Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< April 2016 Deletion review archives June 2016 >

31 May 2016

edit

30 May 2016

edit
  • List of The Sword of Truth characters – Reopen existing AfD Relist. There's no real clear consensus in this DRV. We've got roughly equal number of people arguing to overturn to NC, relist, or endorse. But, even the people who are arguing to endorse the redirect are doing so with reluctance. So, I think we can rule out letting the redirect stand. Perhaps I'm being naively optimistic, but I'm going to back out the close and relist the existing discussion for another week, in the hopes that a clear consensus emerges. If, a week from now, that hasn't happened, and some poor admin is plotzing over how to re-close it, my apologies for leaving you a mess! When I first wrote this, I didn't realize the existing AfD was six months old. I'm going to start a new AfD from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of The Sword of Truth characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think the decision to end the article as redirect reflects consensus. Two people supported that after it was relisted but they did not gain agreement from objectors. When originally listed more than two opted to keep the article, as I would, for cleanup and improvement. Ranze (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, barely redirecting a "list of...characters" to an article which does not contain any list of characters nor any section specifically devoted to them is inherently a nonsense. The discussion could had been closed as "keep", "merge and redirect", "no consensus" or "delete", pick your choice (at that stage of the discussion, I would had probably relisted it or as a second choice closed it as no consensus). But a simple redirect was the silliest possible choice, and the more misleading one. Cavarrone 15:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I think a reevaluation here may be helpful (unfortunately, the closing admin has retired so presumably won't be providing input, although he has been duly notified). I don't think the distinction Cavarrone is drawing between a "redirect" close and a "merge and redirect" close is the crux of the issue. If there is currently no "list of characters" section in the main article, anyone who thinks that section should be there is free to create one. And if the appropriate length of that section is short enough, then that would be the best way to handle things, so we don't split the article unnecessarily. The list article that previously existed was too long to merge, but the nominator's rationale at the AfD was exactly that—that the list was too long and contained too much in-universe material. So this one calls for some discussion. (My own personal view is that such in-universe articles are usually harmless, bring in new editors, and within reason should often be left alone, but I recognize that that is not policy.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this is not the crux, but the point is that the admin made a Pontius Pilatesque choice which could have some bureaucratic sense (deleting the page but saving its history) but is actually not logical nor reasonable from a reader's point of view. The distinction between a M/R and a R could appear trivial to us, but for an occasional reader who actually checks/looks for a "list of characters" article and then is redirected to an article without any list nor any analysis of the characters the difference is pretty significant (and side note, their first reaction very likely will be, "Wikipedia is crap")! For sure "anyone who thinks that section should be there is free to create one", but until that day comes the redirect will not make any semantic sense. A (selective) merge/redirect closure would had avoided such an awkard result, as it would had requested some even minimal adjustments BEFORE redirecting the page, instead of giving a damn of the readers. Closures could be right or wrong, but the minimum requirement should be performing closures which make some sense. Cavarrone 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I think that was a premature close, a bit rough a rough consensus. Even though redirect could be considered an average position between keep and delete, it is also considered a pseudo-delete. I think "no consensus" was also a viable call, and suggest that the closer should have !voted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the Wikipedia policy on these sort of fiction topic spinouts, I take NewYorkBrad's points, but am torn. The information contributes coverage to the notable subject of the notable parent article, and it can't fit in the parent article due to article size accessibility issues (or so the decision went). However, it does break the notion that an encyclopedia is a tertiary work, as it is lengthy content not built on secondary sources. It conflicts with WP:PLOT, and without secondary sources it must fail either WP:WAF or WP:NOR. Worst, without secondary sources, it can be considered a massive copyright violation as an unashamed derivative work of the original fiction. Another site (http://sot.wikia.com/wiki/Characters) without these hangups covers the same characters better, and in the end I think the parent article should link to that site as an external site. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. AfD is not for cleanup and that seemed to be a large part of the AfD. There was a reasonable case made that this met our inclusion guidelines and a list of characters article is fairly SOP for an article like this. The deletion arguments were not numerous or strong enough to get past that. Beyond that, I also agree with NYB on the value of these articles (though agree that's not policy). Hobit (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I'd be ok with a relist; there were not that many opinions. Otherwise I'd endorse the closure: While I wouldn't necessarily have made the "redirect" closure myself, I can see the argument for giving at least the first two "keep" opinions less weight because they didn't really address the core policy issues of not-plotness, verifiability and notability. Contrary to Newyorkbrad, I believe we must actively enforce these policies in order to maintain the quality of Wikipedia and to prevent it from becoming an unverifiable, opinionated fan-wiki.  Sandstein  11:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein:, as long as you are an experienced administrator who care to "maintain the quality of Wikipedia", I expect you realize that redirecting an article called "list of characters" to a target which has nothing resembling a list of characters is a semantic nonsense and a paradox. Also, the discussion was poor on both sides. The redirect suggestion was only justified "as a compromise", and the sense of keeping the page as a redirect instead of selectively merging it or deleting it altogether was never explained. And "this one seems best linked instead to the article itself instead of its own article!" (the rationale for the redirect votes) seems to me more a funny tongue-twister than an accurate analysis or a meaningful argument. Cavarrone 12:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well, I did nominate the article for deletion, not redirection. But the probably pointless redirect can be nominated for deletion itself by anybody who cares. Or something brief about the characters can now be merged from the redirect's history.  Sandstein  13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse. I am inclined to agree with the above that the redirect isn't a good idea because the target article doesn't contain anything relevant to the search term, but it is also reasonable to say that a shortened list of characters could be added to the target article, and it is pretty common for articles about fictional works to include short lists of the main characters. I don't see how the AfD in that state could be closed as Keep or even No Consensus, as the main arguments for retention were that the series is notable and that the article is comparable for other lists such as those relating to George R. R. Martin works. These are both weak arguments: the former misses the point and the latter is just a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I suppose we could relist it but there had been plenty of participation and it had been relisted once already. Hut 8.5 21:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Per Hobit. There is no reason for a series of related notable works to NOT have a consolidated list of appropriate fictional elements, WP:N doesn't demand it and doesn't apply in the same sense to a list as it would to an article, and the outcome doesn't reflect that. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion review isn't really required to change from one of the variations on not-delete to another. This is usually something achieved by application of WP:BB or the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2016

edit

28 May 2016

edit

27 May 2016

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

I don't believe the closer's assessment of consensus was correct here. There seems to be more support for deletion than for redirection. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Encourage the closer to add a brief explanation of the closing rationale in contested cases.
First thing I notice is that the nominator appears to be unaware that notability is not a reason for deletion if there is a viable merge target. "Dan Vahdat is co-founder and chief technology officer (CTO) of Medopad.[1][2]" is definitely material mergeable to Medopad. Some of the "delete" !votes were a tad bizarre in advocating rejection of "merge and redirect" without any reasonable rationale for why the co-founder and CTO should not be mentioned at the article on the company. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi SmokeyJoe. Could you point me to the guideline that says that notability isn't a reason for deletion if there is a viable merge target? I see that WP:FAILN says that "[n]on-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted", but the "often" doesn't suggest that there is a firm guideline or policy but rather that such an outcome would have to emerge from consensus in a particular case. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Larry. You found it.
Start at the top of the page, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Also "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article", which means that "notability" concerns do not govern whether the subject is worth a mention at the target (go to WP:WEIGHT for that). Then FAILN, yes. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work on firm guidelines, WP:N least of all. WP:N is so complex, nuanced, and controversial (less so these days), that it is tightly constrained to the particular question "does this topic wannant its own stand alone article". The question of delete vs merge&redirect comes down to whether the subject is worth (WP:WEIGHT) a mention at the target. In this case, I think it is obviously yes. You were supposed to look into that WP:BEFORE you initiated the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. If the consensus view in the discussion was that the article should have been deleted rather than redirected, doesn't that take precendence over your view of whether the subject is worth a mention in another article? Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are giving your view on whether the article should have been deleted or redirected, rather than on the assessment of consensus in the close. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse To answer some of the questions above, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP is a good starting point. But basically, the bar that a redirect needs to cross is that the topic is discussed in the redirected article and there is really a "best" article to direct people to for the topic. That holds here. Also notice that some of the delete !votes were okay with a redirect. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Redirecting the head or founder of an organization to the organization is standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Had I closed this, I probaby would have closed it the same way. It's true that there's not really a consensus to redirect, but unless somebody specifically objects to the redirect (as Lemongirl942 did), I tend to assume most people arguing to delete on notability grounds would be OK with a redirect if there's an obvious target, as an WP:ATD. That seems to be what happened here, and I think that's perfectly within admin discretion. I (respectfully) disagree with SwisterTwister regarding the protection. Protection should be a last resort in response to repeated problems, not a pre-emptive move. On the other hand, looking at the redirect target, I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medopad, so that may resolve the whole issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When there is a valid redirect option, and no particularly problematic material that needs to be suppressed, a delete !vote is rarely a policy-based option. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even if consensus is to delete, that does not preclude anybody else recreating a redirect to the company from the new redlink anyway — so "delete" and "redirect" are not mutually contradictory options in an AFD. If you really think a redirect is truly uncalled for here, you always have the option of starting an RFD discussion on it — but that would have to be nominated and discussed the merits of a redirect in and of itself, not on whether the AFD outcome supported a redirect or not, as an AFD deletion doesn't preclude the creation of a redirect unless the discussion specifically comes to a consensus that a redirect would be inappropriate for some reason. But I don't see that in the discussion, so there's no conflict here. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, it's not a perfect scenario as the target article doesn't really say anything about him, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the comments. I obviously got this one wrong. I don't have any objection to a redirect existing - I just don't see the value in keeping the promotional article history. It's not a major issue, though, I suppose. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2016

edit

25 May 2016

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

Seems an unambiguous delete here. Pinging all involved editors: QuackGuru Mikael Häggström Valoem BullRangifer Moxy HealthyGirl PeterTheFourth 009o9 Cunard LK Ozzie10aaaa Carl Fredik 💌 📧 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NUCCA ...no consensus?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No consensus" was the proper close. When one discounted the non-policy based reasons (quackery, no evidence, fringe, etc.), there was only one more for deletion than for keep. Otherwise a tie, so there was definitely no consensus for deletion. Do the math. Sandstein made the right decision. The article was also improved during the AfD, which is sort of the whole idea. BTW, this type of deletion review, so quickly after an AfD, shouldn't be allowed. We need a policy to prevent such reviews and new AfDs so soon. There also needs to be new arguments which were not used in the previous AfD. There are no reasons given here. Just a complaint. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Discounting efficacy arguments on the basis that they are non-policy arguments is correct. --joe deckertalk 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you're pinging all editors of the AFD, the three you missed are User:Lawrencekhoo, User:DGG, and Sandstein (whom I specifically notified of this discussion, since you followed neither steps 1 nor 4 above). The also-omitted step 6 (tagging the AFD page) is easier and usually just as effective. </WP:BURO> —Cryptic 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Editors have refused to show how the article is notable. For example, User:BullRangifer claimed "fringe sources can be used to document such notability, per WP:PARITY."[1] According to WP:FRIND, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." The article is clearly not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was the proper close with regards to policy based rationale. Many of arguments for deletion were based on WP:IDONTLIKEITs. WP:GNG and sources provided showed that there were secondary sources. This is the only possible close anything else would have been a supervote. Also just to note the nominator CFCF has been disruptive when it comes to fringe, he has attempted merges against consensus multiple times even after being warned. While he may be a valid editor when it comes to medical topics, he has a clear bias and disdain for how we cover fringe here. Valoem talk contrib 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse considering the topic bias openly displayed by the nominator and several delete voters, I would support that the review be changed to Keep. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 17:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The discussion clearly shows there was no consensus. ( I commented there , not !voted, because I was myself not clear how to handle this, but if it is listed again I shall probably ~vote to keep, in order to combat bias.). DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - After discounting invalid delete arguments, no consensus to delete is what remains.- MrX 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on the basis of the subject of the article I'd quite happily recommend complete obliteration, unfortunately I've read the discussion a few times and I can't discern any real consensus in it. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't exactly have a history of agreeing with CFCF; in fact I was the complainant at an Arbcom case against him and QuackGuru, which led to sanctions against them. But in this case I believe they may have a point. Chiropractic is a lucrative subset of alternative medicine, i.e. a nest of snake oil salesmen and credulous true believers. It ranks roughly alongside slightly above homeopathy in offering services of very dubious benefit in return for very substantial charge. There's very little decent science to back up its claims. I feel that articles on alternative medicines should be held to very rigorous sourcing standards and I have a real concern that this article is insufficiently skeptical.

    If DRV endorses the no consensus finding, then okay, that's a defensible decision, but I feel it would then be open to editors to find a suitable redirect target, redirect it, and protect the redirect to prevent it from being interfered with for promotional reasons later.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, we need to have a variant of Godwin's Law to prevent people from comparing all alternative medicine treatments or modalities to Homeopathy, which is clearly the great-grand-daddy of placebo nonsense. At least Chiropractic actually *does* something, even though it may be of dubious value and there are plenty of ludicrous claims by True Believers. As a licensed medical provider, I have had a fair number of patients articulate benefits from chiropractic treatment for real back problems, often in cases where simple physical therapy or massage have failed to remedy the issues. I'd still go for OMM first if I needed treatment myself, but Chiropractic isn't near as disreputable amongst those of us who actually treat patients with evidence-based medicine as Homeopathy is. All this to say that Chiropractic is far from fringiest of the fringe, and plenty of insurance plans, never fans of experimentation, are covering chiropractic care, where I've never heard of a single plan ever covering homeopathy. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In deference to this view I've stricken "roughly alongside" and replaced it with "slightly above". As an Englishman, I'm afraid I know nothing of these medical insurance plans of which you speak.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't agree with the reading of no consensus. I believe it's a consensus for delete, whether we're looking at arguments or purely looking at votes- for arguments, there was no demonstration that the article was the subject of reliable, independent coverage to establish notability- there were many unreliable or non-independent sources found, but those do not establish notability. For votes, well, it was 7-3? Which seems like a consensus to delete, either way. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have reached the same conclusion myself, based on the discussion. LK (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Easily read as a "no consensus", and definitely not a "consensus to delete" nor a "consensus to keep". The discussion was lengthy, so it is probably best to give it a rest for a while before re-examining. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse !votes that claim there are no reliable sources when about a dozen have been presented need to discuss those presented sources if they are to carry any significant weight. They did not. Hobit (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, once we remove the opinions that say "no proven efficacy", then this isn't even close on the numbers. It's pure quackery of course, and that's what the article should say, but merely being untrue doesn't mean that it's not notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 May 2016

edit
  • Language Creation Society – Basically, this DRV is a debate between two options: endorse AfD outcome without disallowing recreation but recommending that it be AfC-drafted first, and undeleting the existing article (and probably seeing it relisted at AfD quickly). Both sides present reasonable arguments: post-AfD coverage, and less-than-perfect AfD closure. I think it is well-within admin discretion to close this DRV as a middle ground before the two: undelete the article and move it to draftspace to require AfC review before mainspacing again. This seems the best compromise between "undelete and probably AfD again" and "allow recreation in draftspace".. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Language Creation Society (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:DRVPURPOSE 3 (significant press post-AFD).

See http://conlang.org/axanar/#press for copious links to third party press (most in re. LCS' participation as amicus in Paramount v Axanar, but several also discussing the history of the LCS and its other activities).

See also: Language Creation Conference, deleted by same AFD, previously merged into LCS page.

