Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2015 Deletion review archives March 2015 >

28 February 2015

[edit]

27 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marissa Roberto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was told that it does not meet guidelines of WP:N. She is the main host, so why when other hosts on the show have their own Wiki page, should this one be removed. I was also told I was stealing from FanExpo.ca when the writings they were using were already being referenced on the Electric Playground websites. It was verbatim the same thing. This is unfair, I'd at least like my page back I put a lot of effort into it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRee333 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 February 2015

The problem was that the article was completely unsourced — and under Wikipedia's copyright policy, you're never allowed to copy and paste text from any other website into Wikipedia regardless of how many other websites are using it, so the fact that "the writings they were using were already being referenced on the Electric Playground websites" doesn't matter. As for the other hosts, what you need to understand is that the rules for biographies of living people have changed over time — as of 2010, you're not allowed to create an article about a living person that's as poorly sourced as either Victor Lucas' or Scott Jones' articles are. Both of those articles, in fact, are actually deletable in their present form — they're just not eligible for speedy deletion, since they were originally created under the old rules rather than the current ones, but they can still be put through the WP:AFD process for being as badly sourced as they are. Even though I wasn't the deleter, I'd be willing to restore this page to your own userspace so that you can work on getting it up to snuff if possible — but the deleter was correct that article is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia's main articlespace in its existing form. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 February 2015

[edit]

25 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The NEW article Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods does NOT VIOLATE ANY OF WIKIPEDIA'S TERMS OF SERVICE OR USE. The articles on Wikipedia should NOT BE DELETED BECAUSE OF PERSONAL OPINION OR DISLIKE. The article is FULLY SOURCED AND REFERENCED. Please review, as this tribe IS notable. Tribalchairman (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Out of scope. As per the introduction to this page:
    Deletion Review should not be used:
    1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
    2. 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 [I note that you posted a query to the closer's talk page but did not allow even an hour for him to reply]
    5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
    As such, I endorse the deletion by default. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This DRV appeals the AFD linked in the above header. I have also deleted the article under CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*No Delete and Restore - This Native American Mixed-Blood Tribe exists. Through not only their website, facebook, and twitter, but also IN REALITY. The tribe signed two international treaties with two Metis Nations in Canada in February 2015 (sourced). Also, the tribe exists in the eyes of the Oregon State Legislature; pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 16 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HCR16), which is set to recognize and honor this tribe for their efforts for the Native American Mixed-Bloods in the United States. Oh yeah, and I would say their 910 enrolled members would say this tribe exists in reality. The tribe has been a featured story on KVAL (http://www.kval.com/news/local/Mixed-tribes-289515241.html) and KEZI (http://www.kezi.com/mixed-blood-tribe-forming/) news, again, IN REALITY and are SOURCED. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a social club that has copied some actual Native American traditions for their own use because they don't qualify to be legitimate Native Americans, and got a hit on a "news-of-the-day" segment. The state house resolution is meaningless; legislatures pass stuff like that all the time, from declaring an Interior Design Day to banning accurate climate reporting. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc - It is not a "social club". Merriam-Webster defines "tribe" as: "a group of people that includes many families and relatives who have the same language, customs, and beliefs." So, the 910 enrolled members are indeed a tribe, whether nay-sayers want to believe the truth or not. Once the House Resolution passes, they will be recognized as a Native American Mixed-Blood Tribe in the State of Oregon; making history, because it has never been done before. The tribe also made history when they signed TWO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES with Metis (Mixed-Blood) Nations in Canada, of which are TRIBES recognized by the Canadian Government. And it was TWO News segments, not just one. Wikipedia has unrecognized tribes with ZERO sources/references, whereas this tribe has some real, good sources in REALITY. Unless the Legislature and News are not reality. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but until quality reliable sources cover this group in enough detail to satisfy the project's notability guidelines, then there is no justification for an article. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:GNG, and the tribal sources meet all of the qualification. If TWO news outlets... and the State of Oregon Legislature...as well as TWO RECOGNIZED Metis Nations... are NOT reliable sources, then what is? Articles have been created with MUCH MUCH MUCH less and reliable sources. The sources here ARE reliable. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - striking comments of indef-blocked, block-evading SPA sockdrawer who created these autobios and keeps wasting our time with this stuff. See block log. - CorbieV☊ 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2016 Australian Open (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not too early now, below a year. 333-blue 13:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant history, it just consisted of a straightforward redirect and then an RfD nomination. There isn't actually anything preventing someone from recreating this as a redirect, and if the "too soon" argument is no longer considered valid then it won't be deleted. Hut 8.5 22:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't know why anyone thought it worth creating a redirect, or why anyone thought it worth getting it deleted. Odd ways of building an encyclopedia. The test for whether we have an article is whether there is suitable content, not whether the event is less than a year away. There is no point in simply recreating the redirect, if that is what is being suggested. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
  • Bangladesh–Italy relations – Closure overturned and deletion undone. In a proportion of about 2 to 1, contributors to this review are of the view that the discussion should not have been closed as "delete", although there is disagreement about whether "no consensus" or "keep" would have been the more appropriate result. This approaches, but in my view does not quite reach, the vague numerical threshold after which we generally feel that rough consensus is established. However, I would give the "overturn" opinions more weight in assessing consensus here, because most go into some detail as to why they think that the closer erred in closing the discussion, whereas most "endorse" opinions only assert that the closure was "policy-based" or similar, without addressing the arguments about why this might not be the case. The deletion is therefore undone. This review leaves open whether the outcome should have been "keep" or "no consensus", but that doesn't really matter because the articles are retained either way. –  Sandstein  12:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bangladesh–Italy relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–France relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–Jordan relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin has interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The closer's judgement was based on the nominator's rationale that "Those asking for the articles to be preserved have failed to provide evidence of notability, through reliable sources, where these diplomatic "relations" have actually been covered. Original research done via synthesis of events (whether sourced or not) is not permissible.". However, most of the participants disagreed with the nominator and argued that these articles have sufficient sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines which is a strong policy backed argument. Also, the articles were significantly expanded after the nominator posted this rationale which also affects the validity of the rationale. I also think the closing admin misinterpreted the topics of these articles, the topics are not "diplomatic relations" rather "bilateral relations" which cover a wide range of interactions between two countries (economic, cultural, historical as well as diplomatic). I have also tried to discuss the matter on the closing admin's talkpage: diff. Nomian (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I fully get that AfD is not about vote counting, but it's also not about ignoring community opinion without a good reason. It's OK to go against the numerical count if the minority are making fundamentally stronger arguments, or there is some overriding policy issue. I don't see either of those here. I don't see anybody claiming there was puppetry going on. I don't see the kind of policy arguments (such as WP:BLP) which might trump all else being asserted. All I see is a differing of opinion over the quality of the references.
I took a look at (and undeleted, so others can do the same) the first article. The refs aren't great, but they're not total garbage either. I also looked at the kinds of arguments each side was putting forth. The keep arguments were pretty weak -- vague assertions of meeting notability guidelines without any in-depth analysis of the references. But, then again, the arguments on the delete side aren't any better. I mean how many pages of Bangladesh interactions do we REALLY need? isn't exactly quoting official policy.
I'm also somewhat confused about the relisting. At the time of the first relisting, there was already a pretty good keep consensus in my opinion. Then, we picked up two more keeps, with no new arguments being made for delete. And this resulted in it being relisted again? Something's not right there.struck this portion of my comment; it's not really material to the question at hand
I also don't get why the titles were deleted outright. Surely, even if somebody felt they saw a consensus that the subjects were not notable, redirecting them all to Foreign relations of Bangladesh and leaving the history intact would be a reasonable alternative to deletion? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (obviously). The reason the last two opinions were disregarded was because they weren't (at all) policy-based. In fact, few of the keep arguments were policy-based. The issue isn't with the quality of the references (though the editor in question does have a reputation for suggesting that primary source government press releases are independent secondary sources), it's with the way the sources are used. These countries don't have "relations" beyond them both existing on our little blue ball and occasionally acknowledging each other's existence. But the editor (and his supporters) believe that pointing to two or three disparate examples of interactions between citizens or low-level diplomats is enough to substantiate "relations" between the two. It's a step further again to suggest that such a relationship is a notable one. Wikipedia's rules with regard to synthasis clearly aren't strong enough to prevent this neo-nationalist Bangladesh-as-the-centre-of-the-world stuff. In the end, participants had to rely heavily on WP:BIGNUMBER to make even a moderately cogent argument. St★lwart111 05:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you this is not the place where you can attack other editors (that too with false accusations) as you have been doing in all the AFDs or to repeat the same arguments as you have made in the AFD since they have been debunked already. Dhaka Tribune, The Financial Express etc. ARE independent secondary sources and if "these countries don't have "relations" beyond them both existing on our little blue ball and occasionally acknowledging each other's existence" then how come they have bilateral trade worth over $1 billion and significant migrant population among them? Besides, even you agree that at least some of the keep arguments were policy based. Nomian (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "attack" - it's a summary of your edit history for which there ample verification. If the New York Times publishes a government press release word-for-word then it ceases to be a reliable, independent source. And WP:BIGNUMBER is, specifically, an "argument to avoid". But it was the last bastion of desperate editors. St★lwart111 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing the notability of these articles because it has been discussed already in the AFD, my comment about the trade and migration was in reply to your statement that these countries have no relations among them. And your contentious labellings like "neo-nationalists" are considered personal attacks by most. Nomian (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling with this one, the AFD is full of weak arguments failing to address the core problems with the articles or for the deletes failing to give much substance to the delete side, that isn't helped by the nomination not really spelling out the core problem. From my opinion (probably biased since I'd give a delete opinion if it were running now) this essentially leaves one substantial argument from the nominator across a few comments in the AFD. We wouldn't normally delete based on the one person and RoySmith's opinion above is persuasive. On the other hand I see the problem with these just being a collection of stuff which don't lead to their being a real world notable subject behind them leaving to problems of OR etc. Editing to remove the problematic stuff doesn't look like it's going to work, and in many cases would end up essentially deleting the article anyway. Would re-AFDing help, at this point in time I doubt it. An RFC perhaps, to more explicitly define objective standards of what these sort of articles should be? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is difficult to argue that things WP editors have invented don't actually exist and aren't notable. WP remains the only place you can read about these so-called "relations" - not a single reliable source gives such "relations" coverage. Proponents rely on the synthesis of disparate sources that each describe a visit here or a proposal there or a "that would be nice" somewhere else. Those are brought together to suggest said "relations". It's like bringing together an exciting game in 1995 and another in 2014 and creating one of those notorious "sporting rivalry" articles. St★lwart111 08:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem and as said I would have given a delete opinion, that however doesn't change that from the AFD I don't see the problem clearly articulated (and certainly not within the nomination) and then gaining explicit support from others. As I said ultimately I believe you put forward the one decent case, however we generally wouldn't delete on the strength of one argument. The whole area is problematic and I don't believe trying to deal with these on a one by one case is useful, it leads to frustration all around. The result of such ongoing contention I've seen too many times lead to disillusionment of good editors leading to reduced participation. A stronger consensus is required to generate specific guidelines for such articles, so it becomes a far simpler argument as to when to include/remove such. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I have no problem with a broader discussion about these nonsense X-X relations articles somewhere, but this isn't that - it's neo-nationalist propagandising and we could do to disillusion a few of the worst offenders. St★lwart111 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - whether to put things in a "relations of " or "X-Y relations" is a content management issue, much more strongly influenced by vote-count than "argument" anyways (note there are basically none presented). None of the delete !votes present anything more than an assertion - without any arguments presented for deletion, the closing admin ignoring the discussion and imposing their own bizarre and wholly unjustifiable view that collecting related items into an article without drawing any conclusions is "original research" is a clear sign the closing admin ignored the discussion and pursued their own agenda. WilyD 08:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are fundamentally different, not simply different ways of managing the same content. A significant portion of the discussion related to synthesis, which is exactly what the closing admin suggested was the prevailing argument. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." "Relations of" articles present "source says A" as "source says A" without drawing any new conclusions. They are very different styles of article because one represents reliably-sourced research and the other represents original research. St★lwart111 09:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this excellent, policy-driven closure and award barnstar to closer. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I'm with WilyD for the most part, I just don't think there was a consensus here and I don't see strong enough policy arguments for deletion. The real question is if the subject is original research. The sources are enough for WP:N. And I view that as an organizational issue which is an editorial call. So the OR claims, IMO, aren't enough to move this to deletion. Note: I've only looked at the undeleted article and not the rest. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn either to no-consensus or to keep. AfD is not a vote, but one needs a good policy reason to override a majority wanting to keep something, and in this case, I don't see it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer was wrong in presuming that including separate events in a single article necessarily constitutes "original research". To infringe WP:SYNTH requires the article to reach or imply a conclusion not explicit in any of the sources. But, looking at the undeleted article, the only conclusion (an implied one) is that the two countries sometimes do things in common. That is exactly what the closer says "is not what is in question". It is up to the discussants, not the closer, to assess whether policy is being breached and, if not, whether the events establish "notability". Now, this article was in a desperately feeble state when it was nominated at AFD[1] and the nomination was entirely reasonable. However, once Nomian had improved the article the nomination was no longer sustainable in its original form and the SYNTH and notability aspects were then reasonably debatable. I think either no consensus or keep would have been within discretion. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator note - I still fully stand behind this close; AFDs are not votes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I fully agree with the closing statement, if it were a !vote that is. Or if it were an adjudication. The problem is that our notability guidelines are applied by the community on a case-by-case basis. The closing administrator's role there is not to adjudicate the debate but to determine where consensus lies. That distinction needs to be understood. Naturally there is a weighing of arguments that needs to be undertaken in the latter process, but the administrator cannot simply say "the delete side had the better arguments, they win". In this case no amount of weighing could have reasonably resulted in a delete close. The delete side failed to convince a significant number - a large majority, in fact - of participants, so there cannot be a consensus. And there is no overriding policy, such as BLP or copyvio or whatever, that warrants giving the admin additional latitude. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing missing from that analysis, Mkativerata, is that those "participants" opining for retention are the creators and proponents of the articles in question. They don't want to see their work deleted and so will never be "convinced" that what they created doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. In fact, while a number of these were being discussed, a raft of similar (almost identical, in fact) articles about other Bangladesh-X relations were created by the nominator here and creator of the articles in question, just in case these were deleted. Your analysis, then, suggests that if you have enough friends (or countrymen, in this case) you can retain all sorts of nonsense on WP on the simple basis that you'll never be "convinced" that deleting your own nonsense is a good idea. I'd remind you, also, that the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of original though is a perfectly valid policy-based argument. St★lwart111 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, I would request you to investigate it yourself if those remarks made by Stalwart are actually true or not. If you have a look at the histories of the articles, you'll see that Samee and I are the only major contributors in these articles, but there were seven other participants who voted for keep, so the point that the keep voters don't want to see their work deleted is simply baseless. He made another false comment that while this AFD was in progress, I was creating more Bangladesh's bilateral relations article. However, if you check my contributions, you'll see that the last such article was created on 11 October (Bangladesh–Slovakia relations) and this AFD took place between 27 January-22 February. Nomian (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; my mistake, that was in reference to others with very similarly... limited... interests. Your article creation record (though) speaks for itself. And my comments about your defence of your original research remain valid. St★lwart111 23:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Concerning France and Italy, these countries are major trading partners of Bangladesh and home to a substantial diaspora. Stalwart is distorting facts, there is a long record of high-level interactions and agreements (i.e with France; Azerbaijan's president himself enlisted Bangladeshi support on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue). Ivory Coast has the largest contigent of Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers. Jordan has 30,000 Bangladeshi workers who have vocally complained of discrimination and restricted freedoms. These facts have global notability and they pass WP:GNG. Even LibStar conceded on relations with France, Italy and Ivory Coast with a keep vote.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC, largely per User:RoySmith. To be honest, most of the arguments used here were fairly weak, and I certainly don't blame the closing admin who had to fish a consensus out of that mess for making the call that they did. While I acknowledge that AFD wasn't a vote, neither is it somewhere where we can assume that a subjective opinion on the reliability or significance of a source is some sort of objective truth. I also want to touch upon something that came up in the discussion, and that is the use of multiple nominations for articles like this. While multiple noms have their place, I feel that in cases like this where discussion is likely to be controversial, it would certainly make the job of the admin much easier if articles were discussed one at a time. Otherwise you're left working out who wants what article deleted or kept, which makes it far more likely that the discussion will end up here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - Disruptive nominations of subpages of Foreign relations of Bangladesh, wrongly decided. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A childish personal attack with no basis in fact, and from an editor from whom we should all expect better. Poor form. St★lwart111 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack. As many as 17 articles were nominated in several AFDs altogether (including this one) by a set of editors who were common in all AFDs. Such conduct was considered disruptive by many editors. Nomian (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And more than 60 of these nonsense articles were create by the same editor. They were single-line stubs created en-masse and when they were nominated, they were expanded with blatant synthesis and disingenuous primary sourcing in an effort to save them. That "set" of editors has worked collaboratively for about 5 years trying to prevent/remove neo-nationalist diplomati-spam from WP and you are just the last SPA in a very, very long line. St★lwart111 02:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you are not understanding is that what you are terming "nonsense", "neo-nationalist diplomati-spam", synthesis and original research are considered well within the guidelines by others, so please come up with something new rather than repeating the same argument. Nomian (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, others who have created similar articles and share a similar... nationalist... viewpoint. St★lwart111 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the AFD no one seems to have considered a redirect or merge to Foreign relations of Bangladesh where the present Italy-related content is frankly silly. In polarised AFDs like this where there is little by way of genuine discussion, it would be good if the closer, even if he could not drag a compromise out of the debate, could instead relist with a suggestion for merging or redirecting. RoySmith raised the possibility above and it's a shame there has been no response. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been doing some research into notability guidelines for country relations articles. The most appropriate guidance seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. There it suggests that significant trade should be sufficient to establish notability for a bilateral relations article. I have no idea if $1 billion (quoting nomian from the AfD) meets the bar for significant or not, but I really would like to see people debating whether these articles meet the six points listed there rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well those guidelines are put together by a wikiproject so wouldn't normally be considered to have any sort of broader community consensus, so I doubt those minded to delete these will debate if it meets those since it isn't a recognised standard, so meeting or not meeting makes little difference. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen those before; they're a far better standard than "they both like football" or "one mid-tier diplomat visited back in the 80s". From the looks of it, most of the articles in question would fail that standard by some distance which suggests it would inject at least some logic into the question of whether these should be created in the first place. St★lwart111 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only see one of the articles and at the time it was nominated at AFD[2] it would (rightly in my view) fail but could have been redirected. However after it had been improved[3] it might well be said to pass (merge at the very least) and subsequently only two people !voted to delete it, one with a rationale of general exasperation. The more I think about it the more I think it was a poor DRV close, at least with regard to "Italy". Thincat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per RoySmith. This statement accurately summarizes the situation:

