Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April

< March 2016	Deletion review archives	May 2016 >

29 April 2016

Colégio Anglo Drummond – Noting that the discussion was closed by a non-administrator, I, an administrator, acting in line with WP:DPR#NAC, am vacating the close and relisting the discussion. – Stifle (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD was closed as "speedy keep", but doesn't appear to meet the requirements for that outcome at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Moreover, the closing summary states "secondary schools are always kept as notable", but this is not true. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School, endorsed by Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30#Good Shepherd English School. I am therefore challenging this close on procedural grounds. The discussion should have been allowed to run its course, and the close based on assessment of consensus at the end of that period of discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reopen No, it shouldn't have been a speedy keep but snow keep might have been intended (and even our most distinguished administrators sometimes get confused). However, there was no good purpose in closing it a bit early, particularly when you said you might comment later. Although I am personally glad that high schools articles are generally kept and we are spared wasteful discussion, this is not a formal guideline and objections should be heard if people really insist. It wasn't at all a good close and the rationale was very poor indeed. So, I reluctantly think the AFD ought to be continued even though this prolongs the waste of time. Thincat (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 April 2016

27 April 2016

File:AMAA Statuette.jpg – Close reversed, and discussion relisted. – — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was nominated for deletion on a baseless claim of unclear copyright information. The nominator's reason for nominating the image was that "I" said that "Africa Film Academy owns the copyright" and not me. Meanwhile what I said in the link he provided was that I couldn't give the image a free licence, since it is a derivative work. In other words, Africa Film Academy owns the copyright to the statuette, whereas I only own the copyright to the image. This is what the user misinterpreted to mean that I didn't own the image. I initially thought any admin deleting the image would investigate properly before deleting, that was why I just ignored the user's deletion request. Since no one commented, I was thinking the discussion would be closed as no consensus, but the closing admin says otherwise. I already contacted the admin. Thanks. Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. There's clearly been a miscommunication here.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the whole discussion here seems a bit bizarre so I can understand some frustration and maybe less so the misunderstanding, it's a pity one of the regular image "experts" didn't chime in on the deletion discussion. It's also a pity the closing admin didn't volunteer to simply relist when you raised the point, it doesn't seem something which should have proved too controversial. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and a trout to the deleting admin. Not for the deletion, but for not just relisting this on his/her own. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been undeleted by User:Graeme Bartlett after a parallel request at WP:REFUND; I expect he wasn't aware of either the DRV or the deleting admin's refusal to restore. —Cryptic 04:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I undeleted based on that it was a WP:soft delete, in that no one, not even the nominator had asked to delete this. Since the statuette is used under fair use, the actual copyright holder is not so relevant, and more important that the item is genuine. Now that other issues are rolled into WP:FFD there may now be a presumption that the files are to be deleted, rather than other corrective action taken. I suppose I had better check what the deleting admin had to say, as the normal method would be to ask the deleting admin to reconsider their action first. And I did not know that this review had started before the ping above! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Since I already got my portion of shit for spending my free time on closing FFDs, I am not going to contest undeletion, and the review can be closed as far as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - closing FFD's seems to be pretty thankless, and I got complaints in the last week too when I closed some. Thanks Ymblanter for trying to cut that backlog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - FFDs default to full delete if nobody opposes, because of the volume of cases as compared to the volume of observers. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but particularly now FFD is Files For Discussion the nomination should propose deletion for deletion to be the default. I don't know about FFD but at AFD articles are sometimes nominated merely to get people's opinions. Thincat (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the administrator instructions at WP:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions#Express closure guidelines although I expect I'll be reverted. Thincat (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading says that a file which has been listed on FFD can be deleted after seven days if no one has opposed deleting the file. Now that FFD is files for discussion, it should maybe be updated to say that there also needs to be at least one user (for example the nominator) who supports deleting the file. For example, if a user writes that 'This file is unfree but I suspect that it actually is free' then it would be inappropriate to close the request as delete. Instead, the admin should evaluate the claim that the copyright status isn't correctly indicated. I suggest relisting this file as important details about the file have been provided here in the deletion review. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 April 2016

Sleek Kitchens – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! My page 'Sleek Kitchens' was recently deleted. The main reason given by one of the moderators was related to WP:CORP. I did edit the reference links in order to conform to the aforementioned guidelines. In spite of this, my page was deleted. The content tonality was not promotional and was extensively modified to conform to Wikipedia standards. Please reinstate the page. Thanks! Sportonion555 (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The additional references provided between nomination and deletion were [1] [2] [3], which have precisely the same problems as the ones previously cited. —Cryptic 06:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- HeyCryptic, thanks for the feedback. The question was about notability, specifically WP:CORP. Since the new reference links added were from news websites (Which I assume are authoritative) that talk specifically about the brand and the entity mentioned in the content, I was under the impression that this issue had been resolved. Sportonion555 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No defects shown in deletion discussion; issue around lack of citations to reliable sources has not been overcome. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no defect in the closer's assessment of consensus; to whatever extent it's subject to review here, that consensus was rational; and no significant new evidence that could have changed the outcome has been presented. I read the article after Sportonion555 improved it; the article so clearly failed GNG and CORP that I didn't feel the need to vote. Sport, I'm sorry this has been frustrating to you, but our notability criteria exist for a reason (and Wikipedia is not for promotion). Rebb ing 11:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to ensure that this page isn't deleted? And what course of action would you recommend for the future? Sportonion555 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you guidance on my talk page. The page where you started this deletion review explicitly explains why you shouldn't extend a discussion just because you disagree. I recommend having significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) before creating an article next time. If you are still developing a sense of the kind of sources that count as "reliable", the aforelinked pages and some time spent around Articles for Deletion will help to refine that sense. czar 14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help czar. Will ensure that all these things are taken care of. If indeed I manage to fix current issues, I will be able to re-create this page, right?Sportonion555 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove notability, then yes. However, you'll need to have all of the issues resolved when you create the article, otherwise, it'll be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page previously deleted following a deletion discussion. Based on my searching (and the searching other people did at the AfD), it looks highly unlikely you'll be able to prove notability. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time. Rebb ing 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think the current issue (lack of coverage in reliable sources) is surmountable, at least for now. That was the conclusion of the discussion. If more sources were to be published in the future, yes, we could revisit it, but we usually wait at least six months, a year. Also, in case no one else has mentioned it, I want to remind of WP's conflict of interest guidelines, which asks that editors declare any affiliation to the company, if you were to have one. czar 16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Not a suitable topic, because it is not the subject of independent coverage. Any attempt to cover this company will fundamentally be promotion of it. Wikipedia is very sensitive, and very resistant, to being used for promoting commercial things, which is why WP:CORP is is restrictive. All sources are promotion of a product, not secondary source commentary on a topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 April 2016

Quietscheentchen – withdrawn. —Cryptic 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have a rather ridiculous situation here: an editor is getting a bit too bureaucratic about a redirect which was deleted and subsequently restored. 76.65.41.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), this is a waste of time.

In short, I suppose that the straight-up recount of the vote at the RfD was correct, but a closer look reveals the arguments as flawed--I couldn't argue that myself since I was never notified by Gorobay. I have laid out my arguments at Talk:Quietscheentchen, a few months ago, and there is little need to repeat them; in summary: it was a German topic, if that applies to redirects; it's a fairly relevant search terms given that it's also the title of one of Ernie's hits (in Germany); one editor argues it's not even a Dutch or German word, an argument immediately belied by the dictionary.

The way I see it, we have two options (if you find my arguments on the talk page convincing): we overturn the original deletion, without finding fault with the closing admin (BDD) who made a good-faith decision based on some lousy arguments, and restore what might be deleted shortly as G4. Or, better yet, we allow that a redirect can be recreated (maybe if an argument for such recreation is provided) if it's done in good faith. The funny thing is that DRV is really a stretch for me and the whole thing kind of a Catch 22, since, as I said, the close was right though based on the wrong arguments, and thus we could have the right decision leading to a wrong decision--the lack of a redirect for the German (notable) term for rubber ducky. Or someone could just decide that this isn't a big deal, and tell the IP so. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Drmies are you arguing for the redirect restoration or for the actual song to become an article? I shouldn't have to tell you that a YouTube video of Ernie singing a song translated into German isn't really sufficient for a new article. Otherwise, I don't see any reason other that wasn't already discussed in the prior RFC on the matter. While you weren't notified, I don't see anything particularly new you provide. Is this literally just the German word for rubber duck? There's no mention of it in the article so I don't know why a redirect is appropriate. Pages like Amigo don't just redirect to the English language translation but look for the actual usage of the word. There's no other foreign language redirects to rubber duck either. I could support a relisting and we can discuss this again but I'm not seeing why we should create a bunch of redirects for every translation of every word (or in particular why for this term). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ricky81682, it's both a very unusual and very popular word. I really, really don't see what the big deal is with having another (cheap!) redirect; I am just bothered by the fact that a. I wasn't notified b. the discussion was ... well, there were arguments that were easily, easily refuted and c. because it is a redirect (of course I don't want an article) there is no way ever to "overcome" this decision since a redirect doesn't have sources or "new evidence proving notability" or anything like that. So I'm bothered by that principle, yes, as much as by the older discussion. Whether we should (Sandstein?) have redirects for foreign words in the first place is an interesting question but the fact is we do. So why not this one, a valid search term despite its unusual spelling?
  Or, to rephrase the question, what should I do to get this redirect? Obviously I can't just recreate this since that overzealous IP will just tag it again with the same thing. Should I go through WP:FIRST and there counter all the arguments that I believe were faulty to begin with, like that rather nonsensical comment that this wasn't a German word? Or should I write an article (yes!), wait for it to be nominated for deletion, and then propose a "merge and redirect but I'll settle for delete and redirect since redirects are cheap and hope that none of you catch on? I can try that, if you like. Hell, you know what crap we run into that gets to stay here one way or another.
  Or, in yet another way, I don't want to be here at DR at all; I want to trout the person who didn't notify me, the folks who brought up obviously erroneous arguments, and the IP who thinks they got someone on a clever technicality. :) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The closure reflects consensus in the discussion. This is not the forum for a new discussion on the merits. Nonetheless: "Quietscheentchen" literally translates to "squeaking little duck", and it is the German term for these little floating rubber ducks (pictured, right). I don't get the point of creating a redirect here; we don't usually create redirects for non-English translations of an article title. If the German term were independently notable, e.g. as a song title, that could be grounds for an article, but that does not seem to be the case here. Sandstein 09:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV discusses whether the debate was closed correctly and is not a place to re-argue the discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ick There really is no valid reason for deletion here. WP:RFOREIGN is the most on-point but A) it is an essay and B) it is an essay that we regularly ignore (I mean a lot). But at the same time, there is no clear reason to keep it, so we are at the point where there is no policy-based guidance that I'm aware of, so closing based on numbers is reasonable. At the same time, baring BLP issues and the like, I really don't understand the need to delete redirects. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Net effect no basis to overturn. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD#HOWTO says it's good practice to speak to the redirect creator before deleting the redirect. This was not done, so Drmies was robbed of the opportunity to defend the redirect; a minor procedural flaw. Si Trew's contribution to the debate is a mild lapse of his usually higher standards, implying that this is a nonsense or made up word; Wikipedia contains a number of German speakers, including for example, yanno, the person who actually created the redirect but wasn't told, who could easily have verified for him that this is good German. (Personally I learned it in school for a German A-level around 1988, and although I do actively use my German, including translating articles from de.wiki to here, I've never actually needed that particular word until today.) Does this add up to a big enough procedural flaw to overturn the RfD? I dunno --- when it's a failure to follow "good practice" it could go either way --- but personally I'd say that a relist would do no harm and would give confidence that we're following that FairProcess that I often mention in connection with DRV.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see why people are using the argument "RFOREIGN is an essay" here. Yes it is an essay, but it's just elaborating on a point of WP:R#DELETE, which is a guideline and which supports the deletion of this redirect: In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. As rubber ducks don't have any particular relation to German or a German-speaking culture the redirect falls under this wording. This does not apply to the example brought up by the nominator in which 日本映画プロフェッショナル大賞 is redirected to Japanese Professional Movie Awards, as the subject of that article clearly has a close connection to Japanese-speaking culture. Not notifying the nominator was a procedural error, but overturning a discussion on that basis alone smacks of bureaucratic pettiness. Hut 8.5 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's that what I asked for, Hut 8.5, but I'm pretty convinced that I could have swayed, with my rock-solid arguments and my syrupy-sweet rhetoric, that discussion to at least a 'no consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per reasonable arguments of a faulty discussion, noting that a relist will do no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I withdraw this, though I appreciate SmokeyJoe and S Marshall's support. This is not worth our time and the world's electrons. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, I was just getting interested. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietscheentchen is telling me that it is German, for "Rubber Ducky", I guess according to loose language rules (that might be an oxymoron in German, but nevertheless). As such, the RfD looks quite confusing, confused, self-contradictory even. And google clearly shows it is a term in use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

