Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< May 2015 Deletion review archives July 2015 >

30 June 2015

edit

29 June 2015

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

This did not even get to go to Articles for deletion, and was clearly notable - the source had been established. It was not advertising, or spam. Should be re-listed at AfD. Redisnow2 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by deleting admin - I deleted the article because having a store on Etsy is not a notability claim and the "1million views per day" claim was dubious. The included source was their Etsy shop link, which is not a WP:RS for notability. This new editor's knowledge of AfD and DRV makes me think we have a sockpuppet here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse obvious bullshit claims don't count for avoiding speedy deletion. The idea that someone's Etsy store gets more pageviews than Etsy itself is too dumb to even bother refuting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Methuen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was a stub deleted without allowing the article time to progress. Subject is notable as Ariana Grande's boyfriend. Redisnow2 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by deleting admin - I deleted the article as a hoax after doing a Google search for "Mark Methuen" and Ariana Grande returned zero results. The editor also created several other hoax or dubious articles. This new editor's knowledge of AfD and DRV makes me think we have a sockpuppet here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
For some reason, the XfD link isn't appearing above. Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stagecoach West Scotland Route X50 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it was entered. Fixed now. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I am currently doing a lot of research online for this and I also note that I have added a new source that seems to be ignored in discussions. I believe that the article is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Pablothepenguin (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - You never supplied any sources in the discussion, AFDs don't get put on hold just so you can add sources ...., To be honest if you have found anything I wouldn't of thought it would've helped anyway so either way this would've got deleted anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Pablothepenguin seems to think that this is a rerun of the AfD. It isn't. He should read WP:DRVPURPOSE, and stop wasting people's time with irrelevances. The consensus in the AfD was clear, unambiguous, and based on the fact that bus timetables and similar trivia self-evidently don't constitute the in-depth third-party coverage required to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now the article has been restored, we can all see the 'new source' - a brief comment by the regional transport authority to the effect that the route in question had a service contract awarded. Not third-party, and of no relevance whatsoever regarding notability. The sources cited do nothing beyond establish that the bus route exists, and that buses run on it occasionally... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a press release by the business itself, which does not count towards notability. Nevermind the userfication, you can't make something out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well everyone above is spot on - The source is pretty much useless here, Lets be honest if this article was in any way notable they'd with out a doubt be much better sources than that one added, It's simply a non notable bus/coach service. (Thanks JohnCD for kindly undeleting the article - Much appreciated). –Davey2010Talk 20:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin: it is true that the OP added this reference after all four delete !votes had been cast, but it mentions the route only as one of three which have been awarded a subsidy, and is not "significant coverage". The discussion was open for a further five days, none of the delete !voters changed their opinion, and I saw no point in relisting. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by PROD'er and nominator: I found this at Special:NewPages, which I patrol at a 10-day offset. The WP:PROD was removed without improvement so I nominated for deletion. So the creator had two ten-day notification periods to find refs. I have no problem with recreation, userfication or creation via the Draft: namespace; but I'd be surprised of there are the sources to support any of those. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Klingspor Abrasives (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was WP:CSD#G11'ed last night. It's an article that has been there for some time, on a company that makes well-known products within its little field. It's not Ford or Apple, but nor is it G11 material. I don't know how long the G11 had been there, or if it was posted by the deleting admin, but it was on my watchlist and I never saw it light up until the deletion. I would request restoration so that I can take a look at it, and probably neutrally AfD it so that we can have some visible consensus-based choice over deletion.

This morning it has been recreated from scratch as a tiny stub. That's a GF action but a bit silly overall. If we regard this as a suitable topic, we ought to at least recover the large article first. It seems that article has now been half-AfDed by another new editor who is having trouble navigating deletion processes.

I've not raised this with the deleting admin as, since it was recreated, I can no longer see who that was. If anyone can see who, please let them know. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've simultaneously found that for myself.
Is anyone having trouble getting Special:Log to work at all? I see errors from it most of the time at present - along with not being able to edit for lost sessions, and the toolserver being broken... Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this, and obviously I'll accept GF decisions. I have to say that the current stub, just a list of products they sell, is probably worse than the version I deleted. That at least had some history. FWIW, the references for that version were awful too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So can we get the old version back please? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the deletion review closes in favour of overturning the discussion after it has run for a week, yes, that will be the outcome. We try to stand on process here. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly do temp restores for the pupose of review. I see no reason not to do that for the previous history in this case (and have done so). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I make errors--especially for G11, which requires more judgment than the other criteria, and even more because I usually concentrate on the borderline cases. The proper way of correcting them is to ask me, or to bring the article to afd. A second speedy for the same reason is not allowed, because it shows the matter is not uncontroversial, and requires discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: when I made the above comment, I was looking at the stub-ish version which existed at the time. The current version seems more likely to be kept at AfD. It still has problems, but is clearly not in G11 territory. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The deleted page did not meet the wording of WP:CSD#G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article is basically informative. It has one major problem. Several first's are claimed based only on issued patents. Issued patents which have not been tested in court are inadequate evidence for this, because there are too many technicalities involved--it's an incorrect use of Primary sources. I think it will survive AfD, but anyone who disagrees is welcome to bring one. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Agree that this should not have been speedy deleted under the G11 speedy criteria. Once this deletion review has closed then anyone can nominate at AFD if they think it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 June 2015

edit
  • Medworxx – Endorse-ish. There is clear consensus to not let this remain in main article space in its current form. So, for now, I'm going to delete it. If anybody wants to try again, there's no prejudice against writing a new article under the same title, or if you prefer, I'll be happy to restore the current contents to draft space and you can work on it there. Either way, there is strong agreement here that a new draft will need to be written in a less promotional tone, and have better sourcing, from independent reliable sources, not press releases. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you could do that. It's an important subject which needs to be covered.Rathfelder (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleted with no discussion, as advertising, which I would like to contest - or improve to meet the objection. Certainly not intended to be advertising. Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporarily restored for review.
    For my part, it would probably not have been tagged as a g11 or deleted as such if it had had even one source that's not a press release. —Cryptic 15:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation in Draft space under the articles for creation project. This is promotional as written, but IMO not blatently so. But it needs to have proper independent reliable sources. Alternativly, since it was speedy deleted and there is no reason to salt this, it could be restarted from scratch. For Rathfelder, phrases such as "The company's Patient Flow systems are intended to improve bed demand and capacity management across a single hospital or across multiple sites. They are used in over 34% of the acute care beds in Canada" are a bit promotional in tone, even if factual. But it is the sourcing to press releases that truly grates, in my view. I don't think I would have deleted this, but I can't say it was out of process. Discolsure, my employer operates in the same general field and may be a competitor. DES (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. Weak case for speedy deletion, and now contested, list at AfD instead.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/medworxx-regains-profitability-q4-while-211600150.html "Medworxx Solutions Inc.... a leader in clinical patient flow, and compliance and education solutions...". Surely this can be rewritten to remove promotional tone. It appears at first glance to meet WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the give away is the text "The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed this press release and neither approved nor disapproved the information contained in this press release." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy Essentially promotional; promotionalism has so greatly affect the style of work on organization articles that people sometimes do write like this without a COI. I would have certainly deleted it at speedy with no doubt at all. Further, there is no actual purpose in coming here; there is no recreate-protection on the article, so if there indeed are sources, the article could be rewritten properly , in draft space or even mainspace with no decision here necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline to me. I would not have speedily-deleted the article myself but would have referred it to AFD; I don't think speeding was manifestly unreasonable however. Work has been done on the article since the temporary undeletion, which we try to avoid doing because it messes up the ongoing discussion. Overall, I would say list at AFD for a full and proper discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 - doesn't require a fundamental rewrite - there are a few stray adjectives and verb choices to be sure, but that's a relatively minor copy-edit. WilyD 08:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 without prejudice to rework. Good faith notwithstanding, the article draws exclusively on sources which regurgitate press releases. DGG is right: this kind of sourcing is a plague on our articles on commercial entities, most of which have absolutely no evidence of independent analytical review. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 June 2015

edit
  • Draft:Kadar Brock – The consensus was that the G4 was not justified but Guy subsequently deleted the graft on the basis of undisclosed COI editing and G11. That action is outwith this discussion and in the case of undeclared COI editing, the community feels strongly enough about this that am not prepared to undo Guy's action without a specific consensus at DRV to do so.. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Kadar Brock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was recreated after deletion and tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted content). However, the current version incluedes several sources not present in the deleted version nor discussed in the AfD. Since the main AfD concern was notability and lack of sources, I felt this was not simialr enough for a G4 speedy. I therefore moved this to Draft temporarily and am now listing it here for discussion on whether to permit recreaion of the current draft version.The deletion close was correct on the evidence then at hand, but might not be correct on the current version. DES (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable person, artist 41.143.65.169 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 June 2015