Disclosure: I (Sai) am the founder of the LCS. However, my page edits have been strictly WP:NPOV, limited to small factual information. Sai ¿?✍ 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There is a new flurry of coverage of the LCS-funded amicus after the AfD closed. There's no indication that the close was incorrect on the grounds of coverage not provided during the first AfD. Supposing the article were recreated at this point, I doubt it would survive another AfD. All of this winds up being not independent for WP:GNG purposes since they're all based on the same story, and by and large all on the same sources. Many are interviews, which aren't helpful for GNG purposes either. There might be an argument for a redirect to an article covering the controversy over the Klingon language. But honestly, Wikipedia is not a news source or press release reprinter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight correction: LCS didn't "fund" the amicus; it was done pro bono (i.e. free) by Marc Randazza. The LCS was the amicus curiae. As for your last part, I was not suggesting that WP is a "press release reprinter", merely that the press coverage is pertinent to LCS' notability, which was the basis for the AFD. I would oppose a redirect to a page on the Klingon lawsuit; the LCS has existed since 2007 (or 2005, if you count the Berkeley group), and this is just one of many things it's done. Reducing the LCS to "that group that filed the Klingon amicus" would, at best, be misleading. Sai ¿?✍ 11:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This amicus is the only thing LCS has gotten anything approximating significant coverage for. As an experienced Wikipedia editor you surely understand that redirecting a topic of marginal importance to the sole subject for which it has some notability is a routine practice on Wikipedia. In any event, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's far too soon into any of this to actually argue that this story has real permanence. WP:RECENTISM strongly counsels against recreation on the basis of a bunch of interrelated news stories all triggered by a single event. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, albeit for a different reason. I wasn't going to pursue this, but let me tell you one thing: I was furious when I read what the closing admin concluded: Ignoring a WP:COI editor's comments, unanimous agreement to delete. Well, that "WP:COI editor" would be me, and let me assure you: I do not appreciate it to be treated like some kind of teenager who shows up here for no other reason than to promote his rock band. I have been an active member of the Wikipedia community for twelve years now. And yes, I am also a member of the LCS, which I have never denied. Both things demonstrate that I have at least a basic idea of what I am talking about, which clearly cannot be said about the two deletion "votes", since the one uses arguments that are plainly incorrect and the second one doesn't use any arguments at all. In this case it is clear that the closing admin simply couldn't be bothered to read the discussion and elected qualifying two votes as "unanimous agreement" instead, simultaneously (apparently triggered by the magical abbreviation "COI") disqualifying an inconvenient third vote. I hope I don't need to explain that such closure is a violation of deletion policy, because a) the deletion process is not a vote, and there is no policy stating that arguments given by people who are somehow related to the subject are to be ignored.
    I would also like to point out that the argument about recentism won't fly here: neither was the article was based on a single event, nor should this single event be the only reason for undeleting it. I suggest restoring it, fixing it, and then perhaps relisting it and have a decent discussion. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 23:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If there's more to be said, start a new article in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The LCS is certainly notable, and is worthy of an article in our Wikipedia. I also note IJzeren Jan's comment, and having seen several such "summary judgements" of late. -- Evertype·✆ 10:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV isn't a second round AfD, so arguments about notability aren't particularly relevant here. The question is whether the first AfD was properly closed. IJzeren Jan's argument was appropriately discounted by the closing admin. Even without fully discounting it, the closing admin could have found consensus to delete in the arguments. At worst, the closing admin might have relisted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mendeliv, I know Wikipedia long and well enough to know that this is just your private opinion, and that there is no policy whatsoever that supports your claim. Writing all kinds of nonsense is your democratic right, but denying another person the right to refute it is unelegant, to say the least. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My arguing that closing admins may discount !votes, or that an AfD with 3 cogent arguments in favor of deletion and only one argument in favor of keeping—regardless of any of the affiliations of the commenters—could not have been closed as keep is hardly a personal opinion or contrary to policy. Closers are absolutely allowed to consider participants' affiliations, though really it wasn't even necessary here. You made no persuasive argument in favor of keeping at the AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that I listed this as [[WP::DRVPURPOSE]] 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I pointed to that new information — namely, information that bears on the LCS' general notability. Mendaliv, are you saying that is not permissible in DRV? Sai ¿?✍ 23:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty sure that's intended as information of something that happened during the AfD that was wrongful. There's generally no need for a DRV where a previously-AfD'd subject may have become notable subsequently. That said, simply adding new sources does not mean that a recreated article isn't subject to being AfD'd again, or even speedily deleted per G4. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing statement was properly justified since IJzeren Jan is affiliated with the group, which shows untrusted bias opinion. Also, the content of the article did not match/correlate with sources being the official LCS website only and like two blog sites per WP:NOTBLOG. If anyone is going to try and recreate the article, I highly recommend start a draft and go through AFC. Also, @IJzeren Jan, refrain from personal attacks. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's funny you are accusing me of personal attacks. The only attack I can see here is directed against my own person. Until now, I haven't seen anybody providing a link to a policy page that says arguments by people with a certain affiliation are to be ignored. It is this sort of things that sometimes make me regret that I have had to goddamned decency to work openly, under my own name, something that cannot be said about most other WP editors. As a Wikipedian, I have more than 16,000 edits over a time span of over twelve years. A large portion of these edits have been in the field of constructed languages (including maintaining a featured portal virtually on my own), simply because that happens to be my biggest interest. And then, all of sudden, nothing of all that counts, only because somebody assumes that I have a conflict of interest. Assumes, because this person knows neither me nor my motivation. I have replied that I do not have a conflict of interest at all, and that my participation in this discussion is simply because constructed languages are what I have been doing on Wikipedia for much longer than the LCS even existed. And indeed, during all those years I have never participated in a deletion discussion about a subject I was not knowledgeable about. Yet, the only response has been that apparently I am frustrated, and that my arguments are biased and unreliable. Which in itself is already a clear violation of another policy, namely WP:AGF.
        Secondly, my opinion is of no consequence, as is yours or anybody else's. I'm not asking that my arguments should resolve anything, but merely that they are taken seriously. A decent deletion debate is about proving your own arguments and disproving the arguments of your opponent, not on the sort of ad hominem reasoning that caused all this. And please, let us separate opinions and facts. Let me give you one example. Mendeliv argues: "164 ghits is a bad sign". These 164 ghits (currently 173) are a fact. That they are a bad sign, is an opinion. Curious to find out if this is really a bad sign, I tried a few others: British National Party – 148 ghits; Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (the political party that is currently turning Poland into a dictatorship) – 110 ghits; Beata Szydło, prime minister of Poland – 118 ghits; and Barack Obama – 181 ghits. Conclusion: either the LCS is more notable than the prime minister of Poland, the party that rules Poland and the BNP, and only slightly less notable than the president of the USA; or there is something wrong with Google. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IJzeren Jan It's obvious in your replies that you can't maintain civility. Because of your current behavior, I am basically going to echo what the closing statement was from the AfD discussion, WP:COI. Also, Wikipedia doesn't care how long we as editors edit or if we are scholars. Are time on Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTEER, not a job. Right now, I'm putting my faith in those in this discussion willing to cooperate instead of having a fit about unfairness. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You surely have strange ideas about civility, but okay. IMHO discarding arguments merely because you doubt someone's motives is not only unfair, it is also a sign of weakness. And unwise too, because the ultimate purpose of these debates is to make a better encyclopedia (which can be achieved by deleting bad articles, but also, if possible, by improving them). You don't serve that purpose by dropping a bomb and then saying: I won't listen to your arguments, because you probably make them for the wrong reasons. That's simply not the kind of attitude I can appreciate, volunteer or not. I don't ask anybody here for credentials, and I am more than willing to assume that you are acting in good faith, but I feel entitled to expect the same in return. It's all about respect, you know. If I am angry, it is not about the deletion itself (seeing how things work here these days, it was to be expected), but about the tone of the discussion. Therefore, I can only repeat what I wrote earlier: a closure based on selectively reading the discussion, ignoring valid arguments and counting votes while disqualifying inconvenient opinions is very much nót according to policy. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)These are all arguments that should have been brought up during the AfD, though they are non sequiturs—first because WP:OSE, second because each of those topics facially pass WP:NBIO or WP:NORG based on sources presented. Search engine testing was helpful with LCS because it's such a young organization whose noteworthy dealings and activities should have attracted coverage by indexed sources. The absence of such sources upon searching, and the failure of those arguing to keep to present such sources during the AfD was why the AfD ended in delete. In any event, DRV isn't the place to relitigate the closed AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, of course, it's that I noticed that Google is behaving strangely ("United States": 389 ghits – need I say more?), so that your 170 ghits are not necessarily a bad sign at all. And of course, I am well aware of the fact that this is not the place to relitigate the AfD. Honestly, I'd much rather have had this discussion there instead of here. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that sources for objective facts about the LCS, like its activities, officers, years of operation, conference dates/locations, etc., should come from non-LCS sources? You realize that when journalists write about us, they ask *us* for that info, or get it from our website, or get it wrong? Sai ¿?✍ 21:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NNC, objective facts like these don't need to come from independent sources, provided the article's notability is already established. However, the sources needed to establish this notability must, per WP:GNG, be independent. Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So all you want are articles about the LCS to establish its per se notability, not third party sources of the factual content. Correct? If yes, how are the articles cited above, and the books & articles cited in the deleted page, defective in that respect?
From a zero-effort Google search, here are a bunch more (pre-Axanar):
https://newrepublic.com/article/122961/fantastical-rise-invented-languages
http://scienceline.org/2016/02/speaking-in-invented-tongues/
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/geeks-guide-dothraki-klingon/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49763/7-fun-facts-about-dothraki-language-game-thrones
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/game-thrones-dothraki-inventor-talks-origin-season-3s/story?id=18843120
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/04/05/yes-writing-languages-for-game-thrones-real-job/4eyOZKW5EVL6Mt8qBQJ20L/story.html
http://entertainment.time.com/2010/04/12/today-in-fictional-language-news-hbo-speaks-dothraki/
http://www.tor.com/2010/04/22/creating-dothraki-an-interview-with-david-j-peterson-and-sai-emrys/
http://www.britannica.com/list/6-fictional-languages-you-can-really-learn
http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/summer-2014-apocalypse/game-allophones-word-whiz-creates-languages-shows-game
There's also http://conlangingfilm.com, which was shot in part at the the 6th Language Creation Conference. Sai ¿?✍ 21:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We went over most if not all of this in the AfD. This isn't the AfD. The time to make these arguments was during the AfD. There's nothing here to indicate that the closure of the AfD was erroneous or otherwise improper. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse and relist. The only procedural thing I'd disagree with the closer on is the COI comment. The editor in question does have ~3000 edits over a decade including a fair bit at AfD and I'd hope could be trusted to understand our inclusion guidelines. Past that I think the close was reasonable. @Citobun:'s !vote indicated he'd be open to new sources. We have some that may well count (supplied above) that weren't discussed in the AfD. That leaves the nom and one !vote for deletion and one for keep. A reasonable relist situation. I'm pinging Citobun so he can address if those sources are enough for him to wish to withdraw his !vote or change it. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll say that the listed sources above were considered, although they weren't explicitly named. I don't intend to relitigate AfD here, but the long and short is that the sources available, including those listed above, did not comprise significant coverage of the organization itself, as opposed to Dothraki or the creator of Dothraki. Even supposing the note about IJzeren Jan's COI shouldn't have been made, it would be a form of harmless error—even taking IJzeren Jan's arguments into consideration it was still well within the closing admin's discretion to conclude that there was consensus to delete. Were we to strike the closing admin's comment about COI, we would still have a valid delete, even if it is would be a close call on the numbers. We should be deferring to the closing admin. If there is new coverage, a new article or draft could be created, though it remains to be seen if such article or draft would survive a deletion process. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unclear how you can say the listed sources were considered. I got the sense that Citobun didn't see those sources. And as far as I can tell, no one really identified problems with the sources. I'm not seeing a lot of in-depth coverage of the topic, but I _am_ seeing a lot of non-trivial coverage. Those sources really should have been discussed at the AfD if they were known at the time. Another reason for a relist IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly saw and considered them. When I made my arguments at the AfD about ghits, I had in fact at least looked at all the ghits. While I didn't make a point-by-point of everything, I don't think that should be held against me. Had these specific sources been brought up during the AfD as counterexamples to my claim that there was no significant coverage, I would have happily done a source-by-source dissection of those sources. I see no reason to question the closing admin's discretion in reading the consensus, let alone do this sort of Monday morning quarterbacking (though really this is more like three months later quarterbacking). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin. Looking at my close again, I don't see any problems. Downweighting opinions from COI editors is standard practice at AfD. That being said, there was not a huge amount of participation, so I wouldn't have any objection to this being relisted in the hopes of getting wider input. I also support the idea of creating a new article in draft space, with the additional sources, and pinging the various people who commented in the original AfD to see if the new article changes their mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2016

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

The deletion was unnecessary. It was a redirect page but had the page history; there is no need to delete the page history (no copyright violation, etc.) Taku (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

G13 doesn't apply. (It was not an AfC page.) Taku (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restored to User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to restore. The two revisions that were at this title are currently here and here.
    This comment is thoroughly unimpressive, though at least you didn't call for him to be executed. (This time.) —Cryptic 23:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the deletion review. So the question is whether the deletion was right or wrong according to the policies. There is no need to make things personal. (But if we were to go down that road, the problem with this editor (RH) is that he doesn't understand we are here to build up the encyclopedia not something kind of bullying game, which he enjoy playing. The editors like those need to be expelled from the project so we can get back to the actual job of building the encyclopedia. I regret the use of the colorful language but my point is valid as ever.) -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer User:TakuyaMurata and User:RHaworth to WP:DR. There is clearly a problem with communication, including the communication that is supposed to precede WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, looks like RHaworth merged a number of pages into the same sandbox. My edit listing it for deletion is at here (just so everyone know what I was looking at it). It was since redirected by said editor. No idea whether this should be restored to let the MFD continue or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm "hoping" there is just a lot of confusion going on here. See notes at the MfD. For the record I was only procedurally closing the MfD as the actions had already been performed by RHaworth (talk · contribs). once that went back and forth I left a note for RHaworth to please finalize the MfD if he had already resolved this using speedy deletion and speedy restoration processes. I have no idea why @TakuyaMurata: redirected the entire content if he wanted to maintain it. It appears that Taku want's this page put back in Draft: space; and with the user sandbox content being more expansive then the original nomination I think the best way to go now is:
    1. Abort the MfD in process
    2. Allow Taku to recreate Draft:GKM variety using any of their content from User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox without it being a move-wheel-war.
      Recreate is preferable to the mess of history splits/moves/restores that would otherwise be needed, and they are the only contributor
    3. Allow Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) or anyone else to nominate the page for MfD again, should they have a bona fide concern about the page.
    — xaosflux Talk 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's only two edits that relates to this page and they are back to back. The remaining sandbox is from 2012 and is obviously separate. It would not be difficult to separate. There's a small discussion at User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Draft related to Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence that may give some insight. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think now I understand what I was missing. The draft page was buried into the page history of User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox; that's why I couldn't find the page. Yes, I redirected the Sandbox that had "completely unrelated content" I no longer needed. I'm very puzzled why we can just recreate the page (it was a very short page with the fairly trivial page history.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to restore, nothing for DRV to do. User:TakuyaMurata is counselled not to be so precious about draft pages and to work on them more than once every other year rather than leaving them to rot. User:RHaworth is counselled to apply G13 only to actual AFC pages, rather than pages in the Draft namespace, which there is no consensus to do. User:Ricky81682 is counselled to carry on nominating MFDs on a case by case basis but to be careful not to risk being seen as focused on the creations of a single user. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is your website, I have to work on the draft pages according to your schedule? There is no deadline for drafts and there is no requirement for the sort of performance reviews from time to time. -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you create one-line drafts and never do anything with them? What's that accomplishing? Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Stifle: Taku's "creations" in draft space have been noted several times and have been a point of contention for several users (including myself). Taku created numerous sub-stub draft pages on esoteric mathematic topics in what I characterize as a "Draftspace Title Land Grab" and then proceeeded to abandon the works. Because these creations are the oldest unedited pages, Taku is being called before MFD and other forms of deletion to determine how to resolve the title grab. I would also note that Taku has been previously indefinitely blocked for emotional and excessive reactions to their Draft space pages being deleted. I would also note that Taku has claimed that because they are in school, the earliest they could make any attempt at cleaning up the above noted issues was sometime in November. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since it is clearly unproductive to keep having the same dispute, I have started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. I think what we need is the agreement of the standard for draft articles. I don't believe for example draft articles must be stubs; if they are stubs, then they don't need to be in the draft namespace; they can be moved to the main namespace. -- Taku (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did I do here? I'll agree with Stifle, except well with admonishing me. I do focus on single users but those are only for permabanned or vanished users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2016

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

Speedily deleted article that doesn't meet the CSD criteria. It was first nominated at AfD on 15 May. No-one took part in the discussion. After 6 days, Anthony Bradbury speedily deletes the article citing WP:A7 and WP:G11, without closing the discussion at AfD. I'm not sure I can see the applicability of either of the two criteria. The article is about a magazine, so it falls outside the scope of A7. The text of the article was rather matter-of-factly and not promotional, so G11 doesn't apply either. I've brought this up with the closing admin, who directly suggested deletion review. Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Relist at AfD So many things about this are weird, I don't know where to start. On the 15th, ArtsRescuer brought this to AfD, then 4 days later, tagged it for WP:CSD under WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Once you've brought the thing to AfD, come on man, let the discussion run its course. It didn't really seem that promotional to me. It was deleted under G11, and also WP:A7 (No credible indication of importance). I think that the publication has existed for 60 year is a credible claim of importance, so I think A7 is also a stretch. As I've said many times before, we should be very conservative about applying WP:CSD. There's no rush, let AfD run its course. On the other hand, I suspect this won't survive AfD. The one on-line reference in the article is to a blog, and the piece isn't even signed (submitted by admin3). My searching didn't find anything better, even on the Times of India website. But, I would also expect that there might be material in languages other than English, and even English sources might use a different spelling of the name. That's what AfD is for. Send it back there and let it have a normal discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tempundeleted for review -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If ArtsRescuer's behaviour seemed odd, then conflict of interest looks like a likely factor: (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Markaz). Uanfala (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2016

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

Discussion with no policy supported keep arguments and 2 policy based deletion arguments closed as no consensus. Previous discussion should have no bearing on the closure of the current discussion. This close was invalid and not reflective of the discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow endorse. AfD #1 was nominated for deletion by Mcmatter and correctly closed as no consensus after a full discussion including three relists. Exactly 2 hours and 43 minutes later, Mcmatter nominated it for deletion again, and is now trying to tell us that the previous discussion should have no bearing on the close of this one, if you please! I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was no consensus, which does not mean the same thing as keep. There is normally no prejudice to speedy renomination. If it was Keep then your advice link is applicable and I would agree.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your position is that Previous discussion should have no bearing on the closure of the current discussion, so I understand you to be saying that AfD#1 gets wiped and everyone who participated in AfD#1 needs to copy/paste their comments into AfD#2 before the closer is allowed to give them any weight. But that's un-Wikipedian. It means that instead of persuading people to your view, you can proceed by exhausting the article's defenders until eventually, one day, they don't show up in sufficient numbers. If nominators were allowed to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want, then there would be no point closing debates as anything other than "delete". Do you see? And that's why WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is relevant.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But speedy renomination without even giving people time to work on the article and without informing the previous participants is a clear abuse of process. Maybe it isn't spelt out anywhere that that should be done, but such obvious common sense doesn't always need to be spelt out: it's simply part of good-faith, non-battleground, editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the nominator of this review omitted to inform other editors by following steps 5 and 6 of the instructions here. It was only because, suspecting a review and such an omission because the second AfD discussion that was started less than four hours after the first "no consensus" close was also started without informing those who took part in the first discussion, I made a note to check the nominator's contributions. It's impossible to find the time to work on an article when it is first subject to speedy deletion followed by edit-warring over the speedy deletion tag, and then to two AfD discussions, and then to deletion review, with no attempt by the nominator to even let people know what is happening. As I said in the second AfD discussion, if this is to become a war of attrition then I concede defeat. Let's just make this an encyclopedia of the anglophone world and ignore sources that are not in English, because there are too many editors with such a blinkered view of what should be included here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that listing the review request here is step 3. At the moment a review request is listed here, therefore, it's a given that steps 4-6 haven't been carried out yet. Your experience may be that they aren't even carried out subsequently within a reasonable amount of time, but I felt that my observation should be pointed out! Largoplazo (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I know that that opinion is clear from my comments above, but I must post a bolded opinion in case the closer of this discussion follows the usual practice of counting votes rather than evaluating arguments. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. With a reading of the previous AfD, a call of a rough consensus to "delete" would have been a stretch and "no consensus" is easily defended. For anyone who wants to see it deleted, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, renomination far too soon after previous AFD closed. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's true that a no-consensus outcome doesn't preclude a renomination, but 3 hours is just way too soon to be fair. Looking at the article I don't think it's likely to last forever unless there's more notability than is apparent from the text, so a better solution would be to give it a month or so and try again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