    I fully get that AfD is not about vote counting, but it's also not about ignoring community opinion without a good reason. It's OK to go against the numerical count if the minority are making fundamentally stronger arguments, or there is some overriding policy issue.

    There was no overriding policy issue. Nor were the arguments on the "delete" side far stronger. Therefore, the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Erin Ade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that she is a well-known journalist now and matches the criteria of notability. Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - roughly speaking, you'd need to show she meets either WP:N, the usual inclusion criterion, or it's bastard stepchild for journalists, WP:NJOURNALIST. Merely asserting it won't get DRV to do anything. WilyD 11:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the closing admin at the initial AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Ade. I'll choose to respectfully defer to community consensus as established by this process here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, Erin Ade hosts her own business program at RT by the name of Boom Bust. Previously she was a sports journalist with ESPN. I am not really sure if she meets the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria or not. Actually, i was seeing this page Neave Barker, and i think she is as notable as this journalist (and he has got a wiki page); so i thought she might also qualify to have a page of her own.Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for deiscussion DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, without prejudice to a new AfD. Since the last AfD, in 2011, she has assumed her own show ("Boom Bust, on RT). I think that's a significant enough change in circumstances to warrant another look. I don't purport to be an expert on notability for journalists. My gut feel tells me she's not notable - presenting a show, especially on a less-than-reputable cable network, doesn't seem to me to amount to a journalistic achievement. But that's for another AfD to decide. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - I have edited the "Erin Ade" page and added all the info i could find with references. Please have a look. You can see the page and decide. She is not super famous or anything, i agree, but i think she is notable enough to warrant a wiki page. Sohebbasharat (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's generally poor form to do a bolded vote on your own request, which gives the impression of trying to sneak in a double vote. It's better to merely leave a comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. No additional notability shown. If restored, I will nominate for AfD2. I do not think she meets WP:GNG, (Tho not mentioned in the article, the RT schedule indicates the show is a half-hour.) The NYT article is one of their short marriage articles, tho not quite a paid announcement, unlike major marriage stories in the early 20th century, they don't show notability, because they deliberately pick a cross section, not the notable only. Everything else is either from her own station, or her college alumni magazine, or a social website. It is true that we have similar articles for journalists with a show on a major network but nothing much in the way of refs, I appreciate being notified about the comparison article used as a model, and I've just listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neave Barker. The problem with articles like that and like this is that people come here and use them as models, thinking we actually intend to accept that sort of directory material. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enorse AfD close. The sole keep said, in essence, While I agree that this person does not meet our notability standards, in practice, we have lots of articles like that, so we should have this one too. It doesn't work that way (or, at least, it shouldn't) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly motivated by promotion. Should be required to meet the notability standards found at WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG and lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources to support a BLP. If this were restored, the AFD would be inevitable, the delete result would be inevitable, and the encyclopedia would be no better off aside from the time wasted in a weeklong process with a clearly foregone result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 4 March 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox medical condition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The TfD closed as merge, but the reality of the situation obsoleted the outcome. Discussions on Template talk:Infobox disease are going forward constructively and have more input than the original TfD. Vacating the mandate to merge will ease going forward with improving the involved templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It was decided that Template:Infobox medical condition was to be merged into Template:Infobox disease.
  2. So, Andy redirected Template:Infobox medical condition to Template:Infobox disease and added the former's parameters to the latter.
  3. His additions were reverted twice by User:Doc James. Other contributors to the template were in agreement with the Doc.
  4. Therefore, the merge could no longer proceed, and Martijn asked for the merge decision to be overturned, which would mean that the (original) Template:Infobox medical condition would have to be reinstated.
  5. In the meantime, a RM was initiated at Template talk:Infobox disease.
  6. User:MSGJ deleted the template under discussion and moved Template:Infobox disease in its place, as per the RM outcome. Alakzi (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this DRV may have reached a condition in which palliative care is indicated. Could someone call a doctor? Thincat (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if I have complicated this matter further. I acted on the apparent clear consensus for a move to Template:Infobox medical condition. Nothing I read here or on the template's talk page suggested that this would obstruct any of the options currently being considered for this template. Is anyone actually still arguing that there should be two separate templates? One was redirected to the other on Jan 16, more than a month ago, and was not reverted. Anyway I am happy to revert, but perhaps it would be safer to wait until this discussion is closed to avoid unnecessary log entries. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you did was fine User:MSGJ. There is no discussion regarding having two separate templates. Support is to move the template to the name you moved it too. Discussion is ongoing regarding changing this one template. Lots of work is required before these changes take place though, including developing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is a discussion regarding having two separate templates. This, for example, is a discussion regarding having two separate templates. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Matthew_T._Ryan – Out of scope for DRV. DRV is to correct process errors. The nom isn't asserting any such error, so out of scope. In any case, there's nothing to keep the nom from opening a new AfD discussion, which would be the correct forum for this. – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Matthew_T._Ryan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This biographical article was clearly mostly written by the subject of the article himself. He doesn't even try to hide it, with the username being "mayormatt51" which happens to be his former title (mayor), first name (matt) and his birth year. The article is CLEARLY biased in favor of the subject, leaving out any negative aspect of his two terms, including a 60% increase in violent crime in just 8 years, and an increase in poverty and unemployment greater than the state of national average. He also has had no media coverage outside of the city. The only thing quoted in the previous deletion discussions would be that he was mayor during two floods and a mass shooting in the city. But aside from a brief quote, he was never mentioned in any articles or news broadcasts regarding those incidents. He certainly had no accomplishments that ever merited national news. Or a Wikipedia article. In fact, the only times he may have been mentioned outside his city media was when he tried to donate Binghamton city drinking water (against the wishes of the Binghamton residents) to residents of a city in a different state (Pennsylvania) whom he felt were "victims" of fracking. And ironically, there is no mention of that in the biography since it made him look bad when the residents of that city told him to go to hell and he had to take the water back him with his tail between his legs. Actually, it is not ironic at all that the Wiki bio doesn't mention that since it was negative and again...Matt Ryan wrote the article HIMSELF, making sure to leave out anything negative. If that is not grounds for deletion, then what is? Lakawak (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Regardless of the outcome, there was no consensus, so it should not have had a non-admin closing the debate. The issue at hand is whether 3 sources on the issue establish notability, not WP:Censorship or otherwise. Magedq (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the concerns on my talk page already, and linked to them from the AfD. In short, the clear consensus at the AfD was that the sources given did establish notability. ansh666 03:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's difficult for me to see how this could be closed as anything but a clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The signature on the close ain't important when the close is transparently right. WilyD 14:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and strongly suggest that those who didn't get their way drop the stick. There were far fewer delete votes for starters (discounting all SPA voters here, but then, those were generally voting keep), and of those votes, one had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, one of them was a misinterpretation of policy, and the remaining votes were out-of-date, as more coverage was found and they specifically referred to a lack of sources. This is one of the clearest consensuses in any AfD that had delete votes, and this DRV is just a waste of time. Asserting "no consensus" is just lame, and downright misrepresentative. It's a pretty strong sign that the article should be kept when a (weak) delete voter changes their vote to keep, and no-one else goes the other way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  • Endorse. After reading over the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015, it appears the closer correctly assessed a clear consensus to Keep. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - and remind participants that not liking the outcome is not the same thing as there being something wrong with the close. You're entitled to disagree with the outcome in perpetuity, but that doesn't make the outcome wrong. It just means you were on a different page to the majority of the community and that's nothing the closer can assist with. St★lwart111 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it would make the nominator happy, I would be pleased to vacate the non-admin close and reclose the AFD myself, also as keep. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, (1) it definitely should not have been closed by a non-admin and (2) it should have been called "no consensus", not "keep" (while there are no binding precedents, calling it "keep" has more of an effect of discouraging a possible future AFD than calling it "no consensus" does - since it was clearly no consensus, not a consensus to keep, it should be called "no consensus"). I could go for relist or keep kept but wet trout the non-admin who closed it. --B (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I don't mean to be hostile, but why would this be no consensus? I understand that you would have supported deletion, but put that aside and assess the consensus as if it were something else. Several other uninvolved admins have vouched that the close was on the mark. ansh666 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Throw out the SPAs and the invalid arguments (like "Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith") and counting heads, I see 7 keep and 6 {delete or userfy or Sam Walton, who didn't !vote, but opined in English that based on the available sources, it should be deleted}. Sure, we don't resolve things just by counting heads alone, but there's no way that's a consensus. --B (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Userfy isn't really delete, IMO, and Sam said he would !vote delete if sources were provided, which they were. The other deletes didn't take into account the additional sources introduced, and one was based on a wrong reason (WP:TOOSOON). Plus, the last half of comments is a generally good indicator of which way consensus is going in cases like this - for this one keep. ansh666 06:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to be blunt. Closing it as no consensus requires a spectacular disregard of most guidelines and policy. Why? Because most of the delete votes were not even remotely policy based. We do not go on weight of numbers, we go on the weight of the votes. One vote (Njam22's) was nowhere near being policy based. Hirolovesswords' vote wasn't policy based either, since we're not discussing an event. Magedq's was out of date, but was policy based. Ditto Edison. FreeKnowledgeCreator never gave any rationale whatsoever. Also, where did you get 7 keeps from? I see BrxBrx, myself, Gamaliel, Soetermans (who changed to keep), Eddymason, Thibbs (weak), Dezidor, Lurkaccount, Kymako, and Hans Adler. That's 10. Now, some of those aren't great votes either (Gamaliel, lurkaccount), but on sheer strength of votes, the consensus is blindingly obvious. Relisting the debate based on a clear consensus like that would be both POINTy, and a total waste of time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:12, 24 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]