edit

25 June 2015

edit
  • Scott Disick – Endorse deletion. Consensus here is nearly unanimous, with participation by a large number of well respected and experienced editors. There's no discussion here whether people are endorsing the literal deletion of the article, or would be OK with the current redirect. Based on this talk page discussion and the general principle that redirects are cheap, I'm going to go with the redirect. There's also no explicit discussion of whether people were endorsing the salting or not, but the impression I get is that people are OK with the salt, so I'm going to leave that in place too. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Disick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was open for just a few hours before it was suddenly closed and salted. G4 does not apply as the article contained new information, and the speedy delete close of this AfD was improper as the discussion had not been given the chance to run its course. Independent and significant articles about the subject (such as DailyMail) demonstrating GNG were argued - with many more certainly to come. No counter argument was put forward to suggest that the DailyMail article was not significant and independent. Also, JohnCD notified all previous AfD contributors,[1] but, because of the speedy close, they did not have a chance to contribute to the discussion. In the same spirit of notification, all contributors to the article (deleted history included) should have likewise been notified. The article has been viewed over 7,800 times over the past 30 days.[2] That represents a lot of interested users who are being disappointed when they do not find a stand-alone article on the subject of their interest. Given the high level of interest in the subject, and the vast amount of information available about him, there should be no reasonable doubt that a good article can be written. Dolovis (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - with due respect, the decision by the closing administrator was incorrect, heavy-handed, and premature. I'd request that admin reconsider. Drmies him/herself acknowledges that the page is completely different than what it was when it was deleted previously, so G4 does not apply here. Drmies says that "the content in the current article is essentially the same as the content in in the "Relationship with Kourtney Kardashian" section of the previous article." These are not grounds for a G4 speedy delete. G4 policy only applies to "a sufficiently identical and unimproved article." Drmies acknowledges in his/her reasons that the page was improved. As to whether regular AfD should apply, the deletion discussions for Scott Disick repeatedly ignore all relevant Wikipedia criteria because of some editors' disdain and obvious dislike for the subject. The page clearly and obviously meets the GNG. No argument has ever been made that refutes that. I personally do not like the Kardashian show, but the popularity/unpopularity of a TV show or its actors have nothing to do with whether it should be deleted or not. When the page was recreated yesterday I immediately added a source from USA Today and was in the process of further improvements. There are numerous in depth articles that discuss Disick. mikeman67 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your due respect, Mikeman67, but I wish you'd have extended it a little further. I didn't say it was "completely different". Moreover, "the content is essentially the same..." is exactly what G4 is for. This was basically the same article, with the same sources, and the same phrasing, as the previously deleted one, minus a few paragraphs. So I'd really appreciate it if you didn't twist my words. Now, that you say "the page obviously meets the GNG", well, that's your opinion. Four AfDs feel differently. But that's all irrelevant, just as this entire deletion review strikes me as irrelevant. G4 is procedural, and no amount of supposed interest or participation can change that. There is only one question, as far as I'm concerned: did G4 apply? and really only one group of users who can answer that: administrators. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sincere apologies if I offended you Drmies, that was not my intention at all. You're obviously a far more experienced editor than me and I'm a relative novice, so no question I may be speaking out of turn here. I don't have a copy of the previous page so I'm forced to go based on your description, and really the only argument I can make is based on your own description of what you did. You say "minus a few paragraphs." To me that sounds like a substantial change, and it is very possible that those deleted paragraphs answered some of the objections put forth in AfD. You didn't really address whether those deletions fixed the issues that led to earlier AfD results. I get that it's a judgment call, but I simply disagree with the decision and wish you'd give the AfD a chance (and the page of course too!). My request is that we don't WP:DEMOLISH the page before other editors or myself can add further sources. I've cited 10 articles from reliable sources here that have Disick as its subject. I didn't get an opportunity to introduce that at AfD. My frustration is that we seem to apply a different standard based on the genre of television show here, as you can see based on many of these pages: List of Star Trek characters, yet reality TV stars seem to get much less respect on WP. And I still have never seen anyone address how Disick doesn't meet WP:ENT. mikeman67 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No apology necessary, Mikeman67, but I appreciate it. Look, if you could see that earlier version, you'd see a terrible article full of...well, basically, crap; in earlier AfDs it was called a BLP "nightmare". (Note that I only looked at the most recently deleted version; I think there are earlier versions that were deleted as attack pages, for instance.) Those paragraphs were cut--I mean, it was nonsense about alcohol and rehab and stuff like that, which should never have been put in mainspace. The meat of the article, which is the stuff that could conceivably make him notable by our standards, that stuff was pretty much the same. I mean, there were a few sentences slightly differently phrased, but essentially (I think I used that word before) it was the same content, which is why I thought G4 applied. I'm perfectly content if a couple of admins would look at this to see if my G4 decision was correct or not (I understand that you can't compare the two)--but that's not really what Deletion review is for, and I think Dolovis, who's been here a long time, should know that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There wasn't enough 'there' there for the subject to meet WP:N; I've seen this article over the years and many times we've given editors plenty of time to add sources that aren't gossip sites or just 'oh and Scott Disick was at (name of c-list event with a logo-festooned wall behind them) too', but they haven't come forward (and frankly about 90% of the time the Daily Mail doesn't meet the reliable source threshold; a story about him modeling for a romance novel cover is an 'and finally' or 'did you know' factoid, not the foundation for an article here, and it wasn't even an original piece, but a loose paraphrase of something from InTouch Weekly), and it went back to a rd. Pretty much the entire article was copying the same section of the Kourtney Kardashian article and the article writers failed to expand the article beyond 'he met a Kardashian, got into some trouble here and there and had three kids with her', along with BLP issues involving inappropriate sourcing for his alcoholism. If a much better written and well-sourced article can be written about the subject, then that's fine. But the article as it was deserved G4 deletion. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus to delete was clear, and given that the article has been deleted previously several times for very similar reasons, prompt deletion was the correct outcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The closing admin didn't delete because there was a consensus to delete, it was speedy deleted on the basis of G4. A consensus to delete has no bearing on a G4 speedy delete. 2) There is nothing wrong with recreating a previously deleted page - WP:RECREATE. The page was improved with additional reliable, secondary sources. mikeman67 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I would've speedy deleted it myself, even if not on the basis of G4. He fails WP:BIO since there is nothing notable about him that doesn't have to do with the Kardashians, as indicated in previous AFD's. Daily Mail also is NOT reliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've quoted 10 articles about Disick above that come from sources that I think you'd agree are reliable (e.g., LA Times, Washington Post, USA Today). Also, could you explain how he doesn't meet WP:ENT? Perhaps you'd be willing to reconsider after seeing the articles I've posted here? mikeman67 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ENT is moot when he fails WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Again, not notable for anything that isn't Kardashian-related. Also see WP:MASK, which states that the raw number of references by itself is not enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • With respect, I believe this is a misinterpretation of BIOFAMILY. I've never argued, nor am I aware of anyone making the argument, that Disick is notable because of his relationship with the Kardashians. His relationship with other notable people is secondary to his own notability, which is established from WP:ENT. BIOFAMILY does not disqualify otherwise notable people. Secondly, simply being notable only for Kardashian related events should not be relevant. For example, Zeppo Marx is still notable even if he only appeared in movies with his more famous brothers. Disick has had a starring role on at least three separate notable TV shows. He's a starring character. This qualifies him for WP:ENT. mikeman67 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the deleting administrator observed, the content of the most recently deleted version was substantially the same as the section titled "Relationship with Kourtney Kardashian" in the previously-deleted version. The difference I'm seeing are minor: an additional new short paragraph about an alcohol problem, and some paraphrasing with mostly the same sourcing. Due to the similarities, WP:CSD#G4 was a valid rationale for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as nominator of AfD4). The question whether Disick has any notability apart from his connection with the Kardashians has been discussed ad nauseam, and the clear consensus each time has been that he does not. It is time for those who disagree to accept that they are in a minority and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to be snarky, so please don't take it that way, but could you (or anyone else) honestly answer these questions: If two actors only ever appeared on the same show, would that mean only the better known one of them is notable? On what basis does Disick not meet WP:ENT? How many minor fictional TV characters have their own page (e.g., Jean-Ralphio Saperstein, many characters on this page List of Star Trek characters, many from here List of Star Wars characters etc. etc.)? Or what about the 10 articles I posted above from reliable sources that discuss him as the subject (not his wife)? This isn't directed at you per se, but so much of this argument has tones of WP:IDL. mikeman67 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ENT is for actors: I don't think being a character in a reality show requires acting skill. Those items are gossip trivia, and all but one mention the Kardashian connection in the first couple of sentences - it's clear that if he hadn't hooked up with the Ks, nobody would be interested in him going into rehab, buying a house, having a baby, being seen in a nightclub etc. If the references are not substantial, having more and more of them does not help; also, remember that the last bullet point of WP:GNG makes clear that many references does not automatically mean that there should be an article.
The notability criteria are not black and white: in the end, it comes down to people's judgement, which is why we have AfD discussions. When the discussion has been had three times with the same clear result, wanting a fourth one is beginning to seem like WP:IDHT. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might want to reread WP:ENT (which stands for "Entertainers" after all): "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:". Note the celebrities at the end of the line there. Disick has a starring role in three major television shows. Acting "skill" is not a relevant criteria. I can see you're not going to change your mind on this, but perhaps for other people reading this, you can explain how he doesn't qualify as a celebrity who has a significant role in multiple, notable TV shows. Second, again, being related to someone else who is notable is not a disqualification for their own notability. There simply is no WP policy anywhere that says this. Kevin Federline would not be famous without his relationship to Britney Spears. This in itself does not disqualify him as a notable person. mikeman67 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV has often taken the view that a G4 is within discretion, i.e. an article is "substantially identical", if it draws on substantially the same sources as the article that was deleted after a discussion. So I think what's needed here to make the article G4-proof is a new source.—S Marshall T/C 00:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, provided it says something substantial about him, not just more bombardment of celebrity gossip like those listed above, saying he has been into rehab, out of rehab, given an interview, been seen in a Las Vegas nightclub etc. What we don't need is a new AfD every time there is a new bit of trivia about him. The Daily Mail article about how his face was used on the cover of some teenage books is at least pre-Kardashian, but it was a reasonable judgement by the closer that it was not enough to require a full-length fourth AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnCD - Can you cite anywhere in the GNG or BIO where it says that "celebrity gossip" isn't considered substantial coverage? The BOMBARD essay you've cited is talking about an entirely different situation - the sources I've cited are not trivial coverage or coverage about the same event. How many royal family pages are about personal relationships and other things you might characterize as "celebrity gossip"? There are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that are about lowbrow information, or info that seems WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. If you can cite me something, really anything, in any of WP's notability guidelines, I'd happily change my position on this. mikeman67 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is going on here, and the reason why no-one is impressed by your string of sources, is that the GNG, although the best inclusion filter that anyone has thought of so far, is in practice much too inclusive for some classes of users, particularly the famous for being famous and those who have energetic publicity agents. The way we correct for this, to avoid filling WP with PR fluff, is that in discussions like this people are inclined to be more demanding about what are acceptable sources to show notability than they would be for (say) a teacher or a diplomat. You think the ten links you gave constitute "significant coverage" in this case; I (and it seems, others commenting) don't. He bought a house, he had a baby, he was seen at a nightclub - would any of those have raised a flicker of interest but for the Kardashian connection? Three of them are about a single incident, him going into rehab, and I note that one of those refers to it as "coming from the Kardashian publicity industrial complex" and suspects it is a sponsorship deal.
TLDR: this guy gets in the newspapers a lot, but when asked to judge whether that gives him notability independent of the Kardashian circus, people have consistently answered no, and are here saying it for the fourth time. For other articles, see WP:OSE. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire point of the GNG is to remove arbitrary, subjective criteria from the notability guidelines. It appears you agree he meets them, but you've decided that he shouldn't meet them for arbitrary reasons that have no basis in any WP guideline (Famous for being famous is not a WP policy and really has nothing to do with this discussion). You're not citing to a guideline (I have to assume this is because you are unable to). If you don't like the GNG, then there are avenues to try to have them changed. Perhaps they should! But until they are changed, you simply cannot elect to ignore them for celebrities that you dislike. And once again you've ignored how he easily meets WP:ENT (you haven't even offered any argument about that, other than say he isn't an actor - which isn't what the policy says). It's unfortunate you're using your significant influence and experience to help delete a page that tens of thousands of people try to access every month that clearly meets the notability guidelines. The only thing I can request is that you reread WP:IDL and try your best to reconsider this issue objectively. mikeman67 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dislike him. I had never heard of him before this, and (unlike S Marshall) I regard him with complete indifference; but (like SM) I don't think he's a suitable subject for an article.
The notability pages are guidelines, not policies. The fifth bullet point of WP:GNG says explicitly that coverage "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article." This is that more in-depth discussion, fourth time round, and once again the consensus is clear. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. I WP:DONTLIKE Disick: I don't want him to have an article because I think celebrities like him are a total waste of oxygen. He's not notable for his achievements or accomplishments, he's notable for his wife's sister's sex tape. This is not a policy-compliant view and the closer will rightly disregard it, but no, I wouldn't agree that those sources make him a fit subject for an article.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your frankness and respect that you've abstained from voting so far. I think the fact that this page has faced so much opposition and repeated AfD attempts (with relatively few arguments from actual WP policies) says something about the makeup of the editors and administrators on this site. I don't think other types of pop culture pages have faced nearly this much scrutiny (like, for example, fictional Star Trek character pages). Please also consider that that WP is WP:NOTPAPER; there's room on here for pages that you like and, yes, dislike. And I'll point out again that I'm personally not a fan of his shows, I just know that he's a very notable person in the American zeitgeist. mikeman67 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and, what's more, we should be grateful to the administrative cadre for protecting us from the sheer horror of reading the deleted versions to see if they were "substantially identical". And how can a few paragraphs be substantial when you don't like someone? The AFD was irrelevant because the close was not assessing the discussion. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you WP:DONTLIKE Disick. Is that a good reason to delete the page? And deletion review is still applicable to speedy deletes, so I'm not sure what your last sentence means. mikeman67 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is very common for articles to be deleted just because many people do not like the content or topic of an article. However, for a vote to be given weight, "liking" must not be given as a reason. Similarly, it is common for articles to be kept when many people do like the topic. S Marshall has been refreshingly open about this. SmokeyJoe below gives a reason for endorsing which I wish I'd thought of. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 4 AFDs, all ended in delete. Unless the situation really, really, really changes in some fundamental manner, then the community has spon on this issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: This seems like a case where consensus goes against policy and guideline. Notability is not inherited; however that doesn't mean a person can't gain coverage because of another person. WP:BLP1E only prevents a low-profile (the subject is not low-profile) individual from having an article because of a event, and this is not an event. Mikeman67 gave sources in Special:Diff/668569572 that cover the subject. The mentioned coverage is good coverage, because most of it covers the subject not solely in the context of another person. Esquivalience t 18:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is worth mentioning that the closing Admin Drmies has a conflict of interest as he !Voted to “delete” in the first AfD.[13]. It was improper of him to exercise his “discretion” when he had already made up his mind on the subject's notability six years ago. Dolovis (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for myself, I had never heard of Scott Disick until a few days ago, I have no opinion about him, for or against. As an admin, what I can do is look at the article, the prior discussions, and the prior revisions, and act accordingly based on Wikipedia policy. To me, this was a clear G4 case, and I would have deleted it as G4 myself, but I decided to participate in the AFD instead. Drmies could have done so also (and probably should have) and the outcome would still be the same. I am assuming good faith that Drmies exercised discretion in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and not based on your perceived state of his mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Quite within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but overturn rationale from "The result was speedy delete. Per G4" to "The result was speedy delete per the rough consensus below". I was leaning a straight "Overturn, supervote, G4 doesn't apply when multiple editors are arguing to keep", until I got to the last three !votes. It is unusual that a consensus can be clear in the face of opposition in a few hours, but here it happened. The discussion demonstrates that the page should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you vote to relist then if G4 doesn't apply? At least let the discussion take its course over 7 days. Substituting a retroactive reason into a speedy delete seems inappropriate to me. mikeman67 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that calling a speedy deletion in the middle of an XfD discussion is heavy handed and feels a bit rude to anyone who doesn't agree with the applicability of speedy criterion. G4 is usually a weak CSD criterion to override discussion. In this case, G4 is stronger because there were multiple previous AfDs. I don't agree with the calling of G4 mid discussion, but as I read the discussion as a foregone conclusion that it will end up as delete, I don't support going through the 7 day process for the sake of process. The 7 days is not mandatory if a consensus is evident, as it was. Perhaps you disagree, thinking that you can persuade further participants yet to arrive at the discussion? Possible, but if you really think the article can be improved to overcome all past reasons for deletion, I think you have a much better chance by respecting the closer's decision and asking to work on it in your userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged."
How is WP better off without this page? Why would we want to ignore our notability rules here? Deleting this page ignores the policy reasons behind the notability guidelines: WP:WHYN. Using IAR to justify deleting perpetuates WP:BIAS. This page is almost certainly of greater interest to females than males. The editors and administrators that are voting here are likely entirely or almost entirely male. Please consider that before voting one way or the other. mikeman67 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gender not withstanding, I do agree that "only guidelines" is a poor excuse and shouldn't be used as a cop-out to ignore them. In fact the very name "Ignore all rules" is asking for trouble and that page is easily and frequently misused. However, this page has been deleted since there's nothing notable about him that is independent of the Kardashians as mentioned above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2015

edit

23 June 2015

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

It was merged to List of Resident Evil characters per AFD. However, years later, some disagreed (or a sockpuppet) disagreed. Does the consensus change, even when no substantial improvements were made? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the old AfD was a pseudo deletion. Also agree that it was barely strong enough to not be a soft deletion, although not by much. This does not belong at DRV. If opposed in reverting to a redirect, and if unable to find an admin to impose the old consensus, take it back to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 June 2015

edit

21 June 2015

edit

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corsa Specialised Vehicles]]