John Bambenek has been banned from here repeatedly for being a shameless self-promoter and troll and it was all more than justified. Since then, he managed to get appointed to the Illinois Board of Higher Education for being the governor's boot licker and taint sniffer. Since the appointment, the faculty senates of almost every university have protested the appointment. (See here: [2]. Much of it for his highly incinderary writings against free speech, tenure, academic freedom and unions. It seems he now merits a page if for no other reason to document his putrageous reactionary views against education and science and that it will now be front-running the downfall of education in Illinois. 2600:1008:B013:EE56:7C89:DA2D:874D:2FD2 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 May 2016

edit
  • Draft:Push and Shove (song) – Non-admin closure overturned to "delete". There is a consensus to overturn the contested non-admin closure, and a slightly less clear but sufficient consensus to re-close the discussion as "delete". To the extent there might be uncertainty about the "delete" part, if I had concluded that there was no consensus here for that outcome, I would have re-closed the reopened discussion as "delete" based on the consensus found in the discussion, so we get the same outcome either way. I would like to remind Hasteur (talk · contribs) that non-admins should close only uncontroversial and clear deletion discussions; as this review shows, doing otherwise often leads to disruptive controversy. –  Sandstein  09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Push and Shove (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is literally no support for a redirect in the discussion and no authority for a non-admin supervote to redirect it. There were two votes to delete and SmokeyJoe's bizarre !vote to "ignore it" and let an inapplicable CSD criteria be used to delete it. And yes, while this seems largely inane and a redirect could be the equivalent without MFD, it is not (deletion does allow for the draftspace name to be used again) and most importantly the discussion did not support a single non-admin supervote to redirect it. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cryptic talked a lot of sense during that debate and his comments do support a redirect, among other outcomes. But I don't like that close very much. Instead of weighing the arguments, the closer formed a judgment on editor behaviour, and that's not the role of an XfD closer. I think we need to overturn this. I don't see it as necessary or desirable to relist because there's more than enough discussion to inform a MfD close. I'll simply go with vacate and allow someone else to re-close that on the merits of the arguments.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all pretty pathetic, yes DraftSpace was supposed to support the Project, but Ricky revived a backwater WikiProject to cram worthless but harmless non-mainspace pages through Wikipedia processes, creating the worst MfD backlogs ever seen.
A lot has been happening. Repeated attempts to have non-particicpated MfD default to delete have been rejected. Repeated attempts to create the same thing, aka UserSpace_Prod, have been rejected.
We've just had a very meaningful RfC, professionally closed, at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. It clearly hasn't gone the way Ricky and Legacypac would have liked. I would have thought it is not sensible to work on developing a coherent guideline for managaing drafts. Instead, Ricky is obfuscating, creating this noise here, pushing again for another perpetually reject variation on Prod expansion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion.
The MfD closer, Hasteur, has a long history of sensibly trying to help the project manage old drafts, notably User:HasteurBot for G13 implementation, and important input into associated policy discussion. His close was entirely sensible, and bringing him to DRV is rude. Ricky didn't even discuss it with him. Ricky is sometimes not very good at discussion. "bizare" he says, I am really unable to decide whether he has a mental blockage preventing understanding, or whether he just doesn't listen. Redirecting recent accidental content forking creations to the older has always been, and obviously is, the best way to deal with new accidental content forking creations. No administrative overheads. Abundantly clear help to the recent creater. It has been said dozens of time to Ricky, but I guess he is blind to that message. Policy wise, these MfD nomiations fail WP:ATD, fail WP:BEFORE, the pages he and accomplice User:Legacypac keep nominating have no WP:DEL#REASON for listing.
As this was a WP:NAC, take the matter to WP:AN and see if any uninvolved admin wants to revert or affirm the close. It is not a proper matter for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although any uninvolved admin can overturn a non-admin closure at their discretion, WP:NACD specifies that it is also procedurally okay to take a NAC to DRV. Since it is here, we might as well go for a consensus. Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mz7, that is right. For what it is worth, I Endorse the close as a correct reading of policy, and the discussion in the light of so many similar MfD discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete the opinions were mostly for delete, Cryptic supported a redirect as the alternate to listing at MFD in the first place but since we were there the opinion was to delete. Redirect resulting is an implausible typo, no one is going to search for draft: when searching for an article on this topic. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • eh, right outcome and where we should have started. weak endorse deletion would have been a reasonable close too. But not at all clear why we are having this discussion (MfD or DRV) when a redirect would have solved it to begin with. Hobit (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closers comment What we have here is one user administrator who wants to burn down pages that are in the Draft space at any cost to the wikipedia and is willing to bend/break/violate consensus to get their way. I would note the Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Perhaps I did supervote, but only because the nominator failed to consider alternatives to running straight to MFD. Yes I am also a frequent submitter of draft namespace pages to MFD, but that's my absolute last step after considering alternatives (such as putting it through AfC to get more eyes on it, redirecting to a reasonably similar page, or trying to get the creator interested in improving it). I would note that repeatedly in these MFDs Rickey uses nonsensical (or completely disproven arguments) in order to start the nominations and we have the same nominations being relisted multiple times because the traditional combatants have made their case and it ends up in a no-consensus retain status quo ante that has wasted many volunteers time in considering the repeated arguments. Cryptic gave the best reason for redirecting, and suprisingly the only policy based rationale for their vote. I stand by my troutslaps to SmokeyJoe and Rickey for their repeated arguments about deleting or retaining "stale" draft pages. Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nomination starts out with, There is literally no support for a redirect in the discussion. But, looking at the AfD, I see:
  • Ignore and let G13 take its course, or redirect ... --SmokeyJoe
  • SmokeyJoe's right that a redirect would have immediately fixed this... —Cryptic
So, that certainly seems like some support for the idea. But, I think the most significant statement in the whole AfD was, DraftSpace should not be a source of administrative overload, which I agree with heartily, and don't understand why DRV is being pestered with these totally trivial issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. When I wrote the above, I hadn't noticed the Perhaps I did supervote comment. As much as I think this DRV nomination is flawed, for the reasons I described above, I cannot support an AfD closure where the closer admits to a supervote. That's not your job. Your job is to summarize the discussion, filtering out comments (and participants) which are clearly in conflict with established policy. If you have an opinion in the matter, you need to either suppress it completely, join the discussion, or just stay away. If I thought it was even worth worrying about the existence of something in draft space, I would say send this back to AfD for a clean discussion, but I can't even get behind that. The whole thing is a waste of effort. So, I'm striking my endorsement, and replacing it with Get a life -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Small points of usefulness of redirection are: (1) the editor on return, and any future similarly thinking editors, will be taken to the corresponding mainpage article associated with their obvious interest, instead of being shown a deletion log; (2) the editor, and reviewers of the editor, can follow the editors edit history; (3) it is a solution to accidental content forking that any editor can fix without administrative overhead.
Deletion, on the other hand: (1) Requires a community discussion; (2) requires at least one administrator action; (3) creates a bigger page than the one to be deleted.
Is it not disruptive for Ricky bombard to the MfD process with trivial things that deletion policy encourages other solutions?
Is it not the case that almost always, in mainspace, accidental content forks result in one being redirected to the other, material merged if required?
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The consensus clearly paved this out as the only outcome, and reaching any other conclusion is a misinterpretation of the discussion. — ξxplicit 04:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You are probably influenced by the fact that the only explicit !votes started with "Delete"? Admittedly, 103.6.159.91, by his history of contributions, appears to be a bona fide Wikipedian, even though some distrust !votes by IPs. His !vote should count, even though I don't care much for the rational provided. The nominator, I note pedantically, failed to articulate a reason for deletion. Was the closer biased to a close that didn't require admin privilege due to being an non-admin? Possibly, and some say this is a reason for non-admins to keep away of delete-bordering closes, although the template {{db-xfd}} enables non-admins to close as delete. Actually, the most surprising thing I discovered here is that Hasteur is not an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify my thinking a bit - I stated a primary opinion of "delete" solely because I thought it was the option least likely to waste any more editor time on this draft. Look how well it turned out. —Cryptic 05:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Hasteur admits supervoting above ("Perhaps I did supervote..."). Respect given for being able to admit that, but still supervoting is exactly what you shouldn't do whilst closing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleters (Ricky81682—Starblind—Cryptic—Explicit—SmokeyJoe—Stifle—RoySmith—82.14.37.32—S Marshall) You want the pound of flesh by deleting? Fine I'll leave a big happy note on the creator's talk page about who to ask where their content went if and when they came back. Hope you can remember this page's contents and the MFD and the DRV because now you're responsibile to the user for it. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • What are you even talking about? The user who created the draft (Status) is still active, and has edited within this month. They were duly noted about the MFD and didn't participate. If the draft content was very important to them, they would have participated or saved it elsewhere. The draft had very little content and what little it did have duplicated the article on the same song, Push and Shove (song). Status is aware of the Push and Shove (song) article, as they have edited that article too. I consider myself a very creative person, but I can't envision a scenario in which removing this draft is likely to do any harm to either the creator or Wikipedia. You seem to be getting upset over literally nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, no problem, we determined a long time ago to use consensus in decision making processes and that's what we've looked to here. As for leaving a note on the user in questions talk page (noting the above that it hardly seems relevant), then that's an excellent idea and seems to overcome the concern that if an inactive editor ever returns to find their draft gone and feels confused in some way, the note can easily point them to the MFD, this DRV and a comment to suggest that if they feel minded to have another crack at it, many a friendly admin will get it back for them so they can try REFUND. Or we could leave a hysterical note pointing out these evil uncaring people who had a hand in deleting the apparently abandoned draft. I guess which one of those we'd chose to leave would tell us if we really actually care about the user or if we are just trying to use some future confusion/hurt feelings to try and lay some sort of guilt trip. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
GeForce GTX 1070 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Along with these deletions, no valid reason for deletion. XfD only applies to pages on User:SSTflyer/hndis, not these extra pages that are deleted. SSTflyer 05:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advise RHaworth to consider more informative explanation in the deletion summary. A link to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive923#SSTflyer_and_AWB perhaps. Agree, SSTflyer appears to be on shakier ground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I do believe that the Wikipedia search function was dramatically improved years ago, to the point that these redirect hurt more than help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2016

edit

18 May 2016

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

The closer appears to have been biased against the "keep" side because of the unusual number of votes by new and low editcount users (probably as a result of the AfD being advertised at WP India). Even if their comments are discounted, there is no clear consensus for deletion, as we should also be assigning a low weight to comments by SwisterTwister, which is almost unintelligible and does not link to any policy anyway, and to the one by Shyamsunder which simply says "promotional", which is not a reason for deletion as long as it's possible to make improvements. The AfD was never relisted and I feel there was no sufficient discussion to establish a solid consensus.

In addition, it should be noted that all previous AfDs of Indian coaching institutes have resulted in a keep or no consensus closure. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) AfDs are supposed to turn up consistent results, failing which it becomes a dangerous source of systemic bias. There are enough sources of systemic bias that are beyond the control of editors, let's not let AfD become one.

I am not asking for Sandstein's closure to be overturned, I am just asking for a relist to really establish a consensus.

Note: It is true that this article has been deleted and desperately recreated several times before the AfD deletion, with the most recent attempt being at Allen Career Institute (India). However, I do not anything to do with those recreations and have no conflict of interest. 103.6.159.93 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment: Most or all "keep" opinions were likely by canvassed, meatpuppeted or sockpuppeted accounts; three of these have now been checkuser-blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy. And of course this review is also made by an IP (without contacting me first). I don't anticipate a relist attracting a, shall we say, more representative audience of editors, and recommend closing this request.  Sandstein  16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I see that 4 of the keep votes (satya satpathy, wizardlis54, Masterofroks, Fulfyxxx) are by the same person. But the remaining three keep votes are very much legitimate. 103.6.159.93 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep votes just stating "it's notable" or "it is covered in media" is not a policy rationale when people fail to actually produce said coverage. Also, given that the page was deleted five times before the AFD discussion and a sixth time afterwards, deletion is not unusual for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, incisive close by a very experienced closer, correctly discounting non-genuine Wikipedians turning up to !vote on promotion-tainted topic. In the discussion, User:DGG gave a very clear and correct explanation. While numbers are important, while it is important that a couple of senior Wikipedian's don't get wield control over the plebs, I have zero doubt that relisting for wider input would back the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as always when the most convincing argument advanced is a variant of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. (As for the argument that might have saved the article - I spot-checked the references in several deleted incarnations of the article, and didn't find any that were both substantial and independent.) Also, you folks who're into policing userspace will probably want to take a look at User:Saxenanishank/sandbox and maybe get that logo deleted from Commons as out-of-scope too.
    That said, the way to get this article restored, or at least discussed further, isn't by arguing over how many votes should or should not have been counted, nor by pointing at superficially-similar articles; it's by providing evidence that the institute meets WP:CORP. The short, short version is that you have to have independent, reliable, in-depth coverage - that is, not the pages and pages of references to Allen's own website, or obvious reprints of press releases, or passing mentions that I saw when examining the deleted article. List the two or three best sources you've got and if they're genuinely better than those, you'll probably convince us. —Cryptic 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which states the following: Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments and In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability. The arguments are hence compliant with the essay, not a violation of it. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2016

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

Deletion and move to a subsection of the TS page was on the basis that CTS is an "offshoot" or "local group" of the TS. This is inaccurate, whilst the society is a smial and thus holds a level of formal affiliation and collaboration with the TS it is functionally and legally an independent organisation. The merge was thus made on inaccurate grounds, and I'd request/recommend a reinstatement of the society's separate page, as an independent institution with a 33 year history and a considerable independent record of publications with international reach. JamesMatthewBaillie (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the "We never make articles on local affiliates" - of course, but the initial point is that the CTS is not simply a local affiliate of the TS, it has members from well beyond its local area its journal frequently both accepts submissions, and is read, internationally. JamesMatthewBaillie (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the article is not convincing for its article. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion could not have been closed any other other way.
1 Sorry, College newpapers are not good enough to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability (aka qualification for a stand-alone article)
2 As for #1, and also, the article only makes passing mention of the society.
3 That's promotion, not independent coverage.
4 Again, that is not coverage of the subject.
5 Primary source, yes it exists, but primary sources do not count much to Wikipedia-notability.
In short, there is a lack of independent third party coverage of the subject, as required for a stand alone topic. However, do feel encouraged to use these sources to add material to The_Tolkien_Society#Local_groups. There is more than enough room there to including everything I think I have seen --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Al_Giordano – Consensus is to endorse the decision to delete. I must discount the opinions that consist only of (unsubstantiated) assertions that the closure was politically motivated (see WP:AGF), or that the subject is notable (which is a matter for the AfD discussion, whereas this process only reviews procedural errors in the AfD's closure). No opinion here alleges any error in the assessment of consensus to delete, which is the only issue under review. Even if I were to take the "overturn" opinions at face value, we would have no consensus to overturn the closure and the article would likewise remain deleted. –  Sandstein  15:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Al_Giordano (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient discussion, and those involved in the discussion were clearly not familiar with his work. Also, following some discussion on twitter, deletion of this page appears to be politically motivated. Meese (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think Sanders was up for re-election? Or are we talking about the 2018 senate election? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD was reasonably well attended, and resulted in a unanimous (5-0, if I counted right) consensus to delete, based on reasonable arguments. There's obviously canvassing going on here. The DRV nomination was the nominator's first edit in five years. Le Dragon's first edit in six months. following some discussion on twitter, deletion of this page appears to be politically motivated. is kind of a clue too. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin I deleted the article as the discussion consensus went this way. There was a total of 22 days for discussion, so I feel that there was sufficient time. As for political motivation - I am not an American, and had not even heard of Giordano prior to this discussion showing on the list of "old discussions" requiring closing. I cannot comment on the motivation of the contributors to the discussion. The fact that he is running for a Senate seat was mentioned towards the end of the discussion (I would not have known otherwise), and so that is why I noted If he is successful in running for a Senate seat, his notability at that time can be taken into consideration for re-creating the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD was open for considerably longer than required, got more participation than required for a close, was largely unanimous and the close was based on sound arguments. The only other reason given is an unsupported allegation that the deletion was politically motivated because it took place around the time that the subject announced on Twitter that he's going to run for the US Senate. The deletion of the article wasn't some sinister ploy to support Bernie Sanders, it was done because there are very few sources about the subject out there and they don't give significant coverage. This "Senate run" has got no coverage beyond Twitter, forums etc. Merely being a candidate for political office isn't enough in itself for notability per WP:POLITICIAN. This is being discussed on a rather amusing Reddit thread, which may be responsible for some of the canvassing. Hut 8.5 21:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I myself voted Delete as the article was not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, need to do another correction: Hut8.5 and Stifle each struck one "overturn" in other people's posts which leads me to my next question about the rules: Is that allowed (aside from netiquette)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Article needs work for sure but a quick internet search turns up a number of articles about (not by) Giordano in The Guardian, Village Voice, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, etc. (List of links here -- have to scroll down a little for articles about rather than by: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01778107.htm). Article needs more sources but blanket deletion means no one gets the opportunity to add sources and make Wikipedia better. Ricardiana (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. In general, new candidates currently involved in election campaigns will not be covered, because nearly all sources fail WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:NOTPROMOTION. Note that an encyclopedia is an historiographical work, it covers history, not current affairs. When the candidate is elected, there will more likely be significant things to say. History can be as recent as an hour ago, but is this candidate's candidature history-making? If not, coverage in Wikipedia is too-soon.
If I understand the facts correctly, some coverage, definitely mention, should be made at United States Senate election in Vermont, 2016 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Just to add to my earlier comment -- I take the deleting admin at his word that he had no stake in this deletion. However his comment that "if" Giordano runs he can then be re-added misses the point being made by many of those objecting to this deletion. Specifically, Giordano already easily meets wikipedia's notability criteria as others point out, so the deletion "consensus" deliberately overlooked that evidence when coming to the conclusion to delete. 24.7.113.92 (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck the Overturn bit of the comment as the same editor left an Overturn !vote above. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • The comment made was that if he is elected, not if he runs. My understanding is that running in and of itself does not make someone notable? Gaining a seat at a higher level political level automatically confers notability, from what I understand. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected!198.102.219.142 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's right, I think you're referring to WP:POLITICIAN. This says that members of national legislative bodies such as the US Senate are presumed to be notable, but that unelected candidates for political offices are not. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I initiated this review. Al Giordano has been notable for over a decade and continues to be notable. The discussion overlooked clear evidence of this, including articles about him in mainstream media. Also, while not mainstream, his publication Narco News is a well-established and long-running source of alternative journalism. As a result, he meets not just one but all the criteria for "creative professionals", Wikipedia:Notability_(people) -- 1) widely cited by his peers (including famed journalist Gary Webb), 2) known for originating a significant new concept (Banamex case, School of Authentic Journalism, Narco News), 3) collected body of work (Narco News), 4) has been cited for his work on many stories by other outlets, such as by PBS Frontline for work on Venezuela. Together this puts him far above the bar in terms of notability, and yet this was ignored during the deletion discussion. I'd also add that RoySmith's argument (above) seems to be that the mere number of votes is a sign of a proper review process and that an ad hominem directed at me for having not edited anything in a while is relevant to the discussion. Meese (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – It seems a bit of a post hoc ergo propter hoc to say that the discussion must have been politically motivated just because it happened after Al Giordano announced a political move. The discussion was publicly advertised for 21 days, and 5 editors agreed that the evidence does not support the subject's notability with arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There were no opposing arguments presented. For these reasons, there is no way that the closing administrator erred in their judgment of the consensus to delete. As an alternative, I might support userfying or incubating the page to allow those who believe the subject is notable to develop an improved article that incorporates the supposed sources that show notability. Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim was not about his senate run, but about his acerbic political commentary. Marking the page as a stub seems like a good idea. I won't claim that the page is a good page -- it's not. But I believe that's a separate issue from Giordano being notable and the evidence being ignored in the decision to delete. Meese (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is misguided. I created those pages years ago *because* Giordano and his work was notable and yet no pages existed. To then use the creation of the pages (and my argument against deletion now) as evidence that they should not have been created is circular. (Also, while this is unrelated to this discussion, I should respond to the claim being made. At that time, Sirota was not notable. Since that time, he has become notable, and so I would not request deletion today. There was a time in the life of anyone who is notable that they were not notable.) Meese (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This was obviously politically motivated. There's no doubt about that. Giordano is a notable writer. Thesqrtminus1(talk) 13:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You know just asserting stuff doesn't actually make it true or mean everyone agrees with you. Please explain to me how no one turning up in over 20 days of listing to support retention is "politically motivated" --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AFD had an unanimous consensus to delete and no evidence whatsoever has been presented to sustainable that the deletion was a conspiracy by Bernie Sanders supporters. Also, if this was politically motivated deletion as claimed why would anyone attempting to do so have the AFD running over 3 times longer than necessary making it more likely that people that wanted the kept to discover the AFD in question (7 days vs 22 days)?--67.68.163.254 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why the length of the AfD is relevant. If a long AfD settled the matter, this page would not be up for discussion still. The question is, Is he article about a person who meets the criteria for notability and thus warrants a page? I've already said yes and pointed towards a page with sources. More on this below. Ricardiana (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion was quite obvious and the people who claim that there exists additional sources should also produce them rather than simply accusing everyone of being politically motivated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if stated what you thought was obvious, specifically. I have already posted a link that contains a list of sources. Here are more.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/25/mondaymediasection11
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1462/a04.html?397
I searched Academic OneFile and Acadmic Search Complete as well. Ere are more articles about Giordano listed in those databases but I'm not sure how to link to them unless others here have subscriptions to the same databases o institutional access to those databases. Suffice it to say that ere are also articles about Giordano in The Christian Science Monitor and New York Times, etc.
Apologies for formatting problems. I'm on my iPad and editing on here is a bear. Ricardiana (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at Google Books and did some quick searches there as well. Several biographies of Abbie Hoffman discuss Giordano, e.g., this biography published by Putnam: https://books.google.com/books?id=ozC7AAAAIAAJ&q=Giordano dump the pump&dq=Giordano dump the pump&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj76Prp9ufMAhUFVj4KHWbUDQMQ6AEIMjAC
and another biography published by Rutgers University Press: https://books.google.com/books?id=ECYjlcF6QIcC&pg=PA283&dq=Giordano abbie hoffman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT4r_Z9-fMAhWDFz4KHdX7BBIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Giordano abbie hoffman&f=false
as well as an article in the Atlantic Monthly: https://books.google.com/books?id=-dgmAQAAIAAJ&q=al Giordano pete seeger&dq=al Giordano pete seeger&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmqpih-OfMAhVQID4KHYNGARkQ6AEIIzAB
and that's after just a few minutes of searching. --I never said the deletion was politically motivated, but it is certainly ... surprising ... hat no one seems to have done much in the way of basic research to determine notability. Ricardiana (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. This is my third attempt to add my comments to this discussion as two previous attempts ended up being deleted by an unspecified automated filter. I agree with Ricardiana that Al Giordano is an established journalist, and anyone who looks beyond the first few entries of an internet search will find plenty of references to him, other than on his own blogs. I find it very curious, 'though, that the day after he went public with an article previously restricted to subscribers only, user Underdog456 nominated his page for deletion. The article, made publicly available on Apr 24, 2016, contains some fairly negative comments about the Sanders campaign visit to the Bronx. Read the article, check the history of the web page, and then tell me that that's coincidence: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/5120/welcome-bronx-subscriber-only-essay-goes-public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following up with my arguments for undeletion (moved up to my earlier post as per Xavexgoem's request). Keep the AfD notice, if you must, but give people a chance to fix the formal problems of the article. I also spent some time going over Wikipedia’s rules, and, in my opinion, this deletion process was not in accordance with those rules from the start.
  1. Underdog456 first deleted a source reference, claiming the source was not reliable (more on that below), and then improperly attached the A7 tag for speedy deletion to the article. According to the rules, the standard here should have been importance or significance, not notability and verifiability/reliability of sources.
  2. I take it the procedure is that the admin does not review the A7 tag but leaves that up to the discussion?
  3. If I understand the XfD page correctly, the discussion that preceded the consensus to delete involved only four people (Picomtn was there by mistake). Wikipedia isn't exactly breaking news, so that might explain the low turnout. I, for one, am not on Twitter and didn't find out about the deletion until the Reddit mention showed up as a result in an unrelated Internet search.
  4. Arguments presented in the discussion.
  • Notability. At least one of the four people taking part (LaMona) seems to think that "lack of notability" is a criterion for speedy deletion. Again, the standard here should have been importance or significance, not notability. This is the English-language Wiki; people around the world read it and contribute to it. What's considered important or significant in one corner of the world, may be completely unknown in another one. LaMona also argues that a journalist is notable only when other people write about him. In my book, the journalist isn’t supposed to "be" the story, he’s supposed to report it.
  • Source references. What is the standard that makes a web paper a reliable source instead of "… just [a] fringy web page()…" (LaMona’s words)? Reliability of a source is also rather subjective. Personally, I don’t consider Fox News to be a reliable source, but a lot of people seem to disagree with me. In the case of a journalist, even if there had never been one single reference to him anywhere, why wouldn’t his own articles still be reliable sources (what's "… pass[ing] RS…", MS Japan?). Again, the journalist isn’t the story, he’s just reporting it, even if he’s often very opinionated about it. As for the source reference, an article on Al Giordano, that Underdog456 deleted prior to tagging the Wikipedia article for speedy deletion: I hadn’t heard of the Media Awareness Project or drugsense.org before, and the website has that late nineties “your own website in 10 easy steps-kit” charm about it, but it and the people behind it look legit; the author of the article has published articles on Slate and in Rolling Stone, NY Mag, etc., so he would appear to be legit, too.
Haven't checked the other sources yet, found some more online. Glad to see that Wikipedia editing works pretty much like our company wiki.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be confusing the Article for Deletion (WP:AFD) and the Speedy Deletion (WP:SPEEDY). These are separate processes. The speedy deletion was rejected out-of-hand, since the article didn't fail criteria A7 (importance or significance). WP:SPEEDY is for articles that should obviously be deleted (Like: My neighbor who stomps around his apartment, who we'll call John Stompyfeet, would fail A7 were I to write an article about him). AfD is for articles that require discussion, like this one was.
Underdog removed a citation as unreliable (it was Rolling Stone), incorrectly nominated the article for SPEEDY, then nominated the article at AFD, saying: "Lacks notablity. Lacks citations for almost everything stated in the article." I do not believe that any of the editors in the AFD nor the closing admin were aware of this, because it reeks of bad faith editing. So here we are.
The notability of the subject of the article is important and shouldn't be discounted; it certainly won't be here. It is absolutely necessary to establish notability through reliable sources. I do recommend reading over WP:RS. That has been formed over many years of consensus, and that consensus will not budge (nor should it). There are plenty of reliable sources covering Al Giordano, which is the main thing. This point, and the point about the noming process for the article, is sufficient: it addresses the deletion and the notability of the subject. --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"... confusing ..." - guilty as charged. Couldn't find "XfD" in the abbreviations list and assumed the link took me to the history of the discussion for speedy deletion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there was no other way that the closing admin could have closed that. A lot of those calling for "overturn" here seem to not be aware of our policies on notability, and claims that this was politically motivated need to be substantiated with evidence, or withdrawn. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please explain how the sources I have listed fail in your view to meet WP:Notability. Also the question of political motivation keeps being brought up when it seems to me that is a red herring and the only question is does the subject meet notability guidelines....Which brings me back to my question: While the article itself very clearly needs work, plenty of sources exist on the subject and I would like to know exactly how these sources are supposed irrelevant to notability criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the sources, and they seem to focus much more on Narco News (specifically one of their lawsuits) than Al Giordano as a person, which leads me to think that they might support the notability of the lawsuit, but less to Mr. Giordano himself. WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E may apply. A few of the sources you listed only seem to be passing mentions, such as the Putnam book and the Atlantic Monthly article. The Rutgers biography seems to be the most detailed treatment, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough to establish notability, especially since it's a book about someone else. Are there any articles published in reliable sources that give an in-depth report about Giordano, not events or people he's related to? Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the purpose of the discussion here is solely to review the closing administrator's judgment, and not the notability itself, I think the proper way forward here, if you believe that the discussion erred (not the admin), is to rewrite the article (preferably in draft space), with new, compelling sources, and republish it. (Do not re-publish with identical content, as that is speedy-deletable.) If notability is still an issue, the new article can be re-nominated. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you, Mz7, for that clarification. I will try that. Ricardiana (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have a draft in my sandbox and will try republishing it, as you suggest. Thanks again. Ricardiana (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricardiana: Wait until this deletion review is closed for a few days/weeks before publishing it into mainspace, since we are still discussing the old article. Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7:Thanks, Mz7. I appreciate your advice. I grew very frustrated with Wikipedia back in 2009/2010 and have done little since then ... your helpfulness makes me feel better about continuing to write and edit here. Ricardiana (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment from deleting admin - I would like to point out that as the admin who is looking for the consensus in the discussion, it is not my job to determine the notability or otherwise myself; if I want to do that, I would need to take part in the discussion myself (which on occasion I have done so). My job is to look at the arguments used, and to determine based on those arguments what the consensus is.In this case, the arguments were all for deletion, basically all stating that Giordano did not meet the notability criteria. The one 'keep' point was removed when that user realised that they had not actually brought the article up to a standard that they thought would pass muster. As a closing admin, there are several choices available for closing:
    1. Relist - this has been relisted a couple of times already, so that was not appropriate
    2. No Consensus - this would be wrong, as there was a clear consensus
    3. Keep - no one had left an opinion that this should be kept, so that was clearly not appropriate
    4. Delete - all those who had left a specific opinion had suggested deletion.
As such, delete was the only option available - my role as admin is not to make the judgement myself, but to implement the conesnsus of the editors who had contributed to the discussion. Therefore, although this may have been unpopular with the man's supporters, this is how it happened. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way you describe this choice is strange -- "unpopular with the man's supporters" -- and reveals something about how you view this situation. I am not a "supporter" -- I'm someone who uses wikipedia and values it highly as a neutral source of information. Giordano is a journalist whose work I read, just like I read work of other established journalists. Perhaps we can move on from what happened and instead move on to what should be done now, which seems clear to me: the article should be restored and improved. 24.7.113.92 (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I was unfair to say that Giordano's supporters are the ones who are unhappy with the deletion - if so, I apologise to others like yourself who I have tarred with that brush! I do know that the online abuse directed towards me is from his supporters... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PhantomSteve: The one 'keep' point was removed when that user realised that they had not actually brought the article up to a standard that they thought would pass muster. Not so. User Picomtn initially thought that the subject of this article was the same person as the former COO of the Wounded Warrior Project; when he realized his error, he withdrew his comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Mr. Giordano is an established journalist with an extensive CV of published work, who is cited and referenced in academia and literature. Regardless of whether his political aspirations are notable, he — as a journalist — clearly meets the standards for notability. ICHH 16 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I have no current stance on the man's notability. However, it is quite probable that the upcoming election might give him some notability, and we may want to revisit this issue. This discussion should not prejudice future discussion if he comes further along the WP:BIO line. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The claim that this person is running for office which would make him notable was certainly considered in the closure. Unless someone can come up with any evidence that he is notable right now, I see no reason to even reconsider it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed plenty of sources re current notability. Why won't you acknowledge them? Ricardiana (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per Ricardiana's sources, with no judgment intended for closing admin. Can this please be userfied if the deletion remains endorsed? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please consider this diff where the Rolling Stone citation was removed as unreliable, by the person who nom'd the article at AfD. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is http://www.mapinc.org/ a reliable source? I am not certain, but I think not. In any case, it is very bad form to remove even unreliable sources before nominating for deletion, it looks like you are trying hide evidence from reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mapinc definitely isn't reliable, I agree. I think it was used because it had the full Rolling Stone article. It should have been cited without the URL, not deleted entirely. eg: Mim Udovitch (August 30, 2001). "Hot Muckraker: Al Giordano". Rolling Stone.. 199.241.232.10 (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Whoops, above was me!) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another source: Sean Dodson. "Hacks hit in drugs war". The Guardian. (with quote: "If it hadn't been for Giordano, much of the world would never have heard of Por Esto's allegations"). Xavexgoem (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That The Guardian sources looks impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good source; I put together an entirely new draft page in my sandbox with that source and others, some of which I've already linked to here on this page. These sources clearly establish *current* notability. Ricardiana (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is proposed to be notable on the basis of being a journalist and an activist. A minor association with Abbie Hoffman and the occasional mention in the media over the course of decades does not a notable activist-journalist make. Heck I'm mentioned in at least one book and my life is described in several media articles and I'm not an activist-journalist, just a middle manager with no pretensions of notability. Then again I'm not asking for donations on the basis that I'm notable. Maybe if that were my gig, I'd be vigorously contesting my article's deletion too. Brmull (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that an association with Abbie Hoffman and occasional mentions in media are probably not sufficient.
However, these are articles in The Guardian and Rolling Stone that substantiate his role as a journalist covering the War on Drugs, which has been notable. I think we can agree that at the least he's on the boundary of notability, hence this discussion. --Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Space4Time. Could you please include this comment under your original comment, instead of on its own bullet? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. A good case has been made in the comments above that Al Giordano is notable. Not surprising since he was considered notable before he began opposing Sen. Bernie Sanders online and decided to primary Sanders. The editor who suggested the deletion has never satisfactorily explained why the page, which he considers so obscure, suddenly came to his attention and needed to be deleted. The timing, in the midst of a presidential campaign, makes Wikipedia look bad. Just when the public will most like to know more about Mr. Giordano, an editor has decided to yank Giordano's page. Comments made by some editors are fatuous and unworthy of Wikipedia, including "While Giordano would hardly be the only social media huckster to misuse Wikipedia to propagate false notability, I have little patience for this racket." No sources are cited either for the contention that Giordano is a "social media huckster" or that he "misuses Wikipedia. " All the more reason for the Giordano page to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedCircus (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC) MedCircus (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)MedCircus (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC) — MedCircus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't get it. Apart from the imaginations of Giordano himself and his small band of Twitter followers THERE IS NO CAMPAIGN TO PRIMARY SANDERS. It's not mentioned by a single reliable source. When I was a kid I used to ride around on make-believe horses with my friends, but we were kids. Social media is making people lose all perspective of how insignificant they are in the scheme of things. Brmull (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•Here again, this particular deletion seems oddly personal. The page should be about Giordano's career and not about how one editor feels about social media or how that same editor played with make-believe horses as a child. Decisions made on Wikipedia need to have more gravitas than this, in order to be convincing. I believe they usually are made with logic and good sense--and will be in this case. MedCircus (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This yelling comment has nothing to do with whether or not Giordano is notable and does not address the fact that numerous sources that handily meet WP:RS exist about him. So it's not clear why you're yelling here except that you have a desire to try to diminish others. Let's try to stick to the point: despite the shenanigans of the person who deleted references from the page and then nominated the article for deletion, and despite the evidence-free and sometimes spiteful protestations that the page should be deleted, the facts are that subject is notable, plenty of reliable sources exist, the page does need work, I am willing to do and have already done some of that work, the page should be restored and improved. Ricardiana (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Giordano is not notable. These are the "notable facts" about Giordano as the article described them:
•Giordano was an activist, primarily against nuclear power, from the age of 16 until his mid-20's. (so were a lot of people)
•Giordano merited a passing mention in two Abbie Hoffman biographies as having worked with him on at least one anti-nuclear campaign. (meh)
•Giordano wrote an article on his Narco News website revealing that AP's Bolivia correspondent had a conflict of interest, which led to the latter's resignation. (every journalist writes something in the course of their careers that leads to change; if not they could reasonably be called a "failed journalist".)
•Giordano posted English translations of Por Esto! articles on his website, which led him to be added to a defamation suit by Roberto Hernández Ramírez, which was thrown out for failing to meet the legal standard of malicious intent. (meh)
The Rolling Stone blurb is problematic despite Mim Udovitch being a reputable journalist because RS's fact-checking has been determined to be inadequate. In line with other Wikipedia discussions about RS as source I would agree with using the blurb for sole-source quotes attributable to Giordano but not to anyone else.Brmull (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article, as it stood before it was deleted, imperfect, as I have already said, but that does not mean the subject is not notable. The main notability guideline is that a subject receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You seem to think that you can pick at each aspect of a subject's career, make comments like "meh," and be done with it. In fact, it is not your job to determine notability outside of Wikipedia guidelines. You aren't impressed; that's irrelevant. All that matters is that the subject has received *significant coverage* (overall profiles and articles in The Guardian, Columbia Journalism Review, Rolling Stone regarding overall career as an activist/organizer/drug war reporter, as well as being written about in numerous newspaper pieces over the years regarding this or that specific campaign) in *reliable sources* which those I have just listed clearly are. Your assertion that Rolling Stone "has been determined to be inadequate" needs to be backed up -- determined when and by whom? In any case it is not the only source. Finally, Wikipedia does not exist to slap down reliable sources and say that they are wrong; it exists to pull together information from reliable sources so that people will continue to think of Wikipedia first when they want to find out about something. Ricardiana (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As much as I like a conspiracy theory, there is no proof that this deletion was politically motivated. In this case, the discussion had been open plenty long enough, and the interpretation of consensus by the closing administrator was the only reasonable outcome. If the subject can be reasonably be shown to be up to snuff, it can be recreated in the future, and CSD G4 doesn't apply if content is substantially different from the deleted version.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall anyone in this discussion saying that there was a conspiracy. What was said is that the action of the person who proposed the deletion "... reeks of bad faith editing ..." and that neither the editors nor the closing admin were aware of it - see post by Xavexgoem at 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC). I'm still looking up citations when I find the time. Here's a preview (no comments yet with respect to reliability, notability, etc. aspects), just hoping that this will prevent sudden death:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/10/wolcott
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/06/wolcott200806
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/04/a-phoenix-that-will-rise-no-more
https://newleftreview.org/II/41/al-giordano-mexico-s-presidential-swindle
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/23/1519120/-Ignorance-on-display-Al-Giordano
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clintons-six-foreign-policy-catastrophes.html
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01674434.htm
http://castor.divergences.be/spip.php?article565
Signed: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, deleting the main source and saying in the AFD that the article is not sourced, is what appeared to be in bad faith. The nomination in and of itself wasn't. The source was also backing up a blockquote (diff), which, free of any citation, looked more like self-promotion (granted, that blockquote was pretty awkward to begin with). All notability hinged on that source. --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the editors that participated in the AfD said that restoration of the mapinc.org link (the removal of which was obviously done in good faith) would have changed their vote. As I explained above the RS blurb is not a reliable source for sweeping statements like Giordano being "the best political organizer of his generation." It's self-promotion, something that Giordano is obviously good at. Just not notably so. Brmull (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that statement was definitely promotional and should have been removed. But it seems like you're starting to make the claim that Rolling Stone cannot be used as a source for notability on the grounds that it's a source for notability. --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RS could probably be used for fluff like what high school Giordano attended, assuming he did not object, in the unlikely event notability were ever to be established. It could not be used to establish notability because almost all of it is simply his own highly dubious telling of events. Brmull (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His own highly dubious telling of events in Rolling Stone. And that's "highly dubious" according to you. It's not even the only source we have! Seriously, what is going on? I mean, I know we both restarted editing Wikipedia around this issue, but... --Xavexgoem (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The only thing missing from that RS blurb is Paul Bunyan and his giant ox. It's written in an obviously exaggerated style. And it IS the only source you have. The other sources implicitly contradict Giodano's account. For example, if he was such worked side by side with Abbie Hoffman for years, why is he only mentioned in passing in two lengthy biographies of Hoffman? Brmull (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only source. Giordano was also profiled in the Columbia Journalism Review. That's a less flattering piece, which seems to be all Brmull cares about, but it is a reliable source. It's not Wikipedia's job to reject reliable sources because we don't like what they say. Ricardiana (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no other way it could have been closed given the discussion. The reason given to overturn, that those who commented were "clearly not familiar with his work" is speculative and even if true there's no rule that one most be already familiar with a topic to participate in a discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV is not AfD2, no other close was possible here. --joe deckertalk 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first question posed in the XfD was, Have you looked for sources? The people who looked for sources looked only online and turned up very few sources. Thus, deleting the article made sense. However, implicit in the XfD was the idea that the article should remain if there are sufficient sources. I and others have found numerous sources that were not mentioned in the original XfD. In particular, I have searched university databases, not just Google. The article should be restored in some fashion so that these sources can be incorporated. Ricardiana (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2016

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

My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I previously brought this request back in March and it was endorsed as deletion.[3] I appreciate everyone who looked at the request and based on the comments I created a draft for everyone to review. You can find it in my sandbox. In the previous request, there was no draft article to review, nor did I supply an expansive list of references to review. In addition to the references available prior to March, there are additional in-depth references that have made the press between then and now.

Again, I am familiar with conflict of interest guidelines and have offered to assist my company with this article. Everyone here is also now fully aware of guidelines on conflict of interest and promotion. I feel that the company is notable according to Wikipedia general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). The draft that I created is not promotional and gives some of the basic facts about the company which are supported by reliable sources.

The most important thing to point out here is that I now have a draft to review (as mentioned and recommended in the last review request by those providing their opinion), and there are additional references that have made the news since the last discussion (some included below and some can be found at this link) Custom Google search for records since May 2016

The last discussion contained quite a bit of information and would ask that those reading this would look at that discussion as well.[4]

I put together a list of additional articles that I did not use in the draft. I did not qualify any of these as meeting Wikipedia guidelines as I did not use them for the draft. By this I mean I did not evaluate them individually as I didn't need them for the draft I created. I found them with a simple Google search and wanted to list them here for quick reference if needed. This is only a sampling of articles found as there are many more that can be seen with a Google search.

There are also two great articles by Carol Roth here and here. The issue with these is that she is a contributor to the Nextiva blog which could be considered a conflict of interest and as such I did not use them in the draft. However, the company blog has many contributors such as Mike Michalowicz. She is a contributor for Entrepreneur, The New York Times, and the Huffington Post and do not feel that what she wrote about Nextiva is biased, but I left it out all the same to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Additional references about the company

The analytic tools was also covered by other publications including Phoenix Business Journal.
  • I've read the draft and I think that's the kind of brief, neutral and factual article that would be appropriate for Wikipedia. The Forbes and Huffington Post content is written by volunteers who don't receive a lot of editorial control, and are not understood as highly reliable on Wikipedia; and Inc.com have a disclaimer that says "Certain areas of the Inc.com Web site contain information supplied by visitors and others. Inc.com is not responsible for..." and this rules them out as a reliable source. But PC magazine and Fox News are perfectly acceptable sources for an article about a technology corporation, and the rules say you only need two. I'm happy for that content to be moved into mainspace. This is not an "overturn" outcome, so the convention here is to say restore.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fox source isn't all it seems. It says at it's top it's from entrepreneur.com and indeed here is the same article there[5]. Entrepreneur.com in it's terms of service states "The Website is a distributor of content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters and content owned by other providers that is published with their permission on the Website. The Website is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by EMI". The author contributes to various places on a very diverse range of topics, I can't see this as a reliable source. Also the PC magazine is rather false, it is a compare from the directory as DGG points out so isn't a genuine comparison they've decided to run, it's easy enough to construct your own, so here is PC Magazine comparing Nextiva against Kaspersky antivirus--82.14.37.32 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore/move draft to mainspace draft seems fine, topic meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The draft has 5 references. I read the Inc.article you're using. I consider it PR. and note it was not written by their regular staff. The Chicago Tribune story isa bout another topic, and mentions the company as one example among several others. TechTarget is a mere mention. I consider no local paper acceptable for notability of a local company, and that's the other two references. {{U|S Marshall}, the PC magazine item is not an article. It's a comparison of two businesses listed in their directory, taken from the directory. And the Fox article is PR--read it--it's a straight advertorial, pretending to talk about a general topic, but managing to mention the company in some way as often as possible. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion pretty much per DGG, many sources but no real substance, local coverage, directory style information, passing mentions and articles which read as thinly veiled marketing. As above the fox source isn't it states it's from entrepreneur.com who take submissions and disown any fact checking, it's not a reliable source. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like this and I don't feel it's the correct call in view of the history. This is a user whose first draft was rejected, and rightly rejected, but the unpleasantness and histrionics at that first AfD were a disgrace and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. If I'd encountered that kind of ridiculous behaviour with my first draft I would not have become a volunteer here, but this user has risen above it and submitted a brief, tolerably neutrally worded, factual draft. Full disclosure of the COI and faultless conduct combined with an honest attempt to comply with Wikipedia's Byzantine reliable source requirements, and the result is something that if that was in the mainspace it would be somewhere in the top quartile of our company-related articles. Is nitpicking about sources really the correct reaction to this?—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying we should patronise someone who you think has been treated badly in the past by giving them a pat on the head and accepting something substandard. Each to his own I guess. Your own comment only gives value to two sources, and it doesn't take nitpicking to show that they aren't reliable. The PC magazine source is not a source it's part of their directory of software with a comparison applied. The other from entrepreneur.com who essentially wash their hands of the articles being accurate etc. It is by an author who you can easily find by searching around covering an incredibly broad range of topic, there seems to reason to believe they are an expert in this particular field. They also submit to such sources as the Huffington Post, who you also quite rightly state as not being acceptable and this entrepreneur.com article is clearly of a similar ilk.--82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting a pat on the head, just the acceptance of a perfectly harmless article. Yes, okay, I could go through the sources with a fine tooth comb. The Chicago Tribune is cited in the draft. In reality their coverage is a passing mention, and this is the newspaper that famously misidentified the winner of a US presidential election... I could go on and on. But we have thousands of articles about corporations and I could spend my whole lifetime on others which are far worse where the COI author hasn't done nearly as much to work with us. The only reason for burrowing into this is because the user has chosen to follow the procedure correctly. I think it's a mistake to punish that behaviour because in the process of punishing it we're showing other, less good-faith users, some good reasons to sock.—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ, the quality of the encycloaedia is related to the quality of the sources used, compromising on that is in my view not harmless. We aren't a directory of everyone and everything, the thinner the real content becomes the lower the overall value of the content. The idea that this is somehow punishing the author is misguided, I would look at the sources in the same light regardless of how disinterested they were in the subject. I rather assume the authors would like their work to stand because it's a good piece of work, not because other work is worse, or we are scared of somehow insulting their sensibilities by pointing our weaknesses. I'd still see it as rather patronising to assume the author won't be able to take any criticism of the quality and standards and use it to improve and build something better - to make it that good piece of work. I have seen time and time again DRV decide to let things which don't meet the standards and have no hope of meeting the standards go back to mainspace to be promptly either be heavily edited or put up for deletion, we do no one any favours by letting that happen, if anything we confuse and frustrate people more by having one process which apparently gives a thumbs up to then walking into another which smacks it down. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/move Draft to Mainspace This draft meets WP:ORG Fairfax49 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of sources, some don't work, and the rest are a small range of promotion, some blatant, all reading as non-independent. However, it is uncomfortable that Vonage is allowed, and this is not. I would think that it would be better to have coverage of these service providers collectively, and not of individual companies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - The draft created about this organization is NPOV and meets WP:N. I think two or three reliable sources are enough to establish notability of such a subject. In this case I would pick Foxnews, Entrepreneur.com and Inc.com. If these sources had non-verifiable information or falsehoods, then thousands of articles would not have them as references across all Wikipedias. They would have been purged a long time ago or blacklisted for that matter. A simple search shows that articles running in the thousands use Foxnews, Entrepreneur.com and Inc.com. as reliable sources thus my point that this meets WP:N. TushiTalk To Me 01:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but Fox news just reprinted from entrpreneur.com , and, considering the content, its clearly a press release. Fox news is reliable for notability on some things; it depends on the actual content. Entrepreneu.com should not be used in WP to prove notability, though it can be reliable for some purposes. For Inc., you have to read the article. to tell. This one is not substantial coverage.
S Marshall, you consider this article harmless. I do not consider coi articles about people writing about hteir own companies a harmless--allowing this lets WP degenerate into advetising. There may be occasions when its OK, but it requires strict scrutiny. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't get strict scrutiny. Or rather, it does if the user behaves as correctly as this one did, but if he'd socked or paid someone to get that content into mainspace it would have sailed in, because we don't have the volunteers to police this stuff when it's submitted via normal channels. The effect of strict scrutiny on these cases is to punish the user behaviour we want to encourage.—S Marshall T/C 06:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of interest editing is highly discouraged but not prohibited as per WP:COI. I think this is is not restricted to just making edits to existing articles but also creating new ones. This editor has been bold enough and decided to come out clean from the word go about the possible COI they might have for being an employee of the subject but even before publishing they have gone ahead and created a draft for scrutiny by the community. There is no issue with the draft that shows the article is being recreated for promotion purposes which would in effect dent the credibility of Wikipedia. Even if someone else was to write it, it would be more or less the information that can be found on the sources readily available on the web. Personally I don't see any harm to let an employee create an article about a notable organization they work for while adhering to all rules set by the Wikipedia community. TushiTalk To Me 04:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak restore. Move draft to main space. I believe this is an informative and well-written article and it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Knox490 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've no idea if this comment relates to this item or not, I've moved it here from being place somewhere in the middle of the discussion above, but given the various attempts made by the editor adding this and not really understanding how they'd end up here, it's not clear if it's this or was supposed to be a new listing or whatever... --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andreas Lubitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation, Sources such as this and this has since given his life extensive coverage, the unique nature of this crime and three AfDs first closed as keep, second procedural closed and third AfD not given a full discussion, I'd like to give this another chance. The full protection seems unnecessary. Also to note he has received extending coverage over a period of time with recent sources such as [6], [7] and [8]. I am currently working on a version in my sandbox. However one of my main issues is why was this page fully protected in the first place? Before I start working on it I am requesting specifically an unprotect. It was fully protected to prevent people from working on it I feel it was a violation of WP:AGF as there was no disruption on the page. Valoem talk contrib 00:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically asking for an unprotect. Recreation can come after discussion on the talk page. Also this is the only confirmed person is commercial aviation history to do this. Valoem talk contrib 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the policy based on full protection? No one is attempting to restore without consensus, however full protection discourages others from working on the article. This may be a violation of WP:AGF. Valoem talk contrib 00:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My passing view is that there is no discouragement to anyone to work on Germanwings_Flight_9525, that discussion to spinout should be on its talk page, and that the request here to unprotect will so very easily by misread and misrepresented as permission to reverse the AfD-mandated merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request to unprotect would be trivial if you could point to a discussion showing consensus for the spinout. In this discussion, reviewing the AfD and subsequent changes, I don't see reason to agree. The draft article doesn't alleviate the concerns that drove the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a guideline that states we full protect articles without consensus for spinout? We don't even full protect disruptive editing, only disputed BLP violations which this is not. Valoem talk contrib 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, you should ask the deleting admin, but I observe that the title has thrice been reverted from the redirect, twice by yourself, and I infer that you have no reason to ask for unprotection except to revert the redirect, and that consensus at AfD was for the redirect and that you are failing to make a case to overturn that consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reversion were done well within policy as the AfD has not been closed. The administrator is has retired. I see no reason to retain the protection. Valoem talk contrib 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be supportive of removing protection, as the ultimate rationale for the request seems likely to be a desire to do an end-run around consensus once everything has calmed down. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle: that is a violation of AGF, I intend only to expand the section however in the future if a split is warranted it is more inviting to those who wish to do so. There is no reason for protection here. Valoem talk contrib 15:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's a violation of WP:AAGF. Your persistent invocation of AGF makes me think this is a case of the lady doth protest too much, methinks. You have been presented with an alternative of creating a draft page and bringing that here so it can be assessed for appropriateness. Good faith would involve accepting that consensus, understanding why others are suspicious about your desired outcome, and following that pathway. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of more knowledge about this subject in its own article if new sources are available. No support if no new sources are available since last consensus to prevent this article, no support for expanding the Germanwings Flight 9525 article (beyond a few newly constructed sentences touching on any new sources). —Prhartcom♥ 03:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 May 2016

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

Speedy deletion outside of the criteria, A7 was cited (no assertion of significance or importance) yet the article cited a source which clearly supported the article's own claim to significance (a national award for hyperlocal journalism); It therefore should not have been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as it contained the claim of notability. I have contacted RHaworth (the deleting admin) to draw this to their attention, but they seem unconcerned by the fact that they are abusing the Speedy Deletion process. While I appreciate the content is now visible again, I do not view Userfying the article as a satisfactory resolution in these circumstances, and I am concerned at this particular admin's apparent attitude. --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 08:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC) Peeky44 What's on your mind? 08:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So apparently you copied this page from fr.wiki, pasted it directly into the mainspace in en.wiki without bothering to translate it, moaned at the sysop who speedied it, got it restored to your own userspace and now you're asking us to have an in-depth seven-day discussion about abuse of procedure. Is that right?

    Strictly speaking, and for future reference for all concerned, when you encounter an article that isn't in English the first thing to do is detect whether it's a copy/paste from a foreign language Wikipedia. If it is then for the purposes of preserving attribution it should have {{translated}} on its talk page. You then list it at WP:PNT for two weeks and if nobody translates it after that time, you AfD it. This is a longwinded and laborious process, and when the material is merely an unmodified copy/paste of an article about a railway station, speedily deleting it was a justified use of IAR on RHaworth's part. Suggest a speedy close with optional side of fish.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's actually what happened. I believe the created version was actually [9] in doing the move on top of the sandbox then undeleting the sandbox we've ended up with the untranslated article, which is sod all to do with the created article, along with a load of other stuff from even deeper in history. e.g. [10] which is also obviously unrelated. Essentially the moving to sandbox has left a mess which means it would be now be more difficult to untangle and move an article completed there to mainspace. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Yes. That's a mess all right. Stricken while I think about this.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is going to be fun for the DRV closer to untangle... sorry, whoever you are. For the record RHaworth has already fixed this by deleting the unattributed copyvio from fr.wiki and then restoring the material we're discussing back into the sandbox, so although restoring into Peeky44's sandbox when there were more recent revisions doesn't rank among the greatest administrative decisions ever made on Wikipedia, he's cleaned up after himself promptly and thoroughly. I hope we won't now need to review the deletion from userspace! I believe Thryduulf below has it right in that A7 did not strictly speaking apply.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm going to weigh in on this since it came up in my watch list. Whilst I think it's a waste of time to bring such a trivial case to Deletion Review, we need to be fair in judgements. A7 CSD clearly states that any credible claim invalidates the use of speedily delete and you say you made a credible claim. I also don't know why you've copied and pasted an article from the French Wikipedia without even trying to translate any of it, it's completely ridiculous in my opinion. However, I'm going to reluctantly vote for the article to be recreated in the main space and listed for translation. If it's not translated then the normal procedures should be followed. st170etalk 10:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    per above I think the created version was actually [11]. the sandbox mess is just that, a mess. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense now, thank you for clearing that up! I'm still going to standby my original judgement to overturn the deletion. st170etalk 11:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn arguably against the letter of the law, and has ended up a bit messy in the sandbox. As I see it, if it's a credible claim of significance is quite debatable, one claim seems unsupported and the other seems dubious. Doubt it'd survive AFD, but no real harm in letting it go that way. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was a credible claim of significance (winner of a national award) supported by a source so the A7 criteria were not met. Whether the claim is sufficient to demonstrate notability is irrelevant, what the outcome of an AfD would be is irrelevant, and it is impossible for an IAR speedy deletion to be correct. Liberal application of trout for the very messy userfication is encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The edits in question were restored three days before this DRV request was raised. Peeky44, you would have got more sympathy from me if, instead of raising this ridiculous request, you had made the point directly to me that I had created a tangle. I have adjusted User:Peeky44/sandbox to consist of just the relevant material. If this has left deleted edits which are in English and are not copyvios, I will be happy to restore them (without creating a new tangle) if you apply to me directly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2016

edit

13 May 2016

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

Overturn to no consensus This was an administrative supervote. Both sides had policy based reason for inclusion and deletion. Those favoring inclusion list sources such as Outer Places and Popular Mechanics which provide a list of List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. There was also a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Is_Citing_PHL.2FHEC_in_violation_of_WP:SELFPUB.3F which is closed as "PHL/HEC can be used as a reference as is not a violation of WP:SELFPUB". Davidbuddy9 and Tom.Reding believed that this therefore does pass WP:NASTRO.

The vote count was also in favor of inclusion 6 to 5 in favor of keep.

The administration David Fuchs left no reasoning for deletion either which is recommended for close calls. No consensus is the only possible close here. Valoem talk contrib 02:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to NC Even if the delete !votes were somewhat stronger (which I don't know that they were), it wasn't strong enough to overcome the !vote. The one keep argument (topic has been discussed as a group in RSes) was strong IMO, the other (meets the relevant SNG) is very much in debate. But delete side has very little other than "not found as a list hardly at all", which isn't required, an objection to a primary source, and that same debate about SNGs. I'll admit I'm also not fond of a relist quite so quickly when nothing has changed after the last AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC The 1st RfC on WP:SELFPUB was closed as not selfpub, and a 2nd, concurrent RfC on ESI is ongoing. It seems that the nom is trying to remove articles & content ahead of consensus, and has been doing so for some time ([12]).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Delete voters make intelligent and articulate points about why the list does not follow WP's guidelines. Keep votes, on the other hand, are...less than convincing, to say the least. The last three are saying it's notable without providing any reason whatsoever. The first three appear to be slightly more convincing, but still do not follow WP policy, stating that the list should follow WP policies WP:PRIMARY and WP:N, and guideline WP:NASTRO, but failing to back up their statements with actual sources. It seems that jps has also thoroughly rebutted the argument of the first keep vote. Delete votes, on the other hand, provided well-articulated and well-thought-out rationales that are firmly grounded in policy, and explain just why the list is harmful for WP to host. Having been inactive the last four months, I have not been previously involved in this dispute. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Refresher: Jps 1st rebuttal was arguing that the sources I used did not mention KOI's, so I had to bold them, and then his rebuttal was that they were "Not as a catalog list, no.", which was rebuttled by @Postdlf: which I agree with that WP:LISTN needs to be "'discussed as a group', not merely 'listed as a group'." (which Jps never responded to). So did Jps really " thoroughly rebutted the argument of the first keep vote"? Because I don't think so look at the AfD again please. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. You may not overturn Sandstein's close of exactly the same discussion by listing it for deletion again eleven days later. It is inconceivable that DRV would endorse this end run around the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall Exactly, Sandstein closed this discussion correctly as no consensus it was immediately renominated this time with more compelling arguments for inclusion somehow David Fuchs did no review of history and closed it however he wanted to. Valoem talk contrib 17:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I have not read the new AfD and not formed an opinion on its closure. But since consensus can change, new discussions can lead to new outcomes. Whether a renomination was premature is, I think, something to be considered in the AfD, not in the DRV.  Sandstein  19:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That point does appear several times in the discussion we're reviewing; in fact the majority of the "keep" !voters mentioned it. A feature of Wikipedian discussion processes is that if you're allowed to keep asking the same question again and again until you get the answer you want, the probability of you getting the answer you want tends towards unity. But that doesn't mean you've persuaded the opposition with the strength of your arguments ---- all it means is that you've exhausted them. I feel that this amounts to a procedural defect in the conduct of the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination make a sufficient case for renomination only a few weeks after the previous, so that was OK.
Reading the discussion, I do not read a consensus. I read arguments oblique to the guidelines being cited. I can't support the reading of consensus or rough consensus.
I recommend referring the question of deletion to an RfC, to be closed by three admins. There are strong deletion reasons, but the topic is strangely appropriate for the encyclopedia regardless, possibly. I cannot predict how I would have !voted if I had studied the issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Is_the_use_of_the_ESI_Score_Unencyclopedic.3F, as per Lankiveil below, but it doesn't look very conclusive so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. Normally I'd frown upon the idea of renominating so quickly after a previous discussion had closed, but in this case the circumstances really had changed. Some of the "Keep" arguments were poor, to be sure, but as User:Hobit points out above, some of them were good and not rebutted. Suggest that after this is overturned there is a freeze on any new AFDs until this RFC is brought to a conclusion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to NC, the deletion arguments were not so strong as to compel that result absent clear support for deletion (which there was not), particularly not with the content issues open in a pending RFC and coming so closely on the heels of a prior no consensus close (in fact the second such close for this list topic). Wait until after the RFC is closed to relist again. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECTION - MOVE FOR IMMEDIATE CLOSURE AS IRREDEEMABLY BIASED AND INVALID
  1. Per WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing: Deletion Review should not be used: when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination. This was not done, and this entire discussion may be a moot waste of time if the challenger talks to the closer first.
  2. The author ping-canvassed multiple supporters to this discussion, immediately stacking the initial votes/arguments.
  3. The listed vote count was incorrect/misleading. There were 5 editors for deletion, not 4.
  4. The described RFC situation was extremely misleading. The first RFC of the pair, Is_Citing_PHL/HEC_in_violation_of_WP:SELFPUB, was cited as supposedly supporting the DRV case. However the issue is effectively decided in the second of the pair: Is_the_use_of_the_ESI_Score_Unencyclopedic?. There is clearly consensus that this sort of use of ESI is unencyclopedic, it's been open 42 days, we merely need someone to slap a close on it. It would be a waste of time to overturning this AFD just to immediately open another AFD with a forgone conclusion.
Also Endorse: Arguments for deletion were more compelling and based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines than arguments to keep because it's interesting or informative.[13] Alsee (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1, Alsee, "Per WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing: Deletion Review should not be used: when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination. This was not done, and this entire discussion may be a moot waste of time if the challenger talks to the closer first." please see User_talk:David_Fuchs#List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_by_ESI_AfD_close.
2, AfD was closed as delete it is completely valid to highlight the editors with strong rationale for inclusion which were ignored.
3, corrected to 5 simple error (problem solved 6 to 5 in favor of keep though AfD is not a vote).
4, What? Discussion is not closed and I do not see a close of supporting ESI as unencyclopedic.
I think the only one being bias here is you. Valoem talk contrib 05:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You posted on the closer's talk page after opening this DRV, the closer hasn't even seen it yet, the closer has not yet had any chance to respond. That is required before a DRV may be opened (or a good reason for not doing so must appear in the DRV). The closer has not had any opportunity to consider your case or answer it. And by properly talking to the closer first we can (hopefully) get a hasty close on the RFC and simplify the situation.
There was no need for those [[user:X]] links in the DRV post. One side was selectively ping-canvassed. Alsee (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not, Tom Reding already asked him, he responded with an unsatisfactory answer and already made edits since I opened this DRV so clearly he had a chance to respond. You are wrong and there is no way to defend your position. Valoem talk contrib 09:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. We're not going to speedily-close this or any other DRV for failing to consult the deleting sysop, and certainly when the deleting sysop has in fact received the requisite notification. The person who deleted the article is not the gatekeeper for access to DRV. The vote count at the AfD is not relevant and the reason why nobody at DRV has noticed that error is because nobody here cares about vote counts. And when there have been several successive discussions of the same subject that closed with no consensus, it is certainly not a "foregone conclusion" that the next one will lead to deletion.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the deleting admin is not any sort of gatekeeper. If someone raises their concerns with a closer, and the closer declines to discuss it or gives an unsatisfactory response, then a DRV can be opened. Opening a DRV is not a first stop for anyone who dislikes a close. Furthermore opening a DRV with partisan canvassing pings is grossly improper. And yes, another AFD will be a forgone conclusion if the RFC closes that this this use of ESI is encyclopedic. Alsee (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The close was raised by another editor on the admin's talk page. Once the admin has been asked to review the close, anyone can open a DRV. That said, @Valoem: your notifications were non-neutral. Would you please ping everyone else involved in the AfD? Notifying only one side or the other is a problem. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The DRV falsely claims Popular Mechanics which provide a list of List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. The article make no mention of ESI or Earth Similarity Index, nor does it provide a list of planets. It discusses one planet and mentions a second.
The statement that Outer Places ... provide[s] a list of List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI is only partially accurate. The article is actually about ranking planets by completely different metric "HITE" (habitability index for transiting exoplanets). In a rather confusing turn, the article includes an image of 10 planets with ESI values. Alsee (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2016

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User:Spelunkster/Scammer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User page and article on notable scam artiste. Plenty of reliable sources showing notability now due to recent FTC action.

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/30104-gigats-com

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/66132-outfit-that-sued-wot-members-gets-90m-fine-for-deceptive-advertising (There's a PD-FLGov mugshot too.)

Starting WP:DELREV having seen the above and http://file.wikileaks.org/file/ayman-difrawi.html because User:Daniel who deleted sandbox pg is inactive (2 edits so far this year). Deleter User:Haemo is inactive for years.

Looks like there's some good content for use at [14] (which currently reads like a bit of a hit piece) and/or Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi.

No reason was given for the '07 XFD close either! Bad form, suspect! The 3 comments by by 192.223.243.6 made good points re. notability that were not refuted. Above include St. Petersburg Times, Tampabay.com, sources, which are in addition to the sources .6 noted.

Expect to see defenders of this scumbag come out of the woodwork; that's what's happened in the past.

Elvey(t•c) 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Yeah you clearly took a good look at the reason for the blocks by User:Bishonen, and the evidence I provided for the DR. Perhaps you should be blocked for being trigger happy and violating WP:AGF. Saying that recent FTC action helps make someone notable is way out there? No. That claim is way out there. Directly verifiable FTC link, since you are too trigger happy to even follow the ones provided https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-charges-education-lead-generator-tricking-job-seekers Thanks for the warm welcome back. Not. You should avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. --Elvey(t•c) 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Discussion was strongly leaning to delete. DGG's !vote suggests to me that a WP:TNT approach to recreation might be reasonable, although I haven't seen the article or looked at sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What discussion? The one in 07? <! --You know that WP:Consensus can change, yes? --> I don't object to restoration (with history, for proper attribution) to a sandbox and a later move when e.g. any stuff that doesn't pass WEIGHT is removed. Blowing it up seems unnecessarily destructive. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not blow shit up for no good reason - like a certain infamous group has been doing with actual TNT. --Elvey(t•c) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, I didn't really consider the deletion discussion being 8 years ago, but still, the deletion discussion was clear and your nomination here is barely coherent. You seem upset. Emotion does not carry much weight in overturning past decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What in the OP suggests I'm upset? Nothing, yet you ignore my request (below) for a response to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion, and bring 'emotion' up instead. Ad hominem attacks on someone uninvolved in past decisions should carry no weight in overturning past decisions, especially if they're groundless, but even if they weren't. You think it is acceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation? I don't see you objecting to it. Did you look at the reason in the logs for the blocks by User:Bishonen, or follow the links to evidence I provided for the DR? I see nothing indicating you did, SmokeyJoe. --Elvey(t•c) 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bold statements, lots of links assertin "reliable sources" none to reliable sources. I am unaware of any blocks or any involvement by Bishonen, and don't see the relevance. To start a case for undeletion or recreation, you need to start with independent reliable sources that cover the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe: How is https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-charges-education-lead-generator-tricking-job-seekers anything but a reliable source? The St. Petersburg Times, Tampabay.com, sources? You are refusing to acknowledge or comment on the reliable sources showing notability due to recent FTC action that I have pointed readers to, I see; like I said, those and other RS exist and can be found at the links I provided in my OP. --Elvey(t•c) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source for what? Certainly not the subject at hand. It names him as a defendant and says nothing else about him. It does not cover the subject directly. Links to forum posts are to be ignored. "RSes exist and can be found..." is not good enough when asking to overturn a well-participated deletion discussion. My personal searching finds news mentions, but not coverage, certainly not reliable secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When a user so clearly reads a comment out of context, such as by ignoring the "due to recent FTC action" connected to "RSes exist and can be found..." ... what to make of that? I notice no one is disputing my comment: No reason was given for the '07 XFD close either! Bad form, suspect! as a reason to at least not dismiss out of hand. --Elvey(t•c) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims regarding the source: "It names him as a defendant and says nothing else about him. It does not cover the subject directly." are false: Most of the source text is about him. It says in part, referring to him:

Under a proposed stipulated court order, the defendants are prohibited from making misrepresentations like those described in the complaint, and promoting job openings without a reasonable basis to expect that employers are currently hiring for those jobs. They also are barred from transferring consumers’ personal information to third parties without clearly disclosing that it will be transferred, and their relationship with the third party. In addition, the defendants are prohibited from using the information covered under the order unless consumers affirmatively opt in to their services.

The proposed court order imposes a $90.2 million judgment that will be suspended upon payment of $360,000. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The defendants are Expand Inc., also doing business as Gigats, EducationMatch and SoftRock Inc., and Ayman A. Difrawi, also known as Alec Difrawi and Ayman El-Difrawi.

In addition, I pointed to FOUR FTC documents about him, which, collectively say a great deal about him. --Elvey(t•c) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint says, e.g.:

Defendant Ayman A. Difrawi, also known as Alec Difrawi, also known as Ayman El-Difrawi, is the founder, self-described ·'quarterback," chief executive officer, and a director of Expand. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Expand, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. ( Case 6:16-cv-00714-CEM-TBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 19)

I'd appreciate it if someone would, per WP:DR, respond to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion. If you wish to oppose the article restore, by all means do, but with a coherent argument that differentiates you from defenders of this scumbag that I said I expected would come out of the woodwork.--Elvey(t•c) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This material is primary source material. It is facts without opinion, commentary or analysis. It is not material about the subject. Compilation of this sort of material would turn Wikipedia into a database. Wikipedia is not a database of criminals, crimes and sentences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about http://www.wftv.com/news/action-9/action-9-exposed-businessman-accused-of-nationwide-job-listing-fraud-1/249238295 ? Shritwod (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is coverage, but it is news reporting, all facts, no opinion. That makes it primary source material not secondary source material. Find a book, a periodical, or an editorial that covers this person, that is what is needed to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. Alternatively, look to WP:CRIME. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elvey, how about staying on topic as you are demanding other's do and not equating those who disagree with you with "defenders of this scumbag"? Ad hominem attacks lead are an indication of a battle ground mentality. Let's all just bring it down a notch. Let's not forget the burden is on you to met the objections from the original discussion. Given the amount of time that has past, I think that a restart from scratch would be the best course of action here. How about you start a draft in your user space? I'd be willing to help you. Otherwise I endorse the deletion. It was warranted.--Adam in MO Talk 05:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm equating those who disagree with me with "defenders of this scumbag"? No, you're the only person who's done that. What I said, 5 days ago, was, "I'd appreciate it if someone would, per WP:DR, respond to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion. If you wish to oppose the article restore, by all means do, but with a coherent argument that differentiates you from defenders of this scumbag that I said I expected would come out of the woodwork." Let me be clear. This in no way equates or is intended to equate those who disagree with me with "defenders of this scumbag", and is not and is not intended to be an ad hominem attack. I think it's clear, and if it's not to some readers, I'm sorry, but I don't see how their reading comprehension issues are my fault, and I welcome a suggested rephrasing of the sentiment I expressed that makes that clearer to you or anyone else. Also, you seem to be hounding me. What brought you here? I'm happy to start a draft in user or draft space, if I can use the two extant (but deleted) articles as a starting point - e.g. by restoration to user or draft space. I can't use http://file.wikileaks.org/file/ayman-difrawi.html because I can't credit the authors, as CC-BY-SA requires. Shritwod provides a helluva source with http://www.wftv.com/news/action-9/action-9-exposed-businessman-accused-of-nationwide-job-listing-fraud-1/249238295! Did you look at it? And the question isn't whether the deletion was warranted, but whether undeletion, so that old versions can be used to create a new article, is now warranted, given the add'l evidence that this topic warrants coverage that's been presented. BTW, what's the template that links to news, book, etc searches for the title of an article? It's used in some other process(es); I don't recall wich one- AFC? AFD? --Elvey(t•c) 17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the latest WFTV report:

Our investigations found his company advertised jobs that didn't exist so it could collect personal information to sell.

The federal trade commission sued Alec Difrawi and his companies gigats.com and Softrock for deception and his operations had several other names.

The lawsuit claims Alec Difrawi and his companies harmed thousands nationwide out of Metrowest offices.

The FTC says his operation advertised jobs online that didn't exist then collected applicants personal information so colleges could recruit them.

Instead of getting a job an Orlando woman was hit with spam from online schools by another Difrawi company. “They're just sucking you in to sell something,” she said.

A former employee told Todd Ulrich she was trained to mislead job seekers.

“Were you gathering information for an employer?” asked Ulrich.

“No.”

“About a job?” asked Ulrich.

“No,” replied the former employee.

I see facts ("The FTC says his operation advertised jobs online that didn't exist then collected applicants personal information so colleges could recruit them.") and opinion (employees were "trained to mislead job seekers") in a reliable source.

--Elvey(t•c) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I have a COI here, but I will try to maintain NPOV. Here are some questions.. who or what is notable here? Is is the company known variously as Expand Inc. / Gigats / EducationMatch / SoftRock, or is it the individual Ayman Difrawi? Reading the FTC complaint leans me in the direction of it being Gigats as the primary focus of the action. For comparison, Lifelock is also notable for being on the receiving end of a similarly sized FTC fine, but that company probably passed the general notability test for inclusion anyway. There are a few independent and nominally reliable sources covering the individual and his companies, but not a lot. There are some other sources too that might not pass general reliability criteria. You should be aware that this individual and his companies have sued several people for defamation, and presumably made an even larger number of legal threats against individuals and organisations that have posted negative comment. That may well have an impact on the coverage. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation has had such complaints made against it, but I have no proof.

Remember also that there is a general problem with using primary sources (e.g. court filings, business filings this FTC action etc) because this would fall into the apparently dreaded category of "original research" which leads to the peculiar situation of having a load a reliable PRIMARY sources, but insufficient reliable SECONDARY sources.. and no, I don't understand that either but those are the rules.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly.. the FTC statement says this is a PROPOSED court order, I don't know if it has been accepted. But even if it has, labeling this person as a "fraudster" or "criminal" on the basis of that order is tricky. The point has to be proven in law by a court or a judge, else I would suggest that these charges are ALLEGATIONS. Shritwod (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 May 2016

edit

10 May 2016

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

Relist due to early closure. --Laber□T 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Endorse - The AFD had received 3 keeps with one listing quite alot of sources thus making the article meet GNG, the article was also listed at DYK, Admittingly I did close it after 9 hours of it being open however with the DYK and list of sources I couldn't see any other outcome here nor did I see much point in the AFD being left open for the next week,
There was some edit warring over the closure however the nom's eventually came here,
Anyway I obviously have no objections if anyone wants to reopen/relist, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging AFD !voters - Northamerica1000, Roches, Yoninah, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by the closure after only 9 hours. Give it 24 and then you can snow keep. Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But then either way it's still being kept so really whether I close it now or in a weeks time the outcome's going to be the same, With the sources as well as the DYK it just made sense to close there and then that's all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2016

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Picnic (2004 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted as A7 even though films are expressly ineligible for A7, and even though the article made a clear and credible claim of significance -- the film was created by a notable performer. The deleting admin treated the film as web content, but a film created even before youtube existed does not become web content simply because a copy was later uploaded and made available online. Deleting admin has refused to restore, on the basis that the article "did not have sufficient reliable sources", which is by policy not an acceptable basis for speedy deletion.[15] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. → AA (talk) — 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not A7. Both written and directed by two different notable people. Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This was previously deleted also for pretty much the same content. It was mentioned that it's a 15min short documentary but I could not find any significant coverage in searching for sources. → AA (talk) — 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved. Didn't find anything to indicate that it was anything other than an online video, for whatever that's worth. (TIL YouTube started in 2005.) TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn as 1/ no evidence of being only a you tube video and therefore not unambiguously in scope And 2/ even if it were there is a credible claim to significance. "I don't think it will pass afd" is not a reason for A7. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Overturn, what DDG said, not to mention that A7 applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.. As I've said before in other DRVs, I suspect this won't survive AfD, but AfD is the right place to figure that out, and we should be very conservative about using WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not an A7 as not clearly in scope and there are assertions of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as clearly not within the scope of A7. A7 does not apply to films. While a film solely distributed via the internet would fall within A7's scope as it's really just a YouTube video I see no indication that is the case here. Even if A7 did apply to films being created by a notable person should constitute an assertion of significance. The deleting admin has argued that the article wasn't adequately sourced, the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for films and that a previous article was deleted under A7, none of which remotely means the article failed to indicate the significance of the subject. The wording of A7 isn't "stuff I don't think is notable". Hut 8.5 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, that's how a lot of people interpret A7. Either that or they think that because something's not notable, it somehow invalidates any claim of significance's credibility. A lot of people also say having a notable creator or founder is not a credible claim of significance per WP:NOTINHERITED, which simply shows lack of understanding. Adam9007 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. CSD taggers and deleters need to read WP:CSD more carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I have more sympathy for how this happened, A7 having apparently rather arbitary exceptions even though they would suffer the same ill and therefore the same rationale for immediate deletion as the other content. I can also see how it would be missed what the claim to significance is (since it isn't actually spelt out to my mind). That said when the error was pointed out the deleter should simply have self overturned. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, a double misapplication of policy; not only are films ineligible, but even if they were there are credible claims of significance here. It might not survive AFD, but that's not what A7 is about. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Pablo Zibes – Procedurally closed as moot because the nominator and various other accounts here have been blocked as checkuser-confirmed socks, and everybody else endorses the closure. Any non-sock editor is free to make a new review request. –  Sandstein  17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pablo Zibes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was nominated for deletion, all within a few days. I was never notified of this discussion and was a couple of days late, when the decision had already been made and the page was already deleted. The reviewers were not given the full picture for the reason to keep the page, and unfortunately it was removed before any arguments to keep it were presented. At a high level, Pablo Zibes is for is internationally renowned, having earned many prestigious awards. The decision to merge the page was made speedily and without the proper arguments to make a more informed decision. This request is to undelete the page either before or after we are able to make edits calling out the group's significance to an audience who may not be as familiar with the genre. Some references included from FAZ, Stuttgarter Zeitung, and more . --Otto-muell (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Collapse confirmed sock
  • Conditionally endorse @Otto-muell: you were the only person who participated in the AfD who argued to keep. You made the assertion that there were sources. You were asked during the AfD to provide those sources, but you didn't do so. As it stands now, no sources were presented, so the delete close seems perfectly reasonable. If you do have sources to present, please do so here. If you can show the existence of a sufficient number of reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines, I'll be happy to change my mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My close said, "If reliable sources arise, take it up with the discussants." The nominator does not appear to have attempted to contact either them or me, despite the Deletion Review directions. czar 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the nominator here please list the awards and sources they feel are relevant? Hobit (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse confirmed sock
  • Endorse. Prizes and distinctions:
--Manuelle1133 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it turns out my hunch was spot on, and the DRV nom their three socks make up most of the conversation. The DRV nom is a confirmed sock of the the three collapsed accounts underneath, including Maus-78 who created Pablo Zibes three times. I strongly recommend speedily closing this DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2016

edit
  • File:Star Ocean First Departure.jpg – Wrong forum, no action taken. I'm not an expert on image licensing, but from the discussion here, it sounds like asking for this to be restored on WP:REFUND would be the right action. My apologies for what must sound like an overly-bureaucratic decision, but copyright and licensing is somewhat of a speciality, and it's important to get it right. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Star Ocean First Departure.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I was told that having an extra cover doesn't help readers understand the individual video game itself and would convey the same info as the infobox image. Therefore, I want to replace the current infobox image with the front cover of the PSP rerelease. Or maybe I can replace the US PSP cover with the European one. However, I'm unsure of what Judgesurreal777 thinks; the user worked tremendously on the article. I want to contact that person first, but the user didn't upload the Super Famicom image. I don't want to nominate the current infobox image for deletion yet. Moreover, the video game project guideline normally encourages using English-language front covers. I figured the undeletion and replacement might be controversial, so I'm initiating a review instead. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good instinct to reach out and ask, and you're right that if English language releases are encouraged we should consider one of the two covers for the games rerelease. The North American cover came out three days before the European one, but then again the European one has the cast on it, so maybe that one would be better. Just my two cents. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but close. Are you suggesting replacing the current infobox image in Star Ocean (video game) with a different one? WP:NFCR used to be the central location for discussing such things but now we are referred to WP:FFD. I wouldn't go anywhere near there because FFD tends to delete any image that is mentioned even in passing. The non-free content guideline WP:NFC is that one and only one cover art image is allowed per article. This is justified on grounds of "reader understanding" but it is applied as a formula with no regard to any reader's understanding or lack of it. I suggest using the talk page to simply agree what to do and I'm sure this will cause no difficulty. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't need to be here. All you need to swap images around in an article is a talk page consensus (and even that only if it's contested). WP:REFUND routinely restores images like this, and would even if it had been deleted for being orphaned and non-free instead of you tagging it G7. —Cryptic 09:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2016

edit
  • Saudi role in September 11 attacks – Relist. The weight of numbers is on the overturn side of the spectrum, but not so much that I'm comfortable calling this a consensus to overturn just on the raw numbers. The thing that pushed me over the line was looking at User:FreeatlastChitchat's comment and deciding it should be downweighted, not so much because he was the AfD nominator, but because his comment here is a rehash of arguments about the article, not an evaluation of whether the close reflected the AfD discussion (i.e. DRV is not AfD round two). Once I got past that, a consensus here to vacate the AfD close seemed more in focus.
Next, what to do about it? There's roughly equal call here for overturning to NC vs. relisting. I'm not a fan of DRV second-guessing AfD decisions, i.e. replacing the original decision with one of our own. I'd much rather send it back to AfD to let the broader community decide, and especially so in a case like this where the DRV discussion itself is not clear.
So, then I'm left with starting a new AfD or reopening the existing one? Here, User:Hobit provided the critical observation. AfD is supposed to be (largely) about evaluating sources, and, for the most part, that didn't happen here. So, a fresh AfD seems in order. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Saudi role in September 11 attacks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The matter is discussed with the closing admin. I think there's no clear consensus for deletion of this article. There are some 'delete' opinions, but that does not make us ignore 'keep' ones which are well explained and supported. The article was well sourced and it was explained how the nominator's claims regarding the article didn't apply there. To my eyes, there's no consensus for deletion. I'm requesting another review. thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Failed WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can throw in WP:NOTNEWS as even the few outlets reporting this have stopped the sporadic coverage of this rumor and it remains a trivial news item. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to note that Freeatlast is the AFD nominator. Although there are many many sources listed in the discussion, I don't know how he thinks WP:GNG is not passed. He has apparently no idea of WP:GNG, as he showed here and in some other nominations. WP:NOTNEWS is clearly just thrown and is irrelevant. Also, I previously explained why WP:CRYSTALBALL did not apply there. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments, there is nothing to stop an AFD nominator commenting here it is the quality of their argument which counts. Similarly they are allowed to have been wrong in the past (and indeed wrong in the future) attacking the nominators track record is pretty weak - again quality of argument. That you believe you explained previously why something didn't apply, have you entertained the idea that your argument wasn't persuasive rather than it being a fault in the discussion? Finally (and this is broader, I'm sure, than just your comment) the review process isn't to rehash the AFD, it's about if the process was followed correctly and if the rough consensus was interpreted correctly by the closing admin--82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the key intervention in that debate was this one in which Mhhossein unleashed a whole string of sources. Subsequent edits to the debate should have picked apart those sources and established which, if any, were reliable. Wikipedians have repeatedly found that neither the New York Post nor the Daily Mail are reliable sources for anything, so it was reasonable to dismiss some of the sources out of hand. But The Independent, CNN and The Daily Telegraph are solid sources and from that edit forwards, an arguable case was present in the debate that we should have an article. And after that case was made, a number of debate participants did !vote to keep at least some of the content in at least some form. Both TheTimesAreAChanging and Buckshot06 made contributions to the debate that were headlined "delete" but when you read what they wrote, they clearly intended "smerge". There are a number of other contributions to the debate which consist of assertions that are unsupported by reasons or sources, and I would have given these less weight.

    I think this is a difficult debate to analyse and although I differ from Sandstein, I don't particularly wish to find fault with him. On balance I'm minded to send it back for a relist, with a request that the AfD should examine the sources presented more closely. I personally do not think it's a good idea to have a bluelink called "Saudi role in September 11 attacks", and if we were at such an AfD I would be suggesting a rename/retitle followed by a smerge.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist or Overturn to non-consensus I am not sure what my own opinion is about whether or not we should have this as a separate article, but there was no consensus to delete. There were plausible arguments on each side, and none of the arguments were such that they would over-ride the others. When there is no consensus, the closer does not get to decide what theythink the solution ought to be. In such a situation, they should instead participate in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: I read this as a "delete" based on strength of argument. Several "keep" opinions do not address our inclusion criteria, but merely assert that the topic is important (TheJJJunk and Saff V), or do not make any argument (Axxxion). I have largely discounted these. The only substantial "keep" opinion that I think needs to be strongly taken into account is the one by Mhhossein, which names and discusses relevant sources, and to a limited degree the "per above" view by Caseeart. Now there are also several similarly weakly argued "delete" views, but unlike most "keep" opinions, most "delete" opinions indicate that they are based on the number and quality of sources available. I remain of the view that the consensus of the discussion is as described in the closure – as to myself, I have neither formed nor expressed an opinion of my own about the merits of the nomination.  Sandstein  06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick. I'm grateful to Sandstein for closing this--that's one of the hardest discussions to close I've ever seen. But Relist partly per S Marshall but also because it was a crappy discussion of something that is actually important for us to get right. Very few reasonable deletion arguments after sources were listed. The TOOSOON arguments really didn't touch on the sources in any way. But there were only two or three reasonable keep !votes. I think we are destined to have an article with a similar title at some point. I think AfD needs to figure out if the sources presented thus far are enough for an article. And I don't think that discussion happened at all. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the obvious problems with the article title (per the discussion there, here and common sense) I'd have no objection to having this article in draft space while we discuss it. That creates a bit of a problem as it makes the status quo "don't have the article", but I think having a blue link there without being _sure_ we want one seems important in this case. Hobit (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist, clear lack of consensus, inclusion has some policy based reasons. Also someone please restore the page history and talk for DRV. Valoem talk contrib 02:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus: Contrary to what Sandstein said, my 'keep' opinion was based on Wikipedia inclusion criteria as I mentioned GNG by saying: "it is a notable subject supported by many many reliable sources and Mhhossein presented some of them." I also rejected the 'too soon' allegation and the view that the article was based on just two senators' viewpoint, as I knew that some other analysts such as Porter and Bahgat had discussed the role of Saudi Arabia in the event. Also I believe that 'TheJJJunk's 'keep; opinion was based on the policies, when he asserted that we had to rely on the sources and not on our "personal feelings". So, I think that discussion had to close as 'no consensus', as there were really no consensus for deletion.Saff V. (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. Reflects the discussion and is easily within admin discretion. I see consensus that it was a premature/too soon/ spinout of Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Saudi_Arabia. My opinion is that the spinout article now deleted was a WP:UNDUE/WP:POVFORK violation of Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks, that it was entirely a WP:NPOV issue. "Saudi role in September 11 attacks" would make a good tabloid headline, but "Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks" encompasses the topic with neutrality. Further conversation should be directed to Talk:Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks, where I see no discussion so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think some users including me showed how 'Too soon' is not applicable here and also we know that your alleged NPOV issues has nothing to do with AFD. Even if we find a better article to have it merged there, which I don't think to be a suitable choice, we'll soon have to split that. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, it is clear that you were not convinced, and the the rough consensus left you in a minority position. However, I looked at your sources and find them to be speculative. If the article were "Speculation on a Saudi role in September 11 attacks", then your sources would be primary sources. There is clearly an important public/political discussion at hand, but covering it is a matter of Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. The article so titles is inherently WP:NPOV violating. It takes time for political commentary to become worthy of encylopedic; the independent reliable and reputable secondary sources are yet to be written. Currently, every author is part of the story. There is a way forward, and that way involves consensus building at Talk:Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per multiple comments stated above (by other editors), I would be more careful about saying 'rough consensus'. --Mhhossein (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff for Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001#Redacted sections. There are even statements that allegations directed towards the Saudi-Arabian government are unfounded. However, in order for the others to cast a better judgement, a temporary relist of the article in draftspace may be considered. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But he believes that "there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers." [16] --Mhhossein (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beliefs of existence of evidence is not what makes an encylopedia. Too soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Beliefs of existence of evidence" by a commissioner responsible for investigating the case covered by various reliable sources is for sure what can make an encyclopedia. Mhhossein (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According this even fresher source, "...John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages." SmokeyJoe: Bring your 'too soon' to the AFD page after it's relisted. --Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't think there is a story to be told. However, Lehman's beliefs belong at John F Lehman, not at a POVFORK, even if the POV is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2016

edit

5 May 2016

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Solrachet/Pokemon: Den of Ages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin super voted over everyone. The majority wanted it kept, either as is or blanked, no basis for deletion provided other than the admin's personal disagreement with Pokemon. 166.176.57.131 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 May 2016

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

Article asserted that one if its co-founders is a notable footballer, Mathieu Flamini, which I believe to be a credible claim of significance. A Google search backed this up and provided quite a few reliable secondary sources, which proves that such a claim does indeed have a chance of establishing notability. Despite this, some people have said it isn't because of WP:NOTINHERITED, which doesn't even apply to A7 because A7 isn't about notability. Even the deleting admin admitted there's a possibility of notability, which defeats the whole purpose of A7 anyway. I removed the A7 tag but it was deleted anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 is correct to not that policy entitles him to insist that the page be undeleted, taken to AfD, where it will be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) That discussion was not a deletion review. 2) Nothing happened either there or when discussing it with the deleting admin. DRV states "If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review", so I don't see anything wrong here. I have waited patiently for about 2 weeks and nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy. True, it should not have been speedied as the tag was removed. The purpose of AfD is not just to decide whether to delete, but as a possible educational exercise for all involved. It is clear that the discussion is needed. At AfD. Speedy undelete and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at AfD to discuss this further. Else, undelete and move to draftspace for a possible draft but I think that's just process wonkery. Note that this was created in November 2015 and A7 then and this version was around for twelve hours before its deletion. A fair chance is fair. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This (and the thread at WT:CSD) is process wonkery solely for the sake of process wonkery. Endorse. It would have taken under a minute to create an unspeedyable stub that contained an actual assertion of significance, merely by copying what's already in Mathieu Flamini#Business Career. Anyone can still do so at any time. —Cryptic 06:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be unspeediable, but Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherited_notability looks like it was written for this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was written for the sort of thing that was speedied. The article that was speedied didn't assert any more significance than one reading "GFBiochemicals is a company." Having a notable founder isn't asserting significance. (Certainly not when his notability is in a field entirely unconnected to the company; it might be murkier for, say, a sports supplies company.) Neither is specializing in a particular chemical. But citing significant third-party coverage would be—even when some of the coverage was clearly written because of the company's founder, as evidenced by it appearing in the sports section—and so would claiming that it's the world leader in a particular chemical. The section at Mathieu Flamini does both; the deleted article did neither. —Cryptic 08:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand significance. It means the subject has a possibility of being notable. Having a notable founder gives it a possibility. Adam9007 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand A7; is is not about whether the subject is notable or not; it's about whether it may be notable or not. There's a difference. Whether is actually is notable or not is for the community to decide. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7. Adam9007 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion, Restore article. Looking at the timeline of the article, here is what I think happened. Adam9007 opens up the article to evaluate it. RHaworth opens up article to evaluate it. Adam9007 decides there is a credible claim to significance, removes the speedy deletion tag and adds maintenance tags in two consecutive edits. RHaworth decides there is no credible claim to significance and deletes the article without ever knowing the speedy deletion tag has been removed. I personally agree with RHaworth that the content in the article does not present a credible claim to significance. All admins are asked to do is look at what the article says and evaluate if there is a credible claim to significance, we are not asked to do Google searches, just evaluate the article as written. I believe RHaworth did that, So endorse the original deletion. The article should be restored though or just as easily recreated as additional information, (contested deletion) came to light after the deletion. Adam9007 says that RHaworth said that the company might be notable and that defeats the whole purpose of A7 anyway. I disagree with that. The way we determine notability and credible claim to significance are two entirely different things. As I said earlier, Credible claim to significance is determined based on what is written in the article. Notability is determined based on what reliable sources say about the subject. If someone came across an article that said:
    • Stanley Andrzejewski was born in Chicago, Illinois. He acted on stage.
  • Is there a credible claim to significance in that article, No. Might he be notable, Yes. These two questions are not necessarily related. An article can have a credible claim to significance and not be about a notable subject but an article might not have a credible claim to significance and be about a notable subject. An article that was written like my example is speedy deleteable and would be deleted by any admin. Any article we delete could be about a notable subject (see this), but that is not what A7 is about. -- GB fan 10:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it might be notable, it fails A7's spirit, even if it meets the letter (which I don't believe this did). Several months ago I was told to go for the spirit rather than the letter, but here you're telling me to do the opposite. No wonder I'm confused when I'm being given such conflicting and contradicting advice all the time. Adam9007 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 One of the founders being a notable footballer would be a claim of significance in a football-related article, but not for one about a biochemical company. DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 Guys, there are lots of sources because he's a footballer. Which is, I grant you, stupid. But [17], [18], [19] are from Metro, USA-today, and the Daily Mail. [20] are a bunch of articles that are probably regurgitated press releases. It's not clearly above the WP:N bar, but I think it has a really strong case. Such an article should not be speedied. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we just make this discussion moot. I have created an article, GF Biochemicals, that makes a clear case for significance if not notability. This was simpler than my comment above. -- GB fan 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article slightly and added more, what I hope are, claims of significance. Least I could do given my behaviour. Withdraw. Adam9007 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2016

edit

2 May 2016

edit
  • HTTPA – Relisted. It seems to be agreed here that the closure was procedurally correct, but that the (brief) discussion yielded an outcome that is difficult to implement. There's no clear consensus here about which outcome would be preferable, though, and there are not many more people commenting than at the AfD. Accordingly, as is possible for "no consensus" DRV discussions, the AfD discussion is reopened and relisted. –  Sandstein  17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HTTPA (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Groupthink. Was closed as merge, but there is no content that should be merged to HTTP (such content would immediately be removed again as inappropriate). Thus even making this into a redirect seems dubious. Should be relisted or just overturned to delete. (@Piotrus, Xaxing, A.Minkowiski, and SwisterTwister) —Ruud 10:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The instructions specifically state to discuss the closure with the discussion closer first, which has not been done. Since the consensus is to merge the article, there is no other way to close it. SSTflyer 10:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, Ruud, I'm not following. Please could you explain why this content is inappropriate for the http article?—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UNDUE, basically. It's of such marginal notability that it wouldn't even be appropriate to spend a sentence on this. —Ruud 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see now. I think you're right. Send back to AfD for further consideration with a note to say that a merge to HTTP is not an option. Please would the DRV closer avoid the word "overturn", as this is not a reflection on the close.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Rudd. At first glance, a merge seems like a reasonable outcome. Not enough sources to establish notability, but a logically related pre-existing article into which this could be merged. But, the real problem is, HTTPA isn't actually a thing. There's a couple of research papers from one lab, a few presentations at technical meetings, and the industry press has mentioned it a few times. But, it's not clear there's any real users, or working implementations. I was excited when I found HTTPA Reference at MSDN, until I realized it was just the "A" section of the index of HTTP-related API calls. I suspect that even a one-sentence mention in HTTP would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The participants should have considered the feasibility of merging before voting for it, and I'm surprised that this was closed after only a week when the discussion was so sparse, but I'm hesitant to recommend relisting. Couldn't the merging editor do an empty merge here? That is, merge the only relevant content—which is none—from HTTPA into HTTP? I've seen that happen in other AfDs that closed as merge despite the article lacking usable material.  Rebbing  18:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing the "empty merge" isn't the problem. The question is, what should I do with the article afterwards? Leaving a redirect to an article that doesn't discuss the topic is a bit misleading. Deleting the article a few hours after the AfD closed as "merge", would feel like I'm doing an out-of-process deletion. Is there any precedent for this? —Ruud 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree you can't just delete it, but I don't think there's any rule that a redirect has to be to an article that discusses the topic: plenty of redirects are just to vaguely related topics; we even have {{R to article without mention}} for them. And isn't that what happens when an AfD closes as redirect—the article is blanked and redirected to a related topic without any merge? What I'm trying to say is that, because this content can't be merged, it should be treated as if the discussion had closed as redirect.  Rebbing  00:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't see how {{R to article without mention}} would be useful it seems to be primarily of use for listing things which need to be fixed (or better categorised as a rediret), it doesn't help the reader in anyway following the redirect and finding nothing. As there doesn't appear to be a better category or fix, it isn't really helpful. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question isn't whether or not that template is useful; I'm using its existence to argue that redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the original topic is an accepted practice. When an editor performs a post-AfD merge, she has the discretion to choose what will be merged; if she makes a good-faith determination that nothing can be merged, I believe a blank and redirect is in order.  Rebbing  15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • "I'm using its existence to argue that redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the original topic is an accepted practice." which is precisely my point, I am saying it's an accepted practice to note that - where it is useful, where it could potentially be fixed in some way. It isn't used willy nilly because we don't know what else to do with it, which seems to be the purpose for that template you are advocating. As editors it is also our perogative (and arguably duty) to not just follow like sheep but question the wisdom in the course of action being suggested --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure it is: BLAR is used every single time a deletion discussion closes as "redirect," and, as a general practice, I think it's useful. (It's actually recommended by the community as an alternative to deletion.) So, no, I'm not blindly following. I think it's a silly outcome here—this ought to have been deleted—but the discussion closed as "merge," and DRV is not the place for rehashing deletion arguments, so we ought to honor the close by merging, which, in this case, means redirecting.  Rebbing  19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Take a few steps back and read the comments here in context starting from your comment "..I don't think there's any rule that a redirect has to be to an article that discusses the topic: plenty of redirects are just to vaguely related topics; we even have {{R to article without mention}}". It is within the context of those comments this strand of the discussion is happening. I am pointing out that, using that template as a justification is wrong, since the template and it's usage from my view is inapplicable here. If blanking and redirect happens elsewhere isn't in question, In those other circumstances the merge hopefully usually makes sense and doesn't lead us to an article where the topic isn't mentioned. Stating that I'm looking at BLAR and following that, so I'm not blindly following is meant as ironic? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think you missed my point: it's an accepted practice; I think it's beneficial; and I think it's the appropriate, reasonable thing to do in this case—as I think it is in every discussion that closes as "redirect" or as "merge" with no usable content.  Rebbing  20:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for what it is worth (very little), noting that participation was mild, and noting that AfD cannot compel a merge. The merge decision is subject to approval at the target, and if disputed should be discussed at the target talk page. I see nothing there (Talk:Hypertext Transfer Protocol). As the AfD shows no consideration let alone consensus for deletion, or pseudo-deletion by redirect, a rejection of the merge at the target is a de facto overturn of the AfD result. No fault on the closer. Advise that a good deletion nomination strongly argues for deletion, and does not merely throw it out there that the topic could be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two related essays:
1. Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection
2. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Close was correct, in that the consensus was to merge. The problem is that the merge !votes did not really consider what was to be merged. This is a common problem I have found. If I merged this (and I have been doing alot of these lately) I would just redirect it with the comment "no sourced content to merge". Anyway as an addition to Smokeys essays above this sums up my thoughts on the issue:
3. Wikipedia:Merge what?
AIRcorn (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for precedent Ihaveredirected many unsourced merge closes recently. However if there is someone in the deletion discussion who indicates a specific sentence or part that should be merged I will do that even if it is unsourced. A related case might be Ricky Clousing, where an editor disagreed with the merge target and I brought it here where it was decided to relist and it is currently undergoing a third afd. AIRcorn (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected, as a reading of the AfD, then appeals to reverse the decision should be made on the talk page of the target. This makes perfect sense in this case. Why should not HTTPA be a mention within HTTP? The only reason for a spin out is if the HTTPA content no longer fits. The case for that should be established on the talk page. As a question of notability, if HTTPA is not worth a mention at HTTP, then it is very hard to see that it is worth its own article. The question not examined at AfD was "Is HTTPA a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM?". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect is in essence a merge, just one when there is no information worth transferring across. In an ideal world voters would recognise this and !vote redirect or at least give us some idea on how the merge should proceed. I am not sure what can be decided on the talk page. If someone wants it kept or deleted then they have to bring it here eventually anyway. If my thinking is acceptable then turning this into a redirect is just a bold move. If it is not acceptable then we need to bring all similar cases here (the links above are just the tip of the iceberg and I am still in the "L's"). AIRcorn (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Flood (film director) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page for Mark Flood (film director) was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted because it was apparently created before and not notable previously. The editor who nominated the page for deletion used baseless claims and was aggressive, unreasonable and impossible to discuss a satisfactory solution with. The administrator who deleted the page is similarly unreasonable and unwilling to find a satisfactory solution. The speedy deletion nomination was contested with legitimate argument which was ignored. This page's sources included many news outlets and reliable large organisations. Mark Flood is more than deserving of his own page, and the fact that the press is writing about him only confirms this. The argument for deletion appears to be that when a page was created previously these reliable sources didn't exist. Now that they do there is no reason to delete this page. Only the facts covered in said sources (not needing any research) have been stated. Neither the editor who nominated the page for deletion or administrator who deleted the page gave any help or suggestions. WalkOn75 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three previous AFDs on this AFD1 AFD2 AFD3 --82.14.37.32 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the aggressiveness or unreasonableness you claim nor can I see much effort on discussion from your part - you asked and got responses that you weren't willing to continue the discussion by addressing the responses makes it kind of hard to see how a discussion could follow. On the other hand running to AIV, ANI and requesting page protection to try and avoid speedy deletion don't seem passive actions of a newish user. I'd also note that you performed two of those actions before the user in question had even posted any response to you, and the third before you'd responded to that - Can't say I can see this as a sign you were willing to discuss in reasonable discussion. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Deleting admin comment) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnimationWhiz133 and its archive for further context; "sock account recreates this article" is a regular ritual, and I'm stretching AGF to the limit by only deleting the latest incarnation and not blocking the OP as an obvious WP:DUCK and for breaching the terms of use with an undeclared COI. Even disregarding the three previous AFDs on this subject (all of which were unanimously to delete, other than the comments by AnimationWhiz socks), the subject would still be certain to fail AFD today; the only actual claim to notability among all the puffery was "Flood was awarded the Young Scot Award for Enterprise in April 2015" but this is clearly not a notable award, while all the rest—as per every other incarnation of this article—is just spin about what great things he's going to do one day. ‑ Iridescent 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this now to save wasting editors' time. WalkOn75 has been blocked as yet another sock of AnimationWhiz133. It's clear from the three previous deletions of the article that the subject is not notable. There's nothing left to discuss here. --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2016

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

The page for Darren Rhodes was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted because it was not notable. Darren Rhodes is a published author of a book containing 400 yoga poses, and a director of a yoga studio, just like Dharma Mittra is. He is well known in the yoga circles. Please see the draft of this article in my Sandbox. I believe that Darren Rhodes is a notable person, much like Dharma Mittra, whose page was approved and is up on Wikipedia for years. I have examined the links both for Darren Rhodes and for Dharma Mittra to make sure they are comparable. I made sure to write from a neutral point of view, stating only the facts covered in said sources (not needing any research). I tried messaging the editor who deleted the page, and did not receive any help or suggestions. MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn A7 and list at AfD. WP:A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. That's not a very high bar. I doubt this will survive AfD, but a statement such as Darren Rhodes was named as one of the “21 Talented Young Teachers Shaping the Future of Yoga,” by Yoga Journal. seems like it's enough to make A7 not apply. I have tempundeleted this for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7. Aside from RoySmith's point, I note that this article was tagged for deletion just 13 minutes after its author made their first post. One of the great impediments to attracting and retaining new editors is the disproportionate number of editors swarming to wipe out new articles rather than help their inexperienced editors bring them up to standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 What the contributor failed to mention above -- or in the article -- is that the books is self published or published by his own studio: "Tucson, Ariz. : Tirtha Studios in association with YogaOasis Studios, ©2011." according to WorldCat. We have never considered self-published books as a credible claim to significance. And the book, not surprisingly is in only 2 libraries. Mitra's book is somewhat better known (3d libraries) and he has possibly significant other publications and reviews for his book. To model one's article on someone more important is not an indication of notability . The inevitable result at AfD will be a snow delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the sources are junk, but the quote from Yoga Journal should be enough trigger the A7 prohibition. I looked at yoga journal to evaluate that. I found sufficient articles (and more than just passing mentions) in both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times to convince me that yoga journal itself would pass an AfD (although, perhaps not with the junky collection of sources it has now). I'm a hard-liner when it comes to proving notabilty at AfD, but the other side of the coin is that I feel we should be very conservative about applying WP:CSD. This seems to fall firmly into that range of Not bad enough for CSD, almost certainly will fail at AfD, but that's where we should make the decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 as I also concur with DGG, this is also something I would've considered as A7, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Yoga Journal is pretty awful - among other things, it's got all of 0 third-party, non-directory-entry references for its print version, and 1 for its website - but it's not worth dismissing out-of-hand. Send this to afd for its inevitable deletion there and we'll at least be able to G4 any re-creations. —Cryptic 06:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. It is a borderline A7. But it is also a borderline G11, blatant promotion, could not be made into an acceptable article because it is completely built on non-independent sources. On the G11, I see it definitely on the Delete side. In any case, at AfD, it would face a snow delete unless better sources, independent third party reliable and discussing the subject directly, come to light. These might exist, but on google they are drowned out by the promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if there is any disagreement, undelete and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would have been nice if the OP had followed Instruction 1 and asked me (the deleting admin) about it, but as others have said, publishing a book, a self-published book at that, and appearing on an ephemeral list do not cross the low bar of a credible assertion of notability. In my view it was just within speedy-delete territory and firmly within AfD deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Overturn The A7 has been contested by someone besides the original author, now our procedure is to restore and send it to AFD. I do agree this falls into the WP:CSD#A7 criteria. The threshold is a low bar, but there is nothing in the article shows me any substantial claims. The one claim "named one of the “21 Talented Young Teachers Shaping the Future of Yoga" is so vague that is does not allow for credibility not too mention it is referenced to a bio written by the subject or their team. There seems to be an increase of users looking at marketing lingo and terms as substantial claims I have seen several A7s now declined and just go to AFD to be deleted with no opposition because the article claimed to be the "best in the world", or "only one in the world to do....". Remember the purpose for "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." per WP:CSD. As everyone here seems to think this article will not survive AFD this seems like wasted effort along with an AFD on this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn although writing a self-published book is certainly not an assertion of significance, I agree with RoySmith that the "Darren Rhodes was named as one of the “21 Talented Young Teachers Shaping the Future of Yoga,” by Yoga Journal" part is. This is an apparently notable publication declaring that the subject is having substantial influence in some field. That is an indication of significance. While some of the language was mildly promotional it wasn't a G11 candidate, which requires that the text is exclusively promotional to the point where the article would have to be completely written to remove it.
    While A7 is indeed intended to get rid of a certain class of articles that would stand little chance of surviving AfD on notability grounds, that does not mean that "unlikely to survive AfD" is part of the A7 description. The decision about whether to delete articles like this is left to AfD rather than speedy deletion, which is intended for obvious cases only. A7 is also not about determining whether the article has "a credible assertion of notability", as the deleting admin claims above. It is about claims of significance, and those are very different. Hut 8.5 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but the article had two sources that have a reasonable claim to meeting the requirements of WP:N via reliable sources. I won't go so far as to claim that it does meet WP:N, but the sources themselves are a reasonable claim of importance--that is _someone_ thinks he's important. The specific source about bring one of 21 folks shaping the future of the field is certainly enough. I think this honestly has a shot a making it through AfD (there are other sources out there, though most are in passing, some are, for example, recommendations to buy his book from US News... Overturn speedy Hobit (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The specific source about bring one of 21 folks shaping the future of the field..." I guess it's credibility is questionable, and it needs to be a credible claim. The pointed to source is a blurb about one of the teachers for a workshop the website is offering, does anyone think such blurbs don't big up the subject? It's claim that Yoga Journal... is misleading at best - on yoga journal there is no such article with that title, there is a "21 Famous Top Yoga Teachers in America". Which states "It’s not an exhaustive list but a sampling of teachers who are shaping yoga’s future." which is not the same meaning as being 1 of the 21... or even someone significant, it's one of some undisclosed number who we happen to list 21 we have declared as famous and limited geographically (USA which apparently makes it easier for me to study with them, round the corner in Bedfordshire, UK would be more convenient but I digress). Even then it's idea of shaping the future is questionable, it goes on to state some are innovators and some "preserve" an existing form. I can't see allowing this to go to AFD as harmful, but at the same time it seems a waste of time and perhaps being false hope that the article as it stands will stay --82.14.37.32 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[21] is a reliable source with 5 paragraphs quoting the subject as an expert (perhaps _the_ expert) in the field. It, by itself, is an assertion of notability. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the bar for getting over A7 is very low for good reasons. Any assertion, even an untrue one, is enough. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse by the letter of the law this perhaps shouldn't have been an A7 delete, but I cannot see how it could currently survive any sort of AFD, so no point in granting false hope and wasting peoples time on such a discussion. The time/effort could be better expended. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy – not a good idea to WP:IAR in this case as it sets a bad precedent. SSTflyer 05:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Whilst not an A7 by the letter of policy, this has no chance of surviving AFD and listing it there would be a waste of time and a violation of WP:BURO. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you searched for other sources? There are some out there. I think it is likely this will end up deleted, or perhaps merged, but I don't think it's as clear as you say. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7. At the time of deletion, the article contained the quote "Darren Rhodes was named as one of the “21 Talented Young Teachers Shaping the Future of Yoga,” by Yoga Journal", which as RoySmith and other editors have noted is a clear assertion of notability. Here are some sources about the subject.

    Significant coverage of the subject:
    1. Vinyard, Valerie (2010-05-23). "Poster perfect: acclaimed yogi". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      In the yoga world, many superlatives go along with the name Darren Rhodes.

      Simply put, the Tucson resident and YogaOasis owner is one of the most visible anusara yogis in the world.

      In 2008, Yoga Journal named Rhodes one of the top 21 teachers younger than 40 who are "shaping the future of yoga."

      The 38-year-old also is the face - and body -for anusara yoga, which means "to flow with grace" and was founded in 1997 by 50-year-old Houston-based John Friend.

      Millions of people have seen and imitated Rhodes' poses on the anusara syllabus poster that's sold worldwide and at YogaOasis for $25 and $35.

      The article provides over 1,000 words of coverage about the subject.
    2. YJ Editor (2008-07-02). "21 Famous Top Yoga Teachers in America". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

      The article notes:

      Darren Rhodes is quite literally the poster boy for Anusara Yoga. You can find him on the Anusara syllabus poster, deftly demonstrating more than 345 awe-inspiring poses. His motivation for achieving such a feat wasn’t ego driven; it came from his belief that asanas create more than just physical change. “When I come across a posture I really want to do, I ask myself, ‘How do I have to shift physically, mentally, and in my heart to be able to do that?’” He adds, “I want to be able to do a posture because I know it will require transformation on all levels.”

      Rhodes grew up in a family of yogis. His mother took up the practice when he was in utero, and his father is an avid meditator. He remembers entertaining his parents’ friends by doing poses in the living room. In high school he began practicing in earnest, using a Richard Freeman video and going to local studio classes. But it wasn’t until his early 20s that he met Anusara Yoga founder, John Friend, and had one of the most shakti-filled experiences of his life. “John turned my yoga practice into a radical, rockin’ life celebration,” he says, “which is what I strive to share in my classes.”

    Less significant coverage of the subject:
    1. Panasevich, Jake (2014-07-30). "10 Tips for Practicing Yoga at Home". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      Get inspired. A great resource for all levels of yoga practitioners is the "Yoga Resource Practice Manual" e-book by Darren Rhodes. Darren is an excellent teacher and yogi. His e-book is thorough yet concise, and it provides pictures of each posture. The pictures alone are inspirational. If you’re in it for the long haul, this is a great home-practice tool.

    2. Cushing, April (2013-04-19). "The Yoga Resource Practice Manual with Darren Rhodes. {eBook Review}". Elephant Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      The manual is simplicity at its best, with straightforward instructions and great use of graphics and fonts that are eye-pleasing. The eBook also makes excellent use of links, enabling the reader to easily navigate the pages. For those looking for a yoga manual that is easy to use, informative, true-to-form and with outstanding photos, then this is it.

      ...

      One disappointment about the eBook is the inability to search for a posture in the index by the English term, as it’s only alphabetized by Sanskrit titles. It could be difficult for the user to navigate the index if they are unaware of the Sanskrit terms for all 360 poses listed in the eBook. You can search for the English term under the search feature on the i-Pad version, but many users may instinctively turn to the index first.

    3. Simonson, Scott (2003-07-07). "Yoga, and foot massages, too". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      Yoga Oasis has operated in Tucson for about eight years, said owner Darren Rhodes.

      Yoga Oasis tailors classes to a variety of styles, skill levels and interests, including pregnant women and a mommy/baby class.

      The primary influence on the classes is Anusara Yoga, Rhodes said. Anusara, meaning "to be in the flow," strives to enhance both the body and the heart.

    4. Bloom, Rhonda Bodfield (2003-12-21). "Chanting: Giving voice to yoga". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      Darren Rhodes, owner of Yoga Oasis, said misconceptions still exist about chanting, particularly since many of the chants are to specific Indian deities. He's had some students express concern that chanting may be in conflict with their own religion.

      ...

      Rhodes has a steady group of 25 people who come to his central location for the weekly chanting gathering on Sundays, and points out that a recent concert drew nearly 400 people. He's opening a chanting class at his East Side location.

    5. Gutherie, Catherine (2013-02-15). "5 Steps to Parivrtta Paschimottanasana". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      For Darren Rhodes, yoga teacher and founder of Yoga Oasis in Tucson, Arizona, yoga is more than a means of unwinding; it’s a tool for observing unhealthy patterns and working to transform them. Rhodes has witnessed such transformation in his own body: As a teen, he was diagnosed with scoliosis, or curvature of the spine, that left him in pain most days. He describes the feeling as “an eagle’s talons wrapped around the muscles on the right side of my spine.” Years of yoga helped him reduce the curvature from what was once 40 degrees to less than 10 degrees. “I’ve learned that my practice is more potent than my pattern,” he says.

      Rhodes’s message is simple yet powerful: When you become aware of unhealthy patterns in the body, you can awaken to the possibility of change. A skillful, conscious yoga practice provides the opportunity for taking an unhealthy habit and creating a new one that better serves you.

    6. Weintraub, Amy (March 2001). "Tucson Yoga Tour". Yoga Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

      The article notes:

      Darren Rhodes, owner of Yoga Oasis, has been a yogi since birth (his mother practiced and taught Bikram Yoga while he was in the womb), and his studio offers a wide variety of hatha classes, including Anusara, Ashtanga, Bikram, and Kundalini.

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

    Cunard (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage you point to is unconcealed promotion, advertorial. It is not independent, and doesn't count towards meeting the GNG. But yes, thrash this out at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga Journal is an established publication. See "How 40-Year-Old Yoga Journal Keeps Up With Yoga's Newfound Fanatics" from the New York Observer and "Yoga Journal Celebrates Its First 10 Years in Russia" from The Moscow Times. I don't think it would publish advertorials. The major newspaper Arizona Daily Star is a reliable source and does not have a reputation for publishing advertorials. Both sources are therefore independent.

You are making without proof a serious charge of journalistic malpractice to suggest they are publishing advertorials ("an advertisement in the form of editorial content"). Valerie Vinyard, the Arizona Daily Star journalist who wrote the article, should not have her reputation impugned without proof that her article is an advertisement.

Cunard (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a series of obvious advertorials. If the publications were truly independent, you could find some form of critical commentrary, I've not found one such independent-looking commentary on Darren Rhodes. Darren Rhodes is surrounded by promotion, it is a stretch to believe that any direct commentary that is entirely complimentary in a non-analytical way is not promotion. http://observer.com/2015/09/how-40-year-old-yoga-journal-keeps-up-with-yogas-newfound-fanatics/ is promotion of "new yogi" and doesn't even mention Rhodes. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/yoga-journal-celebrates-its-first-10-years-in-russia/522442.html is a puff piece on an affiliated journal, and it doesn't even mention Rhodes. Darren Rhodes should be required to meet WP:CORP, not WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://observer.com/2015/09/how-40-year-old-yoga-journal-keeps-up-with-yogas-newfound-fanatics/ and http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_n_ideas/article/yoga-journal-celebrates-its-first-10-years-in-russia/522442.html are to verify my assertion that "Yoga Journal is an established publication". Nowhere did I say that they discussed Darren Rhodes.

Darren Rhodes should be required to meet WP:CORP, not WP:BIO. – Darren Rhodes is a person—not an organization or company—so he should be required to meet WP:BIO, not WP:CORP. Why do you think a person needs to meet WP:CORP?

Cunard (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because, he is an energetically self-promoting business, he is YogaOasis. Anyway, the point was to demonstrate that it is debatable and should be listed at AfD for the discussion. The point of WP:CORP is the higher level of suspicion of the use of concealed non-independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May&oldid=717831144"