19 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shane Diesel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was deleted despite there being no consensus. Rationale was that BLP no consensus defaults to delete. I was not aware of this policy change and while doing a search for it, I found two other AfDs that the closing administrator closed the same way in the same week.[5][6] When questioned where, he pointed me to WP:BLPDEL which does not seem to apply. I questioned whether he meant WP:BIODEL even though it doesn't apply either since the subject is a public figure, hasn't requested the deletion of his article, and there editors that opposed the deletion to the point of no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP no consensus does not default to delete. " If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." is not the same thing--it means that a AfD without discussion can be closed as delete if it appears obvious to the closing admin., essentially as if it were a Prod. where the admin decides just the same way. But this was not an afd with few outside comments, and should therefore have been closed as non-consensus. I have no opinion on the actual article, but the closing is in contradiction to established policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG--the close rational is simply mistaken. I think a case could be made for deletion, but that isn't it. Further, this one at least has one very solid mainstream source (Cosmo) and 2 other "eh" ones. The AfD was mostly attended by the regulars at porn AfDs (on both sides). I'd say NC was the right reading, but deletion wasn't appropriate. undo deletion Hobit (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus was the right call here, but a close of no consensus so delete requires unusual circumstances that simply weren't present. Overturn, restore, and don't send it back to afd; another week or two of bickering isn't going to break the impasse. —Cryptic 08:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To restore. This is totally mistake by administrator.
    1. result 4:3 for keep
    2. if article is reported in AfD, must to be consensus for delete, no consensus for delete is lack consensus for delete, so = no delete - this is a logical. No consensus means: not achieved consensus to remove on page of "articles for delection", simply
    3. there is no default = delete in biographies
    4. in this case, nominator/creator AfD (User:Macreep) is sock-puppet of blocked user:Redban, confirmed by checkuser. Generally, the page should be closed because it was created illegally - so, AfD should be canceled = automatically keep. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       11:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" and restore. Deletion was plainly in error as there's no such thing as "default to delete" just because the article's about a living person. As noted above, such a policy change has been proposed multiple times before and never accepted. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I almost closed this myself; there might be consensus that the subject fails PORNBIO, but there's definitely no consensus about the GNG. I'm also unimpressed by the closer's responses on his talk page. It's unclear how or why WP:BLPDEL would apply in this case. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There is not, as far as I am aware, a policy that suggests BLP articles default to delete in the absence of consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus & restore. Same rationale as all the overturn arguments in all three DRVs in today's queue, no default to delete here. - Becksguy (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate AfD close. Not sure what to do after that, maybe just relist, but given the reliance on a (as far as I can tell) non-existent policy, the close is obviously invalid. Also, I agree with Mackensen that Coffee's talk page response was a little out of line. Sure, the initial query might have been a little edgy, but admins are supposed to have thick skins. Responding to barbs with a smile (even if it's a forced one) is all part of mop ownership. Same comment applies to the two items below. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closing statement at least. I can see a rough consensus to delete (Notable because "the guy holds down a mainstream job"!?). But it is true that past attempts to legislate that "no consensus on BLPs defaults to delete" fail to gain support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus, restore article - in isolation, I would be somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a porn actor's bio might default to delete on the premise they might favour that if asked, I think that's exceedingly unlikely for a guy who did an interview with Cosmo. The other, even more problematic DRVs today severely tarnish the closing admin's image as an impartial determiner of consensus, which also bugs me. Closers need to be seen as capable of being impartial, and under the circumstances, that's really hard to see. WilyD 13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think that's an unfair characterization of Coffee as the admin correctly gauged consensus, so this is not about impartially. The only issue here is about applying the correct BLP closing guideline, so this is a procedural discussion, nothing else. - Becksguy (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that as soon as I saw the DRV, I knew who the closer was. I don't see how this could be a misunderstanding on his part--he knows the rules. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The AfD closing was vacated just a little while ago by the closing admin Coffee, see diff and the article has been restored - Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, these should still all be closed "no consensus" according to the consensus reached here (and, notwithstanding the policy misinterpretation, according to Coffee's judgment that there was no consensus), and these DRVs formally closed as "overturn" to restore. I'd rather the AFDs be renominated later than reclosed now as purportedly having a consensus to delete after all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, especially about waiting until later to renominate at AfD. The ideal person to re-close the 3 AfDs as "no consensus" would be Coffee. Failing that, an uninvolved admin. And any uninvolved admin/NAC could close the 3 DRVs since no admin tools are needed at this point and consensus seems pretty clear. - Becksguy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain deletion: If we discount the Redban sock Macreep, and also discount the two porn SPAs (and likely COIs), the !vote was actually 3-2 in favor of delete. None of the pro !votes were able to adequately address WP:GNG requirements for multiple independent mainstream media pieces (sans the subject failing PORNBIO). So, the closer may have provided the wrong explanation, but he did apply to correct result. Pax 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something: Last Coffee's move (vacating the close before the deletion review closed) sounds weird as their previous actions, now the three AfDs are virtually open again, in no man's land. --Cavarrone 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would interpret Coffee's reversals as him recusing himself of the situation and leaving the matter to another closer, which seems reasonable. My assumption is that the AfDs will be relisted for further response. Pax 21:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs could be relisted, reclosed, or even retained, this is exactly the object of this discussion. The reversals were certainly made in good faith, but at this point there was no rush in removing the closes in the middle of the DRV discussions, DRV generally runs for a week and certainly these AfDs could not stay until Tuesday in the current state (virtually reopened and editable by everyone, but still awaiting DRV outcome). It is another procedural mess, the DRV/AfD discussions should have to be immediately closed, or at least the AfD pages have to be protected until DRV ends. Cavarrone 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the three AfDs are closed as anything other than "no consensus" at this point, and DRVs closed as other than "Overturn to restore", we will just wind up at DRV again. Close everything status quo, wait a week, and then renominate cleanly without all this baggage. These article have no BLPVIO problems so there is no hurry. - Becksguy (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, now that the closing admin has reverted the close, I see this DRV as totally moot and suggest it be closed and let the AfD continue to take its normal course from here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Procedurally closing as no-consensus is a kludged white-lie, and procedurally reopening again after that just leads to an even bigger waste of time as well as annoying editors who posted opinions in earlier AfD versions but missed the count in later ones (etc). As an arbitrary fix, the "ticking clock" could be reset to, say, one week, and the three AfDs just relisted. Pax 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now we are deeper into this mess. An argument was made today in one of the AfDs, making AfD procedural closes without a relist even more problematic. I am rethinking postdlf's and my previous argument here, since that boat has sailed. One of us (admin or not) could do a procedural close of the DRVs. Having an AfD and DRV running on the same article at the same time is just crazy. If no one objects, I'm willing to do a "Procedural close - AfD close vacated" of the DRVs now. I think this is preferable to asking an uninvolved admin to sort this out, since we all are familiar with the terrain. - Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given how long this has run, I think the DRV should be closed normally and its outcome respected irrelevant of the closer undoing their close. So just a straight-up NC (which gives leave for a new listing at some reasonable time in the future as with any AfD) Hobit (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. I'd also support reverting the AFDs to the versions at the time of the close. The closes really shouldn't have been reverted while this is pending because it just causes confusion. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. The AfD closer made error in wording. The closing statement was the point of focus of the nominator here. The closer in reverting has essentially yielded the point, rendering this DRV moot. It may be inferred for future policy discussion that the community has here rejected "no consensus on BLPs defaults to delete", but that is something for policy debaters to cite and argue, not for a DRV closer to legislate.
These discussions are now moot. They remain open only due to the bureaucratic difficulty of there being so few DRV closers active at DRV who have not already commented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Garnet Patterson – consensus that the "no consensus defaulting to delete" was invalid, and that has already been vacated by the original closer. I'm also adding up partial consensus here and in the AfD in order to close the AfD as "standard" delete. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Garnet Patterson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was deleted despite there being no consensus. Rationale was that BLP no consensus defaults to delete. A BLP default deletion was rejected in prior policy discussions, [7][8][9] and I don't believe this deletion falls under the purview of WP:BLPDEL or WP:BIODEL since the subject is a public figure, hasn't requested the deletion of his article, and there was an editor that opposed the deletion to the point of no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist as above. Wrong interpretation of policy. I can even see closing this as delete on the basis of the strength of arguments in the discussion, but that's irrelevant. Policy errors must be corrected. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer may have stated one reason (and I guess there could be a debate about policy being descriptive not prescriptive there) but with 3 people expressing a delete opinion (albeit one of them being a weak nomination), and one opining for keep who seems to believe we have some sort of precedent "...A series previously established as being notable...", the outcome of the debate appears to be delete to me anyway. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, "no consensus so delete" is invalid here. However, if Coffee had just closed as "delete" with no further explanation I don't think we'd be here; 204.126.132.231's comment in particular is convincing. So overturn in name only, and leave the article deleted. —Cryptic 08:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article was deleteable, the argument by the closer ("no consensus, default to delete") is plainly wrong. And one more thing is certainly wrong: there was no reason to salt the article, and such a close certainly does not justify the salting. Unsalt, while I am neutral between a close for no consensus, a soft deletion or a relist. Cavarrone 10:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cavarrone: It looks like this admin has been making salting a standard practice for AFD'd articles, judging from their protection log. I'm more bothered by them salting an A7 speedy deletion they performed themselves, as there's even less reason to prevent recreation. I suppose that's outside the scope of this DRV, but it looks like there are some systemic problems with how this admin unilaterally interprets BLP. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the links, while I still consider this one the worst among his page-protections (a no consensus which default to delete which default to salt the page) you are right, it looks a habit, and several entries, appearently, have been improperly salted. I suggest an indepht review of his BLP-related actions. Cavarrone 22:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" and restore. Deletion was plainly in error as there's no such thing as "default to delete" just because the article's about a living person. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a misinterpretation of policy. Gentle reminder to nominator that it's customary to attempt to resolve your query with the closer first. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus & restore - I don't see any policy that explicitly states no-consensus BLPs default to delete--except the very specific ones, and that's a debatable policy issue, but not here. Relisting at this point won't help, I think, as the AfD was relisted twice. - Becksguy (talk)
  • Vacate close See my comments above for Shane Diesel. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus, Restore article - no reason to believe the subject wants, or would want, the article deleted. WilyD 13:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think everyone here is putting far too much weight on Coffee's execrable closing rationale. What we have here is a bio of what even the article creator (Patterson2929 (talk · contribs)) admits is an "emerging athlete trying to raise profile for potential international teams and sponsors". The references given in the article, for the nonadmins opining here who can't see them, are [10], [11], and [12]. There single editor opining to keep did so on the basis of one source that doesn't even mention the article subject and another that is correctly characterized later in the discussion as routine sports coverage, to which I'll add it was routine sports coverage of a race in which Patterson finished sixth. None of the presented sources provide any sort of biographical coverage, and I'd have to question anyone who closed this afd as anything other than delete. —Cryptic 14:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • execrable. (as in cursed, not excrement) Had to look that up. Agree. An ideal action/outcome would be for the close to be overturned for another admin to reclose. The closing statement, the bit: "BLP - no consensus, default to delete" is unpalatable and should not be allowed to stand as a statement of Wikipedia-policy. I urge User:Coffee to do that now, revert his closes containing this problem statement, as the quickest and easiest way to move forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The AfD closing was vacated just a little while ago by the closing admin Coffee, see diff and the article has been restored. - Becksguy (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something: Last Coffee's move (vacating the close before the deletion review closed) sounds weird as their previous actions, now the three AfDs are virtually open again, in no man's land. --Cavarrone 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the three AfDs are closed as anything other than "no consensus" at this point, and DRVs closed as other than "Overturn to restore", we will just wind up at DRV again. Close everything status quo, wait a week, and then renominate cleanly without all this baggage. These article have no BLPVIO problems so there is no hurry. - Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Procedurally closing as no-consensus is a kludged white-lie, and procedurally reopening again after that just leads to an even bigger waste of time as well as annoying editors who posted opinions in earlier AfD versions but missed the count in later ones (etc). As an arbitrary fix, the "ticking clock" could be reset to, say, one week, and the three AfDs just relisted. Pax 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liisa Ladouceur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was deleted despite there being no consensus. Rationale was that BLP no consensus defaults to delete. A BLP default deletion was rejected in prior policy discussions, [13],[14], and [15] and I don't believe this deletion falls under the purview of WP:BLPDEL or WP:BIODEL since the subject is a public figure, hasn't requested the deletion of her article, and there were editors that opposed the deletion to the point of no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the three AfDs are closed as anything other than "no consensus" at this point, and DRVs closed as other than "Overturn to restore", we will just wind up at DRV again. Close everything status quo, wait a week, and then renominate cleanly without all this baggage. These article have no BLPVIO problems so there is no hurry. - Becksguy (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Procedurally closing as no-consensus is a kludged white-lie, and procedurally reopening again after that just leads to an even bigger waste of time as well as annoying editors who posted opinions in earlier AfD versions but missed the count in later ones (etc). As an arbitrary fix, the "ticking clock" could be reset to, say, one week, and the three AfDs just relisted. Pax 01:25, 23 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]