UFC 157 – Deletion endorsed, but a new draft may be submitted to WP:AFC. I get the impression that most would prefer that this be done by somebody else than the nominator, who is still new to Wikipedia's collaborative approach. – Sandstein 10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article "UFC 157" should be reinstated based on the criteria that the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Nearly every argument for the article is valid, while the responses are invalid and biased towards deleting the article for no legitimate reason at all. Please reinstate "UFC 157." Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AFD discussion, but permit new draft. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 was in December 2012 and the closer put in an lengthy, lengthy analysis. That said, that discussion was before the event had occurred and while this draft is better, it could probably do with more eyes on the matter. Given that no other fight at Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship events is a redirect, I think consensus has changed over the years regarding the notability of UFC matches. Secondarily would support splitting the page history to a new Draft:UFC 157 but I don't think that's needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we should also have new information provided, I'm looking and finding sources that consider UFC 157 itself notable because it was the first ever women's bout. This was noted in the AFC discussion but the concern was whether that is going to have lasting coverage. One source on sociology seems to make a passing mention of it.This work by a University of Bringhton academic goes into detail about how the press response to and general nature of UFC 157's women's bout fit in critiques on gender constructions (from Rousy's press, to Rousy's history to even Carmouche's history as an openly gay female fighter) but it does indicate the overall notability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon seeing Theepicwarrior's antics, I'm leaning towards splitting the history and creating a new draft at Draft:UFC 157. From there, we can decide to move it to mainspace. I don't think allowing immediate restoration will result in much more than frustration at this time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 Why not immediate restoration? Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ricky for your help. Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I do? Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until the DRV is closed, nothing.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the DRV? Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is the DRV: Deletion Review.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kww When will the DRV close? Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In about a week.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation per Rricky81682. That's it exactly. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as allow recreation. Obviously DRV will not enforce a three-and-a-half-year-old discussion about an event which has, in the meantime, actually taken place. Why do we need to drag this out for 168 hours?—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there is a good chance that UFC 157 will have its own article soon? Theepicwarrior (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not. He's misapplying DRV, so hopefully any closer will ignore him. The original close hasn't been invalidated by subsequent events.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will. Why did you delete the UFC 157 page in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Good point. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Nominator is clearly not someone we can work with. He badgers incessantly and doesn't listen.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave if you want. Theepicwarrior (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note from original closer. The only part of my original analysis that fails is the one based on WP:CRYSTAL, arguments based on WP:NEVENT and WP:N still apply. Discussion in reliable sources about UFC centers around individual matches or individual fighters, many of which pass our notability guidelines with ease. The events themselves typically get nothing but routine coverage, and having articles about them is akin to having an article about every football game played every Saturday afternoon. WP:NEVENT still applies, and I would have to see a substantial discussion refuting that before I would argue to permit recreation.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to make an article about every football game played every Saturday, then they can do that, no one is stopping them. Anyone can make articles about anything they want. Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, when they fail WP:NEVENT, they get deleted, meaning that creating them is simply a waste of everyone's time.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 157 is a notable event though. Theepicwarrior (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By what measure? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was headlined by Ronda Rousey. Billions of people know who she is. Theepicwarrior (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Wikipedia-notability comes from independent others commenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent others commented on the deletion discussion page. How is that not enough evidence? Theepicwarrior (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, your close was on the basis of CRYSTAL and routine coverage. CRYSTAL no longer applies and one would assume there is a reasonable chance that additional coverage happened during and after the event. How could DRV do anything other than allow a recreation at this point? Folks can bring it to AfD, but given the nature of the title fight, I imagine there will be a lot of coverage. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit is there any way that Kww can not have a say in this matter? I feel like he will try to stop UFC 157 from being created no matter what. Theepicwarrior (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for my opinion not counting, Theepicwarrior, the way DRV works is than unless someone provides evidence that my original close was invalid or no longer applies, the deletion remains in force. No one has provided any evidence of either of those things at this point.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for your original close? Theepicwarrior (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you read it before challenging it here, didn't you?—Kww(talk) 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. You have no legitimate evidence at all to support your claim. Theepicwarrior (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence that coverage on the topic of any UFC numbered event goes beyond routine coverage, including UFC 157. Coverage on Rousey or the individual Rousey match probably went beyond routine, but not coverage on this individual numbered collection of bouts. One way or the other, if people want to claim that coverage in reliable and independent sources on UFC 157 as a topic was unusual in scope, it's the challengers' obligation to provide the evidence and the explanation as to how WP:NEVENT no longer indicates that the article should not exist. There's no fault with the original close, and no evidence that all three arguments upheld in the close are no longer valid.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8960170/ronda-rousey-defends-title-ufc-debut Here is the evidence. Now please open UFC 157. Theepicwarrior (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I hope that people challenging the WP:NEVENT logic can see the fallacy of claiming that each and every UFC event exceeds the typical coverage of a UFC event.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8960170/ronda-rousey-defends-title-ufc-debut Here is the evidence. Now please open UFC 157. Theepicwarrior (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "routine coverage"?Theepicwarrior (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE coverage is coverage that exists at the time itself. The fact that there's press available from that time about UFC 157 isn't as important as asking whether there is sources today that discuss UFC 157. Also, needless begging doesn't help your cause. Be patient. At the very least, do more than spout one source after one source at all and look like you spent at least a half hour taking this seriously. --Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this seriously. That is why I created this in the first place. Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theepicwarrior, please stop responding to everything. It is honestly more likely to hurt your cause than help it. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is more likely to help my cause. In order to get this done, you have to be relentless. Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to Hobit. It really isn't likely to help your cause. Kww is trying to make DRV enforce a three-and-a-half-year-old consensus. We don't do that, and have consistently refused to do it every time it's come up, because consensus can change. So the article's going to be restored if you behave like someone we can work with; but at the moment you're not.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relax Marshall. I am the one who started this, you are technically working with me, and this is going to get done. Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to relax. It's entirely possible for this to be rejected or for the support to be that you have to create a new draft which will not likely be put into mainspace if, again, you aren't working on this the way that's being ask of you. I suggest that, rather than stay here and debate this further, go look for actual sources and perhaps just build a subpage in your userspace (ask me on my talk page if you need help) and collect all these sources we cite here and all the quotes and go look for more like that. That is presuming your actual goal here is to create a good article on the subject and it's not just a "I'm a fan and I want an article on UFC 157 that says what I want" because the truth here is, I highly doubt anyone in this discussion knows a lick about the UFC or particularly cares. We care about good articles that discuss their subjects in a neutral and informative matter. Go look over the other UFC match articles and focus on ones that don't just have the match information but actual intelligent discussion that non-MMA fans would find interesting. This event itself is interesting to more than MMA fans if it's worked on that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. Here is a 2015 book source about the 2013 event that demonstrates UFC 157 is a significant event and passes Wikipedia:Notability (events):
1. Straka, Mike (2015). Rowdy Rousey: Ronda Rousey's Fight to the Top. Chicago, Illinois: Triumph Books. ISBN 1633194442. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
  The book notes:
  Rousey's UFC debut was a big moment in mixed martial arts history. There was a lot of speculation about this "experiment" known as women's MMA. Even White himself was skeptical that there would be enough talent in the division, and he made sure that there was a compelling line-up of fights leading up to the main event of UFC 157 on February 23, 2013, which featured Rousey, the newly minted UFC bantamweight champion, against former US Marine, Liz Carmouche.
  The main card featured legends like Urijah Faber, Dan Henderson, Lyoto Machida, and future welterweight champion Robbie Lawler.
  There were some 15,525 tickets sold for a live gate of $1.4 million, and a reported 500,000 pay-per-view sales.
  Carmouche took Rousey's back early in the fight and, while Ronda stood up in the middle of the cage, began looking for a rear-naked choke. Ronda kept her chin tucked so Carmouche switched to a nasty neck crank. This is a very painful move, and coming from a former Marine it could not have felt very good.
  Ronda said she felt her jaw dislocate, and her teeth were digging in into the back of her lips. Liz was pulling on Ronda's neck so hard she could have broken it. Rousey, however, kept her cool. She remembered to stay in the middle of the cage, so that Liz couldn't rest her back against the fence while on Rousey's back, and she worked to get Carmouche's legs apart. When she did, she slipped Carmouche off her back and went on to win the match with a series of ground-and-pound blows and then, of course, the armbar.
Cunard (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cunard for your help.Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like fairly typical coverage that can be located for UFC 1-156 and UFC 158-infinity. In what way is it substantially different? Note that the article under discussion is not about Carmouche, Rousey, or their fight, but the collection of events known as "UFC 157".—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you defending the discussion or are you just advocating for its deletion? Consensus can change. The fact that the all the UFC articles now have their own separate articles and aren't redirects shows that a new consensus has formulated about UFC matches, including UFC 199 and UFC 200 which haven't happened yet. If you want, nominate the remaining ones for deletion that had the same concerns but I'm certain people aren't going to take this 2012 discussion as current consensus. It's been over three years since the last discussion and two since the last DRV on the matter. At the same time, the express concerns from the prior AFD, namely whether there would be notability about it after the event occurred, seems to have happened. Now it seems to largely be about both the women's bout itself and in part due to Rousy's fame following the match but that doesn't mean the event itself wasn't notable. If you are saying "recreate it but I may express an opinion that it should be just about the match and not the UFC title, which is not in my admin closing responsibility but just an opinion", that's also fine. But articles on films are created sometimes after the fact which are notable in part because one actor in the film became famous later, no one demands that the article be about the person's role or else the article be deleted. If you were saying "I closed it properly but it's been three years, people are providing new sources, let's open it up to a new draft", that's one matter but "I closed it properly in 2012, and even though some of the concerns expressed then have actual evidence now, it must still be a redirect", that's just strange. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logic used still seems valid to me today, and that people finally gave up keeping the MMA project in line with notability standards doesn't seem like an argument for undoing it. As I said elsewhere in this discussion (and in the close), I think your argument is using inherited notability, essentially "because the Rousey match is notable, the entire collection of events that included the Rousey match is also notable."—Kww(talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be. I'm just concerned about whether to permit recreation first. I think recreation is permissible as the topic I think should be split off from 2013 in UFC at this point. From whether the match itself or the UFC event as a whole should be the article, I think at the very least there's enough to split something off and I'd prefer to split the UFC match off and then debate it there whether the match itself is notable. There's no reason it can't be recreated, and taken to AFD today (or any other MMA-related item). From there, the AFD can be used to "[keep] the MMA in line with notability standards" as you would like it to be. Believe me, I spent a good amount of time hacking at the WOP crowd and that's had a decade of Arbcom mandates to work against. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article UFC 157 should be about the collection of events known as "UFC 157" with a heavy emphasis about the main fight between Carmouche and Rousey. This draft mentioned by Ricky81682 at 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) was about the collection of events. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation per Cunard. Not immediately, Theepicwarrior is still getting up to speed, but allow testing at AfD at any time as per normal. The WP:CRYSTAL thing has changed since the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Cunard has come up with a good source. However, others may disagree that it is enough, and if so the place for that discussion is a fresh AfD, although I recommend using the article talk page, when this DRV discussion is closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#UFC_157 Theepicwarrior (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If the consensus of this DRV discussion is to undelete the article, specific points relating to the article are best discussed on its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: what's the general way to handle repeated DRVs? I note Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_January_4#UFC_157 confirmed the deletion. I also note for the people that keep referencing WP:CRYSTAL that the close was based on WP:NEVENT, with WP:CRYSTAL treated in one line as a supporting argument.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does UFC 3 have its own article but UFC 157 does not? UFC 3 had 90,000 pay-per-view buys with 3,000 in attendance. UFC 157 had 450,000 pay-per-view buys with over 13,000 in attendance. UFC 157 is more notable than UFC 3, yet UFC 3 has its own article and UFC 157 does not. How hypocritical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC#UFC_157:_Rousey_vs._Carmouche Theepicwarrior (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Each discussion is independent. The 2013 DRV was also closed properly but it's been three years since then and the UFC articles have changed. There are pages that have gone through not just one, but two, three, four and even five DRVs and even then if there's a sixth DRV on the subject, it's likely to be sent off. Again, it's perfectly fine to say "I don't think there's been enough here since the 2012 discussion, go create a draft and show us at DRV that it basically could pass a reverse AFD debate." - Ricky81682 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the record-holder is the GNAA with thirteen deletion reviews. It also had twenty-two AfDs, not counting two MfDs it went through when it was a userspace draft, and its own deletion policy page, which was itself nominated for deletion. After the eighteenth AfD there was a signpost article about it, which was also itself nominated for deletion. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the happy world of Wikipedian consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, each DRV discussion was done while it was largely repetitive, it was still given some level of debate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Allow recreation~~ The fighter salaries for UFC 157 are interesting to casual sports fans, especially ones who are in the field of finance, business, accounting, statistics, or general mathematics. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ufc-157-fighter-salaries-dan-200011031--mma.html Theepicwarrior (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You really aren't helping your cause here. Do you want this restored so you can post fighter salaries here? And there's no mention of fighter salaries at UFC 1, [[UFC 2], not even at UFC 199 or UFC 200 so no I doubt any "casual sports fans" cares that much about fighter salaries. That's like arguing the NBA season articles should start with a listing of player salaries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  It was worth a try. Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck through your !vote, as nominator (and your comments forming the majority of the rest of this) your position is already stated, you don't get two !votes --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Theepicwarrior is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with the original close, so from a purely procedural standpoint the deletion should not be reverted. That being said, there is nothing against an editor re-creating an article if more sourcing has become available since the deletion. Not saying anything different than what Ricky81682 began this discussion with. Not sure the extra source is enough to show notability, it being simply a mention of the event, but perhaps there are others. So, Endorse AFD discussion, but permit new draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD, permit new draft, but {{minnow}} the nominator. I'd recommend reading WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you persist in being "relentless" (your word, not mine), you're going to get a lot less done than if you just work with people. ~ Rob^Talk 23:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. The AFD pretty much turned on the fact that, at that time, the event hadn't happened. There was no justification for create-protecting beyond that time. There certainly was no justification for Kww to make that protection indefinite in October 2014, more than eighteen months after the event took place, at a time when it was clear that consensus practice supported creation of individual UFC ### articles. I don't know that practice wasn't clear enough at the time of the AFD, but it certainly is now. Any misbehaviour by the OP here isn't pertinent, because it's clear that they're hardly the only editor writing such articles. If any other UFC XXX titles have been salted, they should also be unprotected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to support this. Greatly appreciated. Theepicwarrior (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to unsalting, I recommend restoring all of the revisions of the deleted article. The logs show that there are at least 107 deleted revisions. Furthermore, I think this draft mentioned by Ricky81682 at 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) would be a suitable revision to restore to without prejudice against another editor's restoring or merging in material from other revisions. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those revisions were mixed into the history of 2013 in UFC. There's absolutely no hope of disentangling them. —Cryptic 07:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is there no hope of disentangling them? Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thank you for the correction. In that case, I just recommend unprotecting and restoring the article to the revision mentioned by Ricky81682 at 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The last revision of the old article that I can find is this. I haven't done a thorough comparison - I have zero interest in the subject - but on the surface, at least, it looks pretty similar to the one Ricky81682 linked. —Cryptic 07:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 April 2016

Lithuania national beach soccer team – Deletion endorsed. No consensus about a possible recreation. – Sandstein 09:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This refers to the recent speedy deletion for recreation of a previously deleted article, also see Draft:Lithuania national beach soccer team
The deletion discussion of the original article in 2015 claimed that since Lithuania had not played in international competitions, it was not notable and should be deleted. However as I pointed out on the talk page when it was nominated for speedy deletion this time around, this argument in the original discussion is not true at all, Lithuania competed internationally in the 2008 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualifiers as well as other internationals I listed, albeit the latter friendly tournaments. The original 2015 version was thin on the ground for information and did not mention this in the article and hence I think mislead reviewers. The Lithuanian Football Federation endorses the team [4] and Beach Soccer Worldwide, beach soccer's governing body, has the team documented on their website also, having been in their official rankings in the past. Therefore I believe it is justified to be reinstated. TurboGUY (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment since the AFD took place after UEFA game, I expected participants to take that into consideration. However I cannot comment on whether or not this makes it pass the WP:NFOOTY rule or not. Anyway although I deleted it with the G4 criterion, I have restored it to a draft to see what others think. I would recommend that a decision be made on "allow recreation" or "leave deleted" as I do not think the AFD closure is in doubt. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Quick correction the Graeme Bartlett's comment above. WP:NFOOTY only covers the notability of football players, not teams. At present, there is no notability guideline covers national football teams, other than the general one, which this team does not meet. What coverage the team has received is either routine sports coverage, not independent of the subject, or both. As one the participants in the original afd, I'd like to think I was aware of the World Cup qualifiers, though don't actually remember. In any case, it would not have changed my position, which is why I nominated the article for speedy deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well since there is no coverage of teams in WP:NFOOTY then the lines are truly blurred. The team is still the national representative of a sovereign state in a sport with major recognition/governing body such as FIFA, having competed on an international stage. Surely common sense suggests this is notable even if it is not directly mentioned in WP:NFOOTY? Now I can't say I'm an expect on WP:x articles, but GNG suggests the article should be rejected without independent sources, but their are certainly independent sources that exist such as this sports website and newspaper reporting on the team [5]. And WP:ROUTINE talks of sports mainly focusing on regular reporting of scores and fixtures however the article written included the squad, staff and achievements in qualifying events in which I again reiterate the point of it being a sovereign country's national team, just as Lithuania national football team is in association football. I'm sorry but the chance you would've been aware about the World Cup qualifiers last year is very slim at best - they were not mentioned at all in the article, it was the most stub-worthy submission imaginable [6]. TurboGUY (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

They have changed its website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhurvignesh83 (talk • contribs)

Endorse the status of a subjects website has no bearing on if they are notable or not by wikipedia's standards. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was available for a long time I guess. Since because they have changed the website cannot be the reason that they aren't notable. I also googled it out and found even links less than a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhurvignesh83 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If Dhurvignesh83 wishes to give us the links, they could be helpful but I hope the nominator isn't just ignoring the fact that people wanted sources there were actually independent of the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - "They have changed its website" has no bearing on whether or not the deletion was appropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 April 2016

Ricky Clousing – No foul, but do-over. There is good consensus here that there was nothing wrong with the close per-se, but we still managed to end up in a sub-optimal place. I'm going to rewind this back to the pre-AfD state and relist it. Kudos to Aircorn for backing away from an edit war and starting a discussion. link to new AfD – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a bit of a different one. The article was closed as merge to Iraq Veterans Against the War on the 22nd November. I recently completed the merge as part of my efforts to clear the backlog.[7] Xenophrenic disagrees with the merge strongly, saying that their is no consensus for the redirect. I have no problem with the material being removed from the Iraq Veterans Against the War as that is part of the editing process.[8] I do have an issue with the redirect being removed from Ricky Clousing though.[9][10] So instead of continuing the edit war I thought I would start a discussion here to allow Xenophrenic to put his position for not keeping the redirect to Iraq Veterans Against the War or why the closure should not have been merge. Note that the merge was done previously by two other editors before being reverted by Xenophrenic.[11][12] AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a rather silly outcome at the AfD. He is only slightly related to the merge target. I think there is a strong BLP1E case for deletion here (I can't find reliable sources after 2006), but the AfD ended in some variation of keep, so DRV really can't (IMO) just delete or blank this. So we are, as far as I can tell, in a weird limbo where we probably shouldn't have the redirect without mention of him in the target article and we really can't delete or blank. And there really isn't even a basis for a relist. So... IAR relist and see what happens seems the best to me, but I'm open to there being a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify the situation being described above, as a somewhat involved party: Xenophrenic doesn't disagree with the merge, strongly or otherwise. If there is reliably sourced information in the Ricky Clousing article that can be merged into another article, please do merge that content. I have, however, objected to redirecting the article to an existing article when there is no sourced connection to that existing article. To be clear, Aircorn isn't at fault here; the merge and accompanying redirect would be routine under normal circumstances. (And thank you for tending to that tedious, thankless backlog task!) But as I explained to Yash - the editor who closed this AfD discussion several months ago, the selection of the Iraq Veterans Against the War article as a destination for that merge was made erroneously. There were zero reliable sources indicating a connection between the two article subjects (I could find only 1 source which placed Clousing at an event with several other groups), so I removed the redirect. That was months ago. Today I noticed that similar content was re-added (with the same sourcing problems, even a deadlink), so I simply deleted the content and the redirect again without further thought. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I've been operating under the assumption that merging and redirecting were separately determined functions, but after reading WP:MERGE, where it says merging "should always leave a redirect", I see I was wrongly heavy-handed in suggesting that Aircom "Please read the AfD closure more closely" before redirecting. I apologize for that, Aircom. I still think relisting Clousing for deletion is probably a good route. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was in accordance with the consensus but the consensus was silly. We should endorse the close as a matter of form, and then relist the debate with instructions either to find a better merge or redirect target, or else to recommend deletion.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The rejection of the merger invalidates the AfD close. Relist because outright deletion is clearly on the cards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 April 2016

