Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August

29 August 2012

Sean Tse – Relist at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sean Tse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) According to the Chinese wikipedia zh:謝嘉強（other name: zh:謝家強), Sean Tse meet the General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I think Notability should not be limited to sources in English. Chinese Newspaper coverage as below: 曼城歐冠名單現華裔小將 國字號新星曾受訓曼聯《鳳凰網》, 曼城小將願為港披甲《明報》, 曼 城 小 將 係 港 人 後 代《蘋果日報》. Nivekin (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse, the player has not played in a fully pro league. It's also not "significant coverage".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Notability (sports):「Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.」 so "not played in a fully pro league" may not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline~"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Those coverages are introductions of Tse with details and should be considered as "significant coverage".--Nivekin (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC) The AfD appears to have utterly failed to look for, or even consider the possibility of, Chinese sources. At least the first source provided above appear to be both reliable and reasonably substantial. It may well be the case that there's no second reliable and substantial source, and therefore the subject fails GNG regardless, or that AfD may decide that this is an instance where passing GNG nonetheless does not merit inclusion because of the failure of the relevant SNG, but that is a matter for AfD to decide and not us. The previous AfD had no occasion to consider these questions because it completely overlooked the possibility of Chinese sources, and is transparently defective. While we usually limit our reach to whether the process was properly followed, we should not let such a defective AfD stand. Relist. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Relist Not considering Chinese sources for a Chinese topic is a error. I can't evaluate them, but an AfD will be the place to find those who can. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Relist It's unfortunately all too common for searches in non-English languages to even be attempted at AfD. But that's no excuse for not doing it right, particularly when some potential sources were an interwiki link away, no fussy searching required. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Relist at AfD - Nivekin (OP in this DRV) brought forth evidence of Chinese Newspaper coverage, showing it likely there is more such coverage and making the lack of considering Chinese Newspaper coverage at the AfD significant new information for which there should be a new AfD. Some English source information that can be added to the article includes: In May 2012 after the end of the season, Tse was released by Manchester City. "Owen Hargreaves released by Manchester City". Manchester Evening News. May 22, 2012. However, within a few months, South China Athletic Association signed Tse to play for its Hong Kong sports club.Charley Lanyon (September 3, 2012). "South China players slip into their Armani kit for some pre-season fun in Wan Chai". South China Morning Post. p. 2. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Relist - though I fear the article still fails GNG. GiantSnowman 11:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Relist – maybe coverage in Chinese about him is substantial. Maybe not. An AfD will tell. – Kosm1fent 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Forrest Yoga – Request Withdrawn. – Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Forrest Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn Authorship still focuses on original work in yoga and attributes it to herself. This IS WP:NOR. Though the article has been rewritten time and again, it does not remove the basic tenant of self-invention, self-promotion, and a desire for exposure. Once we begin the slippery slope of allowing anyone to name an aspect of their interest(s) after themselves, and allow them to claim the elements of it originally, we fail as a wiki system and do not conform to our own limits. This article is a creation of someone’s original research into their own perception of “yoga” – it is an original "creation" in name designed to promote and bring notoriety. The primary support for the article is a wiki rescue editor who, despite their prior works, is exaggeratingly trying to legitimize WP:NOR, etc. No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Яεñ99 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Comment After multiple rewrites by various editors, there appears sufficient question to accept this. However, we are opening a door that allows any person or entity who can/will/does make self-assertion of new means to old methods. The idea "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is right here in front of your eyes, only it has been renamed in someone else's image. The multiples of yoga enthusists who use "western" methods has and will exist for eons. A good friend of mine is a newly anointed yoga instructor, I now know where and how to tell her to proceed to obtain exposure, promotion, and identity for new practice. Only thing is, nothing about it will be new, just by a different name. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Endorse keep no way the AFD could have been closed any other way, and being the topic of a New York Times article is pretty solidly notable and verifiable. If the article is NOR/POV/spam/whatever, there are channels to deal with that, but it's pretty clearly not a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Afd closer WP:NOR states that "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It seems quite clear that there are "reliable, published sources" that discuss the topic, and there seemed to be a clear consensus of that in the Afd. So, I stand by my close of this discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse The sources discussed in the AfD are independent of the subject -- NOR is a restriction on editor conduct, not a restriction on article subject conduct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - A properly and reliably-sourced article and an AfD that found a clear consensus to keep. There's nothing else to do here, DRV isn't Round 2. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Well, I found something to do: coming here can have the effect of getting needed attention. The article did read and appear as promotional, so I did some additional rewriting: an effective way to diminish the impression of promotionalism is to decrease the use of the name within the article. An additional strategy is to use upper case letters as little as possible. One section emphasizing her personal attention was hopeless; since I could not figure out how to rewrite it, I removed it. The further reading section seemed an attempt to evade the policy on excessive EL's. One was significant, so I moved it to the references and removed the others. At least to me, it reads much better, and I suggest to Яεñ99 to drop this appeal. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Create - articles on Forrest Yoga Circle and Ana Forrest. Not only is Forrest Yoga notable, but the business it originated from, Forrest Yoga Circle, and the topic Ana Forrest meet WP:GNG as well. After all, she's Ana Forrest: Rock star of the yoga world. That's what happens when you get Hollywood celebrities to attend your business in Santa Monica, CA. Here's some source material going back to November 20, 1994 though August 2012:Los Angeles Times November 20, 1994[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree with creating any additional articles on this subject - one is enough - although there could be an Ana Forrest redirect page pointing toward this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I agree with Melanie here. It is a good indication of promotional intent to attempt to get multiple articles on a topic like this when the only notability for the person is the topic named after the person, let alone the business named after the person. Better to have one solid article, and the present one is the better choice, as the yoga method is more important than the individual and fits better with our articles on other styles of yoga. I agree there should be a redirect from the personal name, perhaps protected. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I have created the redirect page. I will watchlist it, and if an attempt is made to expand it, I will take appropriate action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Snow endorse the closure as keep. Solid decision by Mark Arsten. The consensus for keep was clear, after the article was majorly improved during the discussion per WP:HEY, and now DGG has removed most of the remaining promotional tone. Ren99 is repeating the same arguments that did not meet consensus the first time around, and that apply even less after several substantial rewrites. There is no basis for a DRV, except that Ren99 apparently dislikes variants of yoga named after their originators, and is unhappy that the consensus at AfD did not go his/her way. Furthermore, Ren99 is dead wrong in saying No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Sourcing IS the key issue for notability, and this form of yoga has received significant coverage, cited in the article, from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle and Boston Globe. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Regardless of sourcing, an article will be deleted if it is hopelessly promotional and there is no way to rewrite it, but it would be very unusual indeed to find an article with good sourcing where this would be the case. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Withdrawal Based on the corrections, commentaries, and arguments placed forward by DGG - his addresses are the convincing point in this debate; it is painfully obvious that he presents a neutral view that was carefully considered from all sides. In addition, he sought to improve the article personally and without bias, whereas others were unable to achieve his level of disconnect (thanks to Mark too for being supportive and helpful). The "?" intent by some others during the evolution did nothing but sully the process and the content, while also significantly infringing the wiki nom of WP:AFDEQ and leaving an impression of WP:STEAM. As a new editor, I rely on the ability of more seasoned editors to see past the haze and the indiscriminant; I have found one in DGG. Don't use/make insults to post-support your "claims," some of you are very seasoned editors and should know better! There are no winners or losers in a war of words; we are all belittled. Directly invoking names/name-calling is not palatable, particularly when you have no idea of what you are regarding Яεñ99 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 August 2012