17 February 2015

[edit]

16 February 2015

[edit]

15 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Risto Mitrevski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion discussion was closed after only 6 days, with comments from only 3 other people (with only 2 supporting deletion), rather than the 7 days. I asked the closing admin to reopen for further discussion, but they refused, invoking WP:SNOW. There is WP:NORUSH to close the AFD earlier than the prescribed 7-day period. I note the same admin also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elkhan Temirbaev and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Michigan Bucks season however I see no compelling case not to delete those articles - but perhaps others do. I request that the AFD for Risto Mitrevski be reopened and relisted to allow for further discussion. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are you asking to re-open the AfD because you want to comment in it in favour of keeping the article? Or are you just complaining about the premature close? In the first case I see a point and I endorse your request, otherwise this discussion sounds like an unnecessary drama. --Cavarrone 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do intend to comment in favour of not deleting the article. I also pointed to two other articles the same editor also closed prematurely, which I didn't intend to comment on, so wasn't requesting they be reopened. I am concerned though that an editor is systemically closing articles a day early, especially when only 2 or 3 have commented - however perhaps that's a discussion for another place - and I wouldn't have brought it here, if I had no intent to suggest not deleting the article. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin. Nfitz hasn't fully represented my response to their question on my talk page. First thing I said in response was: "The consensus was clear on all of those, the issues not novel, and the participants well established and familiar with the subjects. What do you think could have changed in just one more day? What was going to be your argument for keeping?" I would have seriously considered undoing my one-day early close had they actually presented such an argument. And as I also said on my talk page, even with the AFD closed as "delete", all Nfitz would have to do to get it permissibly recreated is demonstrate the individual satisfied GNG or NFOOTY. But they didn't say they had an actual reason to offer for keeping, but instead just basically insisted on keeping it open one day longer for the sake of form. We don't do process for the sake of process, and these football player AFDs are routine and based on clearly accepted notability standards, which is why I considered the consensus solid and clear enough to close at that time. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't now how having only two comments for and 1 against on AFD could be considered a consensus solid and clear enough to invoke early closure. It does not come anywhere close enough to the circumstances outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure that allow for early closure. The guidelines there are pretty clear that WP:SNOW shouldn't be "invoked in situations where a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely"". I'm not sure the relevance of football player AFD's is; football players AFDs are frequently rejected. Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As one of the editors who commented on the original discussion, I don't see what reason there would be currently to reopen. The player clearly failed the subject specific guideline and Nfitz has provided nothing here to assert GNG. Happy to have the discussion reopened if there is anything new to add but no arguments have been put forward to suggest there is. At the moment this seems bureaucratic at best and a bit pointy at worst. Fenix down (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD could have been left open for another day, and maybe that is a good idea just to avoid this. But I agree with the closing admin that it would not make any difference in this particular case. To reopen or overturn this specific AfD would waste people's time when the sources just don't support WP:Notability. I don't see this as borderline even. If Mitrevski can clear the bar set by NFOOTY in the future, then recreate. - Becksguy (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I understand where the nom is coming from but if the AFD had been started 30 mins earlier, the "7 days" thing would be moot. Without an actual reason this should be kept, I see no reason to overturn the close. St★lwart111 11:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what do you mean 30 minutes earlier? It was closed just after the 6-day mark. It was a full day from the 7 day mark. For those of us who normally only have the opportunity to look at things once a week, it means we never had an opportunity to comment. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, the discussion was started at midnight-and-29-minutes on 9 February. 1/2 an hour earlier and it would have been 11:59 on the 8th February making the 15th (the date it was closed) "7 days". St★lwart111 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 days = 168 hours. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't become 167.5 hours with what you are sugesting. Either way, the issue is that some of us only pop in once a week, to make sure we don't miss something. Typically I only have a chance to participate on Sunday morning and afternoons. As the AFD was initiated late on Sunday the 9th (local time) and then the AFD closed late on Saturday the 8th (local time), there was no opportunity to review it - which there would have been under the prescribed 7-day timeframe.
  • The guideline says "7 days", not "168 hours". 1/2 hour would have put the start inside "the day before". Honestly, I don't know whether you're trying to be deliberately difficult or you genuinely don't understand. But it's not a complicated concept. The most this was "closed early" is 1 day. That's not reason enough, in my view, to overturn an otherwise valid close, especially without any other reason to do so beyond "I didn't get a go". Bureaucracy is great but common sense is better. You've been given a chance to present your argument as to why this close should be reconsidered. You've opened the bureaucratic Pandora's Box; there's no point needlessly holding out on everyone in terms of your secondary argument (why this should be recreated). Just present your case. St★lwart111 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you being rude? You assume I'm either stupid or being difficult? It was closed a day early. As the AFD was started late on a Sunday and closed prematurely on Saturday evening, and I frequently only edit on Sundays, do you not see why I might object to this? And where do you get this overturn a valid close stuff? I was simply asking that the AFD be continued - that's hardly overturning a valid close. As I have commented below, I will make a DRV case to overturn the close, rather than simply reopen the AFD - though this will some time, as my time is limited, and it does require research in articles Serbian Cyrillic. Fortunately there is no WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* "Misunderstanding" is not a synonym for "stupid". You're still mixing up dates and times so we'll assume it's the latter of my two original suggestions. The discussion was closed - to re-list the discussion, that close would need to be voided as premature, inappropriate or otherwise faulty in some way. Without a cogent argument as to fault, nobody is going to find it sufficiently faulty to warrant overturning. "Relist", "overturn" and "endorse" are all valid outcomes here (in addition to some others). Starting a second DRV will likely be seen as disruptive. St★lwart111 04:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my understanding is that DRV is not the forum to make new arguments against the deletion of an article, but was the place to discuss substantive procedural errors in the deletion discussion. As such, I've tried to follow the guidelines (as I understand them) and only discuss the substantive procedural error that was made, for what I would have thought would be an open-and-shut case, rather than fill WP:DRV with material that should be in the AFD rather than at DRV. I'm not asking that the article be kept permanently, simply that the AFD be reopened for a short period of time so that I can make a case that the article shouldn't be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're just looking for some reason to think that there's a chance that the argument you feel you weren't allowed to make would have turned the direction of the discussion. For all we know, you were just going to write something like "<blink>KEEEEEEP</blink>, he's a real person! I know, because I dated him in high school!". You've been asked multiple times for such a rationale, starting with this, and have instead insisted on wasting other volunteers' time by bringing it here instead. —Cryptic 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That request was not related to this article in particular, but all 3 articles that user had erroneously closed. I responded to that request noting that I hadn't yet reviewed any of the articles (not an easy task once the article has been deleted!) and I simply asked him to reopen the AFDs to allow for review. Once it became clear the user was not going to reopen the AFD, I reviewed cached copies of the articles, and could see that only this article had a clear case that could be make regarding not deleting the article. However the user was already ignoring communication, so I felt that it was best to follow DRV procedures to fix the significant procedural error, and then present the case for re-opening in the AFD. The case to keep is based on meeting WP:GNG, and there's a secondary case to instead of deleting, to move to draftspace based on possibly meeting WP:NFOOTY when the season resumes in a few days, given his recent trade to a fully-professional team that meets WP:FPL. I'm not in the habit of either voting KEEEEEEP or making arguments based on my sex life, and I ponder the necessity of that comment. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing I asked you was what your argument for keeping would be, and you've instead been just evading that question and repeating wikilawyering trivialities, rather than offering anything of substance despite being offered every chance to do so. If you believe you can demonstrate GNG, show us your sources, don't just assert it, and maybe you'll change someone's mind. If you think NFOOTY might be satisfied a few days from now (which could not have changed the AFD even had it been left open another day), then why didn't you just wait until that happened and then ask for recreation? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I immediately answered that I had not at that time reviewed any of the deleted articles - because they were deleted, and asked you to simply fix your erroneous premature close and simply reopen the AFDs. As I think that WP:GNG is met now - then why would I wait a few days? That's non-sensical. Afer I reiterated my request to fix your erroneous closes I did research all 3 articles in detail, I was planning to simply ask you to ignore the others, and reopen this one based on the evidence I had found - but you never again responded to my request - and yet were actively editing. So I had no choice given your lack of response but to proceed here. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse these particular closes but please do not close early like this in future. If the snow is deep a very early close can let people get home before dark but there is no point in closing a bit early. Someone may be planning to comment towards the end of a discussion so as to be able to respond to all the points that have been raised. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have been happy to reopen had Nfitz actually shown me such a comment, but he didn't (and hasn't. Maybe he still will, but even if he gets the final result he wants here I hope that he still will learn to get to the point in the future rather than waste a lot of time, and realize that not immediately getting your way does not mean that people aren't giving you a chance and trying to be helpful). Note also that the AFD had already gone five days without any discussion at the time I closed it. And the football player AFDs tend to be very binary, on the question of "have they played for a fully professional league" per NFOOTY, which makes them both easy to close once there is a sufficient quorum on the point and easy to recreate when you can verify that criteria has been met. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; no reason to believe outcome would be different if nom had been left open. Neutralitytalk 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion / Snow falls, but not in great depth / Small trout swim nearby -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm completely shocked and highly disappointed that everyone here reacts to such a procedural error with failing to simply fix the users's mistake and reopen the AFD for discussion, and instead want's to create extra unnecessary bureaucracy by insisting on having the deletion discussion here, rather than where it belongs at AFD. However if that's how you all want to do it, can someone please close this DRV, and I will start a new clean DRV based on the case that the player meets WP:GNG rather than the closing user screwed up the time period. Though as my time outside the weekend (it's a holiday Monday here) is limited, I may well no start that DRV until I have another sustained chance at participating. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's general consensus here that postdlf made an error by closing this early (by my calculation, about 22 hours early). And that it's pushing things to say a 3-0 tally is enough to declare WP:SNOW. Hopefully, postdif will be more conservative in the future (and whoever closes this DRV should include such an admonition in the DRV close). But, these are all relatively minor procedural problems. If you really do have some substantial argument to make for keeping the article, you should come out and make it. Otherwise, this is just, "He did it wrong, so it doesn't count", which works in a (US) court of law, but not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, it was a 3-1 tally, not a 3-0 tally. Though not clear at first, a close examination of the AFD shows that User:PeppermintSA opposed deletion. I've altered my comments accordingly with this edit. Nfitz (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still boggles my mind that there seems to be general consensus that in a discussion about reopening an AFD based on procedural error, that anyone would both concluded that there was a procedural error, and yet then endorsed such an erroneous close. I opened the DRV on the basis of the procedural error. This process seems to feel like the goalposts are constantly moving. I'm reluctant to change the entire basis of the discussion after 8 endorsements of the closure, and feel it would be simpler to let everyone breathe, and start cleanly requesting the article be permanently maintained on the basis that the subject already meets WP:GNG, rather than simply requesting that the AFD be reopened. Alternatively, I could also simply take the closing user up on their comment that they'd reconsider their early closure if I presented that argument on their talk page - and save everyone here the drama. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...if you had a time machine. It's a bit late to be claiming you can "save the drama" after you've already wasted all this time being coy. You seem to be so caught up in misguided, bureaucratic notions of how WP does or should operate that you've refused to take the open doors you've been offered repeatedly. Present your GNG case here and now. There's no such thing as a "clean" DRV (?), but there is such a thing as exhausting the community's patience, which you might do by opening a second DRV on the same article just because you want to keep your peas from touching your carrots on the same plate. postdlf (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? That's a completely unnecessary personal attack and a violation of WP:FAITH. Just because you screwed up several closures is not reason to be rude. I've tried to follow the procedures here cleanly and simply, doing my best in good faith to follow the rather confusing guidelines and moving goalposts. Please apologize for this unnecessary rudeness! My gosh! And you really saying that you would ignore a reasoned case on your talk page, simply because of your own prejudice? Really? And you wonder why I think it's best to let the whole thing sit for a couple of days and let everyone breathe, instead of completely changing the request in the DRV (is that even allowed?)? Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DRV purpose point 5 states "if there was a substantive procedural error(s)..." (emphasis mine). So this is where your gap lies, people just don't see the error as substantive and your lack of providing much detail about the argument which you suggest could have proved to be decisive doesn't aid that. Reasonably you'd have been better going for point 3 "...significant new information has come to light since a deletion..." and providing the sources you think help pass GNG, you are correct DRV shouldn't be arguing the AFD on the basis of those sources, but in presenting them you'd probably end up with something along the scale of "strong sources overturn deletion" through "sources are ok, but not entirely convinced, restore and reAFD since that's where the evaluation should occur" finally to "sources are far short of the standard so endorse". I'm not sure that raising a new DRV would inherently amount to disruption, but (a) it won't excuse going through the normal process of discussing the new information with the deleting admin first (I would expect them to be professional enough to evaluate things on their merit) and (b) if the new information is clearly a long way short of the required standards it could be seen as merely disruptive. If I were in your position I'd either give the information I have now under this DRV and get it done with, or would step back for a few weeks and reevaluate with fresh eyes if I was still convinced the article should exist --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
  • Evaluative diversity – Reopen AfD discussion. No need to wait a full week to figure out that if the article was never tagged, the AfD discussion was invalid. Without such a tag, people who were watching the article would have no way to know it was being discussed. So, I'm going to reopen the original AfD, get things tagged up properly, and let that run for a week. On a procedural note, I've long ago given up using the manual AfD process; I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, which completely automates the multi-step process to get something listed properly. Using a tool like that avoids these sorts of problems. Highly recommended. And, PS, obviously no fault of the AfD closer; the discussion was unambiguous, and it's not the job of the closer to spot things like this– -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evaluative diversity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article. The Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important to reach an answer on that question so that editors (including me) will know how to be constructive moving forward. The closing admin may believe no article is merited but seems prepared to defend only that the consensus was that "the article was a violation of WP:NOR" which might suggest that the constructive next step is to post improved text. Within minutes of asking via the article's talk page whether that is the appropriate next step, two other editors posted objections to having any text for this topic at all--the dispute on notability is still live, so we need that question settled to avoid edit warring.