UNC Clef Hangers – "Merge" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 13:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was nominated for deletion and a decision was made to merge into another page, all within a few days. I was never notified of this discussion and was a couple of days late, when the decision had already been made and the page was already merged and deleted. The reviewers were not given the full picture for the reason to keep the page, and unfortunately it was removed before any arguments to keep it were presented. At a high level, the group this page is for is internationally renowned, having earned many prestigious awards and having presented for President and Michelle Obama this year and the president of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson a few weeks ago. The decision to merge the page was made speedily and without the proper arguments to make a more informed decision. This request is to undelete the page either before or after we are able to make edits calling out the group's significance to an audience who may not be as familiar with the genre, famous alumni, or significance of the group. Some references included from NY Times, People, Bleacher Report, and more [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] alfadur (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decisio. Though I chose not to participate in the AfD discussion at the time, the decision to keep the essential elements of the article by merging with the subject's home university seems fair and sensible. In examining the citations (those listed by alfadur were already in the article) while performing the merger I struggled to find anything substantial that was in an independent reliable news source (the Daily Tar Heel is the university's student newspaper). Apart from the DTH, other articles contain brief mentions of the Clef Hangers and the articles are about something/someone else. Though I agree it would have been polite to invite the original author, alfadur, to participate in the AfD, their argument above doesn't present anything new. At the end of the day, Wikipedia shouldn't be a hosting site for university music groups. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There were only three people participating in the AfD. Had I closed it, I might have relisted it, but given the agreement of all three, closing it as merge is certainly not unreasonable. Looking at the sources presented here, the three from the school paper clearly don't meet WP:RS. All of the others are about specific people, and simply mention that they were members of the Clef Hangers. This is the classic definition of a passing mention, and does nothing to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis are you claiming the college paper isn't a reliable source? I've historically found better coverage in school papers than the local ones and this school in particular seems to have a paper that is commonly listed in the top 10 or 20 in the nation. I'd trust it more than at least 50% of the traditional papers in the nation... Hobit (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, perhaps reliable is the wrong word here. I'm not claiming they're unreliable, in the sense that you can't trust the accuracy of what they write. But, I don't think a college paper writing about something which happens at the school is a good indicator of notability. A school paper has a limited and well-defined audience; the school community. So, they tend to write about topics of interest to that community. Wikipedia has a global audience; we should be picking topics of (potentially) global interest. We gauge that interest by looking for sources which have chosen to cover a topic. If a source with a global readership (say, a major newspaper) has chosen to devote some of their limited resources to covering a topic, that's a good signal that the topic is of interest to a wide audience. The more focused a source is (either geographically, or by concentrating on a particular industry, segment of society, or activity), the less strong that signal is. A school newspaper, even a well-respected one at a major university, is pretty low down on that scale. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes more sense, thanks. And though that opinion is held by a lot of people, as a matter of Wiki-philosophy I'd disagree. I believe we should cover what we can cover well by using reliable secondary sources. A Wikipedia article isn't a "prize" for having done well or being important. Rather it's a source for people wanting to learn more about a topic. I think this topic is covered well enough in RSes that having an article is reasonable (though not having one isn't horrible). But sadly, consensus didn't go that way this time. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, that we only cover things that have a wider importance. That is the basis of WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. In fact, WP:N was originally pushed as just a variation of WP:V. The point wasn't, and still isn't, that it's "important". I mean, why on earth would we care? If someone can write an article using RSes, the article can exist, it's the joy of crowd sourcing. For better or worse, we've gotten away from that (and I certainly acknowledge some would say for better and even acknowledge they have good points). But in doing that, we've made having an article akin to a "gold star" in some people's mind. And so we've put ourselves in judgement about what's important "enough". We do have to draw the line somewhere, but WP:N doesn't say anything about importance (last I checked). Hobit (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some pushed that notion, but it is not really true. Notability is not much connected to verifiability[20]. Instead, notability is an extreme end case of WP:NOR, WP:PSTS specifically. In non technical language, Wikipedia covers things only if others have already covered them. If a topic is "important", then others will already be writing about it. This means secondary sources exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But we shouldn't be evaluating if the sources are "important enough". Just if they are reliable. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sources must be evaluated for more than reliability. The phone book is reliable. Sources must be evaluated for: (1) reliability; (2) independence (from the topic, and from other sources being evaluated); (3) depth of coverage of topic (we exclude sources making only incidental or passing mentions). Sources containing secondary source content (transformative content created by the author) should also be assessed for the reputability of the author and publisher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As established above, the article subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The closing merge is appropriate per WP:Summary style. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan (at all) of arguing for deletion on the basis of sources being too local. WP:N doesn't address that (and while WP:ORG does, I generally don't have much truck with SNGs increasing the standard for coverage over WP:N). But that said, I'm not seeing significant coverage outside of local coverage even including the sources provided by the nom. So while I disagree with the outcome of that AfD, I can't claim it's not a reasonable policy-based consensus. If the nom could provide sources that aren't local that provide more than a passing mention, I'd be thrilled to have a basis for relisting. But I don't see any in the list given... Hobit (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The page is to be redirected until there is a consensus at Talk:University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill supporting making a spinout article due to University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill becoming too large. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sufficient consensus. I and hundreds of other admins have routinely closed AfDs in this manner. Since we have draft space , it's always possible to try to make a stronger article. True, consensus can change--the consensus for whether local sources are sufficient for the notability of local organizations has swung back and forth repeatedly. But one aspect of this has been true for many years now: we do not regard college newspapers as sufficient for the notability of any thing conencted with the college. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 April 2016

Florence Devouard – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody in this discussion offered any sources that would show that the subject passes the general notability guideline, and nobody explained how the reason given for keeping in the previous discussion, that the subject is a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, an order with about 187,000 members, meets WP:ANYBIO. Most of the discussion consisted of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, so this should be relisted rather than closed as "keep". I discussed this with the closing administrator but he claimed that "in a AfD discussion, you have the burden to prove that the article does not meet the notability standard", which is obviously impossible to do for any article, because nobody can prove that sources don't exist, and then tried to fob me off with an accusation that I am an SPA, which, if you look at my contributions, is obviously untrue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The exceptions raised here are mere disagreement with the consensus and a rehashing of the arguments below; under DRVPURPOSE ("Not" points 1 and 5), neither is a valid reason for overturning the close. (Disclosure: I voted "keep.") Rebb ing 18:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am raising here is point 1 of the "may be used" side of WP:DRVPURPOSE, that the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There was hardly any discussion of the article or its subject, and that there was certainly didn't come to a consensus to keep, so this should be relisted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency: I speedily closed this, and I've been convinced that I was wrong to do so based on a conversation at the IP editor's talk page, so I've reopened it with apologies.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more I come to the view that Yamamoto Ichiro's closure of this debate was correct. He was right to discount the SPA !votes. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc. Debate !votes have sources. When the debate !vote comes from an account with a long history of well-considered contributions it's given lots of weight. When it comes from someone without a history, or who is hiding their history as Luridaxiom plainly is, then that's rightly given less weight. We don't need to overturn this close. Instead, we need to rewrite WP:SPA so it tells the truth about how Wikipedians deal with people who have no checkable contribution history. Otherwise we'll end up having to give full point-by-point rebuttals to trolls, Wikipediocracy members and page-move vandals who like to use HAGGER???! as an edit summary and then reset their modem so as to join in a proper discussion. We have no reason to take people without a contribution history seriously.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reply If you concede that WP:SPA needs to be re-written, then you surely also concede that "Luridaxiom" was operating within present policy and was entitled to full weightage by the closer. FYI the closer admin also has undeclared alternate account User:Ichiro101 and long gaps in his contribution history which may be contributing to poor judgment in recent AFD closures after his return. I look forward to reading your Wikipedian opinion of the inline refs, for eg. the 2 cited as evidence for Devouard's professional qualifications. Luridaxiom (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I concede is that the "Luridaxiom" identity was operating within FT2's essay WP:SPA, and that I think the closer gave that essay the appropriate amount of weight. If this was an AfD then I would be expressing a view of the quality of the references, and indeed looking to see if there are other references that are better, but it isn't so I'm not.—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the closer could ignore objections in this instance that the references were non-existent, bogus and weak ? Obviously not a "Wikipedian" by your standards, ie. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc.. As a Wikipedian myself, I can recall a past Chairman of your own Wikimedia UK whose BLP references satisfy WP:N infinitely better than Devouard's but whose article was scrubbed with the edit summary .. bio based on one event and very low quality sources for a bio. 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom (talk • contribs)

I'm not associated with Wikimedia UK in any way at all. I'm a British bloke who volunteers as a Wikipedian, but I'm uninvolved with Wikimedia UK and I have no control whatsoever over anything it or its staff or volunteers might do. I don't necessarily approve of their actions or choices. I do choose to publish my real name with every edit, and my location, date of birth and photograph on my userpage, because I edit biographies of living people and I think it's appropriate that these people should know who I am. Who are you, and why are you not using your real account?—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Who are you ?". As a Wikipedian, you would be well advised to read the WMF official privacy policy. Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may: *Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name.. By this policy, the weightage given to edits by an IP or account without a real name is exactly equal to those by an editor with an account allegedly with their IRL name attached. Did you ask similarly ask the "mathematician/physicist/engineer" closer admin to verify that he is not impersonating an IRL "Ichiro Yamamoto" (google faculty: Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo) associated with the University of Alberta, or to explain the account's sparse contributions in the past 8 years which either suggests they need a policy refresher or that yet another defunct admin account has been compromised for paid editing, (eg. to promote Devouard's internet consulting business) in violation of law !!! 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom (talk • contribs)

He's got a contribution history I can check. You haven't, so I asked you a simple question. I see that you don't want to say who you are. My next question is "Why not?" Are we to take it that your main account is blocked, community banned, or so notorious that posting using a fresh account increases your credibility?—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated queries and insinuations are in not in keeping with previously cited WMF policy, are disruptive and may be reasonably interpreted as constituting harassment designed to undermine my (anonymous) solid policy contributions to the AfD under discussion which were ignored by the closer. Relevant for the EU caselaw for Wikipedia I have cited, anonymous Wikipedia accounts are clearly being used in Devouard's article to conceal and disguise content of an advertising character to promote her business. The persons doing this include an administrator appointed during Devouard's term in office as Chair WMF (specifically Yamamoto the closer admin whose actions are challenged in this review). Unsupported facts about Devouard's educational qualifications are being repeatedly reinserted without genuine sources (despite being challenged) to puff up / misrepresent and promote Devouard's internet consulting business and business websites. Such actions designed so that market participants do not recognize clearly and unequivocally the business nature of this article constitutes "unfair commercial practices" within EU (where Devouard resides) and is camouflaged advertising for a Wikimedia insider which would cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise because supposedly neutral statements are regularly treated with more confidence when if identified as advertising. FYI, Anthere is in receipt of my email addressed to her on this issue in response to a Wikimedia-l thread initiated by her. Luridaxiom (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the WMF policy doesn't say what you want it to say. It does say that you can read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name... It certainly doesn't say You are entitled to a voice and a vote in Wikipedia discussions. Closers are under a duty to give your voice the same weight as they would give to an established Wikipedian. It would be stupid if it DID say this, because then it would be impossible to site ban anyone. If you aren't site-banned then you can make your accusations about Anthere using your main account.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what policy says is we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement. Anthere (and WMF) knows who I am. Anthere has never used my main account, Now that would be against policy :-) Luridaxiom (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical point, it was HOGGER (and not HAGGER), see Carolyn_Bothwell_Doran REDIRECT to WMF Employees for the subject of the Washington Post story. Luridaxiom (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 of the 3 deletion !votes (including the nomination itself) in this XfD are made by SPA's. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment exemplifies my reason for asking for relisting, as it is an ad hominem comment that doesn't address the issue at hand, just as most of the comments in the deletion discussion were. Can we please talk about whether particular comments in that discussion were valid arguments rather than about who made them? For example, can you point to one comment that was a valid argument for keeping? And can you explain why, as you said on your talk page, my argument for deletion was invalid? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA - a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag. Luridaxiom (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse solid close based on sources provided. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Refer 86.17.222.157 to Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The history is 1/withdrawn , then no-consensus, then withdrawn. I consider withdrawn to be the same as keep, and I think a renomination should not take place for a considerable time, at least a year or two. Frankly, looking at the discussion at the latest afd, I would have closed it as a speedy keep on the grounds of evident malice and attempted retaliation. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, about the only person I can't find fault with here is the original closer of the discussion. The nomination was pretty clearly not made in good faith, the delete votes were from drive-by accounts, but none of the "Keep" votes made any attempt to demonstrate how she met our notability guidelines either. The closing admin can only work with what they're given, but I'm not sure where the comment about WP:N came from since nobody made any argument based on that other than unsupported assertions that she met the criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relist. I am not IP 86.17.222.157 which can be verified by checkuser. The declared in advance SPA status of this user name does not invalidate my objections raised at the AfD. My other WMF global account (since 2004) is in good standing and active and I am hence an original contributing member of the WMF trust. The WP:BURDEN to retain challenged information is on those who assert it. Several of the inline sources for the article are bogus, self published or inferior. Had this been a BLP article for a non-Wikipedian such sources would have been unacceptable under policy. Lankiveil is correct in observing WP:N was never raised, however, WP:BLP1E was raised by me, but the closing admin never addressed my objection. The closing admin did not address the issue raised by the nominator and also IP:157 that the award of Chevalier is an insignificant one. Clearly the only issue here is whether there are double standards for BLPs of insiders (Wikimedians) qua those for outsiders. Luridaxiom (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer provided sufficient, policy-based reason for the close. DRV is for errors in applying policy. It's not a general, all-purpose court of appeals for participants in an AfD who don't agree with the result. David in DC (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV is for discussion on the closers judgment, point #1. The closer failed to apply the applicable policy which regulates WP:N. Devouard is not known for anything significant outside of her Wikimedia voluntary work, hence the notability is squarely regulated by WP:BLP1E. Both sources being repeatedly reinserted by the "keep" !voters to justify Ms. Devoaurd's irrelevant and insignificant educational qualifications don't support in any way the claims made in the article. The nominator had correctly pointed out that WP:BIO for such persons requires she will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. to justify her notability. The keep side failed to provide any such sources. The "minimal enough coverage" statement in the close discloses the closer utterly failed to examine the below par quality of the inline citations, which have been highlighted time and again in this and all previous AfDs. Luridaxiom (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak endorse This does seem a bit too much inside baseball and I don't think most BLPs would survive an AfD with the relatively weak sourcing we've got on hand. That said, WP:N is a guideline and subject to interpretation at AfD. So while I, a fairly strong inclusionist, wouldn't have !voted to keep this, the sense of the discussion was that she met our inclusion guidelines. Further, it also feels like the folks arguing for deletion are _also_ playing inside baseball and have some kind of an ax to grind. That makes me a bit less sympathetic to similar issues on the other side... Hobit (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I have a bigger problem with the closer's statement than the overall outcome, "Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline...". I certainly wasn't aware the standard was now not a rough consensus of editors but convincing the closing admin, and to do that requires proving a negative. That said I doubt we'll get a different outcome on this is relisted/reclosed. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the closure itself, but if it was relisted, I know I would !vote keep. Being happy with the keep or a weaker no-consensus thefefore keep outcome, I'm partial to endorse the result. Since Wikimedia is a large and widely recognized and impactful organizations, I consider Wikimedia BoT Chairs to be notable enough, just like I would consider the presidents of large multinational companies or organizations like Coca Cola or the IMF to be notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that comment had been made in the deletion discussion, rather than it mainly consisting of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, I would have replied to it. This discussion, however, is about whether the closer correctly interpreted the very few comments that addressed the substantive issue as a consensus to keep without any further discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If she so notable then why not even 1 good enough reference could be added ? 120.56.118.82 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

!vote reject : is it so hard for find sourcs show off the notability. What means minimum standard for notability inclusion here ! Are such sourcings good enough for the not-wikipedian BPLs ? These are my small doubt. 120.56.118.82 (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 April 2016

Katie Rodan – endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No clear consensus reached after 7 days; article was still being worked on; and discussion was closed with no information provided by closing editor. Hmlarson (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd likely have !voted to keep and as a closer would have gone with NC, but delete also seems reasonable given the discussion, so endorse. That said, it's clear to me that this should be a redirect to Proactiv rather than a red link. Unless someone objects in the near term I'm going to add that redirect. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. No policy-based arguments to keep were presented during the discussion beyond unsupported assertions that it "meets GNG". Agree a redirect here would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the closer said, no prejudice to re-ceation of a proper and non-promotional article. That's what we would need much more than a restoration of this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:Can you specify what exactly is promotional? It was in the process of being edited when the discussion was closed. Hmlarson (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1/the discussion of the nature and development of Proactiv. Its an attempt to get asecond article on the same topic. A link to the article on the product and identification (e.g. a dermatological remedy) is all that's needed. 2/Promotional statement about the merits of the product, which belong nowhere. 3/The Amazon-like comments on the contents of the books, instead of listing just their adequately self-descriptive titles. 4/A list of all the shows where she's made appearances 5/terms like "fastest-growing premium skincare company". Depending on how one defines "premium, many companies could presumably make that claim. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks. ~~Would it be possible for you to userfy the article - so I can incorporate your suggestions?~~ At the very least some of it could be used on the Proactiv article in a section about the founders. Hmlarson (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: 1, 2, 3 + 5 removed from Draft:Katie Rodan. re 4: I removed this section and incorporated a referenced list (which is completely different than those in her bio) as she is often featured by a multitude of national media sources as a dermatology EXPERT. In addition to 2 books added to Further Reading in which she is profiled as an entrepreneur, this interview from Fox Business discusses her work beyond Proactiv as a female entrepreneur. Any further constructive feedback is appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Ugh, I was barfing before I got halfway through the article. I agree with Hobit that a redirect to Proactiv would be reasonable. @Hmlarson: I'll make you a deal. I'm not willing to read through all the carpet-bomb of references in the article, but if you provide two or three (and no more) sources which you think are the best ones to demonstrate notability, I'll take a look at those.. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, the proposer of this DRV, has been active on the site every day since I made my request, but has apparently chosen not to respond. If somebody can't be bothered to participate in a discussion they started, then I don't see why anybody else should put in the effort. So, signing on with the endorse camp. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I requested this from the keep !voters at the AfD. No one took me up on it then, either. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read a better rough consensus to redirect, and support RoySmith's road to move forward. The close was not outside admin discretion, I support undeletion if it is to allow re-use in a merge and redirect. Consensus was against a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I'd probably have speedied the version that was tagged G11 if I'd seen it. The redirect is fine; this title lived happily as a redirect for ~~nearly~~ more than eight years before being hijacked by an undisclosed paid editor. —Cryptic 06:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: rdirect would be very appropriate, but the article does not have to undeleted to make the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Endorse close as a reasonable, good faith reading of consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:J – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The new Template:j was improperly deleted, at 13:56, 24 February 2016, because there had been a former redirect of the same name, but the new Template was new, NOT a recreate of that prior redirect, but a new template to explain the name "{j}" (see: doc-page) as used by hundreds of editors over 6 years in more than 1,300 pages, but Bot-removed en masse on 5 January 2016 to hide the prior widespread usage. Very frustrating for hundreds of users, so please undelete. Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, revised 16:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you didn't discuss this with the deleting admin before coming here? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting admin did not bother to contact me before speedied the new Template:j (again in use in many more pages), and so there was no indication of any interest in talking about the template nor its use in over one thousand pages for the past 6 years. Should I have taken this deletion to wp:AN/I, if you think the admin is totally out-of-control or something? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I object in principle to being haled in front of ANI for my many crimes, but I think 82.14.37.32 is referring to the instruction at the top of deletion review which says the following: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." I didn't nominate the template for deletion (that was Primefac (talk · contribs)) and I have no particular views on its existence. It was one of many speedy deletions I handled that day. Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deleting administrator here. Second deleting administrator, actually, as RHaworth (talk · contribs) deleted the original redirect. This re-creation and DRV appear to be an attempt to do an end-around the original discussion. Creating a template in place of a redirect that contains the exact same content as the redirect's target is effectively re-creating the redirect, in addition to being an unnecessary fork. It was removed en masse because it was deprecated and deleted. That's normal; that's how the deletion process works, and it took place several weeks (apparently) after the RfD closed. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue here is that Template:j was created as a separate template (no longer a redirect) to solve the problem where some users did not understand what "j" meant, nor the issue of word-joined text, nor why "nowrap" (or "&nbsp") was too long for the users of "j" and in fact, one user had to read the page-history of {j} to deduce the original rationale, and so the new Template:j was created to show separate documentation to explain the related questions. Meanwhile Template:j is NOT the recreation of a redirect, but rather a separate template with separate doc-page to explain the name and usage over the past 6 years. Template:j is a separate template, for use where editors do not want to use "{{nowrap}}". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As part of the TfD crew, I was one of the people in the {{j}}-is-really-{{nowrap}} force that replaced the usage properly. As far as being the G4 nominator: I saw that Wikid77 was adding J back to articles (through an unrelated series of events) and noticed it was (again) replicating the nowrap, hence the CSD tags. I concur with Mackensen, as I seem to recall that Wikid77 has done this with various templates in the past (not DRV, but recreation/end-running). Primefac (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse given the original discussion didn't result in delete because it was (a) a redirect or (b) wasn't explained on the template page properly, I can't see how the recreation overcomes the consensus reached. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, a careful re-read of the RfD (see: link) shows users were very confused by limited explanation of the ambiguous name "j" (for "join" text) and were completely unaware of the comparison to using " " or typo "nsbp" between words. In fact, one user considered "j" a type of smiley emoticon because there was no quick explanation of "j" until the new template displayed a separate doc-page to note "j" means "join" the text on one line. The whole basis to delete the redirect was because people did not know why "j" was chosen 6 years ago, and a user even suggested using name "nw" instead, which would have been very "northwest" (NW) to many people. Anyway, a new template, with a separate doc page, is NOT a recreate of a redirect, and not a case for speedy-delete. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment of the person started "I had to go to the docs to learn that this is "j" as in "join".", the lack of documentation was not an issue. It being a redirect was not an issue. You may believe that it's very clever to split hairs about a redirect vs a standalone template, but if they do the same thing then they are to all intents and purposes the same thing. (Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck). --82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The nominator doesn't seem interested in following the prescribed process for listing a DRV, so I don't seem interested in changing the result. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, both per User:Mackensen's anyalsis above - this seems to be a too-clever-by-half attempt to do an end-run around a prior consensus, and per User:Stifle's comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was to "deprecate, and eventually delete" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Template:J. The recreation in a slightly different manner, but with substantially the same content, was an attempt to circumvent that (by what I can gather from User:Wikid77/Template:J/doc). Therefore, the deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was appropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 April 2016

