AfDs, probably because of the many other things needing attention, and not all of them are as obvious as this one, so I wouldn't want a precedent that such a nonconsensus close in a situation like this actually wrong. . DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Should have been at least WP:SOFTDELETEd as if it were a WP:PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete An AfD debate with two well-reasoned arguments to delete and none to keep should not be closed by a non-admin as "no consensus" which defaults to keep. This is inherently controversial, and non-admins should not be making controversial closes. Stalwart111's recommendation to re-list or comment presents excellent alternatives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Talk:JUSTIN DREW BIEBER – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Was G8'd, although it's the talk page of a redirect that exists. Deleting admin insists they'd make up some reason or another to delete it. (And that they'd delete the redirect if they thought the creator was inexperienced enough that they could get away with using their admin tools to enforce their personal preference as to content. Wily D 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the closing admin has just deleted JUSTIN DREW BIEBER in retaliation for opening this DRV. :( Wily D 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to delete it earlier, but got off-line between edits and deletions. Any "retaliation" is your imagination and assuming bad faith. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is inconsistent with what you've written at User_talk:Jni#Talk:JUSTIN_DREW_BIEBER, where you identify this DRV/my original questioning of your out of process deletion as the reason you chose to delete the redirect out of process as well. Wily D 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are complaining in DRV, that I did not delete something earlier, but deleted it later? Or that I did not delete it because of reason X? You are not my boss, so I don't have to delete things in exactly the order that suits you. And the WP:DRV is not usually used for arguing why someone did not delete something. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? No, I'm only noting that the redirect was also deleted out of process, and should be restored by this DRV as well. Requiring a second DRV for a related deletion would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. Wily D 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:R3 that the criteria in question does not apply to recently created UPPER CASE redirects? Nowhere in the text of the CSD criteria itself. It is you who created this WP:POINTty DRV case in first place, in order to argue technicalities and to get a single and largely irrelevant talk page comment by some random IP-user restored. Now you are complaining about unnecessary bureaucrazy. Go figure. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC

The place where R3 only applies to implausible redirects and we live on a planet where Keyboards almost invariable have a CAPSLOCK key, for starters. The planet where every Canadian teenage girl I know pronounces his name JUSTIN BIEBER or JUSTIN DREW BIEBER or ♥♥♥♥♥♥JUSTIN DREW BIEBER♥♥♥♥♥ for seconds. Etc. There's no coherent argument to be made R3 applies, at all. Wily D 09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ as a reasonable contest of a speedy and list at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ the speedy deletion of the mainspace redirect and list at RfD. There is some embarrassingly unseemly admin behaviour at play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when CSD R3 is not applicable to recently created UPPER CASE CRAP REDIRECTS NOBODY WILL EVER TYPE OR SEARCH FOR? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there is no reasonable likelihood of objection. Here, you were already aware that another respected editor apparently supported the redirect. CSD R3 does not mandate deletion on the basis of allcaps. You knew going in that the deletion would be contentious. You have therefore used the admins tools in a dispute. If there is any scope for discussion, the deletion should proceed through an XfD. These deletions should be overturned and listed at XfD, and you should be trouted for knowing using CSD in a dispute. Is there a history of discord between you and WilyD, or do you have a habit of aggressive speedy deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was one admin who created hundreds of redirects that I deleted per CSD R3 rule. I have speedy deleted stuff by other admins before, and will do so in future if needed. Nothing out of ordinary here. There is no admin tools usage during dispute here. I did not block anyone nor deleted anything out-of-process. Speedy deletions are contested all the time, usually with silly arguments that have no merit, this case is no different than thousands of others. WilyD does not WP:OWN the redirect in question, and admins should not create speedily deletable content, obviously. WilyD has still not explained, why he wants to restore garbage edits like i love JUSTIN BIEBER from talk page history. WilyD has also himself deleted this same talk page in question before, with exact same rationale I used - it containing just inane test edits. When editor deleted a page, then raises a case in DRV when someone else deletes the same page again with similar reasoning, that actually triggers my troll detector! I don't think I have to anticipate bizarre behavior like this. These days Wikipedia is edited by some many utterly confused people that "reasonable likelihood of objection" is an unobtainable standard. WP is also not a byrocracy, so going through the XfD - especially MfD for the talk page - would be just waste of time. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 07:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"reasonable likelihood of objection". Agreed, a bit low. How about "likelihood of reasonable objection". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While a hint of objection or controversy should be enough to conservatively choose to send to XfD instead of speedying, the nominator's case is not as strong as the deleting admin's explanations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. It is the deleting admin here. The deleted revisions don't contain any content worth saving, just a single speedy deletion contestation by some IP-address. I'm not "making up some reasons or another to delete it". I deleted this as G6 cleanup or G8 as talk page of R3-deletable redirect. Application of these policies is not a personal preference to content, we simply don't need nonsensical typo redirects like this, nor their contentless talk pages and existing policy allows speedy deletion of both the redirect and its talk page in this case. Wily has deleted this himself in past! This nomination to DRV is just to make a WP:POINT for some reason. What exactly there is in the talk page that should be salvaged? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to choose to believe we're reviewing the speedy deletion of JUSTIN DREW BIEBER as well as the talk page. The reason cited was "nonsense", and we do have a speedy deletion criterion for patent nonsense, so we'll need a temporary restore before we can decide whether that criterion did legitimately obtain. I can see that emotions are running high over this vitally important issue, but I do hope this discussion will be conducted with more dignity and less passion from now on.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be my earlier deletion, not the R3 redirect case WilyD is talking about. It seems I managed to fumble the deletion log entry in the earlier one:
  (del/undel) 07:29, 17 February 2014 Jni (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (nonsense) (view/restore)
  as the real reason for that deletion was (of course) that the content was entirely duplicated from the real article (but page title was nonsensical). Also note that there is an earlier R3 speedy deletion by uninvolved admin:
  (del/undel) 18:40, 18 August 2010 Dlohcierekim (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (r3) (view/restore)
  so there is a precedent for my perfectly normal and valid R3 speedy deletion. And the talk page this DRV is really about, has been deleted four times already and every version is just junk, save for last deleted entry that is the speedy deletion contestation statement by anon that WilyD wants to keep as some kind of archival record and this being the root cause for this important WP:DRV nomination. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 15:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The JUSTIN DREW BIEBER page was just a redirect to Justin Bieber, who is a Canadian singer with the middle name Drew. WilyD 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some thought, my view is that this discussion should be closed without result. I feel that the dispute here is fundamentally about conduct rather than content. I think that at the heart of it, we have a clash of personality between sysops, and DRV is not the correct venue for resolving that. I also think that when the clash of personality is resolved, it will be trivial to decide what to do about the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - We don't need to start making YELLING CAPS FOR SHORTCUTS. It doesn't matter how we got there, but if the end result is that JUSTIN DREW BIEBER remains a redlink, then we're golden. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The history of the talk page is:

(del/undel) (diff) 08:09, 17 February 2014 . . 175.141.118.4 (talk | block) (509 bytes) (→‎This page should not be speedy deleted because...: new section)

(del/undel) (diff) 04:40, 12 August 2012 . . Aleenf1 (talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))

(del/undel) (diff) 07:13, 10 August 2012 . . 173.177.82.71 (talk | block) (22 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love you :) ♥.♥')

(del/undel) (diff) 23:01, 6 September 2011 . . 41.178.185.62 (talk | block) (21 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love JUSTIN BIEBER')

(del/undel) (diff) 23:48, 8 March 2010 . . 99.168.83.177 (talk | block) (empty) (rv vandalism)

(del/undel) (diff) 23:45, 8 March 2010 . . Laurieann riojas (talk | contribs | block) (50 bytes) (←Created page with 'U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!')