Further, no consensus can violate Wikipedia policy (which represents a larger community), and the close decision says, "A concept may meet GNG whilst still being OR." That would contradict policy if interpreted literally. The closing must reflect a genuine consensus of what the constructive next step would be.

The claim that this topic is not notable is the latest in a continuous succession of objections raised against this article. It started with SYNTH, which changed to COPY when the objecting editor noticed that at least one reliable source backed many of the same claims as in the original text, but the COPY concern was dismissed because Wikipedia has the earlier copyright date. COI was raised around concerns that I may have cited my own work (which was dismissed on the grounds that Wikipedia allows that). Then part of the article was moved to Moral psychology (which is limited to humans, so cannot cover cognitive science topics) and the rest replaced with a redirect to Pragmatic ethics. When the appropriateness of the redirect was challenged, a deletion process was initiated with WP:DEL-REASONs 6, 7, 8, and 14 (which question notability).

Throughout this discussion, concerns have been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic, as far as I know. The article could someday promote recruitment to advocacy organizations in the same way that the existence of articles about race and racism promote recruitment to race advocacy organizations, but such topics still merit articles, and the intention of the article is to accurately portray both pro- and anti-diversity views (and I made sure the article was reviewed by people of both persuasions). I have learned things in the process of editing this article, and republished my learnings elsewhere, but republishing what I learn as an editor is in no way forbidden (do not reverse the order of events!).

Constructive efforts could go in a variety of directions:

  1. Additional sources could be demanded to establish notability. As far as I can tell, we have already named sources which meet the technical guidelines of GNG, and searches reveal hundreds or thousands of sources which span several decades, so we should have some clarification regarding what additional sources would be required.
  2. The text could be modified to address concerns about OR by adding clearer (or more) citations or rephrasing claims to better-reflect the sources.
  3. The article could be reworked for a different title. Originally, the article began "Evaluative diversity (also known as Moral diversity) ..." and had a redirect from Moral diversity. Perhaps this information should instead appear under the title Moral diversity or Political diversity or Cognitive diversity (which would also include IQ) or Deep-level diversity (which would also include sexual orientation), or under Evaluativism.

Note that literature searches to determine notability should explore each of these potential titles to the extent that they refer to the same phenomena.

Dispute over this article has been civil, but there is a dispute, and shoving that dispute under the rug would not be consistent with Wikipedia policy. There are additional sources being published about this topic every year. Consider http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576690, for example, a literature review in a highly respected journal which concludes "Although many people want to believe that their positions on moral, religious, and political issues are the product of rational, conscious thought, the reality is that sub-threshold, biologically instantiated predispositions shape all human attitudes, leading people to rationalize their positions and actions." Several passages in this source indicate that the same biological differences underpin differences labeled "moral", "political", or "value." Rather than play wack-a-mole with any editor who attempts to find a place in Wikipedia to document this thesis and the evidence for/against it, I think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy to plot a constructive path. Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability. If the topic is notable, but the text needs work, then step 2 may be to userfy so help can be sought for improving the text. Langchri (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse well I only skimmed most of that rambling which has a distinct whiff of wikilawyering. "My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article." - well AFD doesn't need to establish that, so in the DRV did the process fail in someway, as the deletion policy doesn't require it to do so, there is no "case" to answer. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for discussion'.

I have not yet formed an opinion, and will not form one until I have carefully read the del rev request and the article. I do not comment on what I have not yet read but only skimmed. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume that is supposed to be a dig at my comment and expression of your superiority? I however understand that you can read through (or skim through) comments without needing to read everything in intricate depth to get the thrust of the argument. The poster helpfully summaries in their opening sentence then further declare what they wish from the DRV in their closing sentence "he Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important...", "Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability." I also don't need to go into any depth beyond skimming to understand why stuff like "been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic" which demonstrates a broken approach to what promotion is (Someone must be making money from it). You may wish to encourage lawyering and volume of argument vs quality of argument, I however do not --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, DGG, for the temporary undeletion. I agree with your comment – skimming is not what is required. There is something odd about the history. The last version before the undeletion was immediately before the AFD nomination and so before the tag was added. That wouldn't matter perhaps except the last editing to the article consisted of a lot of major edits by the AFD nominator who seemed to have taken over the article with merges and redirection so it is not clear what should be evaluated. Thincat (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is interesting relevant discussion here at AN. Could we have the article's talk page, Talk:Evaluative diversity, undeleted as well, please? Thincat (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy cow this user - who is operating under an academic COI, citing his own work throughout wikipedia (see his contribs), will not drop the stick. The article was a nightmare of WP:OR and WP:SYN, including long lists of quotes from the bible and other religious/philosophical literature that somehow "prove" the existence of "Evaluative diversity", and making really ridiculous leaps of logic - claiming for example that the Milgram experiment was designed to distinguish between various kinds of "evaluative diversity". The editor posted this article at about the same time he published a book chapter with the exact same material (also self-published on his website here), which caused some copyright consternation before we worked out the time sequence. He is also advocating that in the real world, and in Wikipedia, discrimination based on differences in evaluative diversity is a bad bad thing and people should be made aware of that and it should be illegal etc etc.
He writes elsewhere that "It might take years before the value of these fields (i.e. evaluative diversity) can be assessed, but I assure you that my efforts come from a sincere desire to serve my fellow man the best I can." I believe he is coming from a good-hearted place, but despite a long effort by me (see User_talk:Jytdog#Evaluative_Diversity and by SandyGeorgia, he is displaying WP:IDHT behavior with regard to what Wikipedia is, and is not, and how we use sources here. I believe at the end of the day, he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia - he is here to advocate his views on this topic. Please re-delete and salt this article.Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we can see there is a squabble between academics. The main question for DRV is whether the AFD was closed properly and, to a lesser extent, what, if anything, should be done next for this topic on Wikipedia. User behaviour is not the current concern. Thincat (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "squabble between academics". I am not an academic. The article is WP:OR - a gigantic example of WP:SYN. Anyway, I've said my piece. Good luck with the review. I will say that I was surprised when the AfD was closed; I expected it to be re-listed to get more community feedback before closing. I cannot imagine the feedback would change much, but more feedback would have provided better grounds to get the creator to accept the result. I would support you all either accepting the close ( the result is inevitable in my view) or re-opening the discussion to get more feedback. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for a start the AfD was not about notability: the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was original research and was deleted on the grounds that it was original research. It doesn't look like anyone other than the article's author has concluded that it wasn't original research and being original research is a valid reason to delete an article if the problem is sufficiently pervasive, so the closure was fine. Contrary to what's been said above it is perfectly possible to have a notable topic which we can't write about without violating WP:NOR - it might be that the topic has plenty of coverage in primary sources, or that the sources can't be put together to talk about the topic in the article without synthesising them. Even if it is possible to write a policy-compliant article on the topic I would recommend that a different editor write it, as even the request above suggests using a source which doesn't appear to even mention the term. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with caveats and move to draft. The rough consensus was to delete and it is quite correct that a topic can be notable but, if an article consists (almost) entirely of original research, it can be properly deleted. However, the decision was marred by the article possibly not being AFD-tagged and someone incorrectly saying the topic was only mentioned once on Google scholar. Sometimes the phrase is used merely descriptively but at other times it seems to be used to specify a concept (though this might not be the same as the topic of this article?).[16] The AFD nominator, before restoring a lengthy historic version of the article for AFD purposes, had been removing large amounts of text and then converted the article to a redirect where the topic is not mentioned. Some of this seems to have met with the article creator's acceptance (User talk:Jytdog#Evaluative diversity), and some of the material removed was on the basis that it was worth keeping elsewhere: for example "moved content to Moral psychology where this content was sorely lacking".[17] However this copying was done without specific attribution[18] which really relies on the source article not being deleted. Maybe attribution can be restored in some other way. It is a pity this was allowed to happen. The offer to email a copy of the text was in my view not adequate because I suspect everyone agreed that the last version probably was not the best. I think the entire article and its history should be placed in draft space for further consideration of the content by those interested. I feel a mainspace stub at least could be OK for OR, notability and lacking promotion, maybe this version or this for a start? The copyright concerns were raised with very good cause but this matter has been resolved. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist. Article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion.Unfortunate but necessary, since the OR/SYNTH problems don't justify speedy deletion.. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several folks here have said that the article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion. I could have swore I did but I don't find that in the article history nor in my contribs. (unless it was somehow revdelled in the deletion/undeletion, but I doubt that) It looks like I made a mistake by not tagging the article, and I apologize to everybody for that. Bad mistake. But the article was not speedy deleted - there was a proper deletion discussion here. As I mentioned above, I would not be opposed at all to re-opening the deletion discussion to get more feedback, with the article appropriately tagged this time. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: our main job is to see the deletion process is correctly followed and the failure to tag the article is therefore a fatal error. However, I think it's unlikely that the article will survive the second AfD. This research really needs secondary sources before our rules will permit it to be published here.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on the purely procedural basis of the article not being tagged --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it helps to separate OR concerns from notability concerns, I have begun a stub here [19]. Langchri (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained at some length to the nominator, the fact that the article is irredeemably OR was the main reason for deletion. The fact that it was not properly tagged for deletion is of some concern, and while it seems that it did not prevent people from finding and commenting on the deletion discussion, I would reopen purely for procedure while endorsing my own closure as appropriate. The relist should be a continuation of the discussion I closed and not a completely blank slate, and User:Langchri is strongly urged to refrain from attempting to refute every comment. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist, at which point the article will almost certainly be deleted, but there seems to be no compelling reason not to do this by the book. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 16 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]

12 February 2015

[edit]

11 February 2015

[edit]

10 February 2015

[edit]

9 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Deep Ocean Minerals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently my article on Deep Ocean Minerals was rejected due to copyright issues. I am new to Wikipedia and had not realised that the copy I was given to work from had actually been published online, so my fault for not checking. Anyway the author of the article that was published online who provided me with the base copy has given permission for the contents of the article to be used. Note that my article is not a reproduction of that article it was shortened but in a couple of places the same sentences were used. Below is a copy of the permission from author Anthony Jacobs - which he has emailed to the administrator. Can you please review again and am hoping you undelete and approve the article. I really appreciate your help. I have sent various messages but although have been given notifications of responses I have not been able to find these responses so have been going around in cirles a bit. I do hope you can help me sort this out. Cheers Sharon: - here is the copyright approval:

I am responding to a request from the author regarding the deletion of the article on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Deep_Ocean_Minerals&action=edit&redlink=1

This article written by Wikipedia member “Thaiso” was written on my behalf and using material which I supplied and with my permission. It is not a direct copy of the article cited as your copyright below, but is a précis of this taking out only the bare facts to suit the Wikipedia format.

Could you please undelete the article (only administrators can do this).

I hereby affirm that I, Anthony Philip JACOBS, am the creator and hold the original Word Documents of the exclusive copyright of http://www.harnisch.com/uploads/tx_harnisch/wfe_0314minerals_and_trace_elements.pdf I have provided the Wikipedia Author, Thaiso, permission to use this material for a Wikipedia article on Deep Ocean Minerals. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Anthony Jacobs Authority : Original Author and Copyright holder 01st Feb, 2015 Leichlingen, Germany

Thanks

Anthony Jacobs t.jacobs@pharmalink-eu.com


Pharmalink Extracts Europe GmbH Solinger Str. 7 42799 Leichlingen, Germany

Direct: +49-2174-307 62 21 Mobile: +49-160-503-7470 www.pharmalink-eu.com www.lyprinol.de

Registration N° HRB 51097 Köln,

GF/MD: Anthony P. Jacobs, Andrea Jacobs

Thaiso (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there, this will need to be emailed from an address ending in harnisch.com to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, or added to the harnisch.com website. We cannot verify who you are. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few problems here (1) It's not clear who owns the copyright if it is indeed the authors, or if it is the magazine who published. (2) If is the authors, then the article lists two authors, this appears to be one author claiming complete ownership (3) the email that you've apparently got there, isn't from the publishing magazine or the email address listed in the article as being that of the author (4) We can't validate the stuff you posted here as legitimate or not, emails and the like need to be as Stifle says to permissions-en@wikimedia.org --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And beyond all that, your first line suggests that the copyright was only detected because the article you copied had been published online. Had it not been published online, your copyright would have gone unnoticed. That's not okay. Do we need to check your other contributions for similar copyright problems? Close paraphrasing isn't okay. And publishing the work word-for-word would seem to breach our original research guidelines anyway. So I would suggest we don't allow this to be published, even with the copyright issues resolved. Go and start a draft for further consideration. St★lwart111 08:04, 10 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Buddhist humanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted as G11. The deleting admin agreed that it seemed promotional, although he had seen worse, but felt that it would be better to get a full discussion including uninvolved editors. So he suggested restoring it and immediately nominating it for AfD.(Discussion here) That was fine with me. But the nom objected and said that it should go through DRV. So here I am.
I think we should follow the admin’s advice and take it to AfD, for two reasons:

  1. I think the original author's intent was to show that Buddhism and Humanism are broadly compatible. In that I think it was fairly successful. The nom disagrees and contends that it was narrowly promotional of Soka Gakkai, a Japanese new religion. Since there is a disagreement here, I would like to get the opinions of uninvolved editors.
  2. One of the admin’s concerns was that some of the statements in the article were unsourced. But immediately before the article was nominated for speedy deletion, a number of sources were removed from the article. It’s unclear whether the admin was aware of that. To give the article a fair chance, I would like to restore those sources before it goes to AfD.