Thank you for the impartial approach, Spartaz
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Corsa Specialised Vehicles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There was no discussion at all or feedback/opportunity provided on what needed to be addressed even with a second revised version of the above page. The detailed content in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Corsa_Specialised_Vehicles (which contained verifiable/genuine/reliable automotive and company register sources) appears to have been ignored in toto. No replies from either the speedy deletion nominator (Nicky_mathew) or the deletor (RHaworth) who (scandalously?) proclaims on his homepage that he bites/targets "newbies" and may have a habit of deleting pages without explanation? Surely that in itself lacks collegiality? Corsa Specialised Vehicles (CSV) is (and definitely has been between 1994 and 2007) a bona fide independent Australian manufacturer in the same mold as the Australian Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) and Tickford Vehicle Engineering or American AC Cobra or German Mercedes-AMG and it is bewildering that the aforementioned people with no apparent automotive knowledge or local (Australian) knowledge can determine a lack of notoriety, even in the face of the scanned articles placed on the talk page. If other specific issues were at fault, why did neither extend a helping hand and point these out? Again, where is the collegiality? Also, why is this topic protrected from creation now? No opportunity was also ever given to involve any wiki users that are part of the Australian automotive community, responsible for the type of article deleted here. Key points:

Apologies if any of this is wrong - I am a newbie. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AFD, I might be going out on a limb here, but having looked at the article it's not blatant enough for G11, and there are claims of importance in there which render A7 moot. I doubt it'll survive AFD due to the lack of secondary sources, but speedy deletion was a bit too heavy a hammer to use here I think. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Lankiveil, I will have to find out more about AFD... meanwhile, I note Nicky_mathew (the instigator) corrupting other articles where CSV cars are mentioned. If only these users could provide guidance on what the new article requires, their concerns and wiki requirements could be met afterall. As an aside, another similar manufacturer but in Germany would be AC_Schnitzer and here's another magazine cover (thanks to an eBay Australia auction) "celebrating 10 years of Corsas" in June 2014 - see http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/a5IAAOSwbqpT5fhA/$_57.JPG - p.s. just to add to the aburdity of this, attempts to edit the article while under review are NOT possible because it is locked... not helpful. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you too Mackensen.
  • List at AFD agreed this would be better with the benefit of a full discussion. However, the attacks on the editors who tagged the article are totally inappropriate and I strongly suggest striking that part of the text. ("no apparent automotive knowledge"... how on earth could you claim to know that about someone?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The article asserted importance and was not "unambiguous advertising or promotion" based on the Google cache.

    There are numerous sources about the subject from Motor magazine. See http://connection.ebscohost.com/search?kwp=Corsa Specialised VehiclesWebCite. Here are several:

    1. Bulmer, Ged (November 1999). "Motor mouth". Motor: 9. Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

      The abstract:

      Focuses on Corsa Specialised Vehicles chief executive officer Peter Dichiera's career in the automobile industry. Dichiera's involvement in street and strip racing in the 1970s; Reputation as a car designer; Personality traits; Dichiera's plans for the company.

    2. "300kW for Corsa Commodore". Motor. 43 (11): 9. April 1996. Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

      The abstract:

      Reports that in Australia, Peter Dichiera, of Corsa Specialised Vehicles, has set the performance benchmark by upgrading the engine package of his CSV 5800i Corsa Commodore.

    3. Page, Ewen. "From the ed". Motor. 44 (2): 5. Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

      The abstract:

      Focuses on developments related to automobile industry in Australia. Peter Dichiera's development of his Corsa Specialised Vehicles 5800i automobile; Return of inventiveness in the industry.

    4. "The other 7.0-litre Commodores". Motor: 44. July 2008. Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

      The abstract:

      The article evaluates several Commodore cars from Holden Special Vehicles (HSV) including Monaro 427, HRT 427C and Corsa Specialised Vehicles LS7.

    Here also is a source from Wheels (magazine):
    1. Hawley, Jonathan (December 2007). "CSV GTS LS7". Wheels. Archived from the original on 2015-06-22. Retrieved 2015-06-22.

      The article refers to Corsa Specialised Vehicles as "CSV" throughout the article.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Corsa Specialised Vehicles to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, with optional AfD - the A7 is transparently bogus; the sources in the article are sufficient to plausibly meet WP:N, which puts it effectively infinitely far away from A7. The G11 is tougher - there are some writing problems, but probably not enough to require a fundamental rewrite. However, invoking A7 indicated the deleting admin was at best grossly negligent in the deletion, which makes me disinclined to give their sketchy G11 decision much leeway. If someone wants to make a deletion argument at AfD, let 'em, but I don't see any value in procedural listings for their own sake. WilyD 08:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. The decision seems to be to be placing the bar unreasonably high. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from another thanks to those of you above that have taken the time to have their say on this (I appreciate those additional sources), still waiting for the page to be re-published. Concerning my claim of a lack of motoring knowledge on the deletor's part, it was based on noticing no automotive input in their contributions list. Be that as it may, happy to retract that comment once the deleted page is republished and perhaps the deletor providing input on any necessary partial rewrite. It is not easy being a newbie sometimes. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just read on the deletor's talk page "I might have been willing but CtrlXctrlV descends into unnecessary personal observations so the discussion can run its course as far as I am concerned". Happy to wait but perplexed at process being overridden by emotions? Anyone taking offence at my observations as a newbie, feel free to delete them or direct me to... at the end of the day, it's just words on a screen but I guess said words mean more to some than others. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just on your first comment, generally discussions at Deletion Review last approx. 7 days and the page will not be restored until this discussion is closed. From the way this discussion is going it is likely to be restored and then listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where a disucssion will be held (again for at least 7 days) to decide if the article should be kept or deleted. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2015

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

<Relist>

  • The discussion was closed without proper discussion by a non-admin that did not properly measure consensus. I request admins to revert the page for proper discussion until a consensus is reached.

Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Davies (lawyer). --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of socks, I also notice that the user who nominated this for AfD has only ever made two edits, and those were to create the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad hominem that I don't even understand. I'm not sure this sentence makes sense "I'm not particularly impressed with the sources, nor with some of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could have been closed any other way given the material the closer had to work with." If every keep vote was flimsy, why keep the article. Its no more deserving than Angie Varona or Allison Stokke, or any number of individuals with far more notability that had their bios taken down.Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - All I have to say is I still stand by my move to Linklaters instead as it seemed there was no independent notability and he was best known for Linklaters. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is that a merge to Linklaters would probably be the right thing to do, but that's not a matter we're going to decide here. After the DRV is over, propose it on the talk pages and see what consensus emerges. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page in question was created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangoon11, a person that created other similar stub bios for other managing partners who are also not notable, and then was banned for being a troll. This isn't a close call. Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Given the comments on the AFD there was no way it could be closed as anything other than Keep. Deletion Review is not for arguing the AFD again, it is primarily for deciding if the closer correctly evaluated consensus, which in this case I believe they did. However I would not say the discussion prevents a merge to Linklaters from being proposed and discussed on the talk pages as a couple of the AFD contributors suggested. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - it was demonstrated in the discussion he meets WP:N, and nobody even tried to refute that. Close is beyond obvious, and relisting would be a waste of everyone time (but then, so is this discussion). WilyD 07:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If people !vote keep because of WP:GNG they do not need go on to show that the article should not be deleted under WP:BIO1E or WP:Indiscriminate. It it up to those seeking deletion to raise these matters and to persuade others of their opinion. We do not exclude biographies of people who are only notable because of the job they do. After additional sources had been produced no one seemed to think the article should be deleted. The close was perfectly appropriate and this challenge to it is misconceived. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not sure how one could say it was "closed without proper discussion" when the AFD ran for two weeks. After the 8th of April discussion had stalled so there's nothing to indicate an additional week would have altered the outcome. Some of the keep votes had less than stellar explanations of their reasoning, but I don't see how the discussion could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping -- Almost all the voites were to keep. The position he holds is effectively CEO of one of the major commerical law firms in London. The article mayu indeed need improvement, but that is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, good NAC here, any outcome other than "Keep" with such a clear consensus in favour of that would have been absurd. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse The claim that he satisfies BIO1E/BLP1E appears manifestly ill founded, as being a managing partner is an office, position, job or status, not an event. 1E is "one event", not "one thing" or "one attribute" or even "one office", which would be more general. I don't think that a closing admin, when assessing consensus, has to accept an argument that is manifestly wrong, just because no participant expressly explains why it is wrong. I think, under those circumstances, a bald assertion that it is wrong, in the form of the word "keep", is sufficient. INDISCRIMINATE was not mentioned during the AfD. Even if it had been, his article clearly does not satisfy any of the four criteria of that policy. The article is clearly not a plot summary, lyrics database, collection of statistics or list of software updates. "Other stuff doesn't exist arguments" weren't advanced during the AfD. Even if they had been, they are not valid. "Creator created bad articles and was blocked" arguments were not advanced during the AfD. Even if they had been, they are not valid. I don't think that discussion of the merits of a deleted article should be beyond the scope of DRV in absolutely all cases, but in this case, there seems to be no reason to invoke IAR to ignore the rubric of DRV, even if there was something worth discussing (which I am not seeing), as other processes could be used for such discussion (AfD itself, proposed mergers and RfC). James500 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2015

edit

18 June 2015

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2015 Note for Vote Scam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • The page is deleted without proper discussion by reason of notability by the admins who dont have knowledge of India have made it. I request admins to revert the page. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage, and I don't see how NOTNEWS applies as it certainly wouldn't prevent us from covering (say) an arrest involving a US senator or any other significant event with coverage. I don't see the BLP case for deletion given we have reliable (Times of India) coverage that the arrest happened. I certainly hope our BLP policy hasn't changed so much we can't cover this topic at all. That said, as far as I can see, this only involves the single bribe/indecent though some in the AfD claimed it was more widespread than that. As such, having the material selectively merged seems like a reasonable outcome (as the AfD nom suggested) though we may need to undelete and redirect for attribution purposes. Now, if there is reliable coverage of something other than rumors that others are significantly involved, the merge might not make sense and we may have to look at other options. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per lack of rationale. In a single line the requester manages to be both wrong ("without proper discussion" when there was an AFD) and personally attacking ("admins who dont have knowledge of India", insulting and pretty unlikely). Knock it off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert Deletion , Any one who see discussion can prove, so i repeat "without proper discussion" and "admins who dont have knowledge of India" --Rasulnrasul (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The outcome of the AfD is not in question, as the only opposition came from the DRV filer, a single-purpose account, and an IP. An encyclopedia does not give undue weight to a minor politician of a minor, 2-state political party accused of bribery. The local coverage is breathless, it appears, but it doe snot seem to extend beyond that. The AfD result was a proper reading of consensus by the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AFD had the normal discussion period and was open for anyone to comment on. It is irrelevant where the editors who contributed to the discussion come from. The closure was the only reasonable one that could be done, given the clear consensus among established editors that a separate article was not warranted. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please check yourself if WP:NOTNEWS, not notable is applicable to the article ? If yes how ?. Yes its irrelavant where the editors come from but from the discussion its clear that editors are not aware of the vitality of current issue--Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion Review is not for rearguing the AFD, but in this case from my quick look at what was in the deleted article, I would agree that wikipedia should not a separate article for this topic at this time and should just cover it in the relevant biography as we are already doing. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer acted correctly in accordance with deletion policy and the consensus at the discussion page. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist based on the comment by Tarc, there does seem to be some feeling that what might be notable elsewhere is not because of the country in which it happened. Any discussion contaminated by such views needs to be reopened. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're insinuating some sort of anti-Indian bias on my part, I'll pointedly tell you where to stuff that pile of bullshit. A story about an Indian state politician committing bribery is as notable to Americans as a story about a Chicago politician bribing someone would be to a person from India. If such a story doesn't rise above a regional interest, it isn't worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No personal issues and no anti-indian bias, but only issue is notable and not just a simple news. Imagine if a senator caught on camera while bribing another senator to vote for his party. In no country, its common caught on tapes while bribing. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin. A look at my contribution history or user page might provide you insight into my ignorance of India :) IMHO my closure reflects the consensus on the AfD, but I'll leave it for the participants here to decide one way or another. But since geoscope was brought in to this discussion I'll make this comment -- not something that I considered during the close as no one mentioned it but as an editor familiar with both systems: the American equivalency here would be articles on Joseph Bruno or Dean Skelos, though there's a bit of a difference as they were leaders in their respective chambers and not private members, and one of them has also been convicted. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does a german knows france better than french ? Indian states equally bigger than more countries. Joseph Bruno convicted for office misuse. Let me know if any US directly elected member caught on video tape whicle giving bribe ?.Operation_West_End is another similar scandal from india where president of party caught while bribing. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just dropping in to give my own two cents, but Rasul, you are aware that Spaceman's userpage shows that not only does he live in Chennai, but he's also a native speaker of Tamil and a member of WikiProject India. So in other words, by all accounts he appears to be Indian. However I will say that even if he wasn't, not being born in India does not mean that someone cannot be knowledgeable about that country. Your only real option here is to show how there has been a depth of coverage. Your main arguments so far center around India being big, that non-Indians are going to vote delete because they're not from India, and that all politician scandals are notable. None of those are really good points to argue on, especially the ones that insinuate bias because that's comes across like you're saying that only Indians should take part in deletions on India related discussions. That's not going to endear you to a lot of editors, especially not a lot of the experienced editors from India because the last thing they want is to make it seem like India related articles should be exclusive to Indian editors. This may not have been your intention, but this is how it's coming across to me. I am aware that Google and many English language search engines do not properly display search results and that foreign language sources will not show up in an English search, so these things do tend to negatively affect a lot of India related articles. Basically, I doubt seriously that deletion here was a result of bias. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd offer to userfy this myself but I'm not as familiar with politics as I am with other Indian related topics. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing a better written version of this so I may start working on a version in my userspace. Anyone object to a temporary userfication of this? I'll get started on it, but if anyone objects I'll delete it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a draft cooking at User:Tokyogirl79/Note draft, if anyone wants to take a look at it. I'm adding stuff, but I'm not particularly familiar with everything, notably Section 8. In the US it refers to housing, so I'm not sure what it refers to in India since it looks to cover something very different, obviously. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... my main concern over this is that the focus has greatly shifted from its initial target (Reddi) to Naidu, so I'm not entirely sure that this is something that can be contained on one page alone. Of course we could always link between the two articles so that's not a biggie. However I do see where this is still gaining a lot of coverage and it looks like Naidu will also be named in the case. I'm kind of thinking that if it keeps up at this rate, it'll pass notability guidelines beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'd be more comfortable waiting for a conviction of some sort. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2015