so there is nothing worth keeping. Otherwise, the redirect is unnecessary - if you type 'JUSTIN DREW BIEBER', you get redirected anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is no conceivably use for the page, We're NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice A related discussion is at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Deletion police is after me. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This issue should not have gone beyond the initial post that noted that a talk page had been G8 deleted while the main page existed. The error could have been corrected. ~~The deleting administrator has stipulated that this was an out-of-process deletion.~~ He/she also asserts the right to decide if talk pages and talk page discussion are "useful". Given that I don't have access to the two edit histories, and that the history is disputed in the existing record, I have not analyzed further and have not commented on the R3. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not out-of-process deletion. Please read the deletion policy. We simply don't have rigid rules that say deleting admin must always first delete the speedily-deletable non-talk page, only afterwards the associated talk page. If the page is speedily deletable, its talk page has no right to exist by default, unless there is a deletion debate or anything actually important there. Please do some deletions in order to see how it works in practise! Of course deleting admins can assess the usefullness of deleted talk page, how you'd do G6 cleanup if you could not use your common sense? The edit histories are not disputed in this discussion, the useless history of the talk page that this review debate is about, is right there in front of your just couple lines above! None of the overturners or the nominator have yet explained, why they find the edits "i love you :) ♥.♥", "i love JUSTIN BIEBER", "U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!" must be resurrected. Talk pages that contain inane remarks are routinely deleted per G2, G3, G6 or some other criteria of speedy deletion policy. Could you please provide an explanation right here, why these inane talk page edits are needed in this encyclopedia, or do we really need to drag this trivial and obvious speedy deletion to RfD after DRV? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 07:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you want to rewrite history, but I will strike the part in my comment that says that you have stipulated to the deletion being out of process. Instead I will directly quote,

Uhh, maybe I should have used G6 here but who cares about the exact reason as there was no useful content in talk page. I would have deleted the stupid upper-case redirect also, had it been created by some newbie. Is there a reason to keep it? jni (delete)...just not interested 10:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The key words here are that you "would have deleted" which means (1) that you didn't delete, and (2) that you didn't plan to delete the redirect. G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", which according to your words this is not. As for the answer to the first half of your question, one word with a wikilink: strawman. To the second half of the question, I have not commented on the R3. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"would have deleted" means exactly what it means. If admin sees speedily deletable material, they are under no obligation to take action. Performing admin actions is entirely voluntary. If I see someone vandalizing your userpage with Justin Bieber spam, I can just ignore it, make some snide remark about it on some talk page and go surfing for some porn in the 'net. Then at later time, I can change my mind and perform the admin action I contemplated about earlier but didn't perform at the time. Delaying admin actions is even preferred in many cases, although I admit out-of-order G8 and R3 combination with several hours time difference is unusual and may be confusing for some editors (but it is fairly common to delete talk page first, and the page immediately afterwards, if it saves few mouse clicks for deleting admin). Admins are also allowed to use their common sense when cleaning zero-content wiki artifacts, we are not even talking about an article or anything that has any encyclopedic qualities embedded into it here! <tinc>I mistook WilyD as one of my trusted cabalist cronies, but he choose to ignore my generous offer to overlook his R3-deletable edit as a special favor to fellow admin, but instead he choose to start yelling about admin abuse and made this nuisance complaint, of zero-content talk page he had himself deleted earlier, to this forum.</tinc> jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "The 'deletion contestation' statements of seldomly even read by deleting admins..." is concerning. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, no worthwhile content to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. I see no useful purpose in an all caps redirect and no need for the talk page and think WilyD is a little too quick to find fault. Dloh cierekim 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find nothing compelling about a talkpage deletion preceding an article page deletion as a reason to overturn the deletion of a talk page where the article page is subsequently deleted. Due diligence requires that I look at the talk page after I've decided to delete and article. If I find nothing compelling there, I delete the talk page and then the article. That's just good time management. There would be nothing gained in flipping back to the article page to delete it and then return to the talk page to delete it. Also, I think the rationale for a deletion is less important than that it meets a CSD category. There are times when more than one CSD category could apply. Does it really matter if it is deleted per G6 or G8? Should we undelete it because we don't like the rationale? Dloh cierekim 14:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse We could debate why all day long, but in the end, the result will be the same. Let's move along. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm puzzled that this even got this far. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletion of the redirect was reasonable, deletion of the talk page was also reasonable. In a technical sense I suppose it was done in the wrong order, but there's really nothing here worth saving. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2014

16 February 2014

15 February 2014

List of reality television series notable for negative reception – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel that the deletion of this article was not properly handled.

The argument "Articles such as List of films considered the worst are appropriate because every entry has a citation to a notable critic saying that it is the worst thing they've ever seen, but this is effectively just List of TV shows that someone, somewhere, wrote a bad review of." makes no sense, as "a notable critic saying that it is the worst thing they've ever seen" pretty much is "something that someone, somewhere, wrote a bad review of".

I also feel that the fact that this is a valid WP:CFORK of List of television series considered the worst, whose merit as a "list of X considered the worst" has been defended. Similarly, List of films considered the worst has been put up for deletion a billion times but kept every single time.

Overall, I just think that the AFD used muddled, circular reasoning and did not properly reach a conclusion that the list was bad. What makes it so different from any of the other "List of X considered the worst" lists which are doing the exact same thing without risk of deletion? Requesting an overturn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closer notified.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the debate I'm sure that was the correct close. However, I agree with TPH that the debate consisted largely of opinion statements rather than close analysis of the sources. This may be because there are no sources to analyse, but TPH deserves the minimum courtesy DRV should provide to any established editor: the opportunity to add any sources he can find. So my position is that I endorse the close but would have no objection to the article being userfied to TPH while he works on it, and would allow re-creation of the reworked article once that's been done (without prejudice to any subsequent AfD of course).—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Ridiculous premise for an article, deleted by consensus. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: Explain to me how "ridiculous premise for an article" is enough. Some would say that wet floor sign is a ridiculous topic for an article, yet it exists. Also, WP:CCC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Endorse. If I'd seen the AFD, I would have voted to keep, and it does seem a valid topic. That said, I don't really see any reasonably policy-based cause to overturn the close. Here's my advice: userfy and rework it into more of a non-list article concept such as Criticism of reality television that covers the same ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't see how one can come up with a reasonably precise criterion for inclusion in such a list that wouldn't cause the inclusion of the vast majority of reality TV series ever produced. For the record, I'd have deleted the other similar lists, like List of television series notable for negative reception and List of films considered the worst. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Absent significant policy violations, the decision as to whether particular lists should be maintained is a matter of routine editorial decisionmaking where an expressed community consensus should not be disturbed. That the lines the community draws in such cases may be arbitrary (or worse) is not a valid reason to reverse its decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion to review the content and sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse My opinion hasn't changed; this was clearly a selective list of programs which had nothing but negative reviews to source the criticism of each program, and no positive balance whatsoever. If there had been more factual observations I would have bent towards a keep, but as the article was, it was just item after item of 'this show was terrible and critics said so' rather than 'this show was terrible because of sourced facts'. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2014