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I do not think a consensus was reached in the discussion. I think that the deletion should be reverted so that reliable and notable sources can be researched for the material in the article. The article should then be discussed at a later point. I think the subject of the article is notable and I would like to hear/read the opinions of other editors on this topic. marie (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I closed the AfD as delete because, while the decision was not unanimous, the arguments against deletion all rested on verifying the existence or notability of some limited number of items on the list; no editor addressed the relevant question, raised by those recommending deletion, that the overall topic itself is not notable. This is the standard required by WP:LISTN; though those favoring deletion did not refer directly to this aspect of WP:N, it was present in their comments. Weighing the policy-compliance of the articles against the overall "number of votes", I that the net consensus was to delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Restore: The article was deleted per WP:LISTN, but it follows the notability guidelines 100%. It seems as if the reviewer did not actually take the time to look at the article and sources itself to make a decision. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Sources like MTV, Entertainment Weekly, Huffington Post, Glamour Magazine, etc. wrote articles about the SUBJECT and SET, which would void the explanation of why the article was deleted. The sources found the subject of Lana Del Rey's unreleased music to be notable enough to be written about on numerous occasions. If this article isn't notable enough, well, then I'm kinda confused by the WP:LISTN requirements and Category:Unreleased Music. There were 66 sources, some BMI/ASCAP/HFA/ISWC, but a lot were independent sources.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse The closer was correct with his reading of policy; that just because the items in a list are individually notable doesn't mean the topic of the list is notable. ThemFromSpace 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) The topic was obviously notable when Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. thought articles about multiple songs were notable. Some articles were about individual songs and some were about a group of songs deeming her unreleased music the subject set of the article. And I don't even see this being done with List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured list.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Commenta Searching for others [28]" I see no particular consistency. The decisions at AfD seem to depend upon the participation more than anything rational. but this is not unusual for fan-related material, whether or not encyclopedic. Personally, I do not see the point of splitting this: a section in the discography would seem more sensible, I can also see a list of Songs written by ____, with a section for those released by other artists--that would be as standard a thing as any list of works by a writer, and I see no reason songwriters should be treated differently. We've currently been splitting such bibliography pages for literary authors, and I've even argued for it, but upon reflection I think they might be better as an integral part of the main article, which would avoid duplication , as many works will be covered there also. That the Britney Spears list is FL seems very odd to me, especially with its unnecessary & duplicative use of color for what is shown perfectly by the symbols used also. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse (Please note I took part in both previous nominations). This discussion should be taken in context with List of Lana Del Rey songs which was closed as keep by the same admin. Subject to WP guidelines and policies, there is nothing in the deleted list that couldn’t and shouldn’t be in “kept” article. That was my position in the first nomination, but due to closing admin’s comments, The result was no consensus. No prejudice toward a future merge discussion., not the second nomination. IMO this whole discussion was never really about content, but article title space and how to big up (and possibly do down) the artist. Finally as per DGG, not sure “unreleased” can exist in separate article space and a number have been deleted over the course of the AfDs for this list.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Actually it was a no consensus. Just to save everyone from looking.--MrIndustry (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse: Closure was done on the basis of policy and not requests by various parties to let the page be an exception to any of those policies because of any special case the writer of the songs may be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC) If it's based on policy then it's a keep. I'm not sure if you read the policy or not.--MrIndustry (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) AFD is not a majority vote. WP:BLP and WP:LISTN take precedence over a bunch of people saying "we need to keep this article because it's important".—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I'm going to try to be as nice as possible, but did you even read what I said? Your comment is out of nowhere. Looking at WP:LISTN, it qualifies. So...? I think this needs to be a speedy restore. I'm not sure if you're trolling or what? Please read the following quotes from WP:LISTN: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying. --MrIndustry (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia does not do demands, MrIndustry. "set by independent reliable sources...", well now, let's see. You had dead links, youtube videos, ASCAP entries which were dead, and by the time most of the cruft and like was removed, you were down to practically nothing - since it fell under BLP too, that left it barely verifiable. I participated in the AFD, and I Fully Endorse closure as listed. FishBarking? 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Facts are not demands. You obviously didn't check on the article either. There were NO YouTube links other than two which were from Lana Del Rey's official YouTube. There were no dead links other than ASCAP which could have been replaced. I was down to nothing? I'm sorry, but everyone can go look at the article and see sources such as Entertainment Weekly, MTV, Glamour Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post and much more. I love how you guys ignore these sources on countless occasions. Can you please explain which part of WP:BLP it violates as well?--MrIndustry (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC) And yet all of those other sources pointed back to YouTube bootlegs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Doesn't matter. They still had critical reception of the song. You expect articles to be allowed to post unreleased music? Let's move back to List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Britney's article isn't notable whatsoever, I mean, she doesn't even perform the songs and never will. Lana's is a part of her past and still performs the songs. Britney's article also has 31 dead ASCAP links. Would you like to play this game? --MrIndustry (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Was it critical reception or "Hey look at this new leaked Lana Del Rey song someone on YouTube found"? And I can't really do anything to the Spears article until a precedent gets set here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more notable ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Er..."So can you guys stop right now and restore this? This is really annoying." - Now you correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks very much like a demand that we pack this shit up and put your article back. No? As I said, Wikipedia doesn't do demands. FishBarking? 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC) So both articles are probably not worth keeping, but a proper decision still needs to be made here before moving onto any other deletion discussions. I think "Delicious", "Big Bad Wolf", and "Ghetto Baby" are perhaps the only ones that would possibly receive any coverage based on the references I went through (and even then I severely doubt that). We certainly would not be covering the entirety of the unreleased catalog of Ms. Grant in her various personae..—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Who gave List of unreleased Britney Spears songs the featured list? I think they would beg to differ. Also, what about List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. He's more well known as a person, but it's the same thing. And those are not the only songs with critical reception.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Additional comment, WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." For the List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure I'm doing that right now. :) --MrIndustry (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse I'm usually up for including darn near anything related to notable music artists: I tend to want to keep articles for just every album and every single. But an article of unreleased songs from someone who's only recorded two albums is just plain silliness. Simply put, outside of iconic artists with massive cultural impact (like Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson), unreleased stuff is out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Do remember she still performs these songs and it's not like she has 5, she has well over 2 albums worth of songs. She had previously unreleased Sirens, and another called Rock Me Steady. I wouldn't be so argumentative towards this subject if she had rarely any songs, but she has a large unreleased discography that makes her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse per Starblind and others. The sourcing is just not strong enough for what is being sourced. Insomesia (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC) What other sources would you like? I included top news sites.--MrIndustry (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Comment since there have been no additional comments, I want to place this information for the reviewer to read easily. From WP:LISTN: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." This article follows WP:LISTN, so I'm unsure why it was nominated for not following this. The article does not have any YouTube links (other than Lana's official which is acceptable), the sources provide critical reception to the songs. They are independent of the subject and also talk about Lana Del Rey's unreleased music as a set. People are also claiming it violates WP:BLP, but I have yet to see anyone say why. I see complaints of sources above, but the sources are top news sites, so I'm shocked to see them trying to make claims. Like List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material, Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography seems notable enough to have its own page, if not more notable. Britney's sources are the same, if not less notable than Del Rey's, and Michael's sources are a book. So anyone trying to claim sources must be oblivious. --MrIndustry (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The article had all of these bad links until I went through and removed all of them to show that there was nothing useful for the article because every other link was broken or did not show that the listed items do anything other than exist. Other articles are probably worse than the Lana Del Rey one, but they haven't been looked at. All I do know that from the Lana Del Rey page was that every news source that you added was no better than the YouTube bootlegs. The nature of sources always need to be looked at, beyond the fact that the publisher is considered reliable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Keyword: HAD, the sources are notable. We've already discussed this so why are you bringing it up again? The sources included critical reception and not all had bootlegs. Your argument is invalid because I can go through every source on wikipedia and 99% of them, I can find a YouTube link to a bootleg on the website. End of conversation. --MrIndustry (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Sources cannot be notable. They can be reliable. And this is in regards to the nature of the sources used on this article. Outside of dead links to song databases and two postings of demos to the official YouTube channel, all that's left are reliable sources posting links to illegally uploaded YouTube videos. And it's already been determined that we at Wikipedia cannot use those as sources. There was no critical reception of these songs. None were examined in any feature other than being "Hey, this is that cooky Lana Del Rey before she got famous", other than perhaps her cover of that one other song that wasn't even a single by another artist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You are very condescending and very wrong. I've already proved this wrong. You're a broken record - I'm out. But here's me proving you wrong, again. "Since Britney Spears and Lana Del Rey have basically the SAME references, except Lana Del Rey has more reliable* ones. Here's an example of List of unreleased Britney Spears songs using a link that refers to YouTube. MTV Buzzworthy And here's an MTV Buzzworthy again with Lana Del Rey. MTV Buzzworthy. Critical reception." See the critical reception and no YouTube? There's a link to another article, but that doesn't count. I've proved all of you wrong in these posts. This is just going to turn into another pointless thread. I hope the reviewer actually reads this rather than basing it off accusations. And if you claim there's no precedent for unreleased songs, make one before reviewing this. --MrIndustry (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Nothing wrong with Qwyrxian's policy-based closure. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Due consideration was given to the quality of the sources and what they stood for. This is not an example of a snowball without consideration. --Bejnar (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I saw nothing wrong.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - The only thing I could find about unreleased and Lana Del Rey is a January 22, 2012 Los Angeles Times article (photo caption?) mentioning two songs and a still-unreleased album.[29] The Los Angeles Times article didn't name any songs on the unreleased album. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC) You must not be good at using Google. You can also try looking at the article for the 66 sources, or actually my links in this review. try this.--MrIndustry (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Comment (& weak endorse) Just as a frank commentary, when I saw this listing I figured that Lana Del Rey must be one of the older, extremely influential blues or jazz singers like Aretha Franklin or Della Reese. As it turns out, this is a proposed listing for a 26 year-old young woman with little notoriety outside of her fanbase to have produced the lengthy commentaries above. No offense to Ms. "Del Rey" (not her birth name), but the staggering number of words above probably take up more space than all of her lyric sheets combined. With that in mind, as her career builds over time and a significant quantity of back log becomes available, maybe then this would be a better fit for inclusion. I might suggest that using one of her surnames (as listed on her Wiki page), such as the "List of unreleased Sparkle Jump Rope Queen songs" may have a more remarkable, memorable, and noteworthy impact. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I thought about using "List of unreleased Elizabeth Grant songs" but since she's not notable under that name, I didn't suggest it. Although they could do that and do a re-direct for Lana Del Rey which would make more sense.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) It's still not notable for inclusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Holy crap. Can you shut up already? I have an actual comment towards something and you keep repeating that it's not notable. WE GET IT. YOU DON'T THINK IT'S NOTABLE. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) But you don't realize that this is the reality about this subject matter. It's not my opinion. Wikipedia has rules and regulations concerning what is and is not allowable content and the AFD and this DRV are showing that the extensive unreleased catalog of Elizabeth Grant when she was or was not "Lana Del Rey" is not suitable for coverage on this project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC) My sources are reliable whether you (and everyone else in this DRV) think so or not. It follows Wikipedia's policies whether you think so or not. I've already explained why all of you are wrong. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) MRindustry, shouting does not make you more correct. Additionally, you may want to consider that, if a large number of experience WP users are telling you something, it is entirely possible that they may be right, and you are wrong. Also, it would help if you would try to understand what we're saying. No one is saying those aren't valid WP:RS. We're saying that the consensus was that the topic as a whole has not been discussed. While individual unreleased songs of Lana del Rey have been the subject of coverage, there has not been any coverage of the concept of a body of work called "unreleased Lana del Rey songs". And that is what is required. Again, the analogy is this: I could produce a list of People who own Range Rovers. And I could find reliable sources for it--hundreds if I stuck only to people with WP articles, thousands if I included anyone. But that would not make the topic of "Ranger Rover Owners" itself notable. That is exactly what is happening here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC) You are incorrect. Her unreleased discography has been discussed in a set in various sources. & I was not shouting. Thanks so much!--MrIndustry (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) MrIndustry has copied the entire article in its most recent state into his sandbox. I'm not sure if this is allowed, seeing as we are pretty much deciding here that it is not fit for the article space.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) It is. It's his sandbox, not in the mainspace. Zac  05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC) But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted, which is what we're deciding here. It's a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE now that we're deciding it should not be an article in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "But now he's keeping a copy so it won't be deleted". He could email himself a copy of it if he so wishes to, does that make it "so it won't be deleted"? And besides, I don't see anywhere where this article was banned from being created forever. If he wishes to have it in his sandbox and keep working on the article that is fine by him. One day, if it becomes notable enough, it could be recreated. There's nothing wrong with that. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC) He's keeping a copy on site because the page is going to be deleted and kept deleted. It'd be fine if it was userfied but now he's just doing his best to keep the page alive. There's a reason he's doing his damnedest to keep the page from being deleted entirely. Hell, it's even been copied over to a Wikia. The transfer to his userspace is subverting the discussions we've been having and that's a disruption of Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC) You appear to be assuming extremely bad faith against this user; I suggest you tone it down. The sandbox is not causing any disruption. You may wish to take a look at a similar situation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo. Zac  07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC) He has been working his hardest to keep the page from being deleted and he refuses to work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. He also refuses to acknowledge that this is a serious discussion and constantly responds to things with "lol" in the edit summary. And that page was deleted, anyway. This is not being used to construct a draft. It's being used to avoid deletion of the content he's worked hard in putting in the mainspace where it does not belong. And he took the opportunity to do this in the time period in which this discussion will be closed, rather than when it was first undeleted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Now, we clearly is working the hardest to keep the page, but you, on the other side, are working the hardest to get it deleted. That page was deleted at the user's request; that's not the point. I will ask you once more to stop assuming bad faith on their part. If he just so happens to recreate the article after this discussion is over (and said to endorse the delete), then that's when you can say things like that, but not now. Don't assume anything. Zac  07:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify, Ryulong, had MrIndustry asked for a copy to be userfied, as the deleting admin, I would have done so. There are no copyright violations (so long as those Youtube links stay off), it's not a BLP issue, and it's not a topic so inherently non-notable that can never be an article (i.e., I wouldn't userfy an article about my mom's cat). It is entirely possible that at some point in the future del Rey's unreleased songs could become the subject of critical review, as has happened for some other artists. So long as the draft is clearly marked as a draft, this is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. There clearly wasn't any consensus as to whether or not the article should be deleted. Zac  06:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Uhhhh - can't we all just get along? This thing isn't a "world-shaker" anyway. Delete it and be done with it Яεñ99 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Gay Wikipedians – Relist at CfD. – T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Gay Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This category is obviously extremely important to many wikipedians. I came upon it, and saw that it was created as a redirect to Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I took it upon myself, without having knowledge that it was previously deleted, to remove the redirect, and add the category to a few gay-male-specific templates and userboxes; It immediately gained over 270 members with several others adding themselves over the next few days before User:VegaDark redirected it to Category:LGBT Wikipedians explaining to me that it had previously been discussed and deleted/redirected to the LGBT category. To place everyone into the catch-all category of Category:LGBT Wikipedians is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community and diminishes the importance of the subgroup. I feel that every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender wikipedian deserves to be able to freely use categories that enable them to find and collaborate with people of similar points-of-view, world-experience and a mutual understanding of the social and political issues that are not identical to each subgroup; an issue that is basically non-existent for the straight majority who, with little or no conscious effort are able to find others that share their world view by virtue of operating with a straight-is-default mentality. This is luxury that we lack and is only complicated by grouping /everyone/ into LGBT. The closing argument by wikipedia administrator User: Xoloz stated Deletions endorsed. Prior deletions of other (more "mainstream") gender/sexuality categories do belie the accusations of bias here. The consensus below endorsed the uCfD determination that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. As stated above, the categories do indeed contribute value to the encyclopedia by allowing people to find and collaborate with those that share experiences, points of view and interests relevant to their current research and page projects. Comparing sexuality to a zodiac sign and a "status symbol" is an offensive diminution of the importance with which we hold our self-esteem and individuality. As for the introduction of factionalism, there are many categories that do just that. In fact, by virtue of not being all-encompassing, every category technically creates a group of individuals that are and are not included. Does this mean that Religious Wikipedians shouldn't have an associated category? No, it doesn't. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NOTE: - Category:Gay Wikipedians was deleted as a result of the 4 October 2007 uCfD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification. The uCfD deletion of Category:Gay Wikipedians was endorsed at the October 10, 2007 DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Sexuality and gender identification categories. This present DRV discussion is to address the 4 October 2007 UCFD Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Sexuality and gender identification/Category:Gay Wikipedians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) Oppose - A userbox or some other userpage notice is fine for self-declaration. The purpose of Wikipedian categories is collaboration, not notification. The collaborative category is Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. As has been stated many, many times, one does not need to be LGBT to collaborate on LGBT-related topics. We're all Wikipedians here. And the use of LGBT has long standing consensus. See also WP:WikiProject LGBT. And note: This looks like an attempt at XfD 2. This does not look to meet the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) List at CfD exactly per the reasoning in the DRV immediately below. Irrespective of what we used to do years ago, it's reasonable to have a fresh discussion at this point.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. Category:LGBT Wikipedians is too big. Over 1,400 users are listed in that category, so splitting it in subcategories will help. We have Category:Christian Wikipedians with 22 subcategories, including Christian anarchist Wikipedians‎, Esoteric Christian Wikipedians‎, Christadelphian Wikipedians‎... Double standards?--В и к и T 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) List at CfD - I don't actually remember past discussions on this topic, so it was probably a while ago... Time to revisit. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Jc37, and delete the existing LGBT category that should have been deleted long ago but was recreated out of process. As Jc points out, this is an identifying category, not a collaboration category. Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues is much more likely to actually do so. In fact, I would imagine it's rather insulting to a gay person to suggest that everyone of them can be grouped together and have some sort of collaborative interest by the mere fact they happen to be attracted to a particular sex- and, even if that were true, we would run in to original research problems. VegaDark (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Question: Getting back to the root of the issue, how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia? VegaDark (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn or relist I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Also noting that this category should be placed within the LGBT category, along with other similar categories of self-identification (bisexual, lesbian, etc) and that this category is appropriate because some members of the LGBT umbrella prefer a more specific label than the catchall term. ThemFromSpace 15:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. If editors choose to describe themselves in various ways, knowing that can aid collaboration. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of community--and making clear our extraordinary diversity. Preventing their use for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (I agree with Vegadark that there are finer distinctions possible among both straight and gay, but there are advantages in not being overly specific--there is a point at which it would detract from our basic purpose.) DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC) (ec) I realise it may be considered an old saw by now, but it's no less true: We're not here for self-expression. We're here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. And besides that, editors can "self-express" on their user page through a userbox or other userpage notice. Categories are for navigation. There is no collaborative need for such a category. - jc37 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) categories in mainspace are for navigation. Categories in user space are for collaboration. We are here to build content, but more specifically we are here to build content by working together. Self-expression is part of collaboration--we need at some level to some degree to know one another. I think to a very limited degree, but it would extend to basic things like this. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I understand that perspective, and would be empathetic to it, except that I have never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than attempts at canvassing/vote stacking at XfD. Plus, just because one may self-assert they are LGBT, doesn't mean they are interested in editing LGBT topics. We had several situations (zodiac being the largest) where it was made abundantly clear that most people in self-id cats are merely doing so for self-id reasons. Self-ID categories as such are thus merely vanity pages, and that falls afoul of WP:NOT. So with that in mind, we're better off having "interested in collaborating on X topic"-style categories. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "never seen "self-identification" categories used for anything more than..." Yes you have. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16, Neutral good Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance to the link. I see an assertion (which was disagreed with) that thie cat in question was a "by editing philosophy" cat. And even if we were to accept the premise of the nom, that makes it a "how I will contribute" cat, as I note below. So it isn't relevant to this discussion AFAICT. - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Editing philosophy is a self-identification, and a relevant one at that, and absolutely nothig to do with canvassing of XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'm happy to hear that you have never encountered people using the inclusionist category to mass canvass. Or the "against notability" one, or the LGBT one, for that matter. On the other hand, I have seen it. Many many times. - jc37 04:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, I have seen it. But you seemed to suggesting that the *only* use of self-identification categories is canvassing of XfD. I dispute this as an exaggeration. I don’t however dispute that it can often be the case, nor that it is a serious concern, including for this category. I wonder, would it be workable if for self-identification catageories, if it were required that a case be made that it has a project-related purpose that is not for canvassing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC) That's the current requirement for all Wikipedian categories, per WP:USERCAT, and MANY prior discussions, and WP:NOT, for that matter. That they are to be used for a collborative purpose to build the encyclopedia. It's what I've said several times: We're all Wikipedians here, how do you want to help? And a person's race/ethnicity/descent and/or sexuality/gender and/or faith/philosophy/religion simply have no bearing on that. And honestly, I question whether it might actually be considered prejudiced to suggest that it does (I'm not saying anyone is, merely that it's an interesting question.) And that not even taking into account that we have "by interest" categories for topics related to these identifications, which makes all of these self-identification categories duplicative. I'll restate: These are just IWANTIT categories. With the followup: "If they get theirs, I want mine". It's all just possessive WP:OTHERSTUFF. - jc37 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC) jc37, so you are against Category:Wikipedians by religion, Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, Category:Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by education and nearly everything else under Category:Wikipedians except 'interest' and other project-user-relationship scaffolding? WP:Canvassing isn't dependent on a user category, and in my experience people usually use off-wiki lists of 'friends' to do canvassing. How people use lists of users is as varied as their are people who use them, and misuses (such as canvassing) have their own guidelines. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Has nothing to do with me being "against" anything. It has to do with repeated consensus over years regarding Wikipedian cats. See topical index for an overview of such discussions. And also WP:USERCAT. Oh and as far as this discussion note [[30]] - there were three deletion reviews (concerning gay and queer), over several years, all endorsed. And yes, there has been a LOT of use of Wikipedian categories for attempts at vote stacking through canvassing. (Though these days, editors are usually caught early.) - jc37 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Your definition of "consensus" must differ quite a lot from mine. There are currently 378 cats within Cat:Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality. Are you suggesting those are all contrary to consensus and should be deleted as well? If so, this isn't the place to make that argument. If not, why single out the minority of Wikipedians who choose to identify on-wiki as gay? Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I didn't do the G4 recreation of this category, someone else did. They were then reverted. This isn't singling anyone or anything out. This is enforcing a previous concensus per policy. If there was new information that wasn't covered in the previous CfD, then I could understand the DRV being started. But there isn't, this is merely IWANTIT trying to use DRV as xfd2. Which is against the DRV guidelines last I checked. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC) My point was that the existence of hundreds of categories in Wikipedians by Ethnicity and Nationality indicates a de facto consensus to allow such categories. A further point is that new information per se isn't a prerequisite for new consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) That's like suggesting we shouldn't revert vandalism, because so much of it exists, it must be allowable. (To be clear, I'm not calling this situation vandalism, I'm making a comparison of things which have had repeated consensus to not have on Wikipedia: vandalism (on one hand) and use of Wikipedian categories merely for identification purposes (on the other).) And that without even getting into the G4 issues. I suppose I could also quote WP:OTHERSTUFF too... - jc37 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. One doesn't need to be in a category to foster collaboration. If you want to collaborate, join a wikiproject. Also, just because you're in a category doesn't mean you are interested in collaboration. Most people who use the X wikipedian categories use them for nothing more than a way to state who they are at the bottom of their user page. And as is mentioned above, you don't have to belong to x wikipidians to collaborate on x. These categories are nothing more than a way to bring social features to Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn If someone wishes to identify to a category, that is their business. Just being gay does not mean they necessarily identify with people that are LBT, nor should they be forced to categorize with a larger group because of the lack of a scope they find acceptable  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No it's not just "their business". Categories are navigational tools which group pages through the software. If someone wants to self-identify, they can do so through editing their userpage. - jc37 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC) There is Category:Wikipedians by religion with 121 total subcategories, including some really interesting categories like Satanist Wikipedians, [[Chabad-Lubavitch Wikipedians‎ (??), Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba‎ (???). I don't see how is categorization by religion different from categorization by sexuality?--В и к и T 21:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Well-meaning Wikipedians repeatedly create such categories. I haven't looked in Cat:W by Religion lately, last I recall it was only a dozen or so, with a few subcats. But from your comments, I would guess it needs to be looked at... - jc37 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Category:Christian Wikipedians actually encourages it: "If a page for that branch of Christianity does not exist, please feel free to create it." - htonl (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Well-meaning or not, the issue should be addressed for all categories as a matter of policy instead of singling out one group. And even if we started out with one group as an example I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to start with gay people.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Starting with? This clean up started well over 7 years ago. This one in particular was over 4 years ago. I appreciate you have an opinion, and you're of course welcome to assert it, but please understand that this is merely clean up after long standing multiple consensus discussions. You may wish to look over WP:USERCAT. - jc37 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Jc, do you still not realize that the purpose of this discussion is to indicate that the consensus of 4 years ago no longer holds? DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The "purpose of this discussion" is obviously to re-argue an XfD2. There is no "new information" that justifies this to even be at DRV. The DRV nom concerning female, below, at least has that. This, doesn't. And reading over the comments simply reinforces this. Do you see any "Overturn" comments which show anything other than IWANTIT? or ITSHOULDBEALLOWED? And I include your comments, by the way... So no, this is simply an attempt at another bite at the apple, regardless of how long it has been, which, last I checked, was against the guidelines at DRV. - jc37 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) How else would we indicate that Consensus has Changed? To do that we need either unchallenged bold action (which would obviously not work on this topic), or a general discussion in a conspicuous central place. For XfDs,this is the conspicuous central place. We have previously overturned numerous older discussions on the basis that consensus can change, so why not this one? As for two bites at the apple, are you suggesting that once we decide to keep something we can never consider it for deletion? If not, why should it hold in the opposite direction? This is the rational first step to a CfD2. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC) How else? Let's see. How about not doing a G4 recreation, having it reverted then going to DRV, among other things? How about instead of all that, start a discussion somewhere (WT:CFD for example). Present your case and see if the community agrees that WP:CCC. And life goes on. BUT NOT RECREATING UNTIL CCC HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DETERMINED. Intentionally recreating a G4 is WP:POINT, running to DRV is WP:PARENT (among other things), and the whole thing is just WP:GAME. Using DRV this way when we have a LONG consensus that DRV is not to be used as XfD2, is simply wrong. - jc37 04:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn per DGG. Insomesia (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. Anything within reason that can help make new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be permitted, and self-identification within such a category is well within reason. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn - It is not right that we allow users to categorize themselves based on their religious beliefs, but not based on their sexual orientation. To have a category that lists gay men can be beneficial to WikiProject LGBT studies by being able to locate users who can contribute to the expansion and development of articles relating to their identification. I would also support categories for Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Wikipedians. There are categories based on which TV shows users watch or what books they read, and surely someone's sexual identification is more important, I think it's offensive. It is important for users who are of a minority sexual orientation to be able identify with each other. NYSMtalk page 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) They already can. Category:LGBT Wikipedians already exists. Category:Gay Wikipedians is a category redirect to that, per long convention that we do not split such categorisation, but instead use LGBT. - jc37 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That it not good enough, I am a gay man and I can't relate to lesbians and transpeople, that category is just throwing all minority sexual orientations together assuming all LGBT people are the same. That would be like forcing "Category:Catholic Wikipedians‎", "Category:Protestant Wikipedians‎", and "Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians‎" to only use the blanket "Category:Christian Wikipedians". It is not justifiable to allow the 3 just mentioned subcategories ( 19 more) for Christianity alone, but yet not allow any subcategorization for sexual identification. NYSMtalk page 23:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That's an arguement for deleting the LGBT cat (and also several self-identification religion/faith-related categories). And also WP:OTHERSTUFF, and IWANTIT. Nothing there which rises to the criteria of a DRV. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I support the inclusion of the religious identification categories for the same reason as the sexual orientation categories, for locating users to collaborate in the improvement of their specific WikiProjects. I don't support the inclusion of this category just because "I want it" as you claim, I believe I have stated valid reasons as to why it's existence is warranted. As Rivertorch stated, something that makes new editors feel welcome and engaged in a collaborative effort should be encouraged, the existence of these self identification categories can only be beneficial. NYSMtalk page 01:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC) such categories already exist: Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, for example. These clearly show that the intent is collaboration, and not just vanity. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn as it facilitates collaboration. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC) expansion of rationale I don't have the energy to type out all this, so I'd like to quote some of the things I'd like to say. "Just being gay does not mean they necessarily identify with people that are LBT, nor should they be forced to categorize with a larger group because of the lack of a scope they find acceptable."little green rosetta) For that reason, deleting the thing "is a gross disservice to all who belong within the community."(per undeletion nom) I confess I don't see any benefit to the deletion in the first place, and "I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia.(ThemFromSpace) Some have scoffed at the catagory as a collaborative tool. The deletion nom stated, "While a userpage notice may be useful, it's not necessary to have a category identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with. . . ."(Jc37) This completely mises the importance of the category. Anyone "who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration."(Blue Rasberry) Yes, we are all Wikipedians, but we have all these cat's and userboxes to personalize that experience. Deleting this one diminishes that. Dlohcierekim 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, keep the category This is a useful category per DGG and Nowyouseeme. VegaDark asked "how on earth does the ability to search for users who are attracted to a particular sex benefit the encyclopedia?" The category is not to announce an arbitrary action like attraction to a particular sex but to express a social affinity with a group which shares a cultural identity. The assertion is that the demographic who would use this category self-identifies with a culture and declares a desire to find and be found by other members of the culture for collaboration. This is analogous with other cultural categories like region, profession, or philosophy. There is an precedent of a long-standing community with a gay cultural identity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I do not understand what you mean by that. I think that you would not support the redirection of all categories in Category:Wikipedians into that one category because that would not be useful at all. Are you asserting that there is something fundamentally different about a gay cultural identity as opposed to any of the other cultural identities demarcated for collaboration with people who make themselves available as self-identified representatives of a given culture? If so, what is the difference? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I mean what I said: We're all Wikipedians here. When you interact with me, it doesn't matter what race I may be, what ethnicity I may be, what gender I may be, what faith I may choose to believe, or what sexuality. None of that matters. And Wikipedia is not a social site. We allow social niceties to a point because it can help promote positive, collegiate collaboration. Which is why people are allowed to self-identify by declarations on their user pages. But use of categories is for direct collaboration, it is not for self-identification. Another way to put it: Wikipedian categories are for how you or I intend to help, not for how you or I may describe ourselves. - jc37 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, essentially per Insomesia (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation - The 4 October 2007 UCFD closed didn't list a detailed reason. However, the subsequent October 10, 2007 DRV close noted that the uCfD determination was that the Gay Wikipedians status category (like "signs of the zodiac") does not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism. Wikipedia's change over the past five years is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the 4 October 2007 deletion at UCFD. If Category:Gay Wikipedians is again listed at XfD, the question that should be answered in this modern Wikipedia era is 1. does Category:Gay Wikipedians contribute value to the encyclopedia and 2. does Category:Gay Wikipedians introduce factionalism into this modern Wikipedia era. DRV isn't the place to answer these questions. Since we don't have answers, overturn/allow recreation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Weak Overturn Though my inkling is to say "oppose", I frequently remind myself that mine is not the only opinion, times change, and knee-jerk is a problem. Those persons wishing to participate in a categorization of "Gay Wiki..." should be allowed to do so if the category is logical to include. Those wishing omission by denial can always BLP/object their way off the list. People feel a need to "socially identify." We may not all feel a linkage for certain categories, but people do devote lifetimes and -styles to participation(s) in commonalities. Having this listed would provide a central point for like-minded and like-behaved persons to seek mutual ideology, informational exposition, and support. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Doesn't help build the encyclopedia. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Female Wikipedians – Relist at CfD. – T. Canens (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Female Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The community decision to prohibit user categorisation by gender was made by user:jc37 on 20 June 2007 and implemented by user:After Midnight the following day.[31] The categories deleted were: Category:Wikipedians by gender Category:Male Wikipedians Category:Female Wikipedians Category talk:Female Wikipedians (its just technical talk) Category:Transgender Wikipedians Roughly four months ago (2012-04-21), user:Ramesh Ramaiah created Category:User female, and until yesterday it had 566 members, and most of them are due to template inclusions. e.g. [32] Yesterday user:VegaDark deleted Category:User female citing the 2007 decision. I had a chat with VegaDark (User talk:VegaDark#Category:user female), who thinks DRV is needed. I dont disagree. What has changed since 2007? Two things. Firstly, I think the community now has a greater appreciation now that there is a real issue with the lack of women here. The WMF has put reducing "the gendergap" as one of its goals. Change involves going the extra mile. We should be employing every tool we can in order to ensure that new self-identified women are welcomed and supported. That is why there was a meta:WikiWomenCamp just for women in Argentina earlier this year (another one is planned for India, next year iirc?), Wikimedia is supporting Ada Initiative, Wikimedia had a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon, WP:Teahouse was created and appears to be successful[33], there are academic studies targeting women (e.g. [34]), and lots of blogging[35]. Women self-identify their gender in lots of ways on their user pages, and a category is a simple way of allowing all those self-identified women to be easily found in one way. There are a multitude of different userboxes for gender, making special:whatlinkshere not very useful. User categories are unobtrusive parts of a user page, for people who dont want to use userboxen at all. Also, user categories are much more user-friendly as opposed to special:whatlinkshere. Secondly, technology has improved. We now have two WP:category intersection tools, which means that while navigating a category full of women isnt a good use of time, it is now simple to find users who are Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Australia(i.e.[36]), or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine, or Category:Female Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians by degree(i.e. [37]). And one of the category intersection tools allows many of these categories to be combined together. E.g. if an Australia female uni student is look for someone to adopt them, this is female Australians with a degree (currently: User:Ninevah & User:Kla22374). It is also now possible to monitor changes to any page in a category, including by RSS.[38] This can be used to monitor all self-declared women's user- or user-talk pages for vandalism, flare-ups, achievements, etc. e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Wikipedians_in_Australia Finally, to pre-empt the inevitable concerns about gender and sexuality being "too messy" to categorise, please consider that Category:LGBT Wikipedians and redirects Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Lesbian Wikipedians and Category:Transgender Wikipedians exist. That category was also deleted later in 2007 (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:LGBT_Wikipedians) however the LGBT category was recreated by user:nathan a few months later stating "This category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community that supports it.", and LGBT members rallied around it to protect the category (see Category talk:LGBT_Wikipedians). It is ridiculous that the current state of play is that LGBT are allowed a category, but women are not. They are both minorities on Wikipedia, and should be afford similar treatment. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC) One more note; a fairly comprehensive list of Wikipedias with this category can be found listed in the interwikis of fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur_femme John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC) NOTE: - The only category up for review in this deletion review is the deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians. User:After Midnight deleted Category:Female Wikipedians on 21 June 2007 based on the 15 June 2007 "Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender."[39] The only discussion being reviewed at this DRV is Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse my own deletion - Procedurally, this was sound. There was an old discussion over the category which resulted in delete. When I discovered a new iteration (inappropriately named, I might add - "User-x" is reserved for babel categories, not categories like this) I checked the old discussion to make sure the reasons for deletion still applied. They did. The discussion had a good showing of participants and was unanimous. The deletion made sense, all of the previous reasons still applied, and the category had been re-created out of process. G4 has no time limit, although obviously consensus can change. The way to go about seeing if consensus has changed, however, is to bring up a discussion here, not re-create the category out of process. That being said, I happy about discussing the merits of bringing back the category here. I would argue that this category is not the type of category we want or need on Wikipedia, even considering "what has changed" as mentioned above. User categories are intended to foster collaboration. There is no collaborative reason to group all females together. Also, if we add that, then we are going to of course have to have a Male Wikipedians category. Half the world's population would fit in one category, the other half of the population would fit in the other. This, IMO, falls under the all-inclusive section describing inappropriate types of user categories. The original reasons were sound, still apply, and the category should remain deleted. Users can use a userbox with the 'what links here" function to find females if they really wish to. If people don't want to use userboxes, that's their own problem. I agree reducing the gender gap is important but compromising the integrity of the user category system is not the way to go about doing so, IMO. Additionally, I'll also add that the LGBT category needs to be deleted per previous consensus deleting it and endorsing it at DRV. It's only managed to stay around because of the headache deleting it would cause, although procedurally sound and IMO beneficial for the encyclopedia to do so. VegaDark (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No, VegaDark, I'm afraid the established custom and practice is that G4 expires by effluxion of time. DRV has never decided what the actual timescale is. But you won't be allowed to enforce a 2007 decision over good faith objections, because that would constitute one admin overruling the established principle that consensus can change. A fresh CfD will be necessary.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Only part of that is true. Admin's are to continue to enforce G4, until they shouldn't : ) While consensus can change, a "good faithed objection" isn't a change to consensus. As both JV and VD noted on VD's talk (and you even somewhat note above), a DRV (and/or CFD) is needed to indicate a change in consensus. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) DRV has consistently refused to enforce the outcomes of five-year-old discussions, Jc37. I'm quite sure that it won't enforce this one. A CfD is necessary to show that consensus has changed, but any good faith user has standing to make that CfD happen.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) While it may be what you meant, that's not quite what you said above : ) Anyway, from your follow up clarification, I don't think that you and I disagree on the process of WP:CCC. Thanks for the clarification. - jc37 12:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I think it's exactly what I said, but I'm sorry if I accidentally confused you.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn: I read VegaDark's argument above and don't see a single reason for deleting the categories other than process wonkery. Of course gender identification, especially for women, has the chance to promote collaboration and the opportunity to connect people with similar interests. I'm afraid the argument about "all inclusive" is not persuasive, since we know that women editors make up less than 10% of all Wikipedia editors. As for the LGBT category, I think it's obvious that this category provides many of the same benefits: it allows people in a minority (of editors) group to identify and contact each other, to work together, to support each other, and to strengthen the community. The argument for deleting these categories boils down to deletion for its own sake, something hopefully others can see past. Nathan T 11:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) "deletion for its own sake"? No. it's an issue of overcategorisation, for one thing. This can lead (has led) to splitting all Wikipedian categories by gender. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - As the original closer, looking over the past CfDs (and in this case UCfDs), I think that JV's points above indeed fall under the "new situation"/"new information", which is typically required for a Relist at XfD. I could support this premise as long as this is limited to only the specific category Category:Female Wikipedians (and Category:LGBT Wikipedians), and does not lead to splitting anything else by gender/sexuality. So we shouldn't see things like: Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X, etc. - jc37 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) In regards to "all-inclusive". Normally, I would agree, except in this case, I can weakly agree that this could fall under Wikipedia:Systemic bias. - jc37 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Relist. It's been five years and a credible argument has been made that circumstances have changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn or relist Echoing my comment above: I see no issue with self-identification categories on Wikipedia. Encouraging users to express themselves freely without recourse should lead to a more collegial editing environment. And if ever a user's membership in this category were to cause concern concern, the scrutiny should then be applied at those making the judgement rather than those choosing to self-identify.ThemFromSpace 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. To the extent editors want to describe themselves here in various ways, knowing this aids collaboration. A special argument was given that this particular category especially aids integration, and I think it's valid. I have consistently argued against social features on Wikipedia that detract from its mission as an encyclopedia, but the limited degree of interpersonal knowledge provided by categories that many people here and elsewhere consider critically important for self-definition can be helpful, if only to their feeling of belonging here. Preventing them for those who want to use them is in my opinion an undue intrusion into self-expression. (Male WPedians would be a good category too. It does not exhaust the universe of WPedians here as it would for mainspace bios, because not all male WPedians would choose to join it. Quite a number prefer to be nonspecific or totally anonymous, and many who do specify it somewhere, deliberately do not list themselves in any personal characteristic categories at all (like myself). DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. "Hey women, please come edit the Wikipedia, because whereas before you could self-identify as a female, now you can do it with a category!" Really? This is what's going to fix the gender gap? A category? Pull the other one. As I state above in the gay wikipedians DRV, wikipedian categories are not well used for collaboration (collaboration for years being the main argument for keeping wikipedian categories around). And as I see in this DRV, even that pretense has been dropped in favor of nothing more than self-identification. Not needed for editing the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) The argument is that self identification helps collaboration, for those who choose to use it. All that could be said in opposition is that you don't think it would work for you. I don't want it for myself either, but that's no reason not to allow it for those whom think it would help them DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) As I've said time and time again, how does one go about collaborating with members of a category? Picking one at random, leaving a message on their talk page, and waiting for them to respond? How long until you move to the next person if you don't get a response, or a "not interested" response? I'll wager you'll waste a lot of time trying to get someone to collaborate with you using this method. No, I don't think it works for anyone. People keep saying it does, with nothing to back them up. But let's assume for a minute that category-based collaboration works great. Collaboration on what, exactly? When you self identify as "female", it gives me zero guidance as to what you want to collaborate on. Can I bother you on Feminism? Reproductive rights? High-heeled shoes? Female CEOs? Or do you draw the line at, literally, Female? I've asked these questions before, and nobody has ever given me an answer that would make me change my mind on wikipedian categories. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) If that's the case, where do we draw the line? As soon as we allow gender categories and sexual preference categories, the line becomes very blurry about what should be allowed vs. not allowed. How about age? Those categories have long been settled as non-collaborative as well. The best rule of thumb is ask two questions - "Would there ever be an encyclopedic purpose for specifically seeking out users in such a category?" and "If yes, is there a better name the category could have that would better represent the category is for collaboration?" The answer to this first question, for me, is no, and even if there is some sort of collaboration that can occur (let's pretend for a second that all females would be presumed interested in collaborating on the Feminism article), then a better, more collaborative name for the category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism, because there could both be males interested in collaborating on this topic, and because in reality not all females would be interested in collaborating on the feminism article. Why beat around the bush and hope for "indirect" collaboration when we have a perfectly good scheme of creating on-its-face collaborative categories? VegaDark (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC) In the DRV opening statement I have included examples of Wiki events which are for women only. AdaCamps by Ada Initiative have been supported by WMF and WMAU (and maybe others). The Wikimania's inclusion of a wm2012:WikiWomen's Luncheon was a decision of the Wikimania committe. meta:WikiWomenCamp was supported by WMAT, WMAU, and WMDE and attended by Sue Gardner from WMF. Now it is true that these events arnt' intended to directly result in collaboration on the encyclopedia, however they do help women learn about each other and the issues they face in this male dominated environment, and support each others activities. Survey's are also checking whether these women are being harassed (e.g. meta:Editor Survey 2011/Women Editors) While indirect, they are useful ways to support women who contribute content to this encyclopedia. Note that a "Female Wikipedians" category does not compete with interest categories, such as Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics relating to feminism. We can have both categories, and contributions can choose one or more that they wish to be a member of. It is analogous to "Christian Wikipedians" as a self identification category. I don't want to see a proliferation of self identification categories, but I do want to see basic characteristics allowed for, and gender is part of that. IMO categorisation by age is also fine, and it is implemented without drama in many other Wikipedias (Obviously care is needed for categorisation of minors) - they typically implement it as categorisation by decade, however categorisation by demographic "generation" would also be acceptable.(e.g. Gen Y) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC) And those are great events, but you haven't explained how they have anything to do with this category. Are you planning on spamming everyone in it to see if they want to attend? Can they at least opt-out of the messages? Because "self-identify" doesn't mean the same as "spam me about women's events". It means nothing more than "I'm female". It does nothing for collaboration, it does nothing for notification, it does nothing to help edit the encyclopedia. If you want social media, join facebook. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) How does Category:Female Wikipedians differ from Category:Christian Wikipedians? Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. The point of self-identification categories is to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. They are making themselves available, even if they are not particularly interested in declaring it as one of their interests. e.g. a Category:Wikipedian lawyer may only declare an interest in history, because they use Wikipedia as a way to "get away from work", however they may still be very happy to answer the occasional question if it relates directly to them. Good use of self-identification categories depends on selecting contributors carefully, and accepting that they may not be interested. Heck, they may even be lying about their identity. But despite the warts of this system, it is useful if used well. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC) How do they differ? They don't. Never said they do. Don't assume that just because Christian Wikipedians is a blue link and not up for discussion here that it means I'm for that while against Female Wikipedians. I'm against both. Their self-identification doesnt imply they want to be spammed. Then why did you bring up the women-only wiki-events twice? You still haven't explained what one has to do with the other. Do you actually have a reason for using the events as a reason not to keep the female wikipedians category deleted? If not, would you mind striking it from your opening statement? to inform others that this is a trait/skill/experience they have. Yes, this is my point, exactly, and it was determined that this is not a reason to have user categories. They are making themselves available Again, as I replied to DGG above, how exactly? Can I ask you a question on bra-sizes because you self-identified as a female? Do I pick a name at random from the category to ask a question about women's volleyball? How long to move on to the next random name if I don't get a response (or an "I don't know"). Can I cut down on my research time by asking 100 (or 1000) females the same question at the same time? (and can tell the good folks at AN/I that you said this was ok when I get questioned why I'm bothering our female editors?). Using self-identification categories for collaboration or even questioning purposes is a terribly bad idea. This is why we have wikiprojects. A specific place to go to ask for help that is frequented by people who have knowledge about the subject and want to help. Using self-identification categories for self-identification purposes is also a bad idea. It amounts to nothing more than social media, and that is not what wikipedia is for. You can get the same self-identification by typing "I am a female" on your user page and clicking save. --Kbdank71 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I have explained how I use WP:Category intersection to narrow down the results so that I am contacting people who are highly likely to appreciate the 'spam'. The events a) show the commitment of Wikimedia organisations and the Wikimedia community to the objective of understanding and reducing the gender gap, and b) the need for Wikimedia organisations and Wikipedians to support our self-disclosed female Wikipedians. If I misuse user-identification categories, I expect to be lambasted at ANI too. I have explained how these user-identification categories can be used for good and the importance of these good uses, and I am hoping that the community agrees that there are sufficient good uses to outweigh the misuses that are possible. If *you* misuse user-identification categories, that is your problem and you can expect to be taken to ANI. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC) ... and "Not needed" is the same as "Verboten"?—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Due to technical overhead for categories, among various other reasons, "not needed" indicates "shouldn't use". Using categories as "bottom of the page notices" has long been frowned upon, especially when someone can add the information to the page without using a category. This is true of all pages, not just userpages. - jc37 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I'm intrigued! What's the technical overhead, exactly, and could you please enumerate the various other reasons?—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that "not needed" doesn't indicate "shouldn't use", for userspace categories. We apply it to mainspace because a categorisation can be read by our readers as an authoritive unquestionable fact, and it sits there without explicit reference. When "not needed" for mainspace, but still useful, we use hidden or talk page categories. There is also then need for categories to be someone useful for navigation, despite the limit clunky capabilities, and so there is a restriction against overcategorisation. These limitations do not so readily apply to userspace, to self-categorisation by users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Whatever answer which will avoid yet another round of argumentative questioning on your part. --Kbdank71 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC) There's a helpful graphic at Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn or Relist (no preference between these two outcomes). Five years, the community changes, and there have definitely been changes in the community's concern about the editor gender imabalance. There's enough reason, in my view, to at least reconsider the question. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn per nom. Categories have utility here easily exceeding that of userboxes. Agree with Jc37 that this does not generalise to "Category:Female Wikipedians interested in X", for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I do not think anyone is now arguing for such intersections in user space. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn - Identity is an extremely personal decision and all efforts should be made to accommodate personal preferences. --BXM 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn, agree with BXM, directly above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn - I feel this is just as important as other self-identification categories and women are a minority here, being able to find and collaborate with other women (who have their own set of tastes, interests and expertise) would help to foster a better environment that is more welcoming and friendlier to new potential (female) editors. Though no one should take this to mean that I endorse hair-splitting the categories as was mentioned above with an example like "Girls interested in Foo" I do endorse this particular category. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn Short of a category name being patently offensive and intended to disrupt, it should be allowed.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn User:After Midnight's 21 June 2007 deletion of Category:Female Wikipedians.[40] - The outcome of Categories for discussion/Category:Wikipedians by gender only deleted Category:Wikipedians by gender. It did not create a guideline or policy to justify deleting Category:Female Wikipedians or any category other than Category:Wikipedians by gender. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I disagree with this, the Wikipedians by gender nom clearly mentions "its three subcategories" in the nomination whether they were specifically spelled our or not. To me it's rather obvious all of those were subject to the discussion and not merely the parent category. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Just like everything John Vandenberg mentioned in the above DRV nom? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn - per nom and Cirt. NYSMtalk page 10:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and allow relist. As others have said, it's been quite a while, there's clear evidence that it may be possible (though not certain0 that consensus has changed, and thus now it's time to reconsider whether or not, in the current social state of Wikipedia, such a category is appropriate. I happen to think it is, but such discussions could wait for an RfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2012

David R. Hawkins – Relist at AfD. I'm not going to try to decide if it's "consensus to overturn" or "no consensus". In the first case, it would be a straightforward relist; in the second case, I'd still relist this on closer's discretion. So relist it is. – T. Canens (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David R. Hawkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) As one of the primary editors after article was recreated in July, I was not notified by the individual editor attempting to delete the page by numerous 'speedy deletes' and subsequently AfD. Author in question has been shown to be notable with Wikipedia Policy but that was not supported at AfD after article was 'deletionist' edited. The author is notable, sources were given and validated within the article, and that point had previously been stated by an admin in July on the article talk page. Further references have also shown the author to be within WP:GNG, WP:NOTE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NTEMP guidelines and all his books were properly sourced according to WP:IRS, as was the original independent publisher of his books, etc. etc. Sources about author's life met the three core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and also WP:NRVE. The subject appears to exceed WP:NPF standard. Each "source" in contention should have been addressed individually with WP:BLPSOURCES and not deleted summarily by "one editor consensus" of sources. The author BLP has been a point of contention for some time, going back a number of years and needs to be treated properly. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC) For those unfamiliar with Dr. David R. Hawkins or the previous discussions, he is the author of Power vs Force, shown here with endorsement from Wayne Dyer, and eight other books, one of which was co-authored with Dr. Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize recipient. Though his Wikipedia links were pulled, the authors book content is located in a topic section of the article Level of consciousness (Esotericism), discussed in outline. The author has since become a contentiously notable spiritualist working under the guise of science; skeptics regarding his work as pseudo-science, also having published various articles about him as well, which were included in the Wikipedia article prior to AfD. Publication and Media: His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007: Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins. http://soulgarden.me/profiles/blogs/david-r-hawkins-interview-on Quick Link http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force Oprah Link Barbara Walters Show Past Guest Bios (reposted at Oneness)-David R. Hawkins http://www.experiencefestival.com/barbara_walters_-_age_confusion http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/David_R_Hawkins/id/2047910 National Television Appearances: MacNeil Lehrer News Hour Barbara Walters Show The Today Show Notable endorsements by public figures: "...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa "...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca "I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business...Sam Walton "Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer Books: Linus Pauling & Hawkins, Joint Authorship Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-716-70898-1 Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-561-70933-6 Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32612-4 Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32617-5 Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32619-1 Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50071-1 Hawkins, David R. (2005). Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference. Toronto: Axial Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50073-8 Hawkins, David R. (2005). Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: The Stairway to Enlightenment. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-4-6 Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-6-2 Though cross-language projects do not have always the same guidelines, it can be noted that the German project has a bio of this American author at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins, which as a result of the English AfD closure, two editors involved in this closure have since targeted across language projects to delete it as well. This would seem to imply undue bias. Policy WP:NRVE clearly states: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet..." if contested "...if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.". There are a large number of search links to both primary and secondary sources for Dr. Hawkins, his writings, his lectures, as well as video interviews including discussion with Deepak Chopra and other contemporaries. The editors targeting this for deletion appear biased or misinformed, also regarding proper policy application --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (After an edit conflict, during which the nomination statement was both lengthened and toned down): Although a long, rambling nomination statement that includes a bibliography and is replete with accusations about deletionist editors isn't normally a very good sign, and although the discussion was closed in accordance with a clear consensus, it strikes me that there may be a genuine case to answer here. If you look at de:David R. Hawkins you can see a list of awards he's received:- A "Huxley Award" (which appears to relate to schizophrenia), the Physician's Recognition Award of the American Medical Association (which does appear to mean more than just "has qualified as a doctor"), the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame 2006 (and I've found a source to back that up), and the 50-year Distinguished Life Fellow's Honor of the American Psychiatric Association, whatever that might mean. Now to me, and contrary to the assertions made in the AfD, this does look like the biography of a chap who's at the end of a long and distinguished career in psychiatric medicine. The sort of scholar who might well merit a Wikipedia article. While I intend no criticism of the closer who did exactly what he was supposed to do, I think we could be looking at a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The huxley institute is a group that advocates vitamins etc for curing Schizophrenia. The "orthomolecular" group is a similar fringe group. These aren't distinguished or notable awards. The American Medical Association (AMA) Physician's Recognition Award (PRA) is [41] an automatic entitlement for physicians who collect enough educational credits as part of their job, with the distinguished fellow of the psychiatric association it's a standard award you would expect any professional with a long career to achieve.IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I see it was his joint work with Linus Pauling that led to the Orthomolecular stuff. I do accept that notability etc. aren't inherited from the multi-Nobel-prizewinning Pauling to Dr Hawkins; but to me, the co-author strongly implies that this isn't some crank fringe piece of work.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC) He is on the fringe, see Megavitamin therapy for example etc (Pauling was also on the fringe too with respect to this). Note that this doesn't by itself make him non-notable; plenty of pseudoscientists, fringe scientists etc are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Restore. Notable author & pseudoscientist. WorldCat l isting, showing wide holdings of his books: [42] The editing of the article and the comments at the AfD show a concerted effort to discard or deny all possibly relevant material. I personally have somewhat of a prejudice against pseudoscientists and spiritual writers, but that shouldn't affect my judgement here about who is notable in that field. I think with the given material we'd have accepted the article were he writing on any other subject. Error in the afd, because arguments based ultimately upon prejudice were not discarded. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The books argument is a vote for keep in an AfD; This isn't AfD2. Having books in libraries isn't recognised by WP:AUTHOR as a sign of notability. What reliable sources are there to actually write an article which is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE? There are none in the article and none were shown at AfD. Which arguments do you think were prejudiced? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Nonsense. The AfD argument makes sense for a keep or non-consensus close, but not for a delete close: it is contrary to the overall policy that WP is an encyclopedia, and to make an encyclopedia articles on notable subjects have to be included,unless there is some other reason for exclusion. An erroneous decision on notability harms the encyclopedia. How else but here do you propose to review an afd delete which should not have been deleted? This is specifically the place where people are told to go when there is additional evidence that was not considered at the afd. JClemens below has it right. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse There is nothing by the nom saying that the closure was erroneous or did not adequately weigh up the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The closure of the AfD by closing admin was not erroneous, he followed procedure. After multiple attempts at speedily delete by a single nominator in the past few weeks, the article was sent to AfD and notifications were not sent to primary editors; the appeal to restore is based on what indicates undue bias against the subject (for that please review edit history and talk page) and summary objection of any relevant material on the subject which lead to, what appears to be, a "defective discussion" and unwarranted deletion on a notable biography within Wikipedia Guidelines. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Notification shouldn't be expected for anyone but the original creator. Everyone else can just see the notification on the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC) that point is correct under current deletion policy. Whether it is good policy is another matter: it seems to me it violates basic fairness. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, agreed on both of the comments above, I was not the "original creator" and by the letter did not receive notification; that contributor/creator from 2005 no longer has an account. I was, however, the contributor who requested the article be recreated in July and restored it from a mirrored source. I am aware of the letter of the policy, and also the tactics, purpose and lack of courtesy used here by not notifying a recent editor in this type of circumstance to balance the debate at AfD. It has been clear that the editors deleting the content wanted to have he article removed and would rather have had no arguments presented otherwise. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I was one of the significant contributors to the article, and personally I think the version I had edited it into was fine [43], but I'm willing to follow the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC) After considerable contesting over reliability of all of the sources and information given in the restored article in the first hours of recreation, which rather closely mirrored the German language Article, I conceded it to deletion as it was being repeatedly presented for 'speedy delete' every few mins; then the above 'Endorser' states about a reference, What is unreliable about the reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC), and then again about the article itself, I see no reason why it should be deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC). It would appear to me that even he has had some doubt, as well, over the deletion of this article. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, that is what I said in response to your calls for the article you had restored to be deleted [44]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - First, I think I should note that I just now added the deletion review template to the restored page, which had evidently not been added earlier. I'm not sure if, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to notify those who participated in the earlier discussions or not. Getting on point, I find the argument based on WP:NRVE above to be perhaps flawed. That is an older policy, and I think it might honestly do some good if there were some indication on the page regarding the material included in online subscription databanks, which many editors now have. I used a few of those myself earlier, and found no significant discussion of the author. But there is no clear evidence that this individual is "likely" to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources based solely on having written books and appeared on national TV. A possibility, yes, but not necessarily a likelihood. The author and his work seem to be on the margin of pseudoscience, and I have never myself gotten the impression that much of this field gets much if any attention in mainstream reliable sources of a non-local nature, but I might be wrong. Also, I myself checked a few databanks on the subject, and I don't remember seeing anything which clearly showed any degree of significant discussion of the author or his work. This further raises questions regarding the alleged likelihood of significant coverage, although it does not categorically refute it. His work may have some degree of reference in the popular media, and I myself am not sure how policy has changed recently, but I remember taking part in a previous discussion about a biograrphy of a prominent academic in the research into centenarians field which was deleted for lack of notability, and which, I think, even led to the banning of that individual as an editor, although I don't remember the details right now. And, by the way, I generally try to be more of an inclusionist than deletionist, but if the evidence ain't there, I tend to err on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) you seem to be arguing for deletion on the basis that the work of the author is pseudoscience. We have no such bias. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Restore Reading the German article, it includes many claims which make him "notable", eg one of his book was translated in over 15 languages and listed on bestseller lists. He was named "Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa" in Seoul, he headed