edit

16 June 2015

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've added an additional 19 sources with many more to come. The closure was proper at the time, but the subject has garnered significant attention from mainstream secondary sources since. This topic was subject to AfD in 2010 prior to the HBO show and this in universe topic is more prominent than ever. I am requesting allow recreation with no bias against relisting. Here is the version I've worked on User:Valoem/Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire. Valoem talk contrib 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. The sources in the draft look like enough to me to overcome a five year old AfD and require a new consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation. There may be secondary sources for the appearance of these groups in the TV series and novels, but that's not the problem. The problem is that per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, an article must not consist of "summary-only descriptions of works". But that's the case here. The article is exclusively a portrayal of these groups as they exist in-universe, i.e., a summary of the respective parts of these fictional works. We don't see any real-world connection, e.g., sourced commentary about how the Iron Bank of Braavos reflects real-world capitalism. Also, the draft is written in an in-universe style, treating the fiction as though it were real, in violation of the style guideline MOS:FICT ("Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."). As such, this content is suited for a fan wiki, but not for Wikipedia.  Sandstein  16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not complete yet if you look at the sources they do in fact cover this from a real world perceptive. Martin has stated multiple times the real world influence on the subject for example these two sources:
    • Poladian, Charles (2015-04-20). "'Game Of Thrones' Season 5 Spoilers: The House Of Black And White, The Faceless Men And Arya Stark's Fate". International Business Times. Retrieved 2015-06-16.
Kuruvilla, Carol (2015-05-28). "The 'Faith Militant' On 'Game Of Thrones' Were Inspired By A Real Religious Movement". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2015-06-16.
Both state the real world connections between the Faith Militant and it's actual historical rivalries. There are more, but this topic certain is covered in relation to the real world. This source here [21] directly states this the article can still be improved and Wikipedia has no timeline. Valoem talk contrib 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest that you ask for recreation once the draft is in a fit state for publication, i.e., as soon as it is written from a real-world perspective. That would need a pretty comprehensive rewrite.  Sandstein  16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prides itself on collaboration. My goal is to show the subject has plenty of relevance in the real world and this in universe topic has passed GNG and other guidelines so a communal effort can be established. Hopefully a group of editors can help me improve it as oppose to me working on it alone wouldn't you agree, especially given the popularity of this topic a significant number of editors would likely participate. The article does not require a blow up, we can add additional paragraphs citing real world relevance after it's in universe description editors such as TAnthony maybe interested in expansion. Valoem talk contrib 16:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft doesn't show that the topic of the article, "Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire", has relevance or notability. It only shows that individual organizations from the fictional world have been discussed or (much more often) merely mentioned in third-party sources. But none of these sources discusses the topic of this fiction's organizations as a whole, which makes that topic fail WP:N. A case could perhaps be made for the notability of some specific organizations, if they have real-world-related coverage, but that's not apparent from the draft.  Sandstein  18:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as sourcing exists. We delete articles on the basis of sourcing. The topic has real-world notability, that a draft doesn't isn't important to a deletion discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Sandstein is of course correct that the article is too plot summary heavy/reaction & analysis light, but that's a fixing problem, not a deleting problem, so it cannot be a consideration here. Similarly, I don't know if this the best organisation of the content, but A Song of Ice and Fire is already murder on my poor Granny's dialup, so it's a sensible content organisation choice, though maybe spinning out the sections and making this a summary/list is better, I don't know, but that's still an editing consideration, not a deleting consideration. The sources are presented to demonstrate notability, which is really the concern here. WilyD 08:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation It is only to be expected that a very popular work like this will be discussed in detail in the RW, and therefore should in WP. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation per new sourcing and extremely high level of cultural notability make this a potentially fertile article subject while similar articles on other fictional organisations would be a bad idea. Sandstein is correct that keeping this on the right side of WP:NOTPLOT is going to be a challenge, but not in my opinion a totally insurmountable one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. This one's a slam dunk. The AfD is almost 5 years ago. The primary reason for deletion then was the lack of sources, and this current draft has plenty of them. If somebody wants to argue about the quality of the sources, or the WP:NOTPLOT aspect, that's better done at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation While the draft is not great, as above the AFD was a significant time ago and there are more sources here than when deleted, so we should allow recreation and it can be discussed at AFD again if someone wants to renominate it. Davewild (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shekhar Chatterjee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was previously deleted on marginal lines that it wasn't meeting WP:GNG (although there were many, they weren't national or international. Now there are handsome amount of national and international article on the subject which is enough to qualify WP:GNG as of now. 123.201.79.2 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a passing mention, so doesn't count for much. The second (Times of India) certainly looks good. I don't know how to evaluate the last one (Career India). It's clearly significant coverage in that the entire article is about him, but I don't know enough about Career India to judge if it ranks as a reliable source or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I got misled. Looking at the references in the deleted article, I see that the Times of India source presented here is not new after all, it was in the original article and consensus of that AfD was that it was insufficient. So, endorse the original AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note shortly after the AfD which deleted this article, Shekhar Chatterjee was re-created, but about an entirely different person with the same name. If we end up restoring the deleted article, some disambiguation will also need to happen. Also, we're talking about minor here (at least by US standards), so we need to be particularly careful about WP:BLP issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will make a note of your words. CareerIndia seems a reliable source to me. They are a big news agency with no controversies till date. The reason for mentioning here Times of India link is that the reason given for disregarding this was a bit irrelevant. The reason was that once TOI misinterpreted a fact (although this is an article and not a fact) and was debated that city supplements are non reliable. Although the debate was over TOI article, the article in Dainik Bhaskar and Divya Bhaskar received no discussion (They have more readership than TOI in India. Check Wiki article and they are a repute national newspaper). The article has been covered in many secondary sources. 123.201.95.124 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Career India source can be shown to have been written by a staffer or that there is some degree of editorial control, I'd go with relist. Otherwise we don't really have anything new. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CareerIndia is an Independent media house in India. There main website is here. They interview verify edit then publish. 123.201.95.201 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find anything to indicate that there is editorial control. Could you point me to something where they indicate someone actually edits or show that the author is on the staff? Hobit (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 June 2015

edit

14 June 2015

edit
  • Victor Romfors – Refer to AfD. This is another one of those debates where the process question is inextricably intertwined with the notability question. There's no clear consensus in the discussion, but I think the core principle here is that speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there's essentially no chance the article would survive AfD. Given the amount of debate here on both sides, it's clear this wasn't an obvious case, so speedy deletion didn't apply. I'm going to restore the article and list it on AfD, where the merits can be discussed without the distraction of the simultaneous process debate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Victor Romfors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Contesting G4 Speedy Delete. Bio article was properly re-created with new information after the hockey player had played professionally in a 2014-15 2013-14 regular season game (not an exhibition game) of the Swedish Hockey League, which is a “Top Level League” as defined by WP:NHOCKEY/LA, and is therefore presumed notable by the standards established by the Ice Hockey Project. Deleting Admin User:Djsasso has been notified here. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the game was played in the 2013-14 season not the 2014-15 season as mentioned. The game was both played before the Afd and was mentioned by User:Ravenswing in the Afd nomination statement. As such there was no new information in the page that wasn't already mentioned in the Afd. The page was almost identical to the one that was deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock notice indicates an agreement to an interaction ban, and this nomination is skirting that ban. I'd ask User:Thryduulf (for the Ban appeals sub-committee), to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe and Dolovis: That unblock notice explicitly states "This restriction may be enforced at the Arbitration enforcement page." and so that is where you should post if you think there has been a violation. The rest of this comment is me speaking strictly personally (not for BASC) and explicitly without prejudice to any discussion at AE, my view is that the nomination of this page did not breach the letter of the ban as the deletion was more than 30 days ago. Edits to this page by Dolovis after Djasso commented are violations of the letter though, but I would recommend against any punishment for this without a consensus at AE if anyone wants to take it there (I am not going to). I have no opinion about this article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should note I agree with Thryduulf. He should be perfectly able to comment here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be extremely unreasonable to forbid Dolovis from commenting here, really. Ravenswing 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the AfD HAS been addressed with the newly created article. The old article was deleted based on the argument that Victor Romfors had not yet played a regular season game (only a European Trophy game). But the newly created article is based on the new and verified information that Romfors has since played in a 2013-14 Swedish Hockey League regular season game. See [25] & [26]. He made his SHL debut on February 8, 2014, [27] (the same day the AfD was opened). This new information was not in the original article, and was not brought to anyone's attention during the AfD. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I recommend a history merge, undeletion, and listing at AfD (optionally, by anyone) to discuss whether this person should have an article. Disputed G4s should be discussed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/undelete and list as desired per SmokeyJoe. Further, I'd object to someone not being able to comment at a discussion they started because someone they have an interaction (or something slightly different in this case) ban with edited the discussion. But, that's up to AE. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given Dolovis has a history of misrepresenting the lone source used in this article (a bare stats list; of which the first iteration of this page was an example) to try and justify these sub-stub creations despite obviously making no attempt to verify that the subjects meet WP:GNG - something that has resulted in literally hundreds of his page creations being deleted in the past - I trust that he will bring evidence that this person has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works from reliable sources in any relist/AFD. Given Dolovis could not even be bothered to update his recreation to reflect the player's actual current team, I must say that I am not optimistic. Resolute 14:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, my comment in the original AFD very specifically addressed this. I can't say how unsurprised I am to find my prediction came true. Resolute 14:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion - Actually, re-reading the original AFD, I see that Dolovis is misrepresenting the arguments made in that discussion, as well as its outcome. Dolovis is pinning his argument on a pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but he is (as is usual) completely ignoring that the majority of the commenters in the discussion explicitly pointed to GNG as well. And as the NHOCKEY SNG is a subsection of WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly states that an athlete must meet GNG, he can't even claim the player meets NHOCKEY at this point. Given Dolovis only changed about three words from original version to new, and given he has failed to produce evidence that the player meets GNG, I see no reason to overturn the G4 deletion. Resolute 14:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relationship between this SNG and the GNG is a bit less clear than you claim. "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." implies that one can meet the SNG and not the GNG. It feels like a SNG written by committee (like everything else here) as it jumps back and forth on SNG vs. GNG. Ignoring issues with this editor, this is (IMO) a reasonable situation for a relist as there is now a reasonable claim of meeting the SNG in question. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it says "another subject notability guideline" - i.e.: something other than NSPORTS, of which NHOCKEY is just a sub-section. i.e.: if an athlete doesn't meet the sports guidelines, but does for military personnel or politicians, etc. Resolute 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The GNG is also there. I see what you are saying, but it allows for meeting the SNG but not the GNG. Could you point out the part that the SNG indicates that it must meet the GNG also? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll grant you that I was ultimately misremembering the wording when I said "explicitly", but at some point logic must prevail when it comes to sourcing. The purpose of these SNGs is denote the point where we presume a subject meets GNG, based on our experience with the topic. But a presumption of notability is not a guarantee, and a majority in the AFD pointed to the lack of GNG. Also, to be perfectly honest, when drafting these SNGs, we did not anticipate the possibility of an ego-driven editor creating two-sentence junk pages on players with no coverage whatsoever simply so he could get the first edit. This is only one example out of easily a thousand similar pages created by Dolovis despite his obviously never once checking for sources beyond a stats sheet. And in this case, he didn't even read the stat sheet properly given he listed the player with the wrong team. Since the page stated only two things in total, the fact that he got a BLP 50% wrong is a little troubling. But that, of course, is an argument for a separate discussion. Resolute 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - meeting any bastard stepchild of WP:N is generally taken as a standard for inclusion, which is met. Furthermote, two of the "delete" positions explicitly noted their position was based on zero games played in SHL, given that's no longer true, it's obvious a new discussion would be merited. WilyD 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly ruled and closed; there was no failure of process. Recreating it absent any evidence that this ephemeral player meets the GNG (which evidence Dolovis, matching his historic form in such matters, has declined to proffer), just so it can be AfDed all over again, strikes me as tendentious process-worship. I also question Dolovis' motive: what exactly is his game in digging up an 18-month-past AfD of a sub-stub article? Ravenswing 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Resolute, Tarc, etc. Hard to justify an encyclopedia article for one unspectacular appearance in one game. Using common sense, I don't see this passing an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis can we endorse a G4 when, in fact, the subject now meets the SNG in question? The speedy was incorrect and AfD is the right place to discuss this, not DRV. Will it make it at AfD? I suspect not, though I think it has a chance. But this is the wrong venue for discussing SNG vs. the GNG. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because GNG was one of the arguments a majority of commenters in the original discussion also called out, and which has not been addressed in the slightest. When people were arguing there are insufficient sources from which to construct a Wikipedia article in the original debate, one would hope and expect that the (re-)creator would address this issue as well. He failed to do so, and instead recreated a nearly identical page. Resolute 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single !vote noted that he didn't meet the GNG or the SNG. Not one indicated that he needed to meet both and one was very clear that meeting the SNG (which he does now) would be enough. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But just meeting a SNG isn't enough (eve I used to think it was, for a time), there's still a presumption/expectation that reliable sourcing must exist to support the article. So if someone voted "Keep because he played one game and that satisfies WP:NHOCKEY", then a closing admin should weigh that about the same as a "Keep he has lots of twitter followers". Tarc (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, basically per Tarc. WP:ATHLETE has some ridiculously low bars for inclusion, actually the lower of the whole encyclopedia, especially for team sport players. This one is just an example, but these sort of sub-stubs of low profile sportpeople are created daily by the dozens (or by the hundreds). I don't oppose SNGs, but WP:ATHLETE is in some criteria spectacularly inconsistent with each and every other notability guideline. About the current case, I would be ashamed to open a discussion about someone who meets the letter of a so inclusive guideline in such a borderline way. Especially as one year and a half have passed since the AfD, but still his claim of notability is the same old game. Cavarrone 18:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 June 2015

edit

12 June 2015

edit

Brittany Petros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Petros Brittany Petros should be deleted as it only includes resources from imdb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database Another reason to delete her wikipedia article is she has notability on tv or in movies for many years now, other imdb i really cant find any updated on Brittany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelig16 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2015