Jessica Denay – Discussion reopened and relisted. – Sandstein 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable sources were found after consensus was achieved. There was no further discussion after Coolabahapple and myself presented RS that would show that Denay should pass GNG. The article was originally a PROD by SwisterTwister and was deprodded with the rationale that HighBeam showed RS. Then it was taken to AfD. The AfD did not discuss the sources that I or Coolabahapple found. I discussed with the closer, Anthony Bradbury here and he has no problem with me bringing this to review. I think that the closer looked at the consensus, but may have missed the references I added since I put them into the article itself and commented that the article was improved on the AfD. I think this is a situation where further review is required. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist We may well reach the same conclusion, but I think the discussion should have been left to run so that the arguments made by the !keepers could be debated further. SmartSE (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen existing discussion. The close was perfectly reasonable, but there were a bunch of sources (seven, if I counted right) added late in the discussion period which nobody commented on. I think it's worth re-listing this for a week to give people a chance to evaluate those sources. I've tempundelted this so people can see the edit history. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much of the article is about the "Hot Mom's Club" rather than about Ms Denay. And tutoring the offspring of a famous parent does not imply notability. But I concede that references were added late in the discussion, although a full week was allowed as from nomination. I will not !vote in the discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A relist would do no harm and would give confidence that the new references had been properly evaluated by the community.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist would indeed be useful for the reasons already given. An unimportant comment: although User:SwisterTwister claims involvement in the PROD[21], the history seems to show otherwise.[22][23] Thincat (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find my way here because I just went to User:Anthony Bradbury's page due to their closure, which I think is premature/incorrect, of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pinwheel. There are 4 different closures questioned at their Talk page, which seems unusual and concerning. --do ncr am 04:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need a few sysops who're willing to make the difficult calls. The fact that 4 closures are mentioned might mean Anthony Bradbury's performed a lot of the harder XfD closes this week, which is something we should applaud rather than condemn. Show me four closes in the same week that get overturned at DRV, though, and I'll agree there might be a problem.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with S Marshall. If getting yelled at was a reliable indicator of doing a bad job, I should have been desysopped long ago :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the four closure questions mentioned above, one was in error in that the article had not been deleted by me, one was pointing out that I had neglected to actually delete after marking the article for deletion, one was this one, and the fourth was posted by doncram, the editor making the criticism. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not mean to imply otherwise, about my coming to the Talk page and questioning a closure. I posted there using the "+" button without seeing the other 3 closure questions, one of which linked to this DRV. --do ncr am 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Classic case where relisting is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The AFD began April 11. The 1st "Keep" comment, with sources, was given April 14, then only later comment was 2nd "Keep" comment April 16. No others considered the sources. It's reasonable to judge that the sources would have swayed the original delete voters and any new arriving voters, so it's best to relist. About the closer's comment above ('Much of the article is about the "Hot Mom's Club" rather than about Ms Denay'), one normal AFD-type outcome to be explored would be to Keep the article but move/rename it to Hot Mom's Club. Discussion could have settled on that outcome. Also, although new sources and material are not properly part of the DRV decision, the article and sources so far did not include coverage of Jessica Denay's Hot Mom's Club Radio show which aired during 2010-2011 (it's easy to find sources mentioning "Jessica and Joy" and the radio show; this source verifies that "Jessica" is Hot Mom's Club founder Jessica Denay). Relisting would allow consideration of that and other material beyond what was put into the mix during the AFD (which I believe was already sufficient to reasonably lead to a Keep outcome). --do ncr am 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I remainn unsure about notability, but the close should have at least considered the sources found at the end of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, with no prejudice against the closer. Reasonable call to make given the circumstances, but it looks like this could do with another look given the additional material located. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relist. The close was appropriate, but this is a situation where relisting will be helpful given the late arrival of sources. I suggest pinging all previous contributors to this discussion if it's reopened to allow them to consider the sources provided. ~ Rob^Talk 22:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist. The sourcing found near the close of the discussion was not given appropriate weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Closer seems to have misred contributions to the discussion here as a vote. Those favoring delete did not substantiate their reason for deleting beyond claiming non-notable. Those in favor of keeping provided sources and improved the article. ~Kvng (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 April 2016

Template:Pro gamer achievements – Endorse, but allow userfication. My template-fu is weak, so I'm going to take it as a given that the template-in-userspace magic works as described. I'll be happy to undelete and userfy the template if requested, but I'll have to leave it to somebody else to worry about the template-specific details. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

no direct guideline-based reason for deletion. This template make it a lot easier to create pro gaming-related tables because of complicated formatting -- Prisencolin (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the TfD guidelines and I agree that the reasoning for deletion doesn't seem to meet those guidelines. A template that will likely never be used again is a reason for deletion, but this sounded like a IDONTLIKEIT discussion. I'm leaning toward thinking this should have been closed as NC on the basis of numbers vs. strength of argument, but I admit I don't know TfD very well. But if this is a reasonable deletion at TfD, the guidelines need to be updated. Hobit (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I've read more and others have educated me on relevant matters I'm at endorse deletion but userify on request though it shouldn't be transcluded in mainspace articles. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this as delete because the "it's just a table" argument trumped the "I'm going to use it more." This was not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, but a case of "why are we using a hardcoded template when a normal table will suffice?" There are some templates that create custom headers with specific issues (and used on dozens of pages) in order to create a certain aesthetic and provide some semblance of uniformity, but in this case it was literally just a table coded into a template. The creator, upon notification of the TFD, slapped this on three articles, and (as far as I can tell) that was it. If the grand sum of all usage of this template was four pages then it makes more sense to simply add the normal table code. WikiProject Video games might have something to say about this, but they were never brought into the loop, though I have now pinged them. For their reference, the following four articles were using this template: 1, 2, 3, 4.

As a note, Czar also closed as delete (re-opening due to Prisencolin not seeing the TFD) with similar rationale. Primefac (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that if someone wants to use the template rather than a table (say because they find it easier to be consistant and they can update things in one place to reformat everything, but exact reasons don't matter) what is the basis for preventing them from doing that? I don't see anything at TfD that indicates such an argument is a valid reason to delete. Nor does it seem like a good IAR case as it isn't clear that deleting this does anything other than piss off someone. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well TfD does have the rather big catch all statement in the "Reasons to delete a template" section , "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." Which I guess there is a matter of perspective on, it's either a massive catch all as I presented which should be nailed down a bit, or it's a natural(ish) view of templates. Templates are here to assist in the bebuilding process, and so it does ultimately tend to come down to a subjective view as to if it is of genuine value in the process or not. What one person sees as a beautiful slick way of doing something others can easily see as a confusing, inconsistent etc. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review's remit is not unconstrained. We review here whether the person closing a deletion discussion has correctly followed the process to do so and implemented the consensus at that discussion. Everything here happened in accordance with process, and therefore I endorse the outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other: The outcomes being sought here are not mutually exclusive. This is one of those happy cases where it's possible to please everyone, so let's do that. The DRV closer could leave the TfD result undisturbed, but restore the template's content to a separate subpage of Prisencolin's userspace. Prisencolin can then transclude it from userspace instead of from the template namespace (as described in Help:Template), so he can facilitate the creation of his articles about pro gamer achievements in exactly the way he wants without any fuss at all.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a template person so forgive the stupid question, but how would that work? Would the userspace template be included in mainspace? Or is there something else you are proposing? Hobit (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not strictly included. Could be transcluded or substituted (either works; which would apply depends on how the original was set up and I can't see it). It's easy to set up your own personal templates in userspace. The difference in practice, as far as Prisencolin is concerned, is that (if transcluded) instead of typing {{Pro gamer achievements}} he would type {{User:Prisencolin/Pro gamer achievements}} ---- or (if substituted) instead of typing {{subst:Pro gamer achievements}} he would type {{subst:User:Prisencolin/Pro gamer achievements}}. Only practical difference is a few more keystrokes for him, or he could even save that by copy/pasting the text I've just typed out.
    It's so easy, Hobit, you've already accidentally done it. You've used exactly this technique on your userpage. You know how you've got {{User:Scepia/BGG}} there which creates one of your userboxes? That's actually a userspace template transclusion of the kind I'm suggesting.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, my question was unclear. It sounds like you are suggesting that a mainspace article use a user template. Is that actually standard? The help page you linked to says user space templates are for "your own personal use or for experimentation". Seems odd that we've even have TfD if that's allowed. So I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your proposal or misunderstanding how things are generally done or something else. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Hobit: You're correct, that would be highly nonstandard. Substituting from a userspace template is perfectly fine; it's just a shortcut to get the wikitable code onto the page without writing it yourself every time. Transcluding a userspace template in the mainspace shouldn't be done, though. ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I imagine that's a non-concern in this case. It was probably a substituting template from the outset, given its purpose.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Numerically, it's clear that the closure is supported. Strength of arguments is being questioned above, but see reason #2 for deletion. While wiki-tables aren't actually a template, the spirit in which that reason for deletion was written is fairly clear. This template is obviously redundant to wikitables. See Wikipedia:Avoid template creep for reasons why redundancy is bad. Weak support/indifference toward S Marshall's proposal. I have no problem with this being restored to userspace with the understanding that it will be speedily deleted per the TfD outcome if it's placed back into template space. ~ Rob^Talk 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to clarify that I support the restoration to a userspace template on the condition that the template is used for substitutions only, to make it easier to add the wikitable to articles. I strongly oppose transcluding userspace templates in the mainspace. ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, no objection to userfying. Disclosure: I deleted this. (Surely asking for that would have been easier than starting a DRV about a discussion from six weeks ago?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont fully understand how transclusion works yet, but if userspace templated are effectively going to be used on mainspace, why exactly can't we just have this on normal template space if not for the TfD concensus?--Prisencolin (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If not for consensus, we could do a lot of things! The template namespace is for templates that contribute to the project. We tend to want to reduce redundancy within the template space because it makes it a lot easier to maintain. In this case, the template is completely redundant to a wikitable and not of much use. If a single person wants to use it for substitution (and take on the role of maintaining it if wikitables ever change or the needs of the template change), then they should be able to do so, but putting the template in the template space and transcluding it in articles requires other editors to maintain it to avoid breaking articles. ~ Rob^Talk 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion copies content from a source page to a target page such that if the source page changes, so does the target page. Substitution copies content from a source page to a target page such that if the source page changes, the target page does not. If you look at my edit history, the two edits immediately preceding this one show how you can use substitution, from your userspace, to preload a wikitable into your target page.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, those two edits are 1) creating the table and 2) substituting /sandbox into /sandbox2. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and allow recreation, per deleting admin, I think we can respect this decision. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 April 2016

Biowars – I'm undoing this mistaken non-admin closure in my individual capacity as an admin per WP:NACD. – Sandstein 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closed discussion as "no consensus"; however, three people besides the nominator (me) made strong cases that it should be redirected to Gabriel Shaoolian. The dissent came from the article's author, who just noted that he added one more source (but it was just a list article that included Biowars among 13 other things), and User:Fixuture, who argued that it was notable because of a couple of news articles, half of which had little mention of Biowars at all, and because of Facebook likes, which isn't a valid argument. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRVPURPOSE specifically states to discuss the closure with the closing user first. Why didn't you discuss this with me before bringing it to DRV? I would have been happy to reverse my closure and allow an admin to close it. SSTflyer 09:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want to merge this article into another article, there is no need to seek consensus at AFD. Just be bold and do it yourself. SSTflyer 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I should have discussed it with you first. Alright, I guess I'll be bold. Cheers, and sorry about that. -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 April 2016

Elizabeth Koch (publisher) – "Keep" closure endorsed. There is quite a bit of discussion about the process related to non-admin closures, but these issues are not relevant to the consensus formed here that the closure was correct. – Sandstein 09:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm listing this DRV for DaltonCastle, who has very politely disputed my close. He said:

Hello there! I just happened to be viewing the AfD for Elizabeth Koch and noticed you closed it as a consensus to keep. I'm a little curious how you arrived at that conclusion, since it was a 5 - 5 vote. Shouldn't it be relisted? Just curious. A comment that I think very many people overlooked on the nomination is that almost all the sources about an "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the same one as the publisher. So just one profile of her, doesn't seem to establish notability.

I replied:

It seemed very simple to me. You raised two objections to this article in your nomination: firstly, notability, and secondly, the risk that the article might be vandalised. I'm afraid the second objection holds no water and the contributors rightly focused on notability. There are a number of very weak "keep" arguments in the debate, such as the ones asserting that the article subject is notable without actually linking any sources, or the ones vaguely pointing at google searches. There are only two strong "keep" arguments in the whole debate ---- the one very pithily summarised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which may be short but I saw as significant, and Cunard's rather more verbose contribution in which he directly linked of the Wall Street Journal source ---- but those two strong arguments are humdingers. However, I did not close in accordance with the numbers, and if you are not confident with my close then I will be very happy to start a deletion review in which the close will be scrutinised by experienced and previously uninvolved contributors.