53rd and 6th – With opinion split between recreating and relisting, I'm going to go without a relist as we should give Valoem time to get the article in order before discussing agin. Further relist at editorial discretion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article passes Wikipedia's notability tests without question. The Halal Guys has over 4000 reviews on Yelp with 4 and a half stars. The article has been covered extensively in the New York Times, [11], [12], Food & Wine magazine, Huffington Post [13], Serious Eats [14], New York Street Food [15], [16]. Citations on the page itself show that the article is not an advertisement and the premise under which the article was nominated show inherited bias suggesting that the stand is not notability because it is a cart. The user who nominated this article User:ScottyBerg is a confirmed sockpuppet whose has been indefinitely banned. Please restore article so I can further edit and improve it. I would appreciate input from editors living in New York City. Extensive coverage pushes the notability of this cart above others such as Grease Trucks which have also passed notability and AfD. Valoem ^talk 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore article for discussion. Thank you ! Valoem ^talk 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed cruft, weasel words, and added citation. Valoem ^talk 23:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I must admit that I know this cart, but on the other hand I've never eaten its food -- the lines are too long, & food is one of the things i often get impatient about. . Even very informal food establishments of this sort can be notable, and I think a more detailed discussion would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I can't reconcile the discussion and the article at all. Something seems fishy or borked. Delete arguments seem to be at odds with facts (e.g., describe the sources as all unreliable blogs, when they include the New York Times, New York Magazine, etc). But the headcount is very strong. Bizarre. Wily D
Restore - I agree with the preceding editors that the discussion was closed properly, but the sources at least arguably support an article. Considering the challenged deletion is from 2011, I don't really see the point in another deletion discussion, and would instead simply return the article to mainspace for further cleanup. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow new article. From a strict procedural standpoint, I endorse the closure of the AfD. However, it looks like the proposed text of the article fixes the concerns at the AfD. Accordingly a new article should be allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - One of the two WP:GNG articles is Islamic Business & Finance. There other article with one to three sentences about them. Put that together and that may amount to no consensus. This' notes "original 53rd and Sixth cart, now known as Halal Guys, was the winner at last year's Street-Meat-Palooza." The New York cart is known in Hawaii.[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3182664041.html Also, "One of the most popular food carts in Manhattan, Famous Halal Guys."[17] Also, they have trademarks on Halal Guys,[18][19] so the article name probably should be Halal Guys, not 53rd and Sixth cart. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Rather than review the closing of the AfD, it is sufficient to note that no participant shows any research. So at best the AfD carries no weight for the request here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Restore, in case there was an confused of my stance on the article. The original AfD closure was questionable at best. Certain opinions hinge upon "cart not notable" and disregarded sources provided. It looks like a consensus has been made, is it possible to speed up the process so I can move the article and its talk page to The Halal Guys and create appropriate redirects. Valoem ^talk 15:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for simplicity's sake I am against a delete followed by recreation, because I would prefer the full article and talk page history intact. It would make things simpler for the page move and for me as an editor as well. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As requested I also restored the talk page for the purpose of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism of the closer, it was a fair close of the discussion as it stood, but relist per the sources put forward in the nomination.
If DGG would make the effort to try the food and comment on whether the stand and its food is special, or whether any stand at that location would be as well subscribed, that would be highly appreciated.

If restored, I recommend consideration of a better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on moving all pages to appropriate pages and create redirects once discussion is closed. Valoem ^talk 16:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2014

12 February 2014

Super Bowl LIII – Endorse. There was rampant sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive) absent which the outcome is clear. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Super Bowl LIII (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Possible solutions

The full article history should be restored during this discussion so it can be reviewed by editors who wish to comment.
The article be at least restored as a redirect to the article Super Bowl until details of the actual game become available.

Article was created deleted several times in a classic "wheel war" between new users and editors who disagree with the existence of the article. I created the article a few days ago with "dummy information" with the intent removing the info and keeping the template. Someone proposed a deletion but it was removed too quickly for me to see who made the proposal and why it was proposed. Another editor somehow managed to block the title, forcing me to use "Super Bowl LIII." (with a period), making the template editing somewhat tricky (see my contributions to Super Bowl LII). Given that I'm inclined to replace the article again, I would like some input as to why a handful editors would be annoyed at making a page on a future event. The "crystal ball" claim seems reasonable for events many decades away, but the one I'm trying to create is only 5 years away. Presbitow (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily restored for Deletion Review. JohnCD (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_8#Super_Bowl_redirects decided that even redirects for distant Superbowl articles were pointless until there was some verified information in the main article. Therefore redirects created for LIII on February 3 were twice deleted. The version you created on February 11 actually had made-up information in it, and the words "fantasy game", so it was properly speedy-deleted as a hoax - we do not want readers of the encyclopedia to come on a page like that. If you want to prepare a dummy page for Superbowl LIII ready to be posted when there is real, verifiable information, the place to do that is in your sandbox or a userspace draft page. When you re-created the page soon afterwards, it was salted - protected against further re-creation - by admin Wizardman (talk). The thing to do then is not to try to evade the protection by varying the title, but explain to the deleting admin why you want to create the page and see whether you can convince him. For why this is too soon, read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:Verifiability. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This crystal ball thing is *bleep*. According to the discussión i pinpointed. Any SB article within 6 years is okay. More than one editor deleted the page. I decided to launch the dispute because the deleting users were deleting because it was deleted already and I didn't want to contribute to the create-delete wheel war.
There are some rumors from well known news agencies on the game. Just do a search of "2019 Super Bowl" and you'll see. User:Presbitow (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't do rumors. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - No article until there's something substantive to say about it, period. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I didn't realize this would happen as a result of the protection. Article was listed back in 2010 so at best this should go back up for deleteion Wizardman (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the edit above was not made by Wizardman but was made by impersonating user Wizradman (talk) who then altered the signature. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, everyone here makes mistakes. Just be careful next time. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The RfD outcome from 2010 isn't enforceable, I'm afraid. DRV always holds that old decisions expire with the passage of time.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do we relist, and where? There is no point having an AfD about Presbitow's dummy article about a "fantasy game", with guesses as "placeholders" for teams, scores etc. That was a proper WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax deletion, and has no possible place in the mainspace: he can keep it in a sandbox page, if he likes, until there are real data to put in it.

The previous versions, deleted on 3 Feb, were simply redirects to Super Bowl. We could re-run the 2010 RfD, but I suggest it would be simpler to take its result as allowing a redirect from a future numbered Super Bowl when, but not until, there is some reliably sourced information in the target, the main Super Bowl article, such as location and date. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget I spoke: the business with the Wizradman account tells me we aren't dealing with good faith users here. Keep salted and speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One bad user is not enough to close a discussion. 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Overturn. Article does have some legitimate revisions, plus a source 108.6.38.122 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong, some of the earlier February 3 versions were more than redirects, but they were pretty content-free, with statements like "It may be held in Sports Authority Field at Mile High" and "The finalists to host the event will be announced in late 2014." JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per search on google and above. A few sources from well known news outlets as to who is hosting the game can be found. Two editors involved are already admitting the deletion was premature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizradman (talk • contribs)