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

I tried to create a page for Brian Peppers. It was protected and I was unable. This is a popular and important deceased person who has significant coverage in various publications. I tried to nominate it for deletion review in 2007 and my request was denied. It has been a long time so I am hoping bias here has decreased. Please allow creation of this important article. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Pilotbob (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that pretty much everything you said was wrong ("Popular"? "Bias"? "Important"?), I'll make it simple: NO. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the following was left on your Talk page nearly eight years ago. Perhaps now would be a good time to actually read it:
    • While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. ... Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrative comment: Considering that the above shows that this question has been discussed very extensively with a (now) clear outcome, and that this review request offers no new information or arguments, I intend to speedily close it if no established editor objects in the next 24 hours. That would be without prejudice to a DRV request that actually explains why consensus might now change.  Sandstein  09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and speedy close. After reading just a little of the history, and a little googling for the subject's name (snopes, know your meme, etc), I was going to speedy close this, but in deference to Sandstein, I'll let him have the 24 hours. Maybe blank this DRV as well -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If this happened in 2015, the likes of the dailydot, vox, mashable and others would have a field day with this. Alas for Mr. Peppers that his fame came about in 2005 with only YTMND and the Uncyclopedia to take notice. I dislike deletions where the God-King's fiat played a role, but there really is nothing out there to support an article, and even if there were we'd have a slam-dunk WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no new info, nothing for DRV to do. If it's true that he died, unless there's some unlikely Henry Darger-esque posthumous discovery that he wrote world-class operas or something, there won't ever be an article about him on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there is no way in hell that this is a good idea. Anyone who wants this restored will have to present very substantial coverage in sources which are reliable and haven't already been considered, and given the BLP issues involved I very much doubt even that would go down very well. It is very unlikely that new sources will appear if the subject really has died. We don't have anything new here other than the unsubstantiated and incorrect assertions that the subject is "popular" and "important". Hut 8.5 18:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 June 2015

edit

9 June 2015

edit

8 June 2015

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of wrestlers in WWE video games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed as "redirect", but I do not believe that was representative of the discussion - there was a clear consensus in favor of "deletion". The discussion had 7 !votes in favor of deletion, all based off of relevant policy/guidelines/essays regarding lists. Its an unsourced list, not likely to be documented as a primary topic of discussion by third party sources, and not especially a likely search term. There were only 2 !votes for redirect, and neither gave any rationale for their stance. (One just said it should happen, and one was the article creator, merely saying he'd rather not have his work deleted.) The closer, MelanieN proceeded to close it as a redirect anyways, and when I asked her about it, she stated that she personally "always leans toward redirect if there is a plausible target". While that is a fine stance for a participant in a discussion, it is not an appropriate action as a close for a discussion that did not contain a consensus for such an action. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After Serge objected to this close at my userpage, I encouraged him to bring it here, since I would value the community's input. It should be added that in addition to seven "deletes" and two "redirects", there was also a !vote to "userfy". Since there was some sentiment to redirect and an obvious target, I opted to redirect. (I am a fairly new admin but a longtime AfD commenter - and I have seen discussions closed as "redirect" when only one person suggested that option.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it is acceptable as an action sometimes, but only when there is a consensus to do so. No such consensus was present in this discussion. A closer's job is to make a call based on what is already present in the discussion. I don't see any reason for those 2 !votes to outweigh those 7 other !votes present, when those 2 !votes didn't even contain a rationale, (or an actual redirect target if you read what they said only one person even suggested a target.) I don't mean to sound like I'm assuming bad faith, but I don't know how to see this as anything other than someone taking their personal stance and making it be the final conclusion of a discussion, disregarding the actual discussion that happened. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serge, you seem totally focused on the 7-2-1 count. (I don't know why you always omit the "userfy" !vote.) So let me expand a little on why I didn't just follow the count. Before I became an admin I had participated in (looking it up) 3,500 AfDs. During that time I had seen multiple occasions where the majority favored "delete" but somebody suggested a plausible redirect - and the discussion was closed as "redirect", sometimes with the comment that "Redirects are cheap". I concluded, as an observer, that "redirect" is a possible or even preferred alternative to deletion, even when the majority of discussants said "delete". That was then; this is now. Now I am here as a newish admin, discussing the concept with other admins, and willing to listen and learn.
  • I don't mention the Userfy because it was a non-factor -- only one person suggested it, without a rationale, and it was not the end close result. It was a distant third place option that didn't happen - there's nothing really to be said? That aside, I'd be fine with what you did had there been much closer of a split between stances, with both sides. I've seen that happen plenty of times in my 500 AFDs I've been a part of, and I'm fine with that as a "tiebreaker" type call. There's been a bunch of times where I've gone "Delete", and the end result is "redirect", or vice versa, and I hadn't cared because it was a close call. I don't recall ever taking one of these scenarios to DRV ever before, so its not like I have a history of objecting to this type of scenario. My problem here is that it really wasn't split, it was 7 to 2 in raw votes, and should have been weighted something closer to 6-0 if you discount !votes given without a policy-based rationale. Which is why I keep on saying, what you did would have been a legitimate !vote, for sure, it just wasn't good as a close. You can't look at that discussion, and conclude "Yeah, this is policy-based decision the majority of participants requested." When you look at what was discussed, how you closed it, and how you defend it, to me, it feels too much like you played the dual role of both a participant and a closer. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a valid opinion on your part, and I respect it. As I said, I have seen this done often enough - cases where there were a bunch of delete !votes, and toward the end of the discussion somebody came up with a possible redirect, and the closer chose "redirect" - that I believed it was an acceptable approach. In other words that it doesn't necessarily have to be a clear consensus !vote or a close call, to redirect instead of deleting. I based that on what I have seen other admins do. We have both said what we have to say; let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "redirect". I strongly endorse Mkativerata (talk · contribs)'s comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro:

    Restore history. The closing admin's comment—"If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her."—does not appear to be consistent with our attribution policies. The history can, and needs to be, kept underneath the redirect in case any of it is to be merged, so that the original contributors can be attributed. As a broader point, unless there is good reason to delete content from history (copyvio, BLP etc), deleting the history underneath a redirect is unnecessary. Recent DRVs confirm this to be the view of the community. Furthermore, when people !vote to "delete" an article at AfD, what they're usually arguing, in substance, is not for the technical act of deleting the article and its history, but for the substantive result of removing a stand-alone article. A consensus based on that substantive result does not preclude the creation of a redirect in place of the article. Nor does it ordinarily preclude the restoration of the article's history behind that redirect. Substance over form is the key.

    See also the comments and links at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/January#History undeletion underneath redirect.

    The page history of List of wrestlers in WWE video games can be used as a reference for WWE 2K editors. Editors interested in the topic might be drawn towards working on articles about wrestlers affiliated with the video games. For example, see DrewieStewie (talk · contribs)'s comment in the AfD ("I use it for personal note, and even though it's mostly trivial, it still is valuable to me.")

    And if some of the content can be sourced (as DrewieStewie) has indicated ("It may be just a simple, unsourced list (I can add sources tomorrow)"), some of it can be merged to related articles.

    The only downside I see is if the redirect is reverted. But MelanieN has promised to watchlist the page, and redirect reverting is easily remedied by applying full protection.

    The potential benefits outweigh the negatives, and the "delete" editors did not provide a compelling reason to keep the history deleted (copyright violation or BLP violation). It is therefore within admin discretion to retain the page history under the redirect for editors to use for reference.

    Cunard (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is an excellent idea. Because it turned out that someone (previously uninvolved in the discussion) did revert the redirect. It was restored within minutes, before I could even get to it. But since the AfD was clear that this should not be an article, I will apply full protection on the redirect. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "delete" and "redirect" are basically the same in this situation, both constitute a decision that "we don't think we should have an article at this title". It's not an inappropriate search term, none of the delete commenters thought a redirect was a bad idea, and contrary to what was said above the target was mentioned in the discussion. Hut 8.5 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hut 8.5 - Apologies, you're right, one person did mention a redirect target. I've struck that comment. And yes, while no one outright said "I oppose a redirect", my hang-up is that no one provided a single rationale for a redirect in the discussion. There's literally no rationale present in the actual discussion (or if there is, please point it out to me.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said above, deleting an article and redirecting it without merging are basically the same outcome, so the participants were all (except one) saying essentially the same thing and it doesn't really matter which one the discussion was closed as. Obviously this would not be the case if people offered rationales against one of these two possibilities, but that wasn't the case. Two people obviously thought that to leave a redirect would be better, and one of them give a rationale (that the editing history may be useful in the future), so I don't see any reason not to go ahead with that. Hut 8.5 17:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 2 people obviously said that they preferred a redirect, but they didn't even give a reason why. They offered no rationale. Those types of arguments are supposed to be weighted far less. Not offering any sort of reason is a very strong and valid reason not to go ahead with it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Your comment implicitly assumes that the people who left "delete" comments were opposed to a redirect closure, which isn't true. As those closures are basically the same support for deletion shouldn't be construed as opposition to redirection, unless there's some comment saying so. The rationale for a redirect closure is the same as the rationale for a delete closure because, again, those closures are basically the same. Hut 8.5 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I know is that no one provided a policy-based rationale for a redirect, and not a single "delete" person mentioned a redirect in any capacity. It's not that they're opposition, its that they didn't say anything on it. You've got 2 people who said "redirect" without a reason, and 7 people who didn't say anything about it at all. How is that a support for a redirect? That equals zero policy-based !votes for a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're not opposed then this discussion is a waste of time because all participants are happy with the outcome (apart from the one person who wanted it userfied). If they are opposed then they should have said so. "Delete" is usually just the default label for "I don't think we should have an article on this, get rid of it". I myself have left plenty of Delete comments on AfDs I would have been happy to see redirected instead. Hut 8.5 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd tend to think of this close as a sequence of actions that can be separated from one another. There's an assessment of the community's consensus ("delete"), then an editorial decision (to create a redirect, which any editor could have done), and then an administrative decision (to restore the history beneath the redirect, which is required by Wikipedia's attribution policy). Those were all reasonable decisions in isolation from one another. Does Sergecross73 have a specific objection to the redirect or is this DRV purely about procedure?—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall - A large part of it is procedural, but Cryptic touches on my personal objection to this. According to WikiProject guidelines, large, exhaustive, bare list of aspects of video games are not allowed. If we're following guidelines, not only should the list article not exist, but the redirect target should not ever have have a list in it to redirect to. (Unless someone ends up writing some prose about the characters, but that's unlikely, as it would largely just boil down to: "Wrestler 1 is in the game. wrestler 2 is also in the game. Etc". Sergecross73 msg me 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I may be missing something. The concern about the redirect relates to the way the target article is written? Because I can't connect that with a need to delete the redirect. Surely the answer is to remove the list from the target article?—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall - My reason for coming to DRV was that I'm unhappy in the reading of the consensus in respect to the content present in the discussion. There were many policy-based reasons for delete, and absolutely zero rationale given in the 2 redirect !votes. Melanie's stance makes for a good !vote, but not a good close, because no one made a policy based argument to do so. Separate from that, my particular stance in the discussion was that the entire stand-alone list was a huge violation of WP:GAMECRUFT - an inappropriate list related to video games. Not only is it inappropriate as a stand-alone list, but its also inappropriate as a list within an article, and if such a list shouldn't ever exist in the article, it doesn't make sense to have a redirect for it, as the redirect target shouldn't contain the relevant information. Think of it this way: Lets say there was a stand-alone article called "Trivia Related to Basketball". That's not an appropriate article, and it should not exist as one. It also wouldn't be a good idea to redirect it to "Basketball" or "Basketball#Trivia", because, per WP:TRIVIA, the section shouldn't really exist. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I understand that. I must say that I wouldn't personally elect to spend any of my volunteering time creating or maintaining a list of characters in a wrestling video game. I think the correct assessment of the discussion would have been "delete". But if I distinguish MelanieN's actions from each other ---- an administrative close as "delete", then an editorial decision to redirect, then an administrative action to restore the history beneath the redirect ---- then it's hard to say that there's anything much wrong with her actions, particularly now that she's protected the redirect to stop anyone restoring the content that was removed. When I see it in that way I can't find grounds to recommend an "overturn" outcome to the closer.