On the day before the article was deleted, another editor and myself were working to expand the references from bare URLs to full citations. We were about half finished. But I when I came back the next day I was surprised to see that the article had vanished. I would like to get it back so I can finish expanding the references and restore the recently deleted sources. Then I have no objection to taking it to AfD. I think with the references restored and the bare URLs expanded to full citations, the editors at AfD will have a better chance of understanding what the article was about and deciding whether or not it was promotional. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in the content dispute concerning this article, but as the deleting admin, I indicated that I was prepared to restore and immediately AFD (which could address the tone and content issues). My view remains that that would be the most practical solution. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margin1522 asserts that there was a content dispute because I deleted sources that had nothing to do with the topic insofar as they were not related to the Soka Gakkai use of the generic term “Buddhist humanism”. All that was left were primary sources published by the Soka Gakkai. The article was no more than a promotional screed.

The article was originally created as a content fork from Humanistic Buddhism, and the Talk page of that article must be read to grasp the scenario. For example, the editor that created the article, an SPA that has been inactive since November 2014, didn’t even respond to the following query after he created the article.

I have to admit my first reaction was that the pages should be merged - but I think I can see that they are different in scope. If I understood the difference better I would add a hatnote to each article. Could you perhaps explain for a layman the difference? [20]

And since it seems that Jim feels somewhat put on the spot in regard to the assertion of a content dispute, let me just post his first comment on Margin1522’s Talk page.

The article was nominated for deletion by another editor and I concurred. It seemed to me, for example, that The Buddha's humanistic teachings marked a historical shift from all doctrines which viewed humanity as dependant on or influenced by the external power of gods, doctrines which could not free people from their sufferings and from injustice experienced in daily life. is an unsourced claim singling out a particular point of view; similarly Buddhist humanism started with overcoming hardships and barriers through great efforts to introduce equality to Buddha’s society based on discrimination is an unsourced promotional claim. I've seen worse, but since there is apparently a content dispute too, would it be better to restore as a draft for now? [21]

That's exactly what they are, unsourced promotional claims. I opposed the restoration to draft space and Margin1522 refused to have the article userified as a draft in his user space. Jim was correct in concurring with the request for speedy deletion, and I would like to forego further waste of time and effort on the article which was nothing but and advertisement and does not meet WP:N.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to draft space and use MfD if desired. I am unwilling to use G11 for the description of a philosophy in the manner of this article. It needs to be discussed and if possible improved, and here is not the place for it. There is no difference between retiring to draft space and a user space draft, except that draft space is now the customary and proper place for these. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't sources supporting the topic as a philosophy, but a misappropriation of a generic title by a New religious movement that is also a content fork from a preexisting school of though that is something that could be called a "philosophy" in the sense you use it, and one that developed in an actual school of Buddhism in the CHinese language, as described at the Humanistic Buddhism article.
The only secondary source that discusses the topic, and was not even used in the deleted article, seems to be this book, but the author has been a Soka Gakkai adherent, so its close to being a primary source.

Despite this focus on Ikeda...I changed the title...One reason was...A second was to suggest the power of the narrator's experience in encountering Ikeda's Buddhist Humanism at a time of personal crisis and disturbing social change.

And this is from the opening sentence of the description by the publisher

This engaging, deeply personal book, illuminating the search for meaning in today’s world, offers a rare insider’s look at Soka Gakkai Buddhism, one of Japan’s most influential and controversial religious movements...[22]

So it is an insider's account published by an academic press. Insofar as it is an insiders account, it is a primary source, and his addressing of "Ikeda's Buddhist Humanis" in 2006 has received almost no attention in the secondary literature. There is this mention, for example[23].--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:13, 10:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate on the distinction between "spirit" and "letter"? There are only primary sources, and the content was promotional.
I don't understand why Margin1522 refused to simply allow the article to be placed as a draft in his user space, but I don't feel that there is much of a need to spend much more energy defending the speedy delete decision, as most of the relevant points have been addressed.
I'll just post one more quote, this one from the last source given above[24], which includes a one-sentence mention (my bolding)

[Soka Gakkai] has self-consciously adopted an ethos of global liberal pluralism that Richard Hughes Seager has referred to as "Buddhist humanism".

That is about the extent of it. It is described as an "ethos", not a philosophy, and Seager's characterization of it is attributed, not stated as fact. Note that the two authors of that book are academicsAssociate Professor R. Michael Feener and Juliana Finucane.
There is no "there", there, as the saying goes.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I oppose the recreation of the formally rejected article on Buddhist Humanism. The article on Humanistic Buddhism already exists. The proposed article lacks notability and seems promotional. In my books Wikipedia is no glossary of a religious fringe movement. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore with probable AfD or Move to draft with possible MfD; either is fine. But while the page would need a significant copyedit to be written in a neutral, encyclopaedic style, it's not fundamentally promotional, and notability is a matter for AfD to decide. It has the problem of being written in a kind of "in-universe" style, sure. But that's an editing problem, not a deletion problem. WilyD 02:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "significant copyedit"? Have you read this thread in its entirety?
I posted the deleting admins reference to a promotional claim, and have indicated that there were (and are) absolutely no secondary sourceson the purported topic of the deleted article.
The article was created as a content fork to serve as a vehicle for outreach by an SPA advocate of the NRM at issue. The "in-universe" characterization would be more relevant if the article had used secondary sources in a manner to emphasize its own POV, but there were no relevant secondary sources. The secondary sources that were used related to either Buddhism or humanism and had been misappropriated in a SYNTH manner in an attempt to surreptitiously meet the notability requirements for "Buddhist humanism". The only sources on "Buddhist humanism" were primary sources.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have, and I've seen a lot of badgering, reasons one might argue for deletion at AfD, and zero reasons why this article would qualify for speedy deletion. If one reads the article, they can see it doesn't require a fundamental rewrite. Similarly, they can see it's not about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event. They'll also find none of the other speedy deletion criteria apply. So, it should not have been speedily deleted. More complicated arguments for deletion could be considered at AfD, but are irrelevant here. WilyD 00:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The article does would require a fundamental rewrite, and one that includes legitimate secondary sources. As it appears you are giving short shrift to the relevant policy, I'll quote in full

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this.

What is being promoted is clearly a point of view about a subject that only exists because the organization that says it exists does so.
Your statement that one "might" argue for deletion on the basis of such reasons at AfD is incomprehensible, as it appears to belittle the degree to which the article is absolutely not in compliance with Wikipedia policy and should have never been created in the first place, which indicates another flaw in process, as it is utterly non-notable and was obviously created as a content fork by an obvious SPA, to boot.
In case anyone missed this about prohibited promotion ob Wikipedia...

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[1]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that the article would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic is false. So completely false that making it wholly discredits anyone who makes it as either unfamiliar with the article at hand, or unfamiliar with encyclopaedia writing in general, such that nothing they assert can be reasonably entertained, as they've demonstrated they're so unfamiliar with what's going on they can't offer any informed analysis. If the sources presented in the article don't rise to the standard of WP:N, and a thorough follow-up search reveals insufficient additional sources, an AfD would probably conclude the article should be deleted (though redirection and/or merger are also obvious possible outcomes). If the subject does meet WP:N, then the article requires some copyediting, though there's a lot of worthwhile text you'd want to keep to use in the rewrite. But, an in-depth evaluation of, and search for, sources is what AfD is for, and CSD is not for. So, here we are. WilyD 10:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've misconstrued my statement about "requiring a fundamental rewrite", but I've revised the verb.
The deleting admin has pointed to both unsourced and unsourced promotional statements. Those are obviously not written in an encyclopedic manner. The sources in the article are mostly self-published, and therefore don't meet WP:RS per WP:SELFPUB, which states

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

, so WP:N would seem not to be the primary issue.
The article was created as a content fork because the large number of primary sources being used would not have been accepted by those editing the Humanistic Buddhism article.
At any rate, if the speedy was procedurally incorrect, then let's get on with the next step. It seems to me like an unnecessary bureaucratic process, though. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - we already have an article on Humanistic Buddhism, and I'm not convinced we need this separate article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11, list at AfD. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. Clearly, since we have people arguing to restore the article, it was not uncontroversial. It should be almost automatic that a contested speedy results in an AfD listing. I took a very brief look at the deleted article; at first glance, it appears to be well written and well referenced. It's not obvious to me that it wouldn't survive AfD. One possible outcome of AfD would be to move to draft space, but that's a decision best made at AfD, not here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD or Move to draft - As the deleting admin is willing to restore and list at AfD, that seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. I would also be fine with moving the article to draft per DGG. It seems a shame that non-involved non-admin editors can't comment on content, since it's deleted. Without that, I don't see how we can really validate for ourselves—and therefore make reasonable policy based arguments on content—the claims of content forking or lack of (or removal of) RS sources, or any other content issues. What is clear however, is that G11 speedy is for non-controversial deletions, and as of now, this obviously isn't. It really should have gone to AfD, as several editors have suggested. - Becksguy (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia pages may not be used for advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace (also known as "project namespace") may be used to advocate for specific viewpoints regarding the improvement or organization of Wikipedia itself. So essays, portals, project pages, etc. are part of what Wikipedia is.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christina Katrakis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello. How to delete a page can be challenged? discussion had led to the removal of references and facts which confirmed Christina Katrakis belonging to the Union of Artists of Ukraine, to participate in Projects with Ultraviolet and the award of the UN freedom to create. But they had not considered and the page removed. How does this challenge and return the page with the new data MariSoltus (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - the claims made above were made in the original deletion discussion. That doesn't mean deletion can't be reconsidered but there doesn't seem to have been anything wrong with the close. Suggest you crate a draft in draft space with new claims and proper references and then return here to get permission to publish it. I can't see the close being overturned but if your claims here are right, re-creation might be an option in the future. I'd point out that while the close was performed only yesterday, you did discuss this with the closing administrator before coming here. St★lwart111 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is not AFD round 2. Those claims were made, however none of them are the requirements for notability WP:N. I'd also note the "Freedom To Create" as best I can tell is nothing to do with the UN (their website in the wayback machine makes no such claim), and the subject didn't win (they were "commended", the list of finalist (8 finalists) doesn't include the subject. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • so if i get information with proof i can rite new page about her?MariSoltus (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You need to ensure that any article written meets the inclusion standard which is generally going to be non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. So that several "people", who are recognized for writing high quality fact checked information, who hasn't got a personal or business connection to the subject, has written about the subject in depth. So things like newspaper articles where they write a few paragraphs about the subject would be an example of a good source. A poor source could still be a newspaper article, where they mention her when talking about something else (like something she's been involved in) but don't give any depth of information on her. Another good source would be a book written by a reputable author and published by a publishing house, not self published or a "vanity press". A bad example would be someone's blog, another internet wiki, or a book published by a vanity press. The article also needs to meet the other wikipedia standards like being verifiable to similarly reliable sources, not being original research, being written from a neutral point of view etc. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. From the top of this page: "Deletion Review should not be used:
    1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
    5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion"
  • Therefore this request should fail. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2015

[edit]