Speculation on who wants to host does not establish notability for a years-in-the-future sporting event. Super Bowl LII is legitimate as there are concrete details about the finalists for hosting. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something is fishy; the double-voting account "Wizradman" has transcluded @Wizardman:'s user & talk pages, and signed as him in #1. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum; an IP, 174.236.68.211, is now trying to 174.236.68.211 alter what I pointed out above. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and another IP, 174.252.1.167, tried again. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per sources found and legitimate edits to the page (with the template in place). I doubt the issue above will outcome of the discussion, but WM needs to be notified to confirm the edits. PlayChess14 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history shows that the edit was not made by Wizardman; the signature was forged. I have notified WM and blocked the impersonator. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, back to focusing on the article's eligabilty. 75.127.185.74 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, wide array of sources: [20] [21] [22] [23]. Nothing wrong with mentioning potential candidates and voting will be soon. 173.220.36.124 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have stricken the votes of the "Wizradman" impostor above, and strongly suspect that the IPs voting above are either direct socks or colluding associates. All IP votes should be tossed IMO, and semi-protection of the DRV considered. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc:. Unless you're not aware of AGF, if IP users can edit there is no reason to believe they can't voice their opinion. the WM imposter slipped by initially but it's been resolved and further comments should be made on the article's existence. I did point out there is coverage by supplying a URL on SB LIII. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and it is rather crystal-clear that this discussion is being tainted with sock-and-or-meat-puppets. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc:: The only proven "sock" is the User:Wizradman. Therefore you can't assume every anon is voting in bad faith. You don't have to AGF is the editor is clearly annoying others. I was only suggesting not to be quick to assume everyone that votes against your desired outcome is a "sock". 108.6.38.122 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't see the point of having an article on an event so far in advance, but if the majority really wants it I don't mind if it's overturned. Wizardman 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is the real person now. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is, edit diffs don't lie. Presbitow (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An event taking place in 2019, with no information at all available yet? Be serious, please! --Randykitty (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the external links above? Many are already reporting potential candidates (Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago and New England) for a cold weather game, just as LII has Minnesota bidding to have it in their new stadium. Presbitow (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nothing but gossip and speculation, statements like "Seattle is in the very preliminary stages of considering a bid". Articles about far future events can be OK when there are solid facts - we have 2020 Summer Olympics because the place and date are known; but for SB LIII, it isn't even decided yet who will be eligible to bid. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect Super Bowl LIV was deleted, but again keep in mind the discussion took place just over 4 years ago. I will not try to contest it until this discussion is over. Presbitow (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I'm not all that happy about any of these "will be held" articles but in any case until there is a site selection there's no point in an article. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse until there's at least a definite site and so on. The lame attempt at impersonation doesn't exactly convince me this is a good-faith attempt to save valuable content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I have no opinion of my own about how many should have separate articles listed, but I do not see the least consensus in the discussion, except that there was no support for keeping the two furthest away, M and C. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Super Bowl C is Super Bowl 100 and M is 500, so those can stay deleted without question (until the bidding process gets underway, of course). 108.6.38.122 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is absolutely no verifiable information in the article. The only arguments for retention are based on an unverifiable rumored location selection; the rest of the article is simply made up. Why would we want to retain blatantly falsified information? —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Seems to be just an article made for the sake of making an article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the last legitimate edit (with the correct template). Presbitow (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator has just been blocked for socking this whole mess (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presbitow), can this be closed now? Every call to overturn or relist save DGG's was fraudulent. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the proper procedure, just let it run its course, as consensus is likely to be against restoration. KonveyorBelt 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're less than 24h from the standard 7-day run. Requesting a close of a filing made in bad faith and disrupted by the same person where the outcome is crystal-clear is not out of bounds. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dimpy Mahajan – Endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

this article has been merged and redirected with Rahul Mahajan (TV personality) on the basic of being not not notable. i think it is highly notable. Not because she is Rahul Mahajan (TV personality)'s wife but also she is a celebrity herself. So why is she merged? And being married to Rahul Mahajan isnt the only thing she has done in her life . why wont she get recognition for all the other films and performance and awards she has got ? All my point is that Dimpy Mahajan is absolutely worthy of getting peoples attention. And she herself before getting married was a star so why should she be merged into Rahul Mahajan (TV personality) Srimoyeeganguly (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Clear AfD, although small, and no evidence of notability presented. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for what's required. Do you have a connection to Dimpy Mahajan? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:MERGE. Without verifiable, reliable sources establishing WP:NOTABILITY, a separate article is unfounded. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist at best. If the user has sources then there is no reason why he or she shouldn't be able to repost the article and improve it. .CA 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Struck. Semi-sophisticated sockpuppetry [24]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Endorse. As the AfD nomination claimed, there were no suitable sources provided in the article to demonstrate notability, nor were any mentioned in the AfD, nor are any mentioned by editor raising this DRV. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per CA. Callenecc (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Struck. Semi-sophisticated sockpuppetry [25]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Endorse per lack of new evidence presented to overurn the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2014

10 February 2014

9 February 2014

Veterans Today – Endorsed. The BLP was not towards the article but by repeating an allegation about a named individual – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The information in this article is taken from Reliable sources. If there are BLP violations, or if any of the information is improperly sourced), specific instances of this could have been pointed out (none were). The reliable sources certainly do not put VT in an positive light, but that alone is not a reason for deletion (There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia in which reliable sources portray their topics in an unflattering way) If there are specific problems with this article, they should have been pointed out prior to deletion. None of the editors of this page were notified that this article was up for deletion, and no attempts were made to inform them.

I have already brought this to the attention of the admin who deleted the article. Malik_Shabazz#Veterans_Today; he recommended that I bring this issue to the Deletion Review page. Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: The material in this article is based on reliable sources. Attempts should have been made to correct any real or perceived issues prior to deleting the page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)) struck vote - your nomination is taken as a vote and you don't get an extra vote. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kinda hard to judge an article that we cannot see, though what I see from looking online for sources seems to hit a lot of tinfoil-hat forums and blogs and the like, so it isn't looking very promising. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am declining to restore this article for the purposes of this discussion. It has contained a BLP vio since its inception and there is no clean version to revert to. The sources referred to are below in the hat, but note that this was deleted as an A10 attack page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed sources

References

"Veterans Today". Alexa. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
"About Us". Veterans Today.
Jump up to: a b c d "Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later". Anti-Defamation League. 30 August 2011.
Jump up to: a b "Buyer Beware: Veterans Today and its Anti-Israel Agenda". Southern Poverty Law Center. 6 January 2011.
Jump up to: a b Editorial Board-Staff page, including correspondents and columnists, Veterans Today website, accessed January 15, 2013.
Alan Hart profile at Veterans Today.
Gilad Atzmon profile at Veterans Today.
Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel profile at Veterans Today.
Dr. Ismail Salami profile at Veterans Today.
Kevin Barrett profile at Veterans Today.
J. Bruce Campbell profile at Veterans Today.
Mark D. Siljander, Peaceful Efforts in the Middle East, Veterans Today, June 22, 2009.
Tim King profile at Veterans Today.
Wayne Madsen, Obama’s CIA Connections, Part I and II, Veterans Today, August 18th, 2010.
Alysia Santo, Veteran Blogs Cover Occupy Wall Street, Columbia Journalism Review, "The News Frontier", November 7, 2011.
Veterans Today reprints of Mehr News Agency material include Bahrain should return to motherland Iran, January 5th, 2013; Christmas in Iran, January 5, 2013.
Veterans Today reprints of Press TV material include Press TV: US military planned mutiny on the Bounty to topple Obama, October 31, 2012; Kevin Barrett, Scapegoating Iran, January 11th, 2013.
Gordon Duff profile at Veterans Today, accessed January 15, 2013.
Press TV exploiting anti-Semitic “Veterans Today” web site to spread 9/11 conspiracy theories Posted on July 18, 2011
Holocaust Apologist: Jonathan Kay, a Bully Among the Truthers
Iran, president of the Non-Aligned Movement?
Profile of Kourosh Ziabari at Veterans Today.
DE BORCHGRAVE: Elvis bin Laden: Man or myth argument is alive and well online by Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Washington Times, July 26, 2010.
Jonathan Kay: Meet Joshua Blakeney, the Iran-sponsored ‘reporter’ spinning conspiracism about abducted aboriginals by Jonathan Kay, National Post, December 12, 2012.
Michael Ross: Lethbridge student headed for top of conspiracy theory class by Michael Ross, National Post, September 23, 2011.
Behind the Holocaust by J.B. Campbell, Veterans Today, May 11th, 2011.
"Conspiracy Theories Linking Israel to WikiLeaks Circulate on the Internet". Anti-Defamation League. 23 December 2010.
"Bloggers claim WikiLeaks struck deal with Israel over diplomatic cables leaks". Haaretz. 17 December 2010.
Michael Ross: University of Lethbridge distances itself from Truther grad by Michael Ross, National Post, September 28, 2011.
Lethbridge congratulates “truther” by Josh Dehaasm, Macleans, September 26th, 2011.
Lethbridge student headed for top of conspiracy theory class by Michael Ross, National Post, September 23, 2011.
Ilan Ben Zion, Iranian news site pins Newtown shooting on ‘Israeli death squad’ American, Times of Israel, December 18, 2012.]
"Israeli death squads involved in Sandy Hook bloodbath: Intelligence analyst". Press TV. 18 December 2012.
American Commentator Michael Harris, Editor of Veterans Today: Israel Carried Out Newtown Massacre, Operates Death Squads in the U.S., Middle East Media Research Institute's MEMRITV.org, Clip No. 3680, (transcript)(or video clip) December 18, 2012.
Gordon Duff, Israeli death squads involved in Sandy Hook bloodbath: Intelligence analyst, Veterans Today, December 19th, 2012.
"Iranian news site pins Newtown shooting on ‘Israeli death squad’". The Times of Israel. 18 December 12.
"Iran's state-run news network blames 'Israeli death squads' for Sandy Hook shooting". The Washington Post. 18 December 2012.
Mike Harris, Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorist, Has Neo-Nazi Ties, Anti Defamation League (ADL), December 20, 2012.
Veterans Today Editor Blames Newtown Tragedy on Israel by Evelyn Schlatter, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), January 10, 2013.