    You're saying something that I think is slightly different, which is that Wikipedia shouldn't contain this content, which I understand to mean it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia in any form. In other words, according to you the redirect should be deleted to purge the history, and any similar lists in other articles should also be excised. I'd suggest beginning a discussion on the talk page of WWE 2K about that as the AfD doesn't affect that page.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - delete and redirect are essentially the same position at AfD; none of the delete rationales suggest any reason not to have a redirect. Otherwise, as S Marhsall notes, you can look at it as delete create redirect to end up in the state we're in now, which is perhaps not the most rigid application of policy without any thought as to what you're doing, except every policy begins by saying don't rigidly apply this without thinking about what you're doing. WilyD 08:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WilyD My hang up is that no one gave an actual redirect rationale at the AFD. There is literally no rationale for redirect given in the discussion. I'm getting a lot of the "Its a plausible search term" or "Eh, redirect and delete are pretty much the same thing", but no one actually said any of this in the actual discussion itself, and that's what the close is supposed to be based off of. If they're essentially the same thing, why chose against the one that had had an overwhelming policy/guideline based consensus? I don't see it as being especially rigid, just following "How to Determine a Consensus 101". Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, one could close as delete, then create the redirect without giving a rational, so it's still a needlessly long dance to arrive at the same place. WilyD 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The closer's decision was irrational as it failed to take account of the consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced this would have survived rfd or even a simple db-r3 tag if it had been created as a redirect without an article beneath it or an afd discussing it, for the simple reason that there's no list of wrestlers at the target article. Even the #Roster section only names four. (I suppose I should point out this edit, though.) —Cryptic 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. See Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. When I close an AfD as a deletion, if there's been any reasonable suggestion of a place to redirect to, and no cogent arguments specifically against a redirect, I pretty much consider it a gimme. In this case, I don't think the title is a particularly useful redirect because it's an unlikely search term, but when in doubt, see Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and move on to something more important. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm very happy that we should redirect, if possible, rather than delete, unless the content is abusive. And personally I'd welcome this even if no one mentioned "redirect". By all means protect the redirect proactively if it helps. Thank you to S Marshall for the approach he suggests and to several others for encapsulating. If there isn't a written policy or guideline covering this I think there should be. There is no benefit in hiding history unless the content was abusive. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I rescind the nomination. There's a clear consensus here, and I don't want to waste anyone else's time. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Deepcentral (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

You can see here http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Deepcentral article at the moment of it's deletion in February 2014. Quote: ″The band spent 7 weeks at the top of the Romanian Top 100 in the period March to May that year,[2][3] with a total of 17 weeks in the Top 10. As a result, Deepcentral was nominated to MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act″

IMHO this page can be deleted only via discussion, not PROD and not speedy. XXN, 12:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Richard Kountz – Moot. A new article at this title has already been created, and I just back-filled the deleted history, so there's nothing left to do except haggle about the fine points of process, which isn't really what we're here for. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Richard Kountz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Significance was credibly provided. Speedy deletion criterion not fulfilled. Perform a proper deletion discussion, if needed. Person is the lyricist of Lady Divine from The Divine Lady and several others. Authority control identifiers (ISNI, VIAF) were present. Eldizzino (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page's entire content was "Richard Kountz was a lyricist. ==Works== * Lady Divine, part of The Divine Lady {{authority control}}". Regardless of whether the A7 deletion was correct, that wasn't an article; it was a request for one. —Cryptic 03:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as DRV regulars will be aware, I'm usually very happy to overturn bad A7 deletions. But this one is not a bad call, given the circumstances. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating a better article at the current title with more sources and more of an assertion of notability made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • If Notability is contested, then it should go via that channel and not via A7. Your assertion that there's nothing stopping anyone from creating a better article at the current title with more sources and more of an assertion of notability made. is not true. Someone that goes to the title, and sees it was deleted, might be stopped from creating it again. Eldizzino (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Article made no credible claim of how the subject is important or significant. Stating he is a lyricist of someone or another is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - technically, the right choice is probably to redirect to The Divine Lady, where he is mentioned, rather than A7-ing. But ... whatever. That's easily fixed without a discussion. If there was content to userfy, it could be done, but there ain't. WilyD 08:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything that is not Speedy deletion is better, since it allows regular editors to improve the content. Speedy deletion, if not legally required or in case of spam, is wasting the time of anyone wanting to improve Wikipedia. In future I will create less content on music in the English Wikipedia. Eldizzino (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not really an article or even a stub, and there's really no room for expansion as there's extremely little we know about him, and even basic biographical details would likely be OR. There's plenty to say about Lady Divine though, albeit for reasons totally unrelated to lyrics: it was the first song Ira Arnstein took aim at, leading to Arnstein v. Shilkret, and (very indirectly) laying the groundwork for the way the modern music industry handles intellectual property to this day. Oddly, the present article mentions none of this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't much point in restoring the deleted version because there's a better article there now, but I don't think this was a valid use of A7. Stating that the subject is a lyricist is not an indication of significance, no, but the article also said that the subject wrote a song described in its article as a "popular hit" for an Oscar-winning film. A7 is meant to be a low bar and I think this got over it. Comments about how little there is in the article aren't relevant, because they have nothing to do with A7 and the article didn't meet A1 or A3, and A7 does not require notability to be demonstrated. Hut 8.5 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a lyricist who wrote a notable song is a claim to importance, whether or not it amounts to notability (if that's the only work he did, it might not, but that needs to be determined by trying to expand the article) Among the non0-criteria for speedy is being a minimal stub. A stub that says who someone is and what they did is sufficient to be a stub. Deleting it was a violation of basic deletion policy; I would have handled it with a BLP Prod, which was specifically adopted for this sort of situation. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
    • DGG, please don't take this the wrong way, but, are you okay? After years of good work I'm seeing more and more highly questionable calls from you lately, such as this where you appeared to be supporting restoring rightly-surpressed attack content, and here where you're apparently suggesting using BLP prod on someone who died over 60 years ago. I don't know you personally and maybe it's not my place to say, but you don't seem in full command of your own decision making as you usually are. This could be due to any of a thousand things, but in particular make sure you're definitely getting enough sleep. Can't hurt, and it might just help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a dubious speedy deletion and a baffling oversight decision. A respect for process such as DGG holds is something to prevent Wikipedia decaying through slipping into oligarchy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no need for a particular action, but probably not the best A7. Per Hut and DGG this was a non-ideal deletion as there was a reasonable claim of notability. But we're at a better article now, let's move along. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current article beats A7. Who was the original author? Is it too much to history-merge so that his name is on record? A7 deletions should be overturned on request. The decision to delete per A7 doesn't sound bad, but if someone wants a discussion, let them ave one, by undeleting and listing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of the current version is the same as the author of the deleted version. There isn't much to the edit history, it just consists of the original creation, the same editor adding the "works" section over two edits, and then a speedy deletion tag. But I don't see any harm in undeleting it. Hut 8.5 06:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2015

edit
  • Dairese Gary – The article was AfD'ed and brought to DRV. Then, during the discussion, it was recreated/improved in draftspace, moved to mainspace, G4'd because of the ongoing DRV, salted, then restored to draftspace. In summary of this whole "trainwreck", consensus is to endorse the original AfD delete closure (as the only possible outcome from the AfD discussion), but to allow recreation by unsalting the title (which allows moving the draft back to mainspace if appropriate). The consensus endorsing the AfD closure may be strong, and the consensus to allow recreation weak, but it is (IMO) as weak as the actual consensus in the original AfD, which has low participation and no great arguments; if it is indeed recreated, I expect it to go to a new AfD, one that will hopefully establish stronger consensus and will evaluate a more complete version of the article. Spartaz's G4 deletion "due to the ongoing DRV" (and not due to the recreation being substantially similar to the AfD'ed version) seems like it may or may not have been an error of process in the interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria but it's a relatively minor point that doesn't affect the consensus to allow recreation and might be better discussed elsewhere, such as WT:CSD – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dairese Gary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was closed as delete in February with all of 3 delete votes. Gary is a notable basketball player that played at New Mexico and is now playing professionally. I brought the issue up with User:Joe Decker and he gave me the standard "sorry I'm not going to recreate this consensus was reached blah blah." I then provided several sources, and he hasn't responded in several days. If I recall the article was fairly well written and well sourced, though it may have been light on sources to prove his notability. In any case I believe there are plenty of sources out there to establish that Gary is notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moot. There's really nothing to do here. The AfD close was the only possible close given the discussion. But, the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources. Keep in mind, however, that the article will have to stand on its own merits, and if not, it can get deleted again. If you want, I'll be happy to restore the old article to draft space so you can work on it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This thing has really spun out of control. There's two quite distinct arguments going on here. The first is about process. I suspect the right thing to do about process in this case is to start trouting people, but I suspect we'd run out of fish in the sea before the job was done. The other argument is, Should this article exist? As always in these cases, that's so wrapped up with the process question, it's never going to get a good answer here. So, I suggest the right move at this point is to do nothing. If somebody moves the current draft back to main space and somebody else feels it's not appropriately sourced, they should just bring it to AfD, which is the correct forum to decide those sorts of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 —Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doing nothing would not be an ideal move because anyone who moves it back could be blocked for disruption. When Editorofthewiki did it, he was called "disruptive", so he likely will be wary of moving it back. I would be uncomfortable moving it back for the same reasons. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fear mongering is warranted. I don't see how a page move, on it's own, would ever legitimately warrant a block.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous editor who moved the draft back to mainspace was called being "disruptive". If you look at your list of block reasons, you will see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing there. I don't think the move to mainspace was disruptive but someone else did. Nor do I think a block would be legitimately warranted, but someone else might. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the safest thing to do would be to do nothing for a few days, to let everyone chill out. Maybe I could work on the article some in draft space. After that, I could move it back to mainspace. If someone doesn't believe he is notable, well, isn't that what AfD is for? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Cunard by that logic any admin ever commenting that a certain behavior was disruptive would be taken to be threatening a block every time. It has been mentioned to you several times that your long wikitext heavy blocks of text disrupt the flow of discussions but I can't believe that anyone would ever see that as a legitimate block reason. Annoying, yes, unhelpful to other users but not block worthy. *sigh* Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no other closure could possibly have been reasonable. As usual, there is no problem with someone recreating the article if they can do it better, nor with the deleted content being restored to draft space. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first is not independent of the subject, it's some sort of press release from a related sports organization, the second is a trivial report on DWI, nothing to do with his play and not suitable for a BLP. Kraxler (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is independent. Your statement could be read to mean an article from NBA.com cannot be used for an NBA player's article. Also, how do you define "trivial"? It's not just a one paragraph press release, it's a summary of his career, the DWI, the coach's reaction, etc. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Spartaz's speedy deletion, endorse Joe Decker's AfD close.

    I strongly disagree with Spartaz's assertion that "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive." Two editors, RoySmith and Stifle, said that a new version of the article could be recreated. They recommended moving the article to draft space for Editorofthewiki to work on. That is exactly what Editorofthewiki did. After he did significant work on the article, he restored it to mainspace. He followed RoySmith's advice above ("the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources").

    Editorofthewiki discussed this on Spartaz's talk page. Spartaz archived the discussion after Editorofthewiki pointed this out.

    Stifle tagged the article for speedy deletion under {{db-repost}}. The speedy deletion was declined by admin Ged UK (talk · contribs). Stifle reverted Ged UK's decline, and Spartaz deleted the article. The speedy deletion is problematic because Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." When another admin has declined the speedy deletion under {{db-repost}}, speedy deleting the article for exactly the same reason is problematic because it is clearly not an "obvious case".

    Furthermore, a Google cache shows many sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Here are several: 1, 2, and 3. There is a strong argument that {{db-repost}} does not apply. The Yahoo! Sports article provides substantial coverage of the subject, which is a good indication he meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Scout.com profile is under a paywall but based on the title ("profile"), it likely also provides substantial coverage.

    And here are two more Yahoo! Sports articles that provide significant coverage, 1 and 2 that are not used in the article, as well as several Scout.com articles and an article from Afrobasket (published by Eurobasket.com).

    While this article might be deleted in a second AfD based on the differing interpretations of the new sources, {{db-repost}} does not apply.

    Here are my reasons for overturning the speedy deletion:

    1. Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith and Stifle's advice to work on a new draft of the article.
    2. Editorofthewiki followed RoySmith's advice, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources".
    3. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editorofthewiki does not have to gain consensus at DRV to recreate a new version of the article with new sources. No policy, guideline, or precedent prohibits him from immediately recreating the improved article during the DRV.
    4. Recreation during DRV discussions happens frequently. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#Richard Kountz, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15#Seth Goldman (businessman), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks for three recent examples. In fact, in the "Array Networks" discussion Spartaz himself wrote in the close, "There is never any objection to any good faith user trying their hand at a new version". This is what Editorofthewiki did here.
    5. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion qualifies only for "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version ..." Based on the new sources added, it is clear that G4 does not apply.
    6. Ged UK declined the speedy deletion request. Overriding Ged UK's decline violates the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which says, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". It is not an "obvious case" when another admin declined the speedy deletion.
    Spartaz and personal attacks at DRV

    It is concerning that Spartaz is for the second time in as many months getting into a conflict with an editor who improved an article at DRV. A month ago, as now, he made personal comments about the editor (me) he was in conflict with. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV, he made the unsubstantiated claim to me, "You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that".