5 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Smokingroove (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that this non-admin closure was done without much digging. BluntWorthy manipulated this argument to appear that there was more support to keep it than there actually was. S/he posted "keep" twice, arguing the same thing, in addition to bludgeoning the argument. Furthermore, an IP editor who also said "Keep" has never edited anything outside of the AfD, and argued the same thing BluntWorthy did, leading me to believe that they are the same person. This leaves two users thinking the article should be maintained, and five (including the nominator) thinking it should be deleted. I think this closure was a mistake, and that the article needs to be relisted to achieve a consensus without inflation by a single user. Sock (tock talk) 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn or Relist a poor non-admin close giving no explanation as to the conclusion, this seems at best a no-consensus outcome.--86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" or even "delete". The arguments for keeping the article were very weak, from "they are notable on Facebook" through to "they have played many festivals". Please! The only keep opinion of any real value was from Cunard though he could only produce one instance of coverage in a reliable source, obviously short of the "multiple sources" standard required by WP:N. But at least it's policy-based. The obvious sock-puppetry should absolutely have been taken into account; if nothing else, the multiple !votes from two different editors should have been disregarded. Looks like a drive-by vote-count close and not a very good one at that. St★lwart111 07:42, 6 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Order of the Crown of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

in the discussion hold for the delation of the previous page in 2012, the two people which wrote in the discussion debate just said the Order is a fake one, along with the Dynasty which awards it, which meant the article of the Order had to be deleted. When I wrote this article yesterday I did not know about the existence of the previous page, but once I saw the arguments used in 2012, I filled the page with more sources, such as the one of an important newspaper in Spain called La Razón were they mention the Order as an official one of the Royal House, or the page dedicated to the currently bestowed Dynastic Orders which are awarded with official recognition from States, such as this one is by Georgia. Georgia recognised the historical rights of the Bagration Family and this gives its Head the Fons Honorum required to create Orders. They did so in 2009 and created the Order of the Crown of Georgia. A part from Georgia`s official recognition (even ex Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili was awarded, officially, one of the Dynastical Orders), the Orthodox Church of Georgia recognised the Dynasty's status and the Orders conferred by them. Proof of it is that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Georgia received the Dynastic Orders of the House of Bagration. Also international religious figures received the Order, such as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem or Serbia. Another proof of the recognition of the Dynasty in Georgia is that they appear in the news as the House of Bagration, as these two video show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly47cxPnYgc. Finally, the Royal House website and heraldry blogs show themain information available from the Order, as happens with most of the world Orders: the issuing insotitution published the decrees of creation of the orders. While there is evidence the Order (very young one though) exists far from the website and the heraldry blogs, as proved in the page sources, the article should not be deleted. In fact, if there is something to highlight as a controversy, it should be posted in the page, but people who search for it should be able to have information about it in Wikipedia. Link to the page in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov/Sandbox#Sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation: In addition to the sources cited above, the particular Royal House is listed on pages 1847 - 1849 in "Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" (ISBN 0971196672) by Guy Stair Sainty and Rafe Heydel Mankoo, albeit in reference to the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Note: I was the creator of the original article that was deleted and didn't see the AFD in time to comment.--Kimontalk 23:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I deleted the article and salted it, as having been "repeatedly" re-created. Actually it had been re-created just once, so it's clear that I overreacted. (I think the article reminded me of a different contributor's much earlier, energetic campaign to create articles about a fictitious Maltese aristocracy.) It's also clear that I overreacted if we compare the article deleted previously to the one that I deleted yesterday: yes, they are indeed different. If any admin wishes to speedily end this DELREV and copy Alexeinikolayevichromanov's draft back into article-space, no objection from me. -- Hoary (talk) (who continues immediately below) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ... PS slight and pedantic elaboration: I mean that strictly speaking it may have been improper to delete this in the way that I deleted it; and any admin who thinks that the deletion was indeed improper is welcome to restore it, and won't get an objection from me. However, I still believe that it merits deletion, via one route or another: see my "Leave deleted" "!vote" immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted. That said, the new draft hardly seems to address the objections raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Crown of Georgia. To quote User:Ravenswing's nomination there: Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. The draft cites one page that looks as if it might be substantial: this one from La Razón. But this is primarily about the (non-) event of the conferring of the award -- not in Georgia, but instead in Valencia. Two people received it: Davit Magrazde and Nicoloz Shengelaia (both currently redlinked). And who were present? Al acto asistieron numerosas personalidades, como Andrés Salvador de Habsburgo y Lorena, Archiduque de Austria, la Duquesa de Monte Alegre, Alfredo Escudero, José María Boluda y Fernando Musoles y Martínez-Curt: not a Georgian-sounding name among them. Looking in en:WP for this and similar orders, I see that the few noted recipients include Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram, described as "one of the claimants to the throne of the Sultanate of Sulu" (the sultanate of Sulu [remember the name] having disappeared in 1915), and seemingly a collector of bogus-sounding titles that somehow get Wikipedia articles. The main source for Alexeinikolayevichromanov's draft is royalhouseofgeorgia.ge, which whois tells us is registered to "Davit Bagrationi Mukhran-Batonishvili" -- a fellow who, WP tells us, is a recipient of the Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl, itself described as the dynastic Order [sourced to a page at blogspot.co.uk] of the Royal House of Sulu (yes, Sulu), and who I suppose is the same as David Bagration of Mukhrani, whose article describes him as the pretender. All in all, this "order" -- together with Order of Queen Tamara and Order of the Eagle of Georgia -- seems an insignificant vanity project by a person who imagines himself king of Georgia (a republic, whose president and head of state is Giorgi Margvelashvili). -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding what user Hoary said, these two situations shall not be mixed, I mean, the Sultan of Sulu has its pretentions, justified by some, and denied by some others, just as happens with Prince David of Bagration, whose legitimacy was even declared by Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia in 2007. If we deleted all the articles which create controversies on these matters, many of them would not be in wikipedia. User Hoary mentions that no Georgian names were amongst the illustrous people present at the act in Valencia, but the act was not in Georgia but in Spain. When the acts take part in Georgia, national personalities assist there. But the main point which took me to write the article (I did not even know it had been previously written and I was surprised to see, two minutes later(!) of its publication, the speedy deletion tag on it) is that I looked for a place with all the information regarding the Order to be together, as Wikipedia usually contains in its articles information from many sources, and I couldn't find it. The article may help people looking for a sumarized text, in English, describing the order. Those that consider it is not legitimate would be welcomed to write it in the article, with a title such as ==Controversies==, for exemple. But I really think it should be recreated as it provides information in English when the main sources are either in Georgian or in Spanish. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I've no reason to dispute that in the "reality" that Mr. Bagration has in his own head, this "order" is real, yes. What I do dispute, as I did two years ago, is that reliable media sources have given the subject the "significant coverage" required by the GNG to sustain an article. And that's the point -- not however many YouTube clips featuere Bagration (YouTube being, of course, not considered a reliable source). I strongly suggest that you review the links given at WP:PILLAR, so that you get a better understanding as to the particulars of Wikipedia notability guidelines and policies. Among them, you'll find that while we can accept primary sources for purposes of verification of fact in an article (asserting, for instance, that Bagration does claim to be rightful King of Georgia and that he issues awards he calls the "Order of the Crown of Georgia"), but they cannot be used to sustain the notability of a subject.

    Beyond that -- and beyond that this article was just a glorified WP:NFT violation -- let's take a look at the seven sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov cites in his sandbox. One is to Bagration's website: non-qualifying. One is to a blog: non-qualifying. The La Razon site is a casual mention. Ordenskreuz.com is the website for an "International Committee for Orders of Knighthood," which claims the right to certify or ignore knightly orders; we can safely relegate this self-appointed outfit, which lacks a Wikipedia article itself, to the "not reliable" bin. The final three cites link to docelinajes.org, or the "Twelve Lineages of Soria," which appears to be the vanity site of a self-appointed "Council of Bloodlines of Soria." Ravenswing 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply:First of all, just to clarify it: the Doce Linajes de Soria is a very old institution in Castile. You can check the WP article on it in Spanish or French: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Doce_Linajes_de_Soria. It is composed of reputated members of Castilian Nobility (not fake titles, only those that are official in Spain). Thus, I would think on considering the information they provide genuine and reliable. You will find multiple sources supporting the Doce Linajes institution. This "self appointed Council of Bloodlines of Soria" is recognised by the Spanish Crown, and by the municipality of Soria, where they meet and whose Mayor is a Member of Honor of the Corporation. Link: http://www.hidalgosdeespana.com/canales/servicios/img/lagacetilla/pdf/536.pdf. On the other hand, considering "non reliable" an institution such as the International Committee for Orders of Knighthood just because it lacks of article in Wikipedia, is not, from my point of view, enough sustented. As you ask for sources to every single movement or pretention from the House of Bagration, I would say you should publish here sources which state the non reliability of the institution. Just for us to see it. Same happens with the point you stated calling the Order of the Crown of Georgia a fake one and thus, not worth to be on wikipedia. Finally the "casual" mention in La Razón is casual because the envent was focused on the Order of the Eagle, not on the Order of the Crown, although they mentioned it because two people were awarded it. I really do not want the page to be unexistent while there is people who may be interested on knowing more about it. We have proveded sources whose reliability is not sufficient for you but also some others whose reliability is considered true by the sources rules in WP. I like the option settled by Hoary of allowing the page with a distinct cathegorisation. This would be a medium point between total deletion and total recognition of the Order as a fully Georgian one. As this debate aims to create a consensus, I would agree on this medium point. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kindly don't put words in my mouth. The comment to which you were replying stated explicitly -- and I'll repeat in case you missed it -- "What I do dispute, as I did two years ago, is that reliable media sources have given the subject the "significant coverage" required by the GNG to sustain an article." A great many fakes and hoaxes have nonetheless secured enough mainstream, significant coverage to meet the GNG's requirements. And that's why I asked you to review some of the pertinent guidelines, because you persist in missing the point: it doesn't matter how significant the coverage is if a source is unreliable, and it doesn't matter how reliable the source is if the coverage is fleeting or nonexistent. I'm well aware, for instance, that the La Razon article was about the Order of the Eagle and only mentioned the Order of the Crown in passing; that's exactly why the piece doesn't qualify towards meeting the GNG (and why I haven't sought nor would support deletion for the Eagle's article, because while it's as equally a faux order, I do believe that's received enough coverage to meet the GNG). As far as a compromise goes, no. There is no middle ground here. Either the subject has enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG or it does not. In the former case, an article can be sustained. In the latter case, it can't. Side issues such as whether the head of the Georgian Orthodox church recognizes the Bagrations' claim to the throne or whether the Bagrations have the right to recreate orders are not the point and never have been.

    And as far as your challenge goes, I understand that you're unfamiliar with how the pertinent guidelines and policies work, but it is not up to an editor who advocates deletion to prove that reliable sources don't exist; it's up to editors who advocate keeping an article to prove that they do. Ravenswing 10:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It does indeed seem that Ilia II wants Georgia to be a monarchy and the man who is handing out these 'orders" to be the monarch. (If we can believe the WP article about Ilia II, he has a variety of remarkable opinions, notably He described homosexuality as a disease and compared it to drug addiction.) But here's a fact: Even if a return to (or an invention of) such a monarchy were majority opinion in Georgia (a republic), there is no monarchy, and the person giving out these orders has (if I understand correctly) no higher status than any other Georgian. Now, this in itself doesn't affect Wikipedia-style notability. (Although it might affect such matters as categorization. I'd suggest not "Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Georgia (country)" but instead something like "Category:Quasi-national orders, decorations, and medals", or "Category:Family orders, decorations, and medals".) Where is the Wikipedia-style notability? This gets a mention in a popular Spanish newspaper, and it may or may not be listed in one book; is there anything else? ¶ User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov asks Why not to consider valid the news and iformation coming from the Bagration website? We don't consider it a reliable source, because this is merely the private website of the person who has invented (or whose father has invented) the "order". He further asks why we take seriously stuff that's on realcasadiborbone.it. We do? I've no idea why. The website solemnly tells us Welcome to the official website of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies, the dynasty which ruled over southern Italy from 1734 to 1861. / The current head of the Royal House is His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro..., but that particular royalty disappeared in 1861, Italy did away with its monarchy decades ago, and I can only infer that the word "Royal" is mere fantasy. If realcasadiborbone.it were the issue here, I'd dismiss it as a purveyor of fiction, but it isn't the issue here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would agree with what Hoary said about using a specific cathegorization, as it is not, that is true, a National Order. We could create the cathegories he said or even the Category:Dynastic orders, decorations and medals. Always if this means that the page and info contained in it is reaccepted. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted- The original discussion could not have been closed any other way, and nothing has come to light since then that would justify undeleting. Reyk YO! 10:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the lack of understanding about certain key chivalric concepts.... many dynastic orders exist and are conferred by a genealogically accepted (proven, or contested) heirs to a royal houses . Some of these now private affiliations, but are, indeed, very ancient and highly respected, but have lost state sanction or have even been outlawed in certain jurisdictions, which is not the case for the Order of the Eagle of Georgia (but is for other orders like St. Mauurice and St. Lazarus which has its Wiki website). Wiki has many web-pages dedicated to orders that have much less support than the OEG..(e.g. St. Lazarus) Now it is clear, for these numerous House orders, there is no sovereign statutory certification body that can make binding decisions about their chivalric authenticity. Legitimacy is largely a matter of acceptance within the chivalric community--and even, reductio ad absurdem, by the holders of the orders alone... To be sure, several private peer-review bodies including Burkes Peerage, the Augustan Society, and, the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) are now generally trusted. And, by the way, the ICOC does have a web site so I'm not sure about the confusion by one of the editors in who seemingly, mistakenly, refers to the International Commission on the orders of Knighthood [which doesn't exist].. To be sure, none of these entities has, nor claims to be a final authority in these matters. In fact the Augustan Society carefully points out that it neither certifies Chivalric validity nor refutes the claims of orders not in its lineup. As noted, the ICOC makes similar claims about its lists being fluid and open to reinterpretation.