Did I err in my assessment of the debate? —S Marshall T/C 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting for me! I appreciate the help. I think the biggest confusion that the "Keep" voters are falling for is that there are actually two other, far more famous Elizabeth Kochs, and that most of the sources on the internet related to "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the publisher. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD included discussion of the issue of spurious matches, and the issue of what constituted sufficient coverage in reliable sources. As noted by the closing admin, it was a close call. I believe that either 'keep' or 'no consensus' would have been a proper consensus-based decision. Thus, the closing admin's judgment should stand. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "keep" closure. "Delete" editors wrote:
1. "There is one source. Notability is in questions. And the article was created by a single-purpose user, FactorHK, whose only changes have been vandalizing Koch-related articles with POV edits. Therefore I am concerned that leaving up this article creates the possibility of future POV vandalism."
2. "Delete as simply none of this suggests any better independent notability"
3. "Delete No evidence that she is notable as a publisher. People need to pass notabilty guidelines, and she does not."
4. I find the same problem as many other editors are finding. Sources are not for this Elizabeth Koch, and the ones that are and discuss her comprehensively are pretty much just the two good ones already in the article. Others are simply discussion of Black Balloon or Catapult."
5. "As others have noted above, the Elizabeth Koch we are referencing lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. RS, outside of the two already included, only mention her in passing. Simply being a publisher and writer does not seem inherently notable."
The Wall Street Journal I linked in the discussion clearly provides substantial coverage of this Elizabeth Koch. It discusses Elizabeth Koch's biographical background directly and in detail. The Salon article (mentioned by Megalibrarygirl) provides less substantial by still significant coverage of Elizabeth Koch. Therefore, the "delete" editors who said the sources were about some other Elizabeth Koch or did not cover her significantly were correctly accorded less weight. The "delete" argument that the article should be deleted because of possible future vandalism was also correctly discounted. A "keep" close is an accurate assessment of strength of the arguments in the AfD and well within discretion.
Cunard (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Firstly, this discussion was closed by a non-admin, but the closure did not note this fact. Secondly, both sides have made valid arguments, and with an equal number of votes on each side, there is no clear consensus. The discussion closure favored the opinion of a single participant, and arguably can be considered a WP:SUPERVOTE. In fact, the closure specifically noted that the notability is marginal, and such cases are best left to administrators or more experienced AFD closers. If this discussion were already relisted two or more times, this should be closed as no consensus, but since this has only been relisted once, there is no rush to close it. SSTflyer 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that I might just possibly fit the profile of a "more experienced AfD closer". :-)—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should not have made the simple mistake of not using the {{nac}} template then. SSTflyer 10:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that is to reduce the credibility of discussion closers who haven't passed the popularity contest, so I routinely disregard it, as I am entitled to do with guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you close a deletion discussion as a non-admin you must use the {{nac}} template. Quoting WP:NACD: Non-admins should indicate their non-admin status with the (non-admin closure) ("non-admin close") template, which should always be substituted. This template alerts other editors that the discussion closer lacks the technical ability to delete the article. WP:IARing in this case does not benefit Wikipedia. If you so arrogantly claim that you "routinely disregard it", I may take this to WP:ANI. SSTflyer 14:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly escalated quickly. What you're suggesting is a misconception of how our discussion processes work. Admins are not superusers. The wisdom of Solomon is not one of the tools you get on passing RfA. They're not the judiciary and they have no special powers to judge consensus. You do not need, and have never needed, to pass an RfA to grant your closes some kind of seal of legitimacy. There are admins who think otherwise; there are admins who will unilaterally overturn a non-admin close on request without giving their reasons, based on an entirely misguided belief that you need to be a sysop to have standing to close a discussion. What we don't want and have never wanted is people with a COI, or sockpuppets, closing discussions. You're at liberty to begin an AN/I thread if you wish but I think you'll find that it will be speedily closed. AN/I does not scrutinise deletion decisions. That's what DRV is for.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The {{nac}} template does not illegitimize a discussion closure. Instead, it serves as a notification that the discussion was closed by a non-administrator. Like you said, this is DRV. I am free to express my opinion and reasoning that your closure was inappropriate, and you refusing to use the {{nac}} was inappropriate. SSTflyer 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For as long as it remains normal for sysops to unilaterally overturn non-admin closes without giving their reasons, I will absolutely and point blank refuse to label my closes with that template, because that practice renders non-admin closes pointless.—S Marshall T/C 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not normal for sysops to unilaterally overturn non-admin closes without giving their reasons. Indeed, it is not normal for sysops to overturn non-admin closes period. It is a check. Some non-admins don't understand consensus. The point of non-admin closes is being helpful in clear cut cases. In your case, given your level of comprehension of consensus, this close was clear cut for you. If you "point blank refuse", I'll put it down to your personal characteristic temperament, and will continue to think of you as a de facto qualified admin per the clear trend of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NAC template mentioned is illegitimate, since it identifies all NAC closes as SNOW closes, which non-admins should not perform. NACs are generally limited to "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period" and speedy keeps; SNOW closes are excluded. Where did this template come from? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how template documentation works, Hullaballoo. The NAC template is stupid, because typing {{subst:nac}} is more keystrokes than typing [[WP:NAC]], but the fact that the word "SNOW" appears in the template documentation doesn't label every non-admin close as a snow close. Incidentally I've closed quite a number of AfDs under WP:SNOW. A SNOW call is always a decision to ignore the rules, you see.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Should" ≠ "must". It's appropriate to insist on the {{nac}} scarlet letter if someone's had a history of making dubious closures, or hardly any history of making closures at all. That's not the case here. —Cryptic 20:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an amazingly good product of mostly well-interacting slightly odd volunteers. Success was not achieved by forcing conformance. To insist is not appropriate, unless something is demonstrably hurting. {{nac}} is not a scarlet letter. The most prolific users of {{nac}} were User:Ron Ritzman and User:Tim song, and they have continued to work out well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Ordinarily I wouldn't endorse an NAC on as closely divided an AFD as this one, but most of the delete !votes boil down to just not notable, which can't outweigh or even come close to balancing the cited profile in one of thos most important US newspapers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: only one reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Though the discussion was divided, extensive references were shown during the AfD, sufficient to remove any real doubt about notability. That makes the the decision clear enough for a non-admin keep. I can't imagine reopening it would lead to any other result. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: only one reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No admin would have closed that as delete. Relisting at that point in the debate would be incorrect, as there was basically no chance of it turning into a delete consensus. Endorse. —Cryptic 20:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to reiterate that the vast majority of sources about Elizabeth Koch are about different Elizabeth Kochs. There is one reliable source about her (the publisher). If anything, it should be redirected to the Black Balloon Publishing page. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely true that most of the sources are about a different lady. There are two that were linked in the debate and are unambiguously about Elizabeth Kochs who's Charles Koch's daughter: the Wall Street Journal and salon.com. The general notability guideline says that someone is notable if they've received significant coverage (meaning more than a passing mention) in reliable sources (plural, so at least two) that are independent of the subject, and DRV will find that those two sources qualify, so we say the lady is notable, irrespective of any opinion statements to the contrary that might appear in the debate we're reviewing.
The other key contribution to the debate was Hullaballoo's, in which he says that even if this lady wasn't notable, that still wouldn't mean we should turn it into a redlink because there's a plausible redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point but I would contend that Salon is not a reliable source. I could support a compromise in redirecting the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse Koch is a serious publisher of many books and clearly notable. Extensive references were shown. Arenwils (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The above user is under investigation for sock puppetry. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No reason to relist, I see no possibility of this changing to delete if relisted and the closer is able to determine that. -- GB fan 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close appropriately describes the discussion. There are two actually relevant reliable sources, so the discussion isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is only one reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I was making was that Salon is a RS IMO. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Definitely should have been closed as "keep". New sources were added during the discussion, Cunard's especially being strong even decisive, the nomination rational well rebutted. A "no consensus" would have been defensible but a stretch. A relist would have been inappropriate as more than enough "keep" !votes, weighted by strength of argument, were provided to prevent a reasonable call of "delete" even if several hypothetical new participant arrived to reinforce the "delete" !votes. That said, there were serious challenged to notability, and even the Wall Street Journal could be challenged on grounds of independence, I suspect, to my reading of it. Per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, anyone who continues to think the article should be deleted may re-nominate after at least 6 months. Encourage the closer to use the {{nac}} template. There are a number of little reasons to do so, including unbadged NACs being confusing to newcomers, and few reasons not to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: only one reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying that word, "one". I do not think it means what you think it means. —Cryptic 00:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny. But, I stand by it. Salon is not a reliable source. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because it was a sensible close with a clear rationale. On the {{nac}} matter, I'm not fussed but mainly because (and I'm a bit ashamed to say it) I use a custom script that highlights admins names. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I participated in the AfD, where I !voted keep. I also added references to the article. I added the Salon reference which DaltonCastle claims is an unreliable source. I think that this is a case where the bias of the source is being used by an editor to claim the reference is not RS. Salon, like other news sources has an editorial board that vets submissions to the site. There is no reason to consider it unreliable as a source, only that it may have a bias, which still doesn't invalidate it as a source. See: WP:BIASED, Also, if DaltonCastle is going to continue to claim Salon is not an RS for this article, I'd like to see the reasoning. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I'm happy to add my name to the close if the NAC angle of it is really bothering anyone. Quite aside from the discussion above, I want to also endorse and applaud the fact that this wasn't relisted a second time as suggested by User:DaltonCastle; after so much discussion and one relist, it was better to conclude the argument rather than just kick the can further down the road and be back at the same place after another week. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. I was going to close this DRV, but if I did that, I wouldn't get a chance to say the things that need saying. First, kudos to S Marshall for bringing this review of his own close to DRV on behalf of a user. Many people who own a mop just dig in their heels when questioned. Here we have a shining exemplar for how things should be done. Second, I just read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2. What a sad commentary on how stupid the whole adminship thing has become. Please let me know if there's a try #3, so I can rush there and vote to support, but I also understand why you may not want to put yourself through another attempt. Third, like Lankiveil, I'd be willing to put my name on this close, but have refrained from doing so, because reclosing a NAC as an admin implies that there was something wrong with the first close, and that's not the message I want to send. Fourth, if not labeling a NAC with the NAC template is a violation of the rules, then I say the proof of a wikipedian is not in which rules they obey, but in the value they add to the project. If only all of our rule-breakers would add half as much value to wikipedia as S Marshall has, then the best thing I can hope for is an army of rule-breakers. Lastly, to make my comment somewhat more balanced, I will point out that my habit is, if there's sources presented late in a discussion, I'll pretty much automatically relist it, to give people a chance to comment on the sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The source Cunard quoted in the AFD had been in the article since its very first revision. —Cryptic 00:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 April 2016

14 April 2016

Donetsk bus shelling incident – Speedy close as out of scope. This is an edit war about whether to redirect something; there is no deletion decision to review. See WP:DR for how to resolve this. – Sandstein 16:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no any discussion related to this article (neither merging nor deletion). But user RGloucester merged (de facto, deleted) it without consensus. Different users reverted this merging during the year, see [24] [25] [26] etc. The discussion about merging/deletion should start first. Note, four interwikies are linked, with big articles in ru-wiki and uk-wiki and many sources in it. Please restore the article without unconsensus merging. 46.211.251.46 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support a separate article for this event because it is an important incident in the unrest in eastern Ukraine. LinkinPark (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was neither a deletion nor a deletion discussion, so this is plainly out of scope for DRV. You might have better luck at WP:ANI. —Cryptic 00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is it in the scope of DRV since there is no deletion to reverse, Any registered user is capable of restoring the article.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Non-governmental organizations by country – The CfD closure is endorsed as procedurally correct and reflecting the consensus of the discussion. However, what is being sought here is not overturning the closure because of procedural errors, but a new discussion on the merits. While there are indications in this review that a new consensus could be found, the opinions offered here do not constitute a consensus sufficient to overturn the result of the CfD. I recommend that interested editors start a new discussion on the merits in a RfC or in a new, widely advertised CfD discussion. Sandstein 10:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I question the deletion of this category because in the deletion discussion, I do not see evidence that the people commenting were familiar with the concept of a "non-governmental organization".

"Non-governmental organization" (NGO) is a jargon term that usually is equivalent to "nonprofit organization". That point should have been raised in the deletion discussion, but was not. Some countries, like the United States, say "nonprofit organization" whereas other countries, like India, have no nonprofit sector and only have an NGO sector and "non governmental organizations". "Nonprofit" and "nongovernmental" are both defining concepts of organizations and of equal importance as concepts.

These merges recently happened

If these deletions stand, then probably we also need to make the following merge

Categories typically are not supposed to have intersections, but since these categories are massive (1000s of organizations), it does seem reasonable to divide them into commercial organizations, government organizations, and either or both nongovernmental or nonprofit organizations. All countries have a concept of commercial sector and government sector, but then some countries imagine a nonprofit sector and others imagine a nongovernmental sector. It is a cultural choice to call these organizations one or the other. Rarely is a country discussed in a single source as having a separate NGO sector and nonprofit sector. For example, the NFL and FIFA are both football leagues, but one is a nonprofit and the other is nongovernmental. Both have very strong ties to the governments especially for funding their stadiums and coordinating events, and both are associated with a major commercial sector. It would not be right to call the NFL an NGO or FIFA a nonprofit organization, but rather best to use NGO for FIFA (which it is) and NPO for NFL (which it is).

Nonprofit/nongovernmental are perpetually confusing terms. In nonprofit-minded countries people say, "Aren't businesses non-governmental?" and in countries with NGOs they say, "Aren't government organizations nonprofit?" The problem is that the terms "nonprofit" and "nongovernment" cannot be understood literally and they are technical jargon with a certain meaning unrelated to profit or government. Nonprofit organizations sometimes generate profit and nongovernment organizations are sometimes a part of government, but these are still widely used concepts and categorizations.

A better merge, but one that would probably be seen as prejudiced to the Western world, would have been

Category:Non-governmental organizations by subject->Category:Non-profit organizations by subject

This merits a little more discussion. Can previous participants please comment further if you feel this merge should stand?

@PanchoS, AusLondonder, Oculi, SMcCandlish, Crh23, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, MER-C, Grutness, and Good Olfactory:
@Rathfelder: - you were the only one to make any comparison between nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. You also proposed deleting the "nonprofit organizations by x" categories. Could you say more about that?

Thanks everyone for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (without prejudice) and merge as proposed but to alt. name Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, or Endorse procedurally but return to CfD for discussion of proposed different merge (which ever is more processually "happy"). Merging the nonprofits and NGOs to one cat. with both names will ensure there's no ENGVAR confusion. And the hyphenation is not needed (people who actually work in this sector usually do not hyphenate it, a change that happened gradually over the 1990s, while I was working in that sector). If people want to fight to preserve the hyphens, I won't fight back, but they should be both no-hyphen or both hyphenated, not mix-and-match. The nom is right that most NGOs are nonprofits in different lingo, and vice versa; while there are some nonprofits that have strong governmental ties, especially surrounding the UN and EU (but also here and there around US and other national governments), it's OK. Our categorization system does not have to be a model of Vulcan logic, just useful enough to our readers and editors to suffice. Any org that straddles the line can be dual categorized, or we can create a quasi-governmental category for them, or whatever. I figure 95% or so of the entries in both the nonprofits and (former) NGO categories are the same kind of organization at the encyclopedic level, even the regulatory structures in which they fit are not a 1-to-1 match. So this would be a better merge than the last one contemplated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I don't think concatenating two terms, with one being even more blurry and problematic than the other, helps us fix any of the identified problems that led us to do away with the Category:Non-governmental organizations by country scheme. Also, please see WP:DRVPURPOSE – your pledge would be "Overturn and rename to…". --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the "Support" wording to "Overturn", and revised further to clarify. Lots of categories are blurry, so we subcategorize to unblur them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for raising your objections or concerns here. Indeed, when nominating these categories, I expected a bit more discussion, but it's unfortunately not unusual that too few people care about WP:CfD discussions. More generally, contributors often only notice all kinds of RfCs after they were concluded. That's why we have processes to reassess concluded discussions.

Endorse deletion Now, from what I can see, the closing administrator, who happens to be very experienced with categories, didn't make any procedural error. The recent discussion was closed after 9 days without a single objection, after the preceding one had been closed after 13 days with unanimous support. Also, while it wasn't further examined by other participants, in my nomination, I did acknowledge the (partial or loose) equivalence of NGOs and non-profit organizations ("we have the widely corresponding Category:Non-profit organizations by country").

Still, I can see your point. We are regularly facing these kinds of problems, with terms being very loosely defined or with varying definitions in distinct fields of a topic or regions of the world. In these cases our task is to come up with a terminology that most correctly describes the content, avoids ambiguity and redundancy, and allows for a consistent categorization scheme. The term NGOs may be widely used in India and some other countries, but that alone doesn't necessarily make for a usable terminology to categorize organizations worldwide.

Now you're saying, the same case would hold for NPOs. To a certain extent that's true, with government agencies being not-for-profit (in the literal sense), too. But then again, we're talking about a rather limited number of government agencies that would always be categorized as such. On the other hand, there are way more private, for-profit organizations (companies) to distinguish from.
There are some more reasons why the definition of NPOs works better with our categorization scheme than the varying definition(s) of NGOs do: While the definition of NPOs doesn't carry an assumption about their size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying, or the issue they're working on, NGOs are regularly associated with these hardly quantifiable features. Furthermore, as NPOs are tax-exempt in many if not most countries of the world, there's a clearly defined legal status for us to discriminate between different types of organizations. This German-language economics dictionary entry clearly states that science prefers the term NPO to NGO, as NGO is an even more blurry concept. There may be more, including English-language sources stating the same.
So while IMHO we had every reason to finally do away with our effectively broken NGOs categorization scheme, this doesn't preclude us from keeping our slightly less broken NPOs categorization scheme.

On a larger, transnational basis, there is a case for categorizing Category:International non-governmental organizations, as in these cases definition is rather clear and usable, see for example this comprehensive book chapter on INGOs. I would therefore propose directing our efforts at these organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone from that field professionally, I would say: a) yes, it's complicated; b) "NPO" is not an acronym we use much if at all, unless that has become popular overnight and I didn't notice; and c) we all treat "NGO" as equivalent to "nonprofit", absent evidence that the organization is actually one of those with unusually close ties to government. No one in the North American nonprofit sector is unaware of "NGO" and what it stands for, and its usual equivalency with "nonprofit". It's a bit like "truck" and "lorry"; in US English "truck" can be used more broadly (e.g. to include pickups), but there's not actual problem treating truck and lorry as equivalent terms on WP as long as we define them in context. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the meanings of the terms are so similar, I would not favour re-populating the NGO categories, but endorse the merge, and keep the category pages for NGOs in each country as redirects to NPO in each country. Redirecting would be better than deletion because these category names are liable to be re-added on articles. I have no objection whatever to former contents of the NGO categories being moved into NPO where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'd fully support Fayenatic london's proposal to redirect to the NPO categories.
While refining categorization on a per-case basis, if appropriately backed by sources, is always welcome, I still think it was sensible not to merge them all in. Too many organization articles are lacking proper sources that would back their legal, non-profit status. I'm sure in many or most cases it will be easy to prove the status of notable organizations, but instead of assuming, we have to prove it for every single organization. --PanchoS (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PanchoS, Fayenatic london, and SMcCandlish: Yes would support this alternative. Here are all the options presented in my order of preference.

SMcCandlish suggested renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations to Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. I think this is the most accurate and least confusing option. All nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations could be merged into that category.
Fayenatic london and PabloS suggested moving all items formerly in category:NGO to category:nonprofit organization. I think this also is a workable option. I expect that some people in India would call it racist or prejudiced for discounting their legal process, but if "nonprofit" is imagined as an adjective and not a legal status it is correct. I think that using this category would leave an unresolved problem that will come up again in the future but it meets the present need and the quality of data that we have.
We might restore the NGO categories. The biggest problem with this is that there is perpetual confusion that "NGO" is a commonly used term with a specific meaning. Restoring the category would not communicate the issue clearly even though it is correct.
I least prefer the status quo of removing all NGOs from their category while keeping nonprofit organizations in theirs. This is inaccurate and a cultural bias.

Procedural stuff -PanchoS I agree that there was no procedural error in the deletion close. I am requesting view under the "new information" rationale. As you guessed, I did not become aware of this discussion until the category was removed from articles I was watching, so the deletion was a draw for me to enter the discussion. Thparkth Discusses below whether there is actually new information here, but perhaps if we can merge the items either into the nonprofit category or a new "nonprofit and NGO" category, then we can omit discussion of procedure.