Endorse. I've had a look at the deleted article and I think that G10 is about right. I concur with User:Spartaz that it would not be appropriate to restore the article to public view based upon its contents. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse. A bit redundant since I'm the one who recommended it for deletion. The reason I looked up the article in the first place was to find out who the folks at VT are and what their connections are because I had just read one of their articles and found some of it questionable. So I was coming already predisposed to not like VT. What I found was an article even more biased in the other direction. There have been notices on the page that it needed to be cleaned up for more than a year. Attempts to do that were almost immediately reverted to restore salacious material from biased sources. I'm a veteran and resent VT speaking as it does in my name, but restoring what amounts to libel is not the way to go about trying to counter its warped view. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two key points here:- (1) It's extremely rare for DRV to overturn a G10. It's right that our admins are empowered to delete attack pages on sight. Of course, in some cases it may be possible to quibble whether or not the page was really an attack page; but if the case is borderline, then DRV won't normally censure an admin for using their judgment. Hypothetically, we might overturn a G10 if nobody can see how the deleting admin thought it was an attack page, but that's clearly not the case here and an endorse outcome is basically in the bag. But, (2), a G10 speedy deletion is one of the easiest things to overcome in the world. Just write a version that isn't an attack page. The fact that there has been a G10 in the past has absolutely no effect at all on the question of whether a non-attack page can be created. (Of course, if a fresh attack page appears you can probably expect this page title to be salted.) So the outcome we're looking at is a resounding endorse for the G10 but that's no obstacle to creating a page with this name.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The article was clearly within the realm of saving. I initially had put a lot of work into this page before it turned into a complete shit show, but it could have been pretty easily saved. If it is to stay deleted, is it somehow possible to access previous versions of the history of the page so I have somewhere to work from to create a new version rather than start completely from scratch when there was material already to work from...? Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also put a lot of work into this page and I believe it can be salvaged - Access to a previous version of this page would be useful. However, if this is not possible, earlier versions of this page are available at the Internet Wayback Machine Archive. One suggestion: it might be a good idea to have any new proposed version be reviewed by an administrator before it is recreated; that way, we can avoid these delightful conversations in the future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately there are two foreseeable obstacles. The first is the systemic problem on Wikipedia of admins' inconsistent attitudes. In other words, even if one admin reviews the page and decides it should be kept, this doesn't stop another admin coming along later and speedy-deleting it. Because Wikipedia has approximately five trillion vague and semi-contradictory rules, each of which was designed by a small working party based on their experience of solving a particular problem a few years ago, so admins have to choose which of our rules they're enforcing at any given moment, and two different admins might come up with two different decisions. The second problem is that there are editors who have seriously offended, annoyed and inconvenienced a number of people by publishing complete lies about them. So the rules about offending, insulting or attacking a living person are extremely virulent, and admins are very leery of them. None of our admins will be willing to restore a possible attack page to public view. Because our current editing environment is such that protecting the lovely and admirable Gordon Duff is a far higher priority than reducing the workload for the scummy volunteers who're trying to write the encyclopaedia. You may be able to tell that I have considerable sympathy for you in this...—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the information in this article wasn't too flattering towards VT's founders and contributors. Unfortunately (or in my opinion, fortunately) there aren't a lot of mainstream sources that have positive opinions about this website.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow recreation. You need a zealous champion of an admin to overturn a G10 and your acceptance that the original article "wasn't too flattering" suggests (deep down) you know why it was deleted and you've begrudgingly accepted it. That's the smart thing to do. Move on, start again and create an article that, while perhaps isn't flattering, is more respectful of BLP policy than your last shot. As S Marshall rightly points out, it's frustrating and a bit of a waste of time compared to the relative simplicity of the alternative. But it is what it is. You did it once before, I'm sure you can do it again (without the offending, literally, bit). Stalwart111 05:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This one is really confusing to me. I don't see our article as meeting G10 in the least. Clearly, the subject of the article (i.e. the Veterans Today website) is a bunch of raving whackos, and much of what's on that site is hateful. But, I took a look at Veterans Today (as of 8 February 2014, at 22:12) by Plot Spoiler (the last version before it was blanked, and then deleted). I don't see anything hateful about our article. It covers a topic which is uncomfortable to read about, but that's not any different from Ku Klux Klan or Hitler Youth. We need to distinguish between an article which espouses hate, and one which simply covers an organization which espouses hate. Veterans Today is the later, and G10 doesn't apply. It's quite possible Veterans Today would fail AfD for being non-notable or having no independent reliable sources, but that's a different story. It may be true, as S Marshall points out, that it's rare for a G10 to be overturned, but in this case, it was clearly mis-applied and should be. For the benefit of non-admins participating in this (and who, thus, can't see the deleted material), I'll quote the first paragraph:

Veterans Today is an American political website that describes itself as "an online journal representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy."[2] Many of their contributors are veterans, and they state support for "the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic".[citation needed] The Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") and the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized it for promoting bigoted and extremist viewpoints.[3][4] According to the ADL, VT's articles are reposted widely on the Internet, primarily on conspiracy-oriented and right-wing extremist websites.[3]

This seems like a pretty balanced and dispassionate treatment of the topic, and the rest of the article is similar. If the problem is that the article keeps accumulating inappropriate material (as suggested above), then the solution is more rigorous watching and possible protection of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_44#Veterans_Today, which gives a little background to this, but doesn't really change anything. I'm a big fan of WP:BLP, but that applies to people. Web sites and organizations don't (IMHO) get BLP protection. In any case, if the problem is that the article is a mess, or subject to constant vandalism, or edit wars, there are ways to address those problems, and WP:G10 isn't one of them. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2014

7 February 2014

6 February 2014

Mike Ciesnolevicz – Duplicate inquiry. Editor notified on talk page. Mkdw ^talk 20:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hey guys I wrote on Jan 24th about my wikipedia page being deleted after 6 years. I was wondering what the status is? Thanks, Mike Ciesnolevicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.218.206 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2014

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I feel that the closer has taken the "easy way out" of this by writing "no consensus" and has failed to take into account the policy basis of arguments based on WP:NFCC#8. In specific, arguments made during the debate by myself, User:Masem, User:Calliopejen1, User:Kusma, and User:GabeMc were not refuted adequately, or at all. These were acknowledged by the closer who said 'The nominator's assertion that the image is "unneeded to show Hendrix was arrested" seems indisputably true. Reporting in reliable sources is sufficient to prove that Hendrix was arrested without providing visual proof.' — this conclusion in and of itself should be sufficient to stop and conclude that deletion is the appropriate outcome. The closer has however then proceeded (in my view) to misdirect himself into a non-consensus closure, apparently based on fluffy arguments about the image being "of historical significance" (a term that appears nowhere on WP:NFCC).