The lack of a formal sanctioning body makes the issue of chivalric legitimacy tricky for the many house orders that are no longer governed by sovereign state or papal statute. For these, credibility rests on whether or not they have a valid fons hornorum, or, arguably are a patriarchal decoration....another fascinating field of inquiry. Ravenswing might look into this concept. Nearly all scholars in the field agree that the heads of formerly regnant houses, by right of blood (jure sanguinis), can confer (jus honorum) inherited household orders moto proprio as an inviolable family prerogative. Prominent Italian Jurist, and president of chamber of the Italian Republic’ highest court of appeal the Corte Suprema di Cassazione expressed the idea of heritable sovereignty this way:

“Sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly linked and united in the centuries to all the offspring of one who first achieved or claimed and is realized in the person of the Head of Name and Arms of Dynasty. . . “ (Journal of Heraldry and Genealogy No. 7-12 of December 1954),

Other scholars would go so far as to say that non-regnant heads of even contested households, especially those who did not abdicate (Prince Davis's branch) can do what they want and even create new orders. all these points are debatable, But it is clear that the order of the Eagle of Georgia, is far more than that which Prince David or "Mr. Bagration" as one of the poorly informed editors puts it, "has in his head." Even a casual student of Georgian History knows that he is a valid pretender...and probably the leading pretender....he is not a fantasy Royal as a one wiki editor suggests. A good scholarly debate can be had here, but not on this level of casting David M. as a self-styled Prince.... ... added in this series of edits (9 to 10 February) by two IPs, 136.160.156.61 and 74.107.109.196

People are welcome to comment here without first logging in. However, there's no way for others to distinguish between (A) a single person using two IP numbers, and (B) one person using one IP number to impersonate somebody using a different IP number. So if you are not going to log in, then limit yourself to one IP number per comment. (More simply for everybody, particularly yourself: Log in, and make sure that you don't log out.) Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an argument about (A) how seriously we should be taking the subject matter; it's an argument about (B) whether others take it seriously, and whether there are reliable sources for what the article says. However, question (A) is of some interest, and here's why. The subject-matter purports to be Georgian. Nobody has so far either said that they read Georgian or adduced Georgian-language sources. So we don't know how much attention this might have received from Georgian-language sources. Not knowing this, all we can do is estimate its discussion-worthiness in Georgia from what we do know about it. ¶ Since you bring up the matter, I'm mildly interested in this quotation: Sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly linked and united in the centuries to all the offspring of one who first achieved or claimed and is realized in the person of the Head of Name and Arms of Dynasty. I googled for it and found that variations on it appear on such web pages as "Dynastic Prerogatives" (within "The knights of the blue cross", cf Knights of the Blue Cross) and "The legitimacy of the Sovereign Prince of Ghassan" (in "The Official Website of the Sovereign Imperial & Royal House of Ghassan", cf House of Ghassan). The primary writer is said to have been one Ercole Tanturri; but his current eminence doesn't obviously extend far beyond these mentions: as for Italian-language Wikipedia, not only does he have no article there, currently he's not even mentioned. ¶ If this were merely somebody's personal fantasy (or business) -- if it were fairly exactly what you claim it is not -- it would still merit an article here if it were "notable" according to Wikipedia's (perhaps strange) criteria for notability. Well, is it Wikipedia-notable? -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Randles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted via AFD in 2013 and only cited an obituary at the time. The article was restored to Draft space yesterday at Draft:Paul Randles and I put some work into it. Although one user had brought up multiple sources in the AFD discussion, no one added them to the article at the time, so I added them. As pointed out by one respondent in the AFD, Game Inventor's Guidebook at least, is a valid reliable independent source, and discusses the subject and one of his games in detail. I also added a source of my own, Hobby Games: The 100 Best, another reliable independent source, which discusses the subject and the same game in even more detail. Since this is not a WP:BLP, none of those special concerns apply. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 February 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Vocademy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

All content was factual and cited from respected and well distributed 3rd party sources. The page format was modeled after existing topics of a similar subject. I am trying to understand more specifically what should have been added to or removed from the page to avoid deletion. I contacted the deleting admin and it was suggested that there may have been an issue of COI and while I am personally familiar with the subject (as well as other subjects in the same category) I am not employed by them. Nobody had asked me to create the page, I created it of my own volition and on my own time, and received no compensation for it. I am new at editing Wikipedia pages and it was my noticing that less notable subjects in the same category already had pages that I decided to jump in, learn how to edit and create pages, and fill in what I considered to be a gap of information. The page was created in good faith, and knowing that I was personally familiar with the subject, I did my best to follow Wikipedia guidelines and was careful not to include any information gleaned from my own experience, or to interject any of my own opinions. All included content was aggregated from existing 3rd party independent sources as cited. JennaSys (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm rarely a fan of speedy deleting drafts as advertising, but can we have a temp. undelete so we can see what was here? I don't think Google's cache is going to work here. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the references are obviously worth having for anyone writing a draft, so those should be made available to anyone wanting to write a new draft. That said, if I were to re-write the article, I don't think there's a single sentence I would re-use, which makes it exceedingly difficult to not endorse a G11. Maybe undeleting but blanking everything but the first sentence (where "education focused" comes across as marketing jargon, but it's otherwise alright), while endorsing the deletion or something? WilyD 07:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "education focused" terminology appeared in several references. This may be a place where my knowledge of the the subject category as a whole played a role as I knew that it was more than just jargon and actually serves as being descriptive of the subject itself when comparing it to "access only" facilities. When pulling facts from references in general, do I avoid specifics like that when they stand out to me because of my own general knowledge (not adding personal opinions or additional information, but in deciding what in the cited reference is deemed significant)? As I'm new to editing here, I based much of the content on similar existing pages. Not that I'm using them as precedent necessarily, but just that it's what I used for my "learning by example" reference. JennaSys (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but it's something you write in a press release, or copy into a secondary source from a press release (or the "about us section of their website or such) because you're too lazy to write it in everyday English. Marketing jargon like that sneaks into a lot of articles; if you're look for good examples to copy, rather than look for very similar topics, look for articles that are rated Featured or at least Good. Lots of articles need to be edited by a cocaine user covered in chainsaws, before they can be written afresh by an army of clones of Archibald Constable. On it's own, the sentence is perhaps only slightly innocuous, but in an article that has opening hours, puts a list of their equipment front and centre, etc. it becomes on more straw on the camel's back. WilyD 21:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it - I need to pick my page reference examples more carefully in the future, less significant details if included should be kept out of the lede, and it's OK (I think?) to reword things to "de-jargonize" it and put into more natural language. The last one I admittedly was hesitant to do because I didn't want to inadvertently introduce opinion or veer too far from the cited references by rewording things. However, not rewording things also contributed to some of the awkward sentences. I do greatly appreciate the input. JennaSys (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I normally would decline, not speedy, promotional materials unless it was absurdly promotional. However, the "Vocademy is a for-profit business, and is open 7 days a week from 11am to 11pm" seemed to convince me of the "absurdly promotional" part, and g11 it was. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JennaSys: while I understand your reasoning for "my noticing that less notable subjects in the same category already had pages that I decided to jump in" you may want to consider reading a commonly cited essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Good luck. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I felt including "Vocademy is a for-profit business" was significant as it is more typical for a makerspace to be non-profit. In retrospect, I agree the hours of operation is probably unnecessary in terms of documenting information about the subject. These are however still facts pulled from the cited publications, and I'm trying to get a feel for where to draw the line in aggregating information here. JennaSys (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think bureaucratically this qualifies for deletion under the terms of the G11 criterion but all the same I think it was a poor judgement to delete it. Some greater discretion should be allowed for drafts to be improved. I agree with WilyD's comments. It would have been better to have edited out the promotional stuff (come on, this is an encyclopedia!) and leave a wp:stub, with advice to the draft's creator. I suppose that means restore but I shan't put that in bold. Thincat (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; there is a core of usable content there to which it could have been trimmed back. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, apart from the references, which might be useful, G11 was right on the money. We don't allow advertisements here, even if they're well referenced advertisements. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm sorry, it's on the promotional side, but it's not full of overly promotional language and it seems to largely stay close to the language of the sources. While I do think that putting the hours of the facility in the lede was more like advertising than anything, I think things like equipment belong in the article. In article space I'd disagree with a G11. In draft space? WP:BITE applies. The sources look good and unlike what others think, I think the text is largely acceptable and just needs some work. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion as G11 nominator per Hobit. I apologize for being BITEy. Article creator is has obviously drafted in good faith. — kikichugirl speak up! 18:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as draft. I'm really torn by conflicting thoughts here. First, yes, this is clearly an advertisement and has no place here. I did a google search for Vocademy; the first page of search results list their own website, facebook, twitter, yelp, fundable (a funds-raising site), meetup, and linkedin. The next page continues with youtube, reddit, etc. That's not to say it's impossible to find reliable sources, but to have this collection of primary sources come first is not a good sign. But, on the other hand, it's a draft. It should never get past the draft stage in its current form, but that's the whole point of drafts -- to give articles that aren't ready for main article space the opportunity to improve. But, the author should take note -- being restored as a draft isn't a free ride to getting into main article space. Unless there are drastic changes to the tone of the article and quality of references (perhaps a total rewrite), this would be quicky deleted from main space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think it might well get deleted at AfD, but sources 1, 2, 4 and 8 seem like they would count toward WP:N (I've not looked hugely closely at the publishers, but the articles seem solid). Hobit (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kerry Sulkowicz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have found some reliable sources that were not mentioned in the most recent AFD, and I think they establish that Sulkowicz meets WP:BIO (even if not by a huge amount). [25] [26] [27] [28] Everymorning talk 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the discussion someone pointed out the numerous quotes in the press which covers two of those sources at a quick glance (BYTimes and FT). These aren't sources about the subject, so I doubt a couple of extras of similar ilk will make much difference. Regardless the commenters all pointed out how promotional the article was, so if it does warrant recreation, you'd probably be better starting again (or asking for userfication and fixing it) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see his daughter Emma Sulkowicz has an article. If you have more than one scandal or disaster you are assured of a place in the Wikipedia pantheon. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of scope. From the instruction box:
    Deletion Review should not be used:
    2. 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
  • Please contact User:MBisanz to discuss your nomination. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not out of scope Although it is better to discuss with the admin, because often a satisfactory explanation or sometimes a restoration of the page will be provided, we have always considered them here regardless when there's a good case. The relevant policy is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I'm not commenting on whether there's a good case. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please feel free to gather consensus for your proposed change to the DRV process at WT:DRV, a proposal which I would strongly oppose. It is precisely because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that we ask users to try to settle disputes amicably rather than resorting to a week-long process such as DRV Stifle (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This statement is an even more flagrant violation of NOT#BUREAUCRACY than your first comment. Try to shut down a process because the user put their request on beige paper rather than off-white is unhelpful, and disrupts the activities of those who're trying to resolve a situation. It could be helpful to point out to the requester that in the future they should bring the request to the deleting admin before raising it here. It could even be helpful to close the request and move it to the deleting admin's talk page, if the request is likely to be uncontroversial. It cannot be helpful to disrupt the discussion because the requester didn't cross their ts and dot their lower-case js. WilyD 09:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation.

    This November 2000 article from The New York Observer was not discussed at the AfD. It starts with:

    Kerry Sulkowicz, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, has his hands full this time of year. And it’s not just because the holidays are tough.

    Dr. Sulkowicz specializes in issues of money and power, and counts among his patients many of Wall Street’s deal-makers and market players. And these bankers and traders-members of a species not exactly known for introspection or self-flagellation-may find themselves spending some extra time on the couch during these cold winter months.

    His name is mentioned 10 times in the article. I would characterize this as substantial coverage of the subject.

    This article from the Psychiatric Times provides a paragraph of coverage about him followed by a lengthy interview.

    He has also received nontrivial coverage in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/06/30/beware-the-wall-street-salary-monster/, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113209738659798219, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1006810594325414240, and http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/09/arts/analysts-turn-to-pr-to-market-themselves.html?pagewanted=all.

    There is enough material here not discussed at the AfD that there is a good faith argument that he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Recreation - Cunard's correct that there's "enough" that a G4 deletion wouldn't be possible. But the IP's point should be taken to heart; While these aren't quite trivial mentions, they don't really rise to the level of "in-depth" either. WP:N requires a balancing of the sources and their depth, and honestly, I think a reasonable editor could go either way. The original delete conclusion was pretty weak, however, so ... maybe? Anyone writing a new article would be well advised to ensure it's well neutral and right right encyclopaedic, to avoid another AfD of the same outcome. WilyD 07:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of Scope, per User:Stifle. The instructions here are not complicated or difficult to follow, and it's not much to ask that editors try to resolve these issues with closing admins first, before wasting the community's time with a possibly fruitless discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm sorry if I shouldn't have brought this issue here without discussing it with the deleting admin first. This is my first DRV and you can trust that I won't make this mistake again. Everymorning talk 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Nom acknowledges error--I think we can count that addressed now. New sources make it not G4 eligible. So really, there is nothing for DRV to do here. Of course, someone can send it to AfD again... Hobit (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the comment by Everymorning demonstrates why we should not prohibit direct appeals here. It is impossible for the contributor of a single article to know all the rules that might pertain to an articles and all the processes that might involve it. I would personally in that situation find it also impossible to really understand the significance of all of the relevant templates. When I came here 8 years ago I studied these things, because I intended to stay a while , but it took several month before I became familiar with the place, and there are still many areas where I know I am ignorant, and therefore avoid.
Most people whose article is deleted do not appeal to anyone, and simply never return; this may stop some promotional editors, but it stops a much higher percentage of the good faith newcomers. Those who do appeal to admins, even if treated well--which is a 50-50 chance, are not very likely to continue after a second rejection. I see altogether too many processes here so bureaucratic that I am surprised any non-specialist learns them, and I have been told DRV has a particular poor reputations for being dominated by those seeking any excuse to reject an appeal. We rather, in accord with general deletion policy, should be looking for any reasonable way to keep an article. (and anyone who thinks I'm soft on impossible article should look at my deletion log) We have probably all experienced that in many RW organizations, the rules for appeals are designed to give an illusion of hope, but actually try to discourage or reject as many as possible. WP should be the antithesis of that. Frankly, I wish we had 5 or 10 times the current amount of business here. Of 800 or so deleted articles a day, at least 1 or 2% must be worth a further look. I wish I still had time to do more of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the root cause of your concern is that folks just don't have enough time to do anything any more, rather than an active willingness to drive people away and delete their articles. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (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 2015

[edit]

1 February 2015

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_February&oldid=644916657"