PanchoS - I am not sure this needs to be discussed further, but I fail to understand why you say NGOs and NPOs are only partially or loosely equivalent. For example, in India these sorts of groups would be called NGOs, and in the United States these sorts of organizations would be NPOs:

schools, social clubs, activist organizations, political organizations, certain hospitals, religious centers like churches or temples

In both cases, the nonprofit/nongovernmental status is granted through government registration, and in both cases, the motivation is usually to get benefits of incorporation without the requirement to pay taxes for income. I am not recognizing why you feel that "NGO" status is loose but "nonprofit status" is better defined. There is no legal nonprofit status for organizations in India, and there is no way to register as an NGO in the United States. These are equivalent legal designations in different cultures or legal systems.

I am not aware of any rules which say NGOs have to have certain "size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying". I am not sure why you raise tax-emempt status of NPOs- the same concept applies to NGOs, and many countries only offer this to NGOs and have no scheme for offering tax exempt status to NPOs. I cannot check the German language entry, but even if it says the term "NPO is preferred in international discussion", I am not sure that means Wikipedia should have a manual of style rule which forces that description on organizations which are legally NGOs but not NPOs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained why NGOs and NPOs in general are exactly this: loosely equivalent terms. You'll find tons of relevant literature associating NGOs with size, influence, scope, or lobbying efforts. Of course, wherever in a particular discourse NGO has become fully synonymous with non-profits, no differences will be made. Now that the case of India has been raised, even in regard to India I'm seriously unsure if your claim that Indian law would only recognize NGOs as such, can be upheld. According to Non-profit laws of India, the sector consists of "trusts", "societies" and "Section 8 companies", and according to the 1961 Income Tax Act, the law seems to award tax-exempt status to these kinds of not-for-profit organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest moving all former NGO contents to NPO; I said "where appropriate". – Fayenatic London 14:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I would personally have !voted against merging, but I don't see any basis to overturn the clear consensus of the discussion. Although Blueraspberry has suggested that the participants in the discussion demonstrated a serious misunderstanding of the term "NGO" (which could potentially be a valid basis for overturning the outcome), I actually note that there was some in-depth discussion of the term and its history and usage in the nomination. I disagree with some of the points made, but I don't think it can reasonably be claimed that the terminology wasn't discussed and analyzed in a competent manner. The differences between the two viewpoints are differences of opinion, not differences of fact. Given that all of the participants in the discussion argued from the same viewpoint, it's hard to see what other outcome could have been expected (other than perhaps "relist" given the relatively low participation, but that may be a futile exercise at CfD). There is no reason to consider the outcome of the discussion unsafe. Thparkth (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm - it was a good outcome with the information presented. I am seeking another compromise above. Thanks for checking process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The closure was in line with the discussion. There is no reason to overturn it just because people did not go into deep enough discussions on the issues to satisfy the concerns. People addressed the isues at hand and clearly felt this was not the way we should be categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of this discussion where we overturned a CFD on the basis that a poorly-attended discussion reached a conclusion that simply didn't make sense for the encyclopaedia. Here we have another case in point. For example, there are about 600 non-governmental organisations here in Britain, and to my certain knowledge a further 500 in Ireland, the majority of which will be notable. CfD's decision needs to be reversed not because of any procedural error but simply because it's produced an outcome which is too silly to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 600? What criteria are you thinking of? Any charity can call itself a NGO. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the BBC say it's a quango, I presume it's a non-governmental organisation. E.g. here.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well yes a quango is a ngo, similarly a goat is an animal with 4 legs, but not all ngos are quangos and similarly not all animals with 4 legs are goats. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is true. I should of course have said that there are at least 600 notable NGOs in Britain; thanks for the correction.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, but note that the quango type of NGO is categorised in Category:Government bodies. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Non-governmental organisations are categorised as government bodies? That's... another less than brilliant decision that we need to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That is prima facie evidence that something is screwie with the categorisation structure here. Exactly what to do is not for DRV to decide. The CfD discussion was not extensive, and discussion should continue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Irrelevant to DRV: "Quango" is a derisory term for an organization which claims to be independent of government, but actually functions as part of government (typically being directly funded by government and exercising governing power). It isn't completely crazy to list them as "government bodies" - they are only "quasi-" independent. An example would be Ofcom which regulates broadcasting and telecommunications in the UK. It does basically the same job as the FCC in the USA - it is an organ of state. No one would be surprise to see Ofcom listed in a category of "government bodies". Thparkth (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as procedurally correct. However, I would suggest that those experienced in categorisation should make efforts not use CFD nomination as a platform for polemical debate. On the off-chance this will sometimes lead to a consensus that gives an unsatisfactory outcome. Thincat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 April 2016

Template:Important concept – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 07:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is not meet to G6, and this is it is different from Template:Policy. Also, English Wikipedia's important concept (ex POV) has long history, with significance. The other language's concept is learned from English version. So I would like to appeal and I hope this template is kept. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting admin: This template was created on April 1 by the filer, and nominated for deletion on April 3. I deleted it on the basis of this TfD, which shows clear consensus for deletion, and in which the filer's comments indicated a certain degree of inexperience with what DRV is for. It was used, apparently, to tag the "five pillars" pages. Creating the template was a good-faith effort to be helpful, but it's unnecessary, and there's no procedural reason to overturn. Shwangtianyuan, thanks for your efforts, but the English Wikipedia has a well-developed template ecosystem, especially for tags that appear at the top of high-profile pages. In the future it would be better to make the suggestion on talk pages first if you think a new tag is needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus to delete in the TFD. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in line with the consensus at the TFD, but for the sake of efficient and effective logging, undelete and redelete with a link to the TFD rather than a G6 speedy deletion note. As the lister was already advised of at the TFD discussion, DRV is not a venue to re-argue the TFD; we only assess whether the process was followed correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see an undeclared NAC by Izkala (talk · contribs). Izkala, please declare all non-admin closes you do. Deleting admin, Opabinia regalis, would you mind countersigning the TfD. It will then be a clean endorse. There does seem to be a consensus against willy nilly templates, unlike in the early days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I must've not got the memo on declaring non-admin closures. Izkala (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's recommended. By me, at least. It was a good close. Other little points: It would be good if you gave a little explanation in the close, not your own opinion but the gist of the discussion, as there was at least one person who didn't get it. And, maybe don't close discussions while your user_talk is tagged with "retired". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the interest of treating all people equally, I'd rather not mark my closures as NACs and encourage other non-admins not to either. (Which they don't, generally.) Possibly, but writing up a summary's not something that's usually done when there's a clear-cut consensus and no more than a couple hundred words were exchanged. I should've probably left a note for Shwangtianyuan but hindsight's 20/20. I don't see what the point of countersigning the closure would be. Izkala (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - SmokeyJoe, NACs at TfD are well-established common practice at this point, and are actually a majority of closures; it hasn't been routine to label them as such for a long time. There are so few DRVs of TfD closes that it hasn't really been an issue. I do usually try to link the discussion in the deletion log when processing these, though, and apparently either forgot or failed at copy and paste in this case. Stifle, I guess I could restore and re-delete with the link in the log, but I'm not convinced there's much use given that the author knows the reason and is the only person who used the template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds like a decay from ideal standards has become the norm at TfD. In these circumstances, you should expect some dissatisfaction with process. Shwangtianyuan is not right, but is he the only one confused or dissatisfied with the process? I do recommend that Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions be well respected, including use of the {{nac}} template in all non-admin closes. This reminds all that a non-admin is playing the role of an administrator and that the NAC closer holds the behavioral standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (aka WP:ADMINACCT). This makes it awkward to have a retired user closing discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Shwangtianyuan appears to be confused neither by my status nor degree of accountability. They are confused by process in general; and they'd have been equally confused had an admin closed the debate. Your dissatisfaction with my conduct and the conduct of other TfD closers is not apposite. Izkala (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @SmokeyJoe: I've been closing the majority of stuff at TfD for a while now. Personally, I don't use NAC for TfD closes because they're not considered abnormal (alternatively, I have started using it for closing RfCs, where the expectation is that an admin will close). If anything, an administrator close of a TfD is abnormal at this point. Based on zero evidence but a lot of experience, I'd say admins close less than 5% of TfD discussions over the past several months. And I second that the confusion here is in the DRV process in general, which you can see in the use of words like "appeal" in multiple places. I tried to explain this at the TfD so he wouldn't be in for a shock at DRV, but it doesn't appear to have worked. ~ Rob^Talk 23:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        To add to this, the NAC process at TfD has been up and running for nine months now, involving hundreds of closes by probably a dozen or so non-admins experienced in working with templates and the TfD process. For most of that time I've been the only admin following TfD even a little, so just about every disputed case comes across my talk page eventually. Neither confusion nor lack of accountability has been a source of problems. (Low participation in the discussions has been, though...hint hint...) Oh, and you're right that Izkala should get rid of the retired template, but for reasons other than hypothetical awkwardness ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank Shwangtianyuan for their contributions. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is how decision-making works on Wikipedia. Izkala (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is a potentially significant template, and would merit wider discussion. There is indeed a practice that non-admins should not close potentially controversial XfDs, and I think this is potentially of such sufficient potential controversy, that closing the discussion without relisting for additional input was not correct. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether a debate's run its course is independent of who's doing the closing. Izkala (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Non-administrator comment). Consensus here was extremely clear. It's also unfair to put this on Opabinia regalis, who merely enacted the closure by an experienced non-admin following orphaning. The filer is viewing this as an appeal of the community's decision, not a review of the close, which is not how DRV works. ~ Rob^Talk 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the deleting admin's action is being reviewed, peripherally. Endorse. The only comments to offer are advice on how to do things better. Resistance to taking onboard advice is actually the biggest concern at this point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the closer here, but I'm happy to take on advice. I consider the NAC template a double-edged sword. Where non-admin closures are unexpected, it can be useful, but generally, I think it just contributes to the misconception that adminship is a "leader" role that has more "authority". It is not. They just have some extra tools. So I do use the NAC template, but I try to evaluate where it's really needed. For instance, I used a non-admin template here mostly to indicate I came here by being involved in the discussion, not as an uninvolved administrator, which is undoubtedly useful information. ~ Rob^Talk 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a peculiar tendency to phrase your thoughts in the passive voice. Are you an authority on whether non-admins oughta scribble 'nac' next to their name? I've listened to your advice and offered my opinion on it. Izkala (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a self-selected student of the esoteric unexpectedly functional policies of Wikipedia. Authority? Bah authority. There is advice at WP:NACD that supposedly describes best practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but I'm not a utilitarian; I'm a dreamer. ;) Izkala (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, whoever pressed the button is on the hook for it... ;) SmokeyJoe, thanks for your suggestions, but I think you're getting feedback on your feedback from people who have a lot of experience in this particular little corner of Wikipedia's cobwebby subbasement and have a good sense of the practicalities. TfD is badly in need of more participation, and IIRC you've been involved in a lot of MfD stuff, so if you're interested in joining us you'd be welcome. (I made it sound so appealing, didn't I?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia, I'm a sucker for calls for help, and hilariously guess what the first TfD I found easily comprehensible enough for a quick !vote. I have rarely ventured into TfD, possibly because all the acronyms there put me off, but probably because my impression has been that the people there know well what they are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it a go of using the {{nac}} template. My big concern is always someone coming along reverting simply on that basis, which is against community consensus on how non-admin closes should be handled. But in all fairness, there's no sense in ignoring Joe's good faith suggestion, so I'll give it a whirl around the block and see how it runs. If I see a sudden uptick in people questioning the obvious closes I make, then I'll probably switch back. ~ Rob^Talk 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin is allowed to revert it (barring very good reason). The only downside might be that, with the RfA recruitment drive, you flag yourself as a target. An advantage is that it provides a link to helpful pages on the subject of NACing.

NB. This is all quite tangential friendly opinion-based advice, sprouting I should say from my inability to say anything else about the close. Apart from: "good close". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close accurately reflected the discussion, which was pretty clear in its consensus. I don't see the NAC as being a factor here in any way. Thparkth (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it will be keep under WP:SNOW?--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 April 2016

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination) – Non-admin closure undone and discussion reopened, in my individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator. See WP:NACD. – Sandstein 14:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this should not have been closed by a non-admin. This is the 3rd nomination, we MUST get it right this time. Apologies if I'm wrong. Regards, Aloha27 talk 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and have an admin re-close the discussion. This is a controversial article that requires someone knowledgeable about policy and trusted by the community (i.e. an admin) to weigh up the various arguments presented. It is unacceptable in my view to close such discussion without providing any explanation (the closer simply stated: "The result was no consensus"). Rentier (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 April 2016

10 April 2016

9 April 2016

2014 Ukrainian coup – No consensus to overturn the G4 speedy deletion of the redirect to 2014 Ukrainian revolution. But if somebody does want to have the discussion about whether this redirect should (now) exist, they can recreate it and nominate it for RfD. – Sandstein 21:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup".

Victoria Nuland had plans to appoint a new prime minister, indicating that she had influence over the course of events.

It is correct that it is POV to say that it is coup and that this is the position of Russian state media, but it is also disingenuous on the part of Western media to largely ignore the violence on the Maidan and the role of far-right militants. Also, it is not "fringe" to say that it is a "coup", but it is a fairly unorthodox view in the West.LinkinPark (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Unless there is another RfD that I'm not seeing, the only discussion was about "Ukrainian Coup" which has potentially multiple vs. "2014 Ukrainian coup" which is clear although POV. We should probably have a redirect from whatever this event is called in the official Russian media, but that's a discussion for RfD. Hopefully with the citation of sources in English, Ukrainian, or Russian and a discussion of their reliability etc. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I think the names are close enough and the discussion at the RfD wouldn't have changed if 2014 had been attached. That said, if non-fringe sources can be found that give it this name, I'd support recreation. But I'm only finding the fringe of the fringe. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is unfair that RT would be described as "fringe of the "fringe". Here are some other sources that call it a "coup":

Western mainstream media is not calling it a "coup", but it is also a legitimate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Those are better than I found. I'll admit to thinking of rt as nothing other than a mouthpiece of the government and so not to be taken seriously. But as much as I think Ted R.'s politics are, well, very much on the fringe, he does have a pretty big soapbox. So I think we are still down to PR pieces and fringe sources. I'm probably biased (Westerner that I am), so I've no objections to my endorse being taken weakly. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are nothing more than opinion pieces, and opinion pieces are not suitable for determining notability (WP:NEWSORG). RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability isn't the bar for a redirect. Reasonable search term is. And if it's being somewhat commonly used, even in passing, we should have the redirect. But I don't see that anything has changed since the RfD, so net effect I agree with you on the outcome if not the reasoning. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of common use in reliable sources, because it isn't commonly used. We should not have redirects for terms that are not commonly used, except for in non-RS opinion pieces. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy, more plausible search term, not sufficiently identical. That said, I am not confident that the original, undated redirect should be restored (and there's no request to do that) even though the consensus to delete it was rather weak. Specificity is good here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, G4 deletion was correct, DRV is not RFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was 2 years ago. I think looking at it again isn't unreasonable. That said, I don't think much has changed. Hobit (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD. 2 years ago is long enough for another axfd to be appropriate for an event of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that what I am requesting is equivalent to the redirect of "Liberation of Saigon" to the article "Fall of Saigon". Of course, the West likely sees the world from the latter instead of the former, but at least Wikipedia acknowledges the former. Also, I think this is appeal worthy because it seems to me that the reasons for deletion in the prior RfD was not sound as there are some credible sources that refer to the event as a "coup" and to believe it is a "coup" is a reasonable belief. I do not think it is "fringe" to say that the culmination of the Euromaidan protests was a coup, any more than it is "fringe" to say that the People's Army of Vietnam "liberated" Saigon. LinkinPark (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense comparison. "Coup" is a word with a stable definition, i.e. a sudden violent overthrow of a government. This is objectively did not happen. Purposely misrepresenting facts to cast this event as a coup is propaganda, nothing more. "Liberation", on the other hand, does not have a stable definition, as what is a liberation is inherently different based on who is the subject of the liberation. There are a many people that could validly construe the "Liberation of Saigon" as the "Liberation of Saigon", but no one could validly construe the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 as a "coup". Regardless this is all WP:OR. We follow reliable sources, and WP:RS do not call this event a "coup", and neither do we. It seems that you are content to drag Wikipedia into an information war, and this is not something that is ever in the interest of the encylopaedia. We do not need to create a false balance here (see WP:BALASPS). RGloucester — ☎ 13:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a violent overthrow of the Azarov government. Do you deny that there were violent "activists" who were discontent with the compromise Yanukovych offered and threatened further violence if he did not resign? This violence caused Yanukovych to flee. Unlike the Revolution against Marcos, for instance there was considerable violence here. Even the word "coup" does not have a "stable" definition, since "bloodless" can be an adjective for "coup". LinkinPark (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no violent overthrow of anything. The president fled the country of his own volition. No one had "threatened him with violence". Talk about WP:OR in the extreme. RS scholarly sources do not call this coup. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the article in question:

Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh rejected the agreement, saying, "We have to state the obvious fact that the criminal regime had not yet realised either the gravity of its evil doing." He noted that the agreement did not include provisions for the arrest of Interior Minister Zakharchenko; the punishing of Berkut commanders alleged to have been involved in the murder of civilians; the removal of the general prosecutor and defence minister; a ban on the Party of Regions and Communist Party; and guarantees of safety for those involved in the opposition. He called for the "people's revolution" to continue until power had been completely removed from the governing authorities.[176] Euromaidan leader Andriy Parubiy insisted that elections be held as soon as possible and reiterated that one of the main demands of protesters had been the resignation of President Yanukovych.[196] Automaidan also announced that it would not accept anything short of Yanukovych's resignation.[197]

Vitali Klitschko apologised to the crowd on Independence Square after shaking hands with Yanukovych.[198] Protesters there responded to the deal by booing opposition leaders. Activist Volodymyr Parasiuk warned from the stage that if Yanukovych did not resign by 10:00 the next day, an armed coup would be staged.[199] Oleh Lyashko echoed the demand, saying, "Either he resigns, or we take him away." Outside of Kiev, it was later discovered that the summer home of pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk had been set on fire.[200]

By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[195] Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing", noting that it was not part of the agreement.[201] The riot police had begun withdrawing early in the morning because they feared that Yanukovych's government would pin the responsibility for the violence on them, and because they feared being attacked after protesters stole around 1,200 pistols and Kalashnikov rifles from the police on 18 February during the occupation of government buildings in Lviv.[195] [emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In the event, an armed coup was not staged, no matter what one singular activist said at a time prior to the event. No reliable sources say that an "armed coup" took place. Furthermore, we cannot verify this so-called "activist's" statement, as the article it comes from isn't in English. Furthermore, The New York Times article says that there has been no evidence of any of these "stolen guns" having been used by anyone, or of them even having been sent to Kiev. It does not say anything about a "coup" either. Again, total WP:OR. Regardless, this is total speculative rubbish. No reliable scholarly sources say anything about a coup, and those are the only sources that matter here. Speculation on your part about what does or doesn't constitute a coup does not justify a redirect supported by no reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – "Ukrainian coup" does not exist as a plausible search term. No one calls this event a coup (and it isn't a coup by any definition), except for a fringe that is not relevant to Wikipedia. We do not endorse neologisms and political catchphrases merely because someone uses them in one editorial. That'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theory. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although I would have called "no consensus", "delete" was within admin discretion. Personally, I find the POV cries overblown, and "Ukrainian coup" is demonstrably a functional search term. On the other hand, the Wikipedia search engine was improved years ago, and these redirects are no longer needed to assist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate WP:G4 and relist for discussion. I carefully chose vacate instead of overturn because the G4 wasn't unreasonable. But, looking into this further, I can find a bunch of sources which use the term Ukrainian Coup, or variations on that. New York Times, Global Research, BBC, MLToday, Japan Times. None of these are wonderful sources, and I'm not sure that even those five together would be enough to survive XfD scrutiny, but I'm quite convinced they're enough to get past the WP:CSD bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 April 2016

7 April 2016

6 April 2016

Category:Companies_subject_to_BDS_actions – Overturn and relist at CfD Partly because six years is a long time for WP:G4 to apply, and partly because the controversy here is prima facie evidence that this wasn't uncontroversial, as required by WP:CSD (CfD discussion here) – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User suggested speedy delete with claim that this category is a duplicate of a previously deleted category Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories. The previous category concerns companies operating in a location. The category I was working on relates to organizations effected by an ongoing public event. Each company in this category already has matured content, not contributed by me, that clarify that specific company relation to the BDS event. I felt it would be generally useful for a category to exist that list all companies effected by this event. I did not see this issue address in the claimed duplicate category or its discussion. I'm perfectly okay to be told I am wrong. I would also find it completely reasonable to suggest a consensus be built but I would request this take place in a separate discussion from the older (6 year old) unrelated Israeli_companies_operating_in_the_occupied_territories category discussion. Note: that I have spoken with the administrator that eventually approved the speedy delete, whom has been helpful in pointing me to different Wikimedia guidelines to help me better contribute to the wiki community, including suggesting that I could request a deletion review here. Cyphunk (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally have a hard time with G4 being used based on a discussion from 6 years ago (2010). Plus though a similar topic, I think this category negates the main underlying issue (over categorization) that applied in the previous discussion(s). I'd say overturn speedy for now. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn while related to the category discussed in the CfD there is a difference: not all companies operating in Israeli occupied territories have been the subject of BDS actions, and BDS actions have been applied to companies for reasons other than operating in Israeli occupied territories (such as ties to the Israeli military, involvement with other types of Israeli actions against Palestinians, expressions of support for Israel, etc). The age of the CfD doesn't help. While it may well be decided that this isn't an appropriate category anyway that would have to be decided by a fresh CfD. Hut 8.5 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List at CfD. Is evidently worth a discussion. Reasonable contests of most speedies should be speedily listed at XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List at CfD, I'm not sure there's a complete overlap between the two categories (the age of the original discussion notwithstanding). Seems like this could use community review rather than a quick speedy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
List at CfD. There is enough to talk about here to merit a full discussion rather than a speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 April 2016

The Chickbusters – Endorse. As a side comment, hit-and-run requests are sub-optimal. Two different participants asked questions of the OP, who failed to respond. That's not going to help advance your case. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

AJ Lee and Kaitlyn (wrestler) are both obviously individually both very notable (AJ having longest cumulative Diva's title reign, Kaitlyn having also won the title) but I believe their team is notable too and I don't think it got due consideration in 2016. It seems strange that it gets retained on Spanish Wikipedia while removed here. DJ8946 mentioned feuds which I think were prematurely dismissed. Feuds with other teams are not entirely what a stable is about, either. Bella Twins for example got much of their exposure simply by being arm-candy for Daniel Bryan and Raw GMs for a couple years. For example Kaitlyn and AJ re-united their team in 2011 as "Mo Sistas" seen here to promote prostate cancer awareness. Ranze (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list what you have that counts toward WP:N? I agree the discussion was pretty poor, but without independent reliable sources, I've got to claim it's the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus for deletion. The existence of an article on a foreign Wikipedia is a factor, sufficient in my opinion to prevent a speedy deletion, but certainly not an overriding factor. To overcome the reasons for deletion, please provide two independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Deletion review examines whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not a venue to obtain a new hearing, advance new arguments, or repeat old ones. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 April 2016

Graffiki – While most arguments for either outcome are valid, I find that the overall consensus that emerges from this DRV is to overturn the move from userspace to mainspace (thus, in effect, restoring the content and moving it back to its original location in userspace at User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki); note that this is in theory not an overturn of the AfD closure, which wasn't really the object of discussion anyways. This is specifically without prejudice to nominating the resulting userspace draft to WP:MFD. In addition to this DRV, the overwhelming consensus (despite the discussion not being "officially" closed yet, but by the spirit of WP:SNOW) in sections B3 and B4 of the Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring supports the assertion that moving a userspace draft to mainspace in order to seek its deletion at AfD is not appropriate, and that userspace drafts moved to mainspace and found unsuitable for inclusion should be returned to their userspace locations instead of deleted.

On a more personal note, I don't really think leaving a borderline promotional draft in the userspace of an editor with 2 edits 5+ years ago is a sensible decision! But on the other hand, I strongly support that an editor should have some measure of control over his userspace pages (WP:OWN notwithstanding), and I certainly wouldn't want someone messing with my userspace drafts. If the drafting user had been active recently, moving his draft out of his userspace would've been grossly incivil IMO. So, I'm hoping this can be simply resolved with a good old MFD for staleness. Oh, and disclosure: I was specifically asked to close this discussion (because most of the usual DRV closers are inactive or involved): you can see Cryptic's post here, it was perfectly neutral so I don't consider it canvassing at all. :) – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki was moved to Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") A user moved content from the userspace to the mainspace, then subsequently nominated it for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed the content was suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies), which is required for the move. They also stated, as shown in the above quotes and links I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum (WP:AfD has higher standards than MfD which would have been the proper forum to seek deletion for a userspace page) and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. This deletion review should in no way reflect on the deleting administrator, as their actions were completely reasonable, and backed up by community consensus. The content should be restored to User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is no reason to think the article was going to be improved. If the subject is not notable then why keep it around? If anyone wants to bring this article up to standards they can do so, but the original author is unlikely to come back. Drafts are for making articles, if we are not going to make an article from it then why are we trying to save it? HighInBC 03:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the nom made it clear that the move happened, a consensus to delete formed with the knowledge available, and an admin closed based on that consensus. There was not end run, or tricking anyone, the voters were informed. HighInBC 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn We don't move someone else's draft into mainspace to "test notability" or because other things are "too annoying". Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: I don't think this is properly a topic for DRV, because what is sought is in essence a review of the move from draft to main space. That would be something for WP:Move review, or other dispute resolution. DRV reviews only deletion decisions, not what happened before the decision to nominate something for deletion – and as the filer writes, the deletion decision was consistent with consensus in the AfD. The argument that the prior move should have been an impediment to deletion is a valid argument against deletion that was in fact brought up in the AfD, but did not find consensus. It is not, in my view, a procedural defect of the AfD itself that would warrant its review here. Sandstein 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hobit: That ping to Northamerica1000 didn't go through, you accidently used "["s instead of "{"s and linked to ping. Pinged them for you. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to its original place. Legacypac is doing good work identifying viable articles among stale userspace drafts, but has a problematic attitude to unsuitable ones: there is a clear consensus not to delete solely for being stale, and he is deliberately attempting to defeat that consensus by propounding a theory, held by nobody else, that mainspace standards apply in userspace. When this is not supported at MfD, he is moving drafts into mainspace with the express intention of getting them deleted - see the edit summary "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" quoted above, and more recently "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." [27] These persistent attempts to defeat consensus are becoming disruptive, and should not be allowed to succeed. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the AfD and move it back into userspace. Moving something into another namespace just so you can apply some deletion criterion is disruptive gaming the system. I would go further in saying that moving something to mainspace when you know it isn't suitable for mainspace is acting in bad faith. I don't see why we can't just follow WP:STALEDRAFT for it. Hut 8.5 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've temporarily restored the contents so people can see what is being discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But bear in mind that this discussion is not about the content of the page, but about whether it was properly deleted after Legacypac moved it to mainspace and nominated it for deletion at AfD by mainspace standards, because he thought it "too annoying" that likely consensus at MfD meant he would not be able to get it deleted there. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's one view. I understood HighInBD's comment to be related to the content itself so I think that is needed for context to others. People can endorse or overturn just on the procedure or not. Otherwise, I'm staying out as I'd rather someone put all of the conduct together and do it as a wholesale reversal rather than bit pieces. Are you opposed to restoration? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does no harm, but it's not particularly relevant to this discussion. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, not the fault of the AfD closer, but the page was an appropriate use of userspace for personal drafting or records, and, for any experienced Wikipedian, was obviously not suitable for mainspace. The userspace to mainspace move was disruptive gaming, openly done to avoid clear community consensus that the WP:N standards are not for applying as deletion reasons for userpages. WP:DRV is well-used to review more general abuses of the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion this was a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts after several editors were voting to keep all kinds of nonsense - indefinately - regardless of it's value to the project. It was hardly a surprise either - I said I would do a test case. Other test cases at MfD have shown that when userspace garbage [28] is exposed to a wider range of editors (from an ANi link for example) there is resounding concensus to delete. Faced with various arguments that stuff labeled a draft does not need to pass GNG, V, or any other standard this article was picked as an example to take to AfD instead of MfD. There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD and despite attempts at ANI by Godsy and a couple others to have me sanctioned for moving this article, there is no consensus that the move was not permitted by policy. The lack of policy against the move is confirmed by JohnCD's recent attempt to draft such a policy. Bringing this to DRV is just forum shopping after they failed at ANi to demonstrate a real problem. This should be closed with the disruption by Godsy noted. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You actively sought and failed to get sanctions against me at ANi. I find your attempt to restore comtent that should be deleted to be stupid, wrong headed, disruptive, and totally WP:NOTHERE for you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but enforce your preferred version of bureaucracy. I repeat this DRV is just forum shopping and an attempt to attack my work yet again. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are belligerent with your reckless indifference to collateral damage in your over urgent drive to clean out all old drafts. The community is clearly not in support in general, and here we are reviewing your WP:GAME to achieve deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there's no policy explicitly saying something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is fine. There's no policy saying I can't delete any article I want by moving it to my userspace and then applying WP:CSD#U1, but I would expect serious consequences if I tried that. Hut 8.5 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn although this is not to criticise the closer. I am completely unconvinced by arguments that a page would be properly deleted if it were in a different namespace and so I am sure that cross-namespace moves can be abusive. Hut has boldly suggested one abuse (which I have seen used) and there are several other ways of disappearing pages you don't like. I can see that many of Legacypac's moves have been helpful but this one was seriously harmful. Sadly, I think in future closers will have to inspect to see if such a move has been made before they delete - sometimes the page will need to be restored to its earlier place and relisted. I doubt whether WP:Move review would be effective for a deleted file - I expect they would kick the matter here. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, that's an end-run around process if ever I've seen one. Move back to userspace and MFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnand restore to draftspace. Out-of-process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and move back to user space (and, optionally, relist at MFD). I can't fault the close, since it reflects the discussion, but the whole thing is just wrong. As I've said before, I see no harm in leaving stale userspace drafts around forever. But, that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that moving a user draft to mainspace just so you can apply a different rule and delete it is gaming the system. And, to go back to the first issue, I really don't understand this war on user drafts. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play stupid wiki-lawyer games. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people, namely Ricky81682, assisted enthusiastically by Legacypac, want to clear the list of apparent abandoned drafts. Tens of thousands. This includes the admirable tasks of cleaning out NOTWEBHOST violations by noncontributors (CSD#U5), and moving mainspace worthy material to mainspace. The problem is their impatience with things in the middle, drafts with potential but not currently mainspace ready. MfD is not happy to delete them. Consensus is clear the WP:N is not a deletion reason in userspace. The case is not made that anything should be done with old userpages containing draft material with possible potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comment struck, withdrawn and collapsed. Apologies for the heated response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit man it's like every fucking day with you and I "enable" this and "I created this" bullshit here with you. When I try to work with you, I get shit upon by you and dragged into bullshit at ANI even after engaging in your idiotic bullshit quest to ban relistings at MFD of which you didn't give a single rat's ass as long as **I** wasn't the one relisting the discussion. I've tried to engage with you on a serious matter on every fucking thing and you just refuse to engage in anything beyond bullshit after bullshit of "you're enabling this, you're creating this, this is all your fault" in discussion after discussion at ANI, at WT:UP, at DRV, at MFD. It's been fucking months like this and not one soul have agreed with your nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace. Seriously, drop the fucking stick and move fucking on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked for a quick history.

Were you, or were you not, working, within Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as the biggest encourager, towards the elimination of the abandoned draft list, including userspace? Deletion of the crap, great, promotion of mainspace-ready stuff to mainspace, great. The problem was, and is, no allowance for the pages not in either group.

Have you not encouraged Legacypac in WP:GAMING, by suggesting WP:GAME strategies directly to him? "Enable" was a carefully chosen word, I consider it appropriate and accurate. Sorry you don't like it, but it effectively called out the behaviour, and subsequently the behaviour has changed. It is a nuanced word that does not necessarily imply actual wrong doing.

At MfD you are indeed special. Especially late 2015. In the WikiProject, you encouraged processing of the 50K list of pages to delete or promote, you were dong most of the MfD nominations, you were agitating against "no consensus" due to no participation defaulting to keep, and then you began indiscriminate relisting effectively pushing your agenda that MfD must deal with these borderline valuable drafts on your time scale. Relisting is a waste of time, messes up the review process, but at least the subsequent relisters don't have a background agenda. And I have dropped it because there was a much worse game afoot.

"nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace"? There is a clear objective at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, with minimal coordination, to work down a list to eliminate all userpages of Wikipedians on long wikibreak. This is true, setting aside the diversion of the set of crap pages (agreed, a large set) and the set of pages worthy of immediate promotion. Since calling out this reckless WikiProject outcome, the behaviour has changed, borderline things are now being moved to DraftSpace.

The one exception to a pleasing change in behaviour is Legacypac refusing to admit that moving an unsuitable for mainspace page to mainspace to have it tested by the tougher requirements of AfD over MfD is not OK. That directly relates to this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People keep saying they can't fault the close, but that is what we are here to review. We are not here to decide on deletion practices, we are not here to settle the underlying move/delete debate. We are here to decide if the closure was correct. So if you can't fault the close then don't overturn it. I will point out that the XfD mentioned the move, and there was still a consensus to delete it. Nobody was tricked into voting delete, it was clear as day in the nom. I expect this to be closed as overturn given the numbers, but I think it will be a reflection on an outside issue rather than an examination on how well consensus was measured. HighInBC 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Self-endorse but relist. After consideration of the above opinions, I think I should say explicitly that I'd endorse my own closure, purely on procedural grounds, because I don't see on which basis, consensus or policy, I could have closed the discussion differently. If we are of the view that moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with, then we'd need to clearly codify that as a policy or guideline, because only that would allow an administrator to override a "delete" consensus in circumstances such as this. If we don't do that, then this argument needs to be brought up in every AfD, and must convince the participants of the AfD, like every other argument for keeping or deleting.
But this is now in essence a new discussion on the merits about the "keep" argument that the prior move was improper. Because DRV isn't supposed to be AfD round two, that discussion should take place at AfD. Therefore I suggest relisting the discussion, which was in any case sparse and could benefit from additional input, and let a probable consensus to keep emerge from the proper forum. Sandstein 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition by me to relisting as suggested by Sandstein. HighInBC 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is the wrong venue. It belongs at MfD. What would be the right venue if someone moved an article to their user space and then deleted via U1? Are you claiming because that's not specifically prevented, it's okay? Hobit (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the option to re-userfy was available at AfD, but that is not the opinion that gained consensus. HighInBC 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was the wrong venue. The move to mainspace was not OK. Yes, it could possibly be argued to be a matter within scope of WP:Move review, but as a WP:GAME directed at deletion, it is squarely within scope of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: if you self-endorse, does that mean you would act in an identical way if this situation recurred? If not, and considering your opinion above ("moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with"), what would you do differently? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense does not work well in situations where people are split on how things should be done. When that is the case the common sense of an admin has the danger of becoming a super vote. The fact is people don't agree on this, therefore the sense isn't common. HighInBC 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as others noted, there was no trickery here - the move was disclosed. If someone was unhappy with the move they had a whole week to participate in the AfD. This should not be AfD round 2. No policy based reasons have been given to overturn and no one thinks the content has any value. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was hardly hidden. HighInBC 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Legacypac's actions are justifiable (by the result), then doesn't it mean that nominations to delete drafts should go to AfD all the time. The main advantages to this I immediately see is that [:Template:Find sources AFD] is always used, and the usually understanding that the deletion decision applies to the topic, not to the current state of the page, and that the decision is sort of final. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points SmokeyJoe. MfD is good for clear cut cases that don't clearly fit a CSD. AfD might be better for borderline cases, especially since some editors refuse to consider N and V and even BLP at MfD. The world will not end if something borderline sits in mainspace for a week with a deletion discussion tag on it. More eyes at AfD and a pretty definitive result could be a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not wanting to consider WP:N at MfD. Only a banned troll 166.x.x.x has been arguing WP:V is unimportant. Unverifiable topics are obviously bad drafts, WP:V is much easier to test than WP:N. Anyone arguing against applying WP:BLP at MfD has not read WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and return to original location per Hobit and others. User:Sandstein, you're really deserving of a trout for the reasoning... or lack of sufficiently nuanced reasoning. You've been around long enough; I know you know better. 1) We don't enumerate as prohibited every possible way to game the system per WP:BEANS. 2) Admins are expected to do the right thing absent specific policy guidance or previous community input on a matter. Legacypac's disruptive actions should have been stopped sooner and more forcefully by an admin willing to say "No, that's not a good faith reason for a move. Don't do it again." which could have--and likely should have--been you. So yes, this close does belong at DRV, because here is where we bring issues where the closer got it wrong, although this will have been the first time I think I've ever recommending overturning an AfD close because the closing admin failed to appropriately quash an attempt to game the deletion process via page move. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. This is a dispute mainly about user conduct regarding an issue that has to my knowledge not yet been settled through community discussion and consensus. It's definitively beyond my pay grade as AfD closer to authoritatively resolve that issue by overriding a consensus to delete. Otherwise I'd be justifiably accused of casting a supervote. My job as closer is only to determine consensus based on weighing arguments in the light of existing policies and guidelines. And unless consensus to disallow such moves is codified in a policy or guideline, I'd have to close another discussion with the same distribution of opinions in the same way. Sandstein 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent the issue was about the user conduct, then yes, it was indeed not your job as AfD closer to weigh in on the nominator's user conduct. And yes, I agree if you'd closed it as "keep" and left it in mainspace that would have been an inappropriate supervote and you would have gotten flak for that. What I am saying, however, is that those were not the only two options: If you had decided to move it back to its draft location without a redirect, you would have honored the numerical consensus, which no one here disagrees with, that the article in its current state is not suitable for mainspace, while at the same point rebuking the mover/nominator for GAMEing the system. Note that moving the article to mainspace removed it from the NOINDEX protection, solely for the purpose of FORUMSHOPing a deletion discussion. If you think you don't have the authority to fix that as an admin, I suggest you go read WP:IAR again. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The afd close was correct on all counts. The article's unsuitable for mainspace, and condemning the move into mainspace doesn't mean we have to preemptively userfy it. If the original user or anybody else wants to try to salvage this, they can get a totally drama-free userfication or emailed copy at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
  1. Those that violate some core policy, such as being a copyvio, wp:blp, wp:notwebhost, etc. Those are actively harmful, and should be removed. I don't see anybody objecting to that.
  2. Those which can be improved to the point where they can be moved into mainspace. That's clearly a win, and should be encouraged.
  3. All the rest, which are the contentious ones. They may have little or no value, but they also do no harm. We've got two camps here. One camp emphasizes the little or no value part, and wants to delete them. The other camp (where I am), emphasizes the do no harm part, and wants to just let them be. Sadly, no wide consensus on this has emerged in either direction, so we continue to have battles about it. It's wasteful that so much effort is going into this battle; consensus building isn't always pretty or efficient. But, this idea of moving a user draft to mainspace so you can apply a different set of rules to it crosses the line. That's no longer engaging in honest debate, and that's what's got me worked up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Except in that 3rd case where people disagree we normally have a deletion discussion, like we did here. Then we close it based on the consensus found, like we did here. A consensus was reached but people disagree with it so we are having AfD #2 right here. Instead of looking at the validity of the close, we are instead rehashing arguments that should have been made at AfD. It bugs me when people don't pay attention to AfD then get upset at the results. HighInBC 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If, against all odds, this deletion review ends up being closed as endorse, or (only a little more likely) it goes back to afd and gets deleted again instead of being userfied, it was my intention to leave a note on User talk:Abstractmindzent explaining how his draft got caught up in internal wikipoliticking and how to get it back. My point is, correcting the behavioral issues is a matter for the discussion at WP:ANI, where - as is par for the course there - nobody's commenting except those already party to the dispute and those who've taken only a very cursory look at its surface. Here at DRV, we have to be concerned about what's best for the article, and we don't userfy articles deleted at afd "just because", we do it when someone intends to improve them. Most of the comments above seem intended primarily to reprimand Legacypac and to reuserfy the article solely to spite him. That's not productive. —Cryptic 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could not agree more. It seems like people are using whatever means to stop Legacypac rather than actually considering the content of the articles. The crap being defended here has no place on Wikipedia, the article will never meet our requirements and frankly I think politics are being put above the projects quality. There is a debate on the user talk policy page and that is the correct way to be advocating a position, not by trying to overturn a specific AfD in which everyone was aware of the situation. The recent ANI shows that there is no consensus this is against policy. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of wanting to spite Legacypac, but of making clear to him that his tactic of doing an end-run around MfD by moving pages he wants deleted to mainspace where tighter conditions apply is gaming the system and not acceptable. He says above that he considers this "a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts"; if the page stays deleted, he will consider himself vindicated and his test successful and will carry on doing it. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the extensive discussion at ANI has failed to find a consensus that it is inappropriate. You will also find at the user talk policy page there is a discussion where people are disagreeing with your interpretation too. Perhaps a consensus will form in this area but it has not yet. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Having just read the text, it's a glowing endorsement of an utterly non-notable individual, created by a user with exactly one (1) edit, to wit, the creation of this endorsement. Apart from WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFACEBOOK and notability, this could easily be construed as a potential invasion of privacy and WP:BLP works in user-space, too and is not only applicable to the subject of the page, but also the people and bands who's names get not so casually dropped. (P.S. I don't give a rats ass about how it ended up here, but here it is.) Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, until just now, I hadn't even read the text of the original article. And, now that I have read it, I agree that it doesn't belong here, even in userspace. But, as several people have noted above, this isn't really about the article, it's about the process. This was set up as a test case of It's OK to move user drafts to main space in order to run them through the main space AfD process. If we endorse the AfD, we are endorsing the process, and that's what I don't want to do. It is valuable (and deliberate) that we have different standards for deleting things out of main space and user space. By endorsing this test, we would be removing that distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is no process or rule that says this cannot be done. When looked at specifically at ANI no consensus formed it was disruptive, right now discussion is taking place on the user talk policy page and there is disagreement about how to address this lack of policy. Endorsing an AfD does not endorse a process because we work on consensus not precedent. Processes get accepted through discussion on policy and guideline pages. HighInBC 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody specifically puts something forth as a test case for process, then yes, endorsing the outcome does endorse the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This DRV will not settle this issue regardless of how it is closed. This is supposed to be a discussion about one deletion, not the process. The result with surely not be binding. HighInBC 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where the rules are not clear, policy tends to get established by precedent. If this DRV returns the page to userspace, the result of his "test case" should be clear to Legacypac: the route to deletion he wanted to use is not available. I would hope he would not then try it again, but if he did the resulting debate should be a good deal shorter than this one. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS makes it cleat that this tiny little DRV is not going to settle a major policy debate. This is already being discussed at the relevant policy talk page, and I find the rehashing of it here to be redundant. If you really want to influence policy then the policy page is the place to do it, not at DRV. This is supposed to be about the merit of the close. HighInBC 03:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: WP:STALEDRAFT describes how inactive drafts in the userspace should be handled. Unless you think the content was suitable for the mainspace (which would justify the move), it says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion" pointing to MfD. Is there a reason those rules from that guideline do not apply to this situation?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is doing exactly what it is supposed to, giving guidance. It is not an exhaustive list of all acceptable ways of going about business and it never claims to be. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nowhere does it prohibit other activity, nor does it claim to be the only way of doing things. It is not policy, it is a guideline. People are allowed to be bold and find other ways to improve the project. Perhaps instead of using the guideline as a limit, we should be adding this new idea to it. HighInBC 03:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist at MfD after moving it back to its original location. ~ Rob^Talk 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because relisting this at AfD would be endorsing the gamesmanship behind its being listed there in the first place.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As RoySmith says above, we intentionally have different standards at AfD for deleting mainspace articles and at MfD for deleting userspace drafts. LP's game is to try to get AfD standards applied to things he can't get deleted at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, this is how A2soup did vote in the original discussion. Was that treated as wrong? Is there any reason other people couldn't do the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no GAME by me here and I did not even have to IAR. JohnCD (by trying to create a policy against such moves) has proved there is no policy or rule I broke. The never ending accusations at ANi have failed to show this move was forbidden. All we have is opinion that some people don't think it is a good idea and others see no problem with it.

Every current rule and process on the site was created or modified by someone trying something and starting a discussion. I was only trying out a potentially innovative solution to the issue that a handful of editors were voting Keep on absolute crap that it became pointless to send crap to MfD (due to low participation). AfD participation is much higher and harder to GAME. Maybe MfD is too much of a backwater and is too easy to manipulate so should be merged back into AfD?

WP:STALEDRAFT gives a range of options that each require discretion, and the options are not exclusive to those listed. "If X condition is met do Y" does not necessarily mean "If X condition is not met don't do Y+Z" The argument against a Move to Main+AfD boils down to "It's not in the guidelines" Well, go search the guidelines for something that even recommends a third editor request restoration of a junk deleted article back to userspace that they have no intention of working on (like this DRV). There is also no rule or guideline that says that Godsy should move pages on notable topics from mainspace to the userspace of long gone users instead of improving the articles, only to spite me (he could care less about the thousands of other unsourced articles in Wikipedia).

When an action is not specifically forbidden, we should ask if it helps the encyclopedia or not. We are here to help people, not host junk or give people a space to promote themselves. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a policy against what you are doing, see WP:FORUMSHOP: "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about what procedure we use in the end. It is clear that we do not need this page, it is clear that its author did not stick around, and that it is not a live draft that needs to be kept around indefinitely. It is also clear that it was causing little or no harm in its original location. Blanking would probably have sufficed, but now that we are here, I suggest we continue abusing process and delete as WP:CSD#U5. Note that I oppose moving back to user space before deleting. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and return to draft or userspace, without prejudice to a future MfD. Or just blank it and leave a courtesy note for the user. This whole debacle was caused by the disruptive actions of one user trying to game the deletion policies. Minor trout awarded to the AfD closer for not applying some common sense and administrator discretion, which could have resolved this much less painfully. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When people are divided on an issue like this then what you call common sense I call a super vote. The ANI discussion shows no consensus that this is gaming or disruptive, the policy talk page shows plenty of disagreement about how we should fill this lack of policy. It is hardly the place of a closing admin to take sides like that. For there to be common sense the sense must be common, when people disagree about something and then it ceases to be common sense and becomes taking a side. HighInBC 15:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a relevant RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. See particularly item B3 which is directly relevant to the issues raised here. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to userspace, without prejudice against a subsequent MfD discussion. Admonish Legacypac that this was a violation of WP:GAME and that a repetition will bring consequences. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @DESiegel: This happened at least twice, User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell (log) → Richard d'Anjolell, deletion nomination, restoration per User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to userspace. There is an appropriate notability related argument to use at MfD, which is that nobody is ever going to be likely to improve the article enough to pass AfD. If people agree, the draft can be deleted; if people don't. it remains. Even for G13 I am not really comfortable deleting unless I can also say something like: "and not likely to be improved" and I will adopt anything I think I can possibly rescue and work on it from time to time. There's a significant gap in our search system: people who might want to write an article cannot easily search to see if one has been deleted by G13 and can therefore be restored on request in order to be improved. While this remains the case, the bias should always be in the direction of retaining drafts, not deleting them. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, I think is the phrasing I would prefer. "Overturn" has a whiff of disapproval about it which I don't think is appropriate here. The closer made no procedural error that I can point to, but as a result of an unusual sequence of events the process was circumvented in this case. Restoration gives us certainty that it will be followed.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the RfC at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring has still some time to run, but at sections B3 and B4 a very clear consensus is forming about the main issues discussed here. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 April 2016

User:Mauriciol1991 – Speedy deletion overturned. – Sandstein 12:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G2 (Test pages), which "does not apply to pages in the user namespace"; upon pointing this out, it was restored and immediately re-deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), which again does not apply as the page was not "exclusively promotional". Attempts to discuss the matter were not concluded to my satisfaction, see this thread. Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I don't understand this at all. Unambiguous advertising or promotion?? Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too am having a difficult time seeing that page as promotional at all, let alone exclusively so. Even the external links in the history look innocuous. —Cryptic 22:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The content is nonsense, but since WP:G2 doesn't apply to user pages, I say restore it and blank it. It's not problematic enough to delete. clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm at a loss as to why this editor's user page was ever targeted in the first place. I find Anthony Bradbury's responses to Redrose64 baffling, to say nothing of inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not a G2, not a G11. Remind Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) to follow WP:CSD more carefully. The talk page thread is below standard for an administrator. Admins are not the ruling class.

Looking at the user history, I see the user's tests elsewhere have been G2-ed. So the user is using userspace. That is good, userspace is for testing. However, the main userpage is not the best place, move the page to a usersubpage (eg User:Mauriciol1991/sandbox) and encourage the user to consider testing there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the comment about the talk page thread. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per above. We are seeing a lot of admins just ignoring the rules of CSD. Anyone know if we are just seeing more reports or if more admins are just thumbing their nose at the rules? Hobit (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, it meets G2 in every respect except that it's in user space, so that was an understandable error to make. To be honest, I'm not sure how the project is improved by the existence of this user page, and everyone involved should be trouted for process wonkery, but I don't see how it's a valid G11. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The project is improved by this because an editor (a valuable commodity which is in short supply these days) has learned something about how our arcane software works and is thus better able to edit content. On the flip side, the project is worse off by its removal because said editor is likely to be pissed off or discouraged, and stop editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a sandbox page, then sure. But once the test page has been created, any value is more or less obtained. This user should be educated on a way to create edit test that do not lead to a malformed user page (something it seems that nobody has had time to do here), rather than starting a process with a whole bunch of arcane rules lawyering over their digital litter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

In what way does this editor having this page in user space cause problems for anyone? How does deleting help it? Roy gave what I think is a pretty strong reason to keep it (why annoy an editor? Maybe he's planning on looking at that as an example of _something_ later). Hobit (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The project was directly improved by this page, as shown by the user's subsequent edits to Template:Infobox Cantones CR, Vásquez de Coronado (canton), San José (canton), and Escazú (canton). Deleting his notes out from under him, especially with a log entry that screams "you were acting in bad faith!", is a rotten way to treat a volunteer. —Cryptic 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, users are allowed considerable latitude in userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for SmokeyJoe, whose opinion is always well worth reading, DRV is not the place to issue any kind of "warnings" to sysops. That's not a remedy that we have available to us here. We can correct errors in the deletion process, but anything that smacks of disciplinary measures belongs somewhere else and rightly so. Nevertheless, I think what we're looking for now is some indication that the deleting sysop is receiving the message loud and clear.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you S Marshall, but I disagree and maintain that in a review process the reviewers have this latitude. There is here an uncontested case that the letter of the CSD criterion was not respected. The deleting admin's attention to detail is part of the deletion process. Trouts, minnows, whales and warnings, as well advice, congratulations and encouragement are entirely within the purview of the closer to conclude if it reflects the consensus of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we don't issue formal warnings here. The comments made about the admin's action are quite sufficient to make the point. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we don't. Consider it a warning of a trout. "Warning" does sound a tad strong. Maybe I meant "remind". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it certainly wasn't hurting the encyclopedia, and it was in userspace. I see no problems. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 04:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings – Vacate close. Wow. Take a look at the AfD history. This isn't just an non-admin close of a hotly debated AfD, it's several non-admins edit warring with each other over the close! I'm going to back this out to the pre-close state, and then start tossing trout around. – -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-closed the AfD as NC. Now, on to the piscatorial abuse. First, @SSTflyer: I'm usually pretty nonchalant about violations of WP:NAC; if you came up with the right result, it doesn't freak me out much that you don't own a mop (note: that's my personal opinion; official policy says I should get more chalant about it). But, really, this was about as contentious an issue as you're going to find. If you're going to bend the rules, at least try to commit less obvious transgressions. So, a small trout to you. Next, @Whiskeymouth: @Jolly Janner: whoah, dudes, edit-warring an AfD close? There's no trout big enough. We're into whale territory here. And, finally, @LjL: regarding your edit comment, I see there is a "close in progress" message, but it also says it's moot if it stays there for longer than an hour, and since I missed this <discussion earlier, I'm adding my !vote now., you posted that eight minutes after I put up the closing tag. You claim to be into systems programming. I'm kind of wondering what kinds of systems you work on if you can't figure out that eight minutes is less time than an hour. So, a medium-size trout for you. OK, enough with the abuse, let's everybody take a deep breath and get back to writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I accept the trout, and feel free to remove my !vote if you think it wasn't allowable during a close, but I don't think you should be bringing up whatever I wrote on my user page about my expertise or lack thereof, just because I failed to remember that I am no longer in CET (UTC+1) but in CEST (UTC+2) due to recent introduction of daylight savings. I'm sure there are systems programmers who have committed graver sins. LjL (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not see consensus for merge and redirect; the discussion was closed by a non-administrator who did not bother to give any explanations. Not a valid close.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures can be reverted and reclosed by any administrator (and can be reopened even by a previously-involved one). It'd be especially appropriate here, since the non-admin in question has less than a hundred edits. Go right on ahead - I'd do so myself, except that the nominator of this particular afd has been dragging me to every noticeboard he can think of lately, and there's no point antagonizing him. —Cryptic 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the personal attacks again? Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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