    In this discussion, he wrote to Editorofthewiki, "You sir have less manners then my 10 year old." This is far more hurtful and personal than anything Editorofthewiki said. Editorofthewiki said "WP:DICK move" and "stupid move", which are very tame comments about Spartaz's actions. Spartaz, on the other hand, made a personal comment about Editorofthewiki's manners.

    People in a position of power over other editors must be particularly circumspect about their behavior. If Spartaz is unable to refrain from personalizing disputes when editors disagree with his DRV actions, he should stop using his admin tools in these situations.

    Cunard (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it far more problematic when editors scour the internet for every name-drop and trivial mention of a subject, then write bloated Walls o' Text in the article (as well as at DRV, a tactic you are quite familiar with) to prop up the subject's notability far more than it actually is. This isn't done out of an actual desire to improve articles, but rather to thumb ones nose at the community when a consensus has been reached to delete an article, or uphold a deletion in this venue. It's like a hark back to the 2009-era Article Rescue Squad. So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz. Tarc (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, yes, there's a problem here to be sure, but it certainly isn't Spartaz." Then what is the problem here? Am I the problem? Is Cunard? I think it IS out of a desire to improve the article and you have completely misread his intentions. Spartaz's actions speak of someone attempting to flex his muscles toward me. I don't think that consensus has necessarily been reached to delete this article, rather that Joe Decker made the correct decision. Which he probably did, even with the low turnout. However, that doesn't mean the article should stay deleted forever, provided further sources can be found. I did just that (here here and here are additional sources that Cunard never mentioned). I want to make it clear that I am not trying to be disruptive, and if that is how my actions are being viewed it is not my intent. Even though I thought User:Stifle's repeated tagging of CSD was rather WP;POINTy, at least he had the courtesy to yield to someone elses better judgement as to whether the criteria applied. Ged UK declined, meaning the only possible way the article would be deleted was through AfD. But Spartaz decided to be judge, jury, and executioner.~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editorofthewiki, the third source you linked above is a very good article that provides 668 words of coverage about the subject:

    Wright, Rick (2011-03-10). "Gary's Future Is Bright Even Without NBA". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-06-14. Retrieved 2015-06-14.

    I cannot see how your actions can be viewed as disruptive.

    Admins RoySmith and Stifle said that you were welcome to work on a new draft of the article, which you did. RoySmith even wrote, "the title is not protected, so if you believe there now exist sufficient reliable sources, just go ahead and create a new version of the article with those sources". And AfD closer Joe Decker (talk · contribs) wrote: "I'm not sure that that is quite enough for me to override, but you can (as you were told elsewhere) recreate."

    For Spartaz to then override admin Ged UK (talk · contribs)'s speedy decline and then say "Recreation was disrespectful of the process and disruptive" makes no sense when you were just following RoySmith's and Joe Decker's good advice.

    I agree with what you said here:

    Yes. I'm not entirely familiar with the proceedings at DRV. In fact, I probably shouldn't have even went there, since User:Joe Decker made the correct decision to delete based on the votes at the AfD. It would have saved a lot of Drama. However, I feel that User:Spartaz made a bad decision to just delete and protect, and compounded the issue by comparing me to a 10 year old.

    In nearly all situations, there would have been no drama if instead of taking this to DRV, you had just followed RoySmith's advice to recreate the article with new sources.

    Once the article had been recreated in a form that did not violate {{db-repost}}, the DRV should have been closed as "moot". And any editor who believed the sources were insufficient should have taken this to AfD instead of speedy deleting it.

    Cunard (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse AfD, but unsalt The AfD closure seems consistent with the input at the time. Like RoySmith and Stifle stated earlier, no problem if this article is recreated if WP:GNG can be demonstrated. However, the article has since been salted by Spartaz. The article previously could have avoided DRV and simply have been recreated by EDDY, which the editor recently stated on my talk page. I don't think the article was recreated out of bad faith, and I believe EDDY is now more familiar with the workings of DRV. Let's not make this any more punitive than it has to be, and allow the article to be improved—if possible—by unsalting it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba (talk · contribs), as an admin with access to the deleted revisions, would you review Editorofthewiki's improvements to the now-deleted draft? Is the revised article a "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (from CSD G4)? My review of the Google cache and the sources' accessdates indicates that there were several sources added that were not discussed at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why the distinction matters. {{db-repost}} either applies or doesn't apply. CSD G4 doesn't have any special provisions for pending DRVs. When Editorofthewiki withdrew his DRV request, no one had criticized the sources he had used in the article. There was no attempt to do an end-run around of the DRV process as other editors have said. Cunard (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. Once you have asked the community for their input it is incredibly uncivil and disrespectful to the time and effort volunteers put into considering the request and offering their opinion to just ignore the discussion and recreate the article. (Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace). The correct behavior in these circumstances is to list the new sources and ask for a relist based on that. Whether or not you agree with this, I strongly believe that organisationally we need to support and reinforce community based decision structures. Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. Spartaz Humbug! 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith and AfD closer Joe Decker both advised Editorofthewiki to work on the draft and restore it to mainspace when he thought it was ready. That is what he did.

    (Especially by just moving the draft restored to help the discussion back into mainspace) – this is inaccurate. RoySmith restored the draft not to help discussion but for Editorofthewiki to work on.

    I deleted because the DRV was pending and at the time of deletion the DRV was clearly going to endorse. – you cited {{db-repost}} in your deletion summary even though the article was not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it had a new claim of notability and three new sources. While you're welcome to hold the view that articles should not be recreated during pending DRVs, you should not use your admin tools to enforce your view without a solid basis in policy.

    Encouraging users to run around them is a recipe for chaos and a really good way to encourage an already dwindling user base to further disengage with these structures. Look at the declining participation rate at AFD to see my point. – there was no running around the process because Editorofthewiki followed the advice here to work on a new draft. By speedily deleting or blanking good faith editors' recreations, you are discouraging them from continuing to improve articles.

    Cunard (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trainwreck. May I suggest to the closing admin that the situation be left as-is with the article in draft space, and a further DRV to take place when its editors believe it ready for mainspace? Stifle (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eric Sullivan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please see the discussion on my talk page here. I closed the deletion discussion on this individual on 30 May as delete based on the fact that although there was a technical joint/partial Grammy award as a producer on an album that won Grammy Award for Best New Age Album the subject undoubtedly failed the GNG. As this is a BLP and since WP:ANYBIO was in tension with WP:N and the WP:GNG I closed in favour of delete based on the view that (especially in the case of a BLP) a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion (which there wasn't) to give favour to the SNG over N. Given the challenge to this interpretation, I agreed to list this here for a view on whether or not it was in my discretion as closing admin to close that way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that I have temporarily undeleted this page to assist discussion here. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note BiH (who created the article and disputes the closure) is an undisclosed paid editor. The original version of this is very similar to others with copyvio, unsourced BLP content and promotional language. Compare this and this. Spartaz made the right decision and I see no need for the community to waste even more time discussing an issue that only a conflicted editor is disputing. SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted "keep" at this AfD, based on the award, the nature of which is quite clear to me: The subject took a little statuette home for his work on the album. However, there are two major obstacles here: First, the name is very common, and google and other searches get contaminated by millions of Erics, Sullivans, and Eric Sullivans. Second, refining the search in any way only turns up a few mentions of his name in connection with his wife, the Grammy-winning artist, or the album, absolutely nothing else. Under the circumstances, I think it was within the discretion of the closer to delete it, although redirecting Eric Sullivan to Laura Sullivan (composer) would be preferable. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smartse: I'm as opposed to paid editing as anybody, but what evidence is there to support such an accusation here? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable close, but I'm not very familiar with the music-related notability rules, so I have no strong opinion on how this should have gone. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RoySmith: see here, here and here. Obviously as they haven't disclosed it regarding this article there is no definitive evidence, but I haven't found any articles that they created that don't have problems. It obviously doesn't make any difference at AFDs or here, but if they aren't going to disclose their COI, I'm going to make sure that others are aware of it. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose to endorse the deletion but I feel so half-hearted that I won't put that in bold. It is very helpful for Spartaz to be bringing the matter here. Spartaz is quite wrong in supposing there is any tension at all between WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. The former says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and ANYBIO (part of Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is one such guideline listed. Therefore if a subject meets ANYBIO (and this will sometimes be arguable) notability may be presumed. Even given a presumption of notability it is entirely proper for people at AFD to decide that the subject is not notable. And of course they may not consider that ANYBIO has been met anyway. These matters are for the jury and are not points of law for the judge. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure was a reasonable exercise of the administrator's discretion and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bit: a subject that demonstratively fails to meet N should not have an article based on an SNG criteria unless there is an overwhelming consensus in the discussion -- this perfectly encapsulates my view. I also endorse the close.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The relationship between the GNG and the SNGs is frequently disputed. The general statement at the WP:N guideline is unambiguous: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. " The word used here is "OR". OR means OR, not AND. A relevant SNG is of equal value as the GNG, and meeting either is sufficient--unless there is a specific statement otherwise that is accepted as a guideline. The one most often disputed is NSPORTS, which has often been considered to be specifically a limitation on the GNG--although the guideline itself clearly reads otherwise (personally, I'd like to change that, but at present it too is a clear OR). Anyway, that one is not at issue here. The close was in error, because it was based on the direct opposite of the relevant established guideline. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Following through the argument however requires actually reading the SNG. In this case the linked from WP:N is WP:PEOPLE, that makes it clear what it's basic criteria is, and it isn't WP:ANYBIO, it's pretty much the same as WP:GNG. The additional criteria of which WP:ANYBIO is one are stated as somewhat less than the presumed notability on which your opinino seems to rely. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So if you want to go by the precise word of the guidelines, then it's pretty clear WP:ANYBIO is merely indicative and subordinate to WP:GNG --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is my reasoning exactly. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I view this like the "group sex awards don't count" recently adopted at WP:PORNBIO. If the only thing the subject is hanging his hat on to get an article is a shared Grammy, sorry, that isn't enough. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse While I tend to rate the SNG more highly than the closer, even for a BLP, that's a reasonable close. If I'd have had to close it, I'd have been torn between NC and delete. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - at least one sockpuppet was struck, which puts the headcount in a dubious state. Discussion is more "keep-y" than the !votes, and the discussion turns towards the end (where it's importantly noted the Grammies appear to consider him a grammy winner, which earlier discussion was unclear on, but indicated would be more in line with meeting NMUSIC). Yes, the page should probably be redirected/smerged to Love's River or Laura Sullivan (composer), but that's no reason to get the close off (especially when a NC close is far less damaging to attempts to sort out the page in the future.) WilyD 08:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the SNG claimed in this case is one which is specifically noted as an additional criteria which is "lower" than the basic criteria which is GNG, given that nature of the award is also "questionable" as not being awarded to the person, the close seems entirely reasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with disclosure that I voiced a Delete opinion in the original discussion. There are some really overblown claims being made here to give the illusion of notability, but they can't paper over the fact there is precious little in the way of reliable sources for us to build a bio from. We shouldn't have biographies of living people on the site where we can't provide credible information backed by reliable sources, regardless of whether he might meet some SNG in some technical way (which, to boot, I do not believe he does). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. The SNG points are weak indicators, and are not worthy points to use as arguments as AfD. Everyone else agreed to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse appears to have been solidly within administrator discretion. Regarding the broader issue of whether this guideline overrides that guideline and this conflicts with that and so on, none of that really matters if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to actually base an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2015