A summary of the policy-based argument which was put and not refuted: The image appears in a section of the article called "Arrest and trial on drug charges" and is used solely to decorate the article. There is no sensible argument that readers would be unable to understand this section as well without this image; therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8.

The closer was contacted at User talk:BDD#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg and declined to amend the closure. Overturn and delete. ✄ (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. Per, ✄. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This New York Times article seems to highlight the Jimi Hendrix arrest photo among the other photos in Pellicer's Mug Shots book. Also, perhaps there is some writing in Pellicer's Mug Shots book that can be used in the Wikipedia Jimi Hendrix article to connect the arrest photo to the text of the Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the Google Book information, it is an 88 page book with 250 mugshots, with "Accompanying these gripping images is illuminating commentary that puts both the criminals and their crimes in historical context, and reconstructs some of the most dramatic trials of the 20th century." I am highly doubtful that this leaves room for commentary on the mug shot itself, though certainly the events of the arrest are likely documented. Unfortunately, the sources that generally allow previews of the book do not have much else to go on. What I can search on in Google Books shows Hendrix's photo is only covered on one page and starts off with discussing the arrest (from the snippets it allows), so I'm still wary there's any language to connect here. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Masem, I ordered a copy of that book last week; it should arrive soon. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even in the NYTimes review, this bit tells me that the book does not try to comment on the photos, but just presents in context of the historical event to try to let the reader come to their own conclusion of what is going on in the subject's head at the time of the mugshot "Brief but informative accounts accompany the images and “are intended to report reality and give the facts without ever interpreting them,” Pellicer writes. “This is first and foremost a book of stories, not a history book.” Indeed, these faces tell some amazing stories." which is certainly stimulating but would not be what we'd need for our own NFCC#8 requirements. We'll see when GabeMc gets their copy (above) --MASEM (t) 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need in order to keep this image is a rationale as to why it is essential to readers' understanding of the article and its removal would be detrimental to that understanding, not a "connection" between the arrest photo and the text of the article. ✄ (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic should be based on treatment of the photo in the reliable sources, not personal opinions of Wikipedians. Insufficient discussion in the deletion discussion of treatment of the photo in the reliable sources supports a no consensus close. As for the delete position, if the article text does not discuss the photo using what reliable sources say about the photo, I don't think it can be said that the presence of the photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. In short, the photo deletion discussion should discuss 1) treatment of the photo in the reliable sources and 2) reliable source text in the Wikipedia article that discuss the photo. From these two, you can then determine a consensus on whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jreferee, to the best of my knowledge there is not even one single reliable secondary source that acknowledges that the image exists with in-line text. There is no treatment in RSs, because nobody has produced a reliable source that even mentions the mugshot. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pellicer's Mug Shots book is not a biography book on Hendrix, so unless it says something about the arrest photo that adds to information on Hendrix's life events that can be used in the Wikipedia article, it may not support using the photo in the Wikipedia article. A strong deletion argument would be to list the top four or so biographies on Hendrix and note that they do not use the Hendrix arrest photos in their biographies. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Of the 50+ Hendrix sources listed here, only one includes the mugshot. None of the Hendrix bios include the image; NONE. The only source in the preceeding list that includes it is a compliation of Hendrix interviews by Roby. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as an accurate reading of the relevant discussion. My reading of NFCC is that this image fails quite badly, but the community has regularly if inconsistently applied a weaker interpretation of the criteria. I believe our handling of nonfree images like this would be improved if "no consensus" closes in such image discussions defaulted to delete, but that position does not yet enjoy consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why I asked the closer to expand his reasoning and in this specific case, where there is potential to tie the image better to the drug use section, it did make sense to keep the image to determine if this could be done; in this case there was a middle ground. In most NFCC cases, this doesn't exist and those cases definitely should default to "delete" if a no consensus determination is made. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The community does not have the power to apply a weaker interpretation of the criteria, which are Foundation policy. I agree that consensus in a particular case should determine whether the condition is met, but the outcome of the FFD was "the image doesn't meet the criteria, but we like it, so we'll keep it anyway". ✄ (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no consensus. NFCC#8 isn't a purely objective criteria and so consensus plays a role. There was no consensus, perhaps leaning toward keep. And NC doesn't (yet) default to keep just because it's a NFCC case (unless something changed when I wasn't looking?) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of DDD, the last FFD was quite convoluted with inaccuracies, but why endorse a bad decision? How can we keep a non-free image that is neither historic, nor the object of sourced critical commentary? How can you endorse the keep of a non-free image that is not discussed in the article or in the RSs? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My point on this was that the closer identified the possibility of more sources/discussion that could be created about the image so as to close the FFD as "delete" without those avenues being explored is the wrong step. If that possibility didn't exist, then yes, deletion should have been the answer. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, this is beyond bizarre, but if this image stays, then why delete any others? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's common sense and assuming good faith, because again, the FFD discussion clearly showed that while it wasn't in the article at the time, there was potential from sourcing to expand more, but to figure that out was outside the scope of the FFD. In the more typical FFD discussions where the image is not the subject of discussion, there is very little that could be said about the potential text and sourcing that could be added to justify the image so without a clear way forward to improve, the FFD should be closed "delete". In this exceptional case, there was a likely way forward to justify the image but needed more time to figure this out, so the "delete" would be unhelpful towards that. Personally, from what I've seen, the image isn't ever going to be justified, but I'd rather make sure we give those that want to keep it the chance to prove that it can be. If no one can come up with sources to meet what the closer pointed to or an otherwise clear case of retention, then it should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess I hear you, but the onus should be on those wanting to include to improve the FUR. They havn't done that, at all. If the other mugshot book yields no commentary, can we open another FFD at that point, since all options would have been exhausted? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It definitely is on them to improve the rationale and text to better support the image. If they cannot do that in a reasonable amount of time (and at this point, given how much searching for sources there are, we can say within a few weeks to a month), then yes, the image should be deleted, if by process using an FFD that shows that the reasoning given by this "no consensus" close did not pan out. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Masem, I just received my copy of Pellicer, and he does not mention the mugshot, at all. There is absolutely zero commentary about the image or Hendrix's attire. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another review of a FFD that hinges on NFCC#8. Whether or not an image passes NFCC#8 is, I've always argued, a matter of opinion; there's clearly no objective test for "significantly enhances the reader's comprehension" so it's a subjective test. As usual when it's about NFCC#8, the real question for this DRV is "whose opinion should prevail?"
In the nomination statement, the nominator tries (hard) to shunt the burden of proof onto the "keep" side. Does our deletion policy say the "keep" side has the burden of proof in such cases? If so I don't see where. I think it's simply a close that hinges on a matter of opinion, where opinion is split. "No consensus" was exactly the right call and DRV should endorse it.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFCCE: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the third active board discussion open on this one image. Forum shopping at its finest. Why don't we open a fourth somewhere? Unbelievable. Doc talk 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree this discussion is extraneous and unnecessary. I agree with the rationale the closer made to close it "no consenseus", and while new evidence (the Pellicer book's lack of discussion) is there, that's not DRV is for. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to get back to NFCCE: GabeMc's view seems to be that the way NFCCE interacts with NFCC#8 puts a burden of strict proof on the "keep" side. But NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion, so the "keep" side cannot possibly provide strict proof. If NFCCE does put a burden of strict proof on the "keep" side, then any challenge to a fair use based on NFCC#8 would always, automatically, succeed. Wouldn't it? I don't think NFCCE can apply to NFCC#8 in that way, or if it does we might as well mark NFCC#8 as historical because it's unusable.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. There's still the option of another FfD being filed concurrently with the other three. Why not cover all the bases? That's how you forum shop effectively. Doc talk 01:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a clear no consensus. NFCC#8 is inherently and there was no agreement on that point. It's rather disappointing that this is being dragged to DRV, apparently so that one side can have another bite of the cherry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- No, it's nothing to do with "another bite of the cherry", it's because the closer ignored policy. ✄ (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you say so. It looks like sour grapes from here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Suck it up and pick a side. IMO, files for deletion isn't like the rest of the XfD malaise, as it deals with something so fundamental to the project; non-free content and to what extent we're allowed to use it. Shades of Yoda, but either something satisfies WP:NFCC or it does not, there is no middle ground. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The close doesn't mean that the file occupies a shadowy ground between fair use and not; it simply means the participants in the debate couldn't agree which category it fell under. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly where it is at right now, though. I'm sorry, but if you can't make a decision on things like this, then it should have been left to someone else. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there can't be no consensus outcomes for fair use items at FFD? And if the discussion doesn't conform to this preference, what, the closer has to make a sanctioned supervote? --BDD (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DDD, my main concern with your close is that you didn't seem to give any weight to WP:NFCCE, which states: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." To me, the keep side completely failed to do this, so I think it would have been better to close as "delete pending further expansion of the FUR", which nobody has improved in 5 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to try to put words in BDD's mouth, but I believe they did explain why this case the retention on "no consensus" was reasonable in that there was a possible avenue to explore to improve the rationale , the discussion taking place in a better venue than the FFD (as it required more time and discussion). If that avenue was not there by their choice, then it should have closed, "no censensus, delete per NFCCE". But BDD explained this close (at my request) in a manner I am comfortable in retaining the image for further discussion elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that point, Masem, but there was absolutely nothing to the empty claims that the image is discussed in reliable sources; it simply isn't. So why retain a non-free image until its been argued to death and enough forum shopping accusations are leveled that it ends up staying for all the wrong reasons? What damage would have occurred to the project if the image was deleted, then re-added after a legitimate FUR had been prepared? That would have saved everyone lots of time and effort. E.g., FAs don't stay open as long as needed to pass an article; if an article doesn't meet the FA criteria it is not listed first then improved later. IMO, this image has the weakest FUR imaginable, so I cannot see how any images are deleted if this one wasn't; it had no FUR and no justifiable reason for inclusion and its hasn't for 5 years. If NFCCE is to be respected, then the image should be deleted until an appropriate FUR is prepared, right? Why did I have to prove that the image is not mentioned in any RSs? That was incorrect, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closer as no consensus with a valid way to discuss further presented by the closer. (Mind you, that has since been explored and shown to not be possible so it should be deleted but that's not an issue with this specific FFD discussion). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. - Per Masem. Now that we have conclusively shown that no reliable sources acknowledge the image, the next FFD should be more clear-cut. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It certainly looks like "no consensus" to me but the nominator here suggests some "keep" arguments should have been discounted when they were "fluffy" or not sensible. As suggested, I have considered one particular aspect, WP:NFCC#8, where everyone opining gave their subjective opinion, although some people thought that their particular opinion was unarguably an objective one. There could, in principle, be an objective assessment by conducting a psychometric experiment on a large group of people to see how their comprehension was affected by the presence or absence of the image. But I am being silly, of course NFCC does not contemplate anything of the sort. WP:NFCCE has been suggested as implying no consensus should lead to delete. But that is wrong. Those !voting "keep" were not saying the rationale for using the image was invalid but that they were not going to bother providing a valid one. Rather, they were accepting the validity of the rationale. Finally, I can certainly see that a consensus to remove the image from the article could be an entirely reasonable one. Thincat (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As much as I think forum shopping is a bad thing, I'd rather see this, the NFCR and a freshly launched FfD#3 all run concurrently: the sham "RfC" is what needs to go. Instead of asking "Should we have the image in the article?", the RfC is declaring "If there is no solid consensus in favor of keeping the image, it will be deleted." This is not an attempt to seek consensus, but simply an improper way around consensus. Doc talk 09:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an accurate relection of NFCC policy that requires positive consensus to include something. ✄ (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a red herring, and you know it. NFCC policy issues on this image are brought up on the other three boards, not in a content dispute. Why can the wording not be changed to a neutral question? "Should we have the image in the article or not?" Why would this not be preferable? Because it's a loaded question to begin with. Doc talk 10:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Note - The RfC that initiated this DR has been closed.[26] There is no longer an issue with the image being in Jimi Hendrix, as it has been moved to Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. Doc talk 07:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that resolves most of my concerns as the image can plausibly pass NFCC#8 in its new home. I can withdraw this DRV request and I don't see any other overturns so it can be closed. ✄ (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the FUR was very substantially improved by Aquegg (talk · contribs) here. I messed up in my revert of and apologized (sorry again :). I think this has been a learning experience on many levels, with good-faith editors. Doc talk 10:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, what happened at that RFC has zero impact on this - unless the goal of the request was FFD#2 which means this was filed improperly. This discussion is whether BDD's close followed the consensus appropriately, not to judge if the image properly meet NFCC or not. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, it is quite apparent that BDD's close was not only appropriate and in line with policy: it's what any closer should have done, and would be instructed to do. Let's review again:

WP:NOCONSENSUS - " In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." Images are specifically mentioned, and nothing in it says that images that might possibly fail the NFCC according to the interpretation of some editors must be removed per a "greater consensus".
WP:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions - "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default." Nothing in this says alleged NFCC failure is an exemption.

And let's extrapolate:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions - "no consensus: Follow the exact same procedures in keep above, but replace keep with no consensus."

I simply do not see how the FfD was supposed to be closed in any other way. Doc talk 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NFCCE requires those wanting to retain images to provide valid rationals, and the Foundation's resolution requires images without valid rationales to be delete promptly. But please note my !vote - I endorsed this close as BDD did because his solution offered a possible route that had to be exploded outside the bounds of FFD to see if the image could be used, so it would be reasonable to keep as long as discussion proceeded (as it did) to discuss the image's appropriateness. And for this DRV, that's all that matters - did BDD's actions and/or decision reflect the proper steps, which I agree it did. DRV is not for XFD#2 ,as some are arguing here. But note that this doesn't mean that a fresh new XFD could be started in the future regarding that image. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with NFCCE is that pretty much any "valid rationale" could be utterly dismissed per #8: "text alone will suffice simply because the image is not free". It is why I never work in this area anymore. This is the last image I will ever defend for a "valid" FUR. Doc talk 04:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This does not strike me as a genuine resolution of the underlying dispute. If the mug shot does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" in Jimi Hendrix, because the key content is adequately conveyed by text, the same is true for an article about the arrest itself. And, again, there is no sourced commentary regarding the image, and it does not depict the arrest itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be crystal clear about this. There is nothing in the NFCC that requires sourced commentary of a non-free image in order for it to pass the NFCC. Nothing. Unless you are trying to pass an image off with {{Non-free historic image}}. That template is not on this image. NFCI#8&9 specify what non-free images are commonly kept. The second sentence of NFCI#8, as well as NFCI#10, apply to this image. But even if they didn't, there is just nothing that states an image must be itself the subject of sourced commentary in order to be here. It's a myth, and it is simply not accurate. Doc talk 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - IMO, this compromise does indeed solve the issue of having an extraneous non-free image at Jimi Hendrix, because its no longer there. If editors have an issue with its contextual significance at the new article], then they should start the appropriate process regarding that one, but the issue regarding the Hendrix bio is resolved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - Per GabeMc. Let's move on from this now. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse BDD should be lauded for not supervoting. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2014

3 February 2014

Long Island Exchange – There clearly is no argument that the original deletion was incorrect so the default should be the delete but I am minded to relist this per the arguments put forward by DGG. While CCC, core policy hasn't changed but AFD can decide to put policy to one side if there is a good argument, so I am going to exercise my closers discretion to Relist this. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

<Delete was 7 Years Ago - Discussed with Admin, Significant new information > Fishnagles (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Fishnagles (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to reveal what you believe tht significant new information is. Is it non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? If so can you point us to them? Also I note the apparent WP:COI it doesn't suggest there is general interest in the topic if only those connected in some way are the ones showing interest... YMMV --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should I post the new references and citations here? Or should I post here the new page as it would appear with all of the referenced marked as a standard wiki page? Fishnagles (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC) I'm going to put all here for anyone to review. Fishnagles (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article Text

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Long Island Exchange is an online newspaper covering Long Island with coverage of entertainment, local and regional events, family life, and current issues effecting Long Islanders specifically. The newspaper started in 2002 and was founded by John Colascione who is the publisher.

The editorial staff of Long Island Exchange includes Fashion and Entertainment Journalist Cognac Wellerlane[1] from Manhattan Neighborhood Network Television [2], Christopher Boyle, and Janene Mascarella [3] of NYC Bella Magazine.

Long Island Exchange is and has always been a web based newspaper produced as an online only publication. There has never been a print edition. Aside from disseminating local news and information the publication also interviews celebrities and other stars on the red carpet and in the Hamptons. In 2010, Long Island Exchange interviewed Simon Cowell of American Idol at the 38th International Emmy Awards.[4]

The publications headquarters is in West Babylon, New York. As of 2014, it is owned by Searchen Networks Inc.

==External links==
* [http://www.longislandexchange.com/ Long Island Exchange]

== References ==
1 [http://gawker.com/278747/is-prince-worth-15000-a-ticket-wonders-faux-dowager | Is Prince Worth $15,000 A Ticket? Wonders Faux Dowager]

2 [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3390846/ | Fashion and Entertainment Journalist]

3 [http://bellanyc.com/author/janenem/ Author Archive: Janene Mascarella]

4 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EFpmxGnQPw 38th Emmy awards interview Simon Cowell]

5 [http://www.licm.org/about_misc.php Long Island Children's Museum: What Others Say … Press “Long Island Exchange—the guide to everything that is Long Island: “So many cool things to do, climb on, explore, mess up, and build.”]

== See also ==
* [[Long Island]]
* [[Online Newspapers]]
* [[Nassau County]]
* [[Suffolk County]]

So I guess the answer to my question is no, none of the sources cover the subject of the article, notablity is not inherited. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing imdb.com and youtube.com are not ways to convince others that you plan to write the article using Wikipedia reliable sources. There's prweb.com, but that is a press release so it is not independent of the Long Island Exchange. This might help, but it does not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Long Island Exchange has been in the online newspaper publishing business since 2002. If the newspaper were notable, other sources would be interested enough to write about the history and/or activities of the Long Island Exchange. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permit re-creation It's a better article, with improved focus. Sources in this field are exceptionally difficult, and when found are likely to be only mentions. These publications are nonetheless important and we should include them as exceptions to the GNG. Since at present, the community seems a little more willing to make such exceptions than they did 7 years ago, it's enough time to see if there is a new consensus. I'm not saying --as some have actually said here -- that every afd decision from those years needs to be re-argued, or even that any requested decision should be reopened. Our basic policies have not changed, and most of what was deleted them would be deleted now, and for the same reasons. (But I point out that any keep decision from then can be reopened, and many are, and it is sometimes found that consensus has in fact changed, or that we are more sensitive to certain problems than we were back then.) However, notability is to some extent a matter of interpretation, and that can change. The best way is to simply discuss it in the ordinary way at AfD.

That said, it may not be impossible to find sources. 86.5, what resources have you tried? There are relevant historical societies in that area. Have you visited them? Have you searched other newspapers covering the area? Have you looked at any of the over 700 English-language books on the subject? There's even some journals If you are simply going by what you find on the internet, you're not getting everything. If you want to get this article established, that would be the best way. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try anything (more than superficial) to try and find any sources, since I'm not the one asking for restoration of the article. The burden of demonstrating there are sources is always with those wishing to include information. It seems pretty apparent the person listing this here has a COI, indeed the other article they created and the user talk discussions seem to confirm that. With such a clear COI, I believe that the expectation of providing the suitable source to show there is genuine real world notability is higher - as said, if the only people seeking inclusion have a strong connection with the subject what does that say about the broader interest in the topic? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2014

List of Spanish words of English origin – S Marshall sums it up well as he so often does. The 2009 deletion looks ok for the discussion but recreation is permitted if policy and sourcing has moved on. The previously list was entirely unsourced OR so cannot be restored although I'd be willing to consider userfying if someone was to come up with some sources to apply to it. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent to the AfD, a full structure of such lists has been made in Category:Lists of loanwords to listify Category:Loanwords, following various CfD decisions, chiefly Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 17#Category:Loanwords. I therefore believe it would be appropriate to recreate the deleted page. The closing admin user:Jayjg has not edited since 6 November 2013 and therefore has not responded to my request here in December 2013. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~ Allow Recreation - ~~it seems like consensus around this sort of article has changed, which could warrant a different outcome. Wieno (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)~~ based on the restored page's lack of any sourcing it seems like allowing recreation of the page is a better outcome than taking more time relisting it. Wieno (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the original 2009 close can't be faulted; consensus to delete was clear. If consensus is now in favour of articles like this then recreation is possible. But part of the reason it was deleted in the first place was poor/nonexistent sourcing, and that would need to be fixed. Reyk _YO! 00:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite in the hope of improvement, or encourage another article. Looking at the list, this was a carelessly written article. For the general idea see Loanword; for the way we execute it , see the man List of English words of ____ origin. Many of them are not really much better; few or none give detailed sources. The meaning is either or both of words taken into Spanish direct from English, rather than via another language, or words whose ultimate original is English (as with some current technical terms), . In principle, this needs a modern etymology in each case, or at least a very reliable source which in turn contains an etymology (of which there are many). This is an accepted form of WP article, with dozen of representatives, and I think a discussion would keep it. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for DRV to do here. I don't think anyone's interested in the 2009 close, I don't think anyone would advocate restoring a completely unsourced list, and I don't think anyone would object to a sourced rewrite.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chennai Worlds 2014 – withdrawn - not the right venue – Wily D 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion seemed to be a two-two split between merge and keep, but was closed as keep instead of no consensus. Obviously there wasn't a consensus to delete, but without a consensus to keep there shouldn't be any prejudice against relisting at a future time. Request that the close be changed to no consensus. Wieno (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - "merge" is a subset of "keep", so all editors (apart from the nom) were arguing for a keep outcome. Merger can be discussed at the relevant article, but there's nothing for DRV to do here. Wily D 10:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my concern (and there's a similar discussion happening below under Belarusian nobility) is whether an AFD consensus of 'keep' rather than 'merge' is seen as binding on the community should an attempt be made to merge the page. While I understand that formally it may not be, I've certainly seen an attitude that merging after an AFD keep is an attempt to circumvent the AFD outcome. If a keep result will serve without any prejudice against a merge attempt, then I'm fine with it standing, but I'm worried that will not be the case. Wieno (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a mistake at this point to boldly merge, rather than ask on the talk page whether anyone objected. But AfD (and consequently DRV) don't really distinguish between merge and keep, so you can't get any help here, and we definitely can't use "no consensus" to mean "some merge/keep" rather than "some keep/delete". At best, a note could appended to the close to the effect of "a keep at AfD doesn't preclude a future merger", but that's kinda pointless pedantry. Wily D

Ok, can I withdraw a request for review the way one can withdraw an AFD nomination? Wieno (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse sources were provided and no one other than the nom argued for deletion. Article may have some issues, but the (reliable) blog actually sources nearly all the negative parts. Hobit (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. XfD was a "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Keep consensus with merge (not delete) as dissent. Where's the issue? Neonchameleon (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close per WilyD. Ultimately, deletion discussions can result in delete or not-delete, and it is a matter of editorial action under WP:BB or otherwise to change between any of the different not-delete variations. ✄ (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.