edit

5 June 2015

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Celebrity nude photo leaks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Black Kite gave a G10 justification for the list article after it came up at BLPN. The subject matter is easily sourced across both journalism and academia. I think this is a willful misread of G10, especially in light of the deleting admin asserting that their most important justification for deletion was that they don't want Wikipedia "hosting unpleasant misogyny". While better sources need to be found for the article I see nothing about the subject matter that is inherently G10. This is a substantive subject, easily sourced, that is not itself a copyvio. This should go to AfD, not be, to borrow the deleting admin's term, "nuked" because they don't like it. GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC) GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Call it whatever you want, but with sourcing like (REDACTED) (that link is NSFW and inappropriate), I for one am not weeping over this going away. I'll go trout Black Kite for not inventing CSD#G99: Completely inappropriate material that needs to be nuked pronto before he deleted, and then give them a barnstar for IAR of the month. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted article is now suppressed. If you want to write an article on celebrity nude leaks without linking to them, you can go ahead and try. But making Wikipedia host to even links to such content is completely unacceptable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)The subject's worth having an article, about, sure; but this wasn't one. It was a list of celebrities who'd had photos leaked, with secondary-in-name-only sources, some of which in turn linked to the photos. Appropriate G10 deletion. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nothing anyone has said about the article that was deleted makes me think that a proper article on this subject wouldn't be faster written by starting from scratch. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess I'll be the creep that does that. Consider my objection withdrawn. GraniteSand (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got Imagery of nude celebrities; think this is worth a redirect? —Cryptic 02:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the wide legal and cultural impact that unauthorized leaks of celebrity nude photos/videos have had and the expansive coverage the topic has had I would say it will survive as an article. I guess we'll see. GraniteSand (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the first page of results for Jennifer Lawrence, the most recent "big" leak victim, which discuss legal, technological, and cultural implications:[28][29][30][31]. The topic has received coverage that is general, topical, and biographical in relevance. GraniteSand (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why an article on that leak exists. Most leaks, however, aren't notable; and an article which is a big long list of non-notable events is, by definition, non-notable (WP:LISTN). Quite apart from the BLP issues, of course. Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, and discuss at AfD. I personally do not think we should have this sort of material,and that the page on the leak is sufficient. But this is a question of NOT NEWS, and that criterion is not a speedy criterion, but requires community discussion. I think it's really stretching it to call it G10, "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" Alternatively, this could be seen as a BLP content dispute, with the question being whether this should be a separate article or included there or not included at all. The argument there for deleting it would be excessive weight and general unfairness under BLP,and there tooI would probably argue that we should not have this sort of material, , The use of iAR would be only justified if there is no other way to deal with it, and if all reasonable people would agree. blanking follow by an afd would have dealt with it. As for the use of suppression, according to WP:Suppression policy,"Complaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the oversighter flag should be referred to the Audit Subcommittee," a group of which I am not a member. If I were, I would not be commenting here at all . In short, I would like it deleted, but I do not decide speedies according to what I would like, but according to policy. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article can't be restored in the state it was deleted, for reasons mentioned above. I suppose we could restore the text without the links, but that's obviously not massively useful in terms of discussing notability. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is easily found at the google webcache. I only checked a few links, but they are not links to the alluded images. They are, however, links to primary sources about the individual links, and are not sources for the general subject of celbrity nude photo leaks, and so are not good sources for building content. The article appears to be little more than a list (Celebrity nude photo leaks#List of nude photo leaks). As a list, it is not a notable list, and so must be considered a navigation aid, and so should be primarily linked to articles about specific leaks. If the subject is to be a general and scholarly treatment matcing the title, as the nominator seems to be saying, then the article should not be listing and linking every example.
The application of WP:CSG#G10 and the oversighting appear be very liberal. I will endorse the deletion log's IAR rationale as a once off, the sources do not fit at all with policy on WP:SOURCES. That is not a speedy criterion but it will serve no purpose to list them again on Wikipedia.
I suggest that the deleted content, if not already saved, or obtained from the cache, should be emailed to the nominator, and the he be encouraged to write a new article. This new article should use reputable sources on the subject generally, and should not be a list article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again we're in a discussion that combines two different questions. (1) Was it appropriate to nuke that particular content? and (2) Would it be possible, in principle, to write an article with this title? I think there's a clear consensus that the answer to (1) is "definitely"; the DRV closer may wish to apply a suitable barnstar to Black Kite's userpage. (2) is a whole lot less clear cut and I can see both sides of it. My concern is that if we did have an article called "Celebrity nude photo leaks" it would constantly attract vandals and problems of the most urgent and difficult kind ---- so if we allow it to be created at all then this would be one of the very, very small number of cases where it would be appropriate to apply pending changes level 2. Or even that pre-emptive full protection that Wikipedia's policies don't let us use.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, possibly a lawyer reading G10 can find a gap, but wikipedia is much better without pages like this, enough wikilawyering. Spumuq (talq) 11:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and we are not a bureaucracy. Well, we are, but we shouldn't be. Thanks Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse of the CSD of the article in its current state, but adding that an article should be possible if only the most pristine high-quality sources were used (to avoid the BLP) and that the article was carefully worded and protected from vandal per S Marshall. The article is (was?) currently nowhere close to that, so the G10 was appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 June 2015

edit

3 June 2015

edit

2 June 2015

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is an article about the armed conflicts “behind” the war zone in the 3nd Army and 4rd Army operational areas in Anatolia between the Ottoman military and special units against the Armenian militia – historically the Armenian fedayi – of the Armenian national movement. Ottoman army at this period was five main campaigns: the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign, the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the final stages of Gallipoli Campaign and two minor campaigns, wikipedia do not have an article for armed conflicts behind these Campaigns. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts behind the war zone. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their published research.
(a) | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (published 1913 and since cited 17 times and reviewed 4 times in a refereed journals. The author is Edward J. Erickson [over 200 refereed articles]
(b) | "Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires 1908–1918" is cited 59 times in academic journals. The Author [Reynolds over 200 refereed articles].
(c) | The Russian Origins of the First World War published by Harvard Press. The author | Sean McMeekin has 30 publications.

(d) | A Shameful Act The author does not have publications on refereed journals.

Admin presented deletion summary on 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire as (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight.

(a) the neutral point of view policy. I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” Removal of a published content from these authors bring interesting positions on application of verifiability on wikipedia. The main idea behind this position in the deletion process was represented by [|this remark]. In the discussions, credibility of [Erikson] [| Reynolds] and [| McMeekin] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide deniers. The deletion of this article is a removal of the content contributed through these publications. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence. Enforcing a decision to delete a content of these authors based on the label Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by wiki participants rather than the source is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The article also includes information from Taner Akçam and Donald Bloxham to every fact presented.

(b) content forking guideline During discussions participants stated: The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified with the re-write including a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915, which is armed conflicts behind the war zone inside the Ottoman empire is no original research or synthesis, or part of other conflicts occurred during the period. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Are we to delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Point three: There was no single objection voiced in the deletion discussions for the facts presented in the article. Article contains all the positions, which one user pledged to remove the positions which makes the article NPOV (this).

(c) undue weight: viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

procedurally wrong decision: I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards,” because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content (the issues regarding Stealth canvassing, sock puppets and other issues reported to Admin [this]) c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting. Failing to enforce WP:Verifiability created a POV sensitization process across many articles. In fact, the removal of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is created an extremest position (| this link] on the armed conflicts at Middle Eastern theatre of World War I) which same authors also | pledged to remove Armenian national movement and removal of conflicts in [1916, 1917, 1918 from history of ottoman empire during WWI], [| Removal of Armenian national movement from defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire], initiate removal of Resistance during 14-18 (this [32]). If Wikipedia enforces the idea that there is "No" Armenian-Ottoman conflicts behind the war-zone in 1915, the removal of armed conflicts involved Armenian national movement (many articles, many years) would be expected. I ask the reversal of the deletion, based on “intellectual standards.” Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2 — we focus here on failure to follow deletion process rather than an appeal and full rehearing because you just disagree with the deletion outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. Difficult to see how the AfD could have been closed any other way. The DRV nominator is a WP:SPA who has edited exclusively articles related to this subject, and created the article in question. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus of the AfD was that the content was a genocide denialist's content fork of existing, neutrally-presented content. The closing admin correctly affirmed said consensus and closed the discussion in favor of deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the arguments for deletion were that the article's existence relied on a handful of sources adhering to a fringe viewpoint, and that there are other more balanced articles on the same topics. That view wasn't effectively rebutted during the discussion, it looks solid to me, and it's an entirely valid reason to delete an article. There were no procedural irregularities. I don't see how a closing admin could have done anything else. Hut 8.5 21:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It is very unusual to see a page deletion due to WP:UNDUE, and so it is no surprise that someone finds the procedure looking unfamiliar. Unusual, but certainly not improper. The forking of content is never a good idea, and forking with an alternate POV is particularly not OK and should be deleted. The AfD demonstrated a clear consensus. The nominator here appears to have a strongly entrenched POV, and an appropriate thing to do is to refer him to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal for consencus, if we can find one who pays attention to reality

Okurogluselo: Really I cannot believe that such a content deleted in wiki. Did everybody lose the sanity? Or is everybody poisoned by fanatics, who cannot bear any reality they dont like? This is an encyclopedia. Nobody denies civil Armenians deported and killed in masses, bu also nobody could deny that Armenians had been armed and fought against Turkish Army or police forces, beginning from 1860. During 1915, well equipped by Russia, about 25.000 Armenians attacked to Ottoman forces, and also to Turkish villages which supplied support and privates to the army. The enrolled Armenian men increased and it was a civil war obviously. And the real scene was World War I. Who can deny a civil war occurred? These all were real, and yes, of course we can cite tens of reliable references including German and Russian army logs. Such attemps to erase the facts from wikipedia are censorship, nothing other than this.

I offer to change the headline of the article or writing it from beginning. How about, "Civil War in Eastern Anatolia in WWI"? We may not use the date 1915 at the headline or the term insurgency. Also the article may contain Assyrian armed rebellion during the same period, and nearly in the same region. Assyrians approve they attacked to the Turkish Army, however they claimed it was a reaction. Then they have their own claims about Assyrian Genocide. In fact some Armenians confirm that thay fought against the empire, however like Assyrians, they assume it was self defense. The article I propose may include all the aspects claimed by sides. Okurogluselo : Blah 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

1 June 2015

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

Archive.is was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is in September 2013.

A list of Archive.is–related discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Two RfCs are Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Because the topic has been contentious, I am bringing this to DRV for community review of new sources that did not exist when the AfD took place.

Here are three reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Archive.is:

  1. 山口真弘 (2014-06-01). "［ウェブサービスレビュー］ZIPや画像のダウンロードにも対応した魚拓サービス「Archive.today」" (in Japanese). CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
  2. Козлов, Алексей (2014-08-11). "Сайт дня: archive.today - альтернативный бэкап для "всего интернета"". Ferra.ru (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.

    According to the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Ferra.ru, Ferra.ru is a magazine.

  3. Koebler, Jason (2014-10-29). "Dear GamerGate: Please Stop Stealing Our Shit". Vice. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.

Archive.is also received some coverage in two journal articles:

  1. Brunelle, Justin F.; Kelly, Mat; Weigle, Michele C.; Nelson, Michael L. (2015-01-25). "The impact of JavaScript on archivability". International Journal on Digital Libraries. 17 (2). Springer Science Business Media: 95–117. doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0140-8. S2CID 254074456. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
  2. Klein, Martin; Van de Sompel, Herbert; Sanderson, Robert; Shankar, Harihar; Balakireva, Lyudmila; Zhou, Ke; Tobin, Richard (2014-12-26). "Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot". PLOS ONE. 9 (12). PLOS: e115253. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9k5253K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253. PMID 25541969.

The current name of the archiving service is Archive.is, not Archive.today. See the May 3, 2015, blog post http://blog.archive.is/post/118010496181/why-did-you-change-the-url-back-from-archive-todayWebCite.

Allow recreation; move User:Lexein/archive.today to Archive.is.

Cunard (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support recreation. The delete vote was not unanimous. The discussion could as well have been closed as no consensus given the level of involvement among participants. The sources are there. I added a good one already during the AfD, which was acknowledged by others as reliable, and yet not taken into account in the end. Just like before, I see nothing wrong with having the subject of this entry featured in Wikipedia. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the original close was clearly correct. Allow recreation because of coverage that did not exist at the time. Reyk YO! 06:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: The original deletion discussion had plenty of delete !votes and only two keep !votes, where neither of the latter fully showed the subject met the GNG or any other notability guideline. Either relist or do not allow recreation: The CNET Japan and Ferra.ru articles only seem to be providing basic descriptions of the service, which I don't think meets the "significant coverage" requirement of GNG; the PLOS ONE article only has incidental coverage anyway, and I can't access the IJoDL article, but based on OP's summary I'm assuming that is also only incidental coverage. That only leaves the Vice article as clearly providing significant coverage. —me_and 08:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ferra.ru article provides detailed analysis about Archive.is (link to Google Translate where the translated text below is from; bolding added for emphasis and italics for my own comments):

    In fact archive.today - is an alternative clone of the famous project Wayback Machine. True archive.today does not work automatically, and upon request, so that it would be correct to put on a par with Peeep.us or Perma.cc. [My comment: This compares archive.today to two other archiving services that also don't automatically archive URLs.] You never know where some of these sites suddenly block, so it makes sense to have them all bookmarked.

    Site archive.today not really famous, but they are actively using. Search on base archive.today find thousands of pages, each of which was saved by someone. Not bad for a project with private financing.

    It is worth noting that the services, making snapshots of pages differ in quality. The modern web standards are so complex that some browsers are not always the same understanding. Often a snapshot gets not all content pages. In this regard archive.today good enough. [My comment: This praises archive.today's quality in archiving pages.] It normally keeps even vebdvanolnyh page, the content of which is loaded scripts. Sami snapshot scripts are not included, so save forever page with the virus will fail.

    ...

    From a technical standpoint archive.today - a useful and timely tool. [My comment: This article is clearly a review of archive.today.]

    The Japanese article from CNET Japan (link to Google Translate) provides a very detailed overview of how the website works, sprinkling commentary throughout. It says that Archive.today has "unusual features" like downloading the archived page as an image or as a zip file (which, from my observation, other archiving sites like Wayback Machine and WebCite do not provide). The review notes that Archive.today's "reproducibility of the [archived] page" is "high". It further notes in a caption (from Google Translate): "Japanese also can be displayed without garbage properly, the font of the recall is also high."

    This isn't merely a description. It further provides commentary about Archive.today's features and quality.

    I am not using the journal articles to satisfy the "significant coverage" clause in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I am listing the articles here to show that Archive.today has been studied as an archiving service by academics. Just another data point for editors to consider.

    Cunard (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse recreation,
A decision that should be done over, with mroe carful attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_June&oldid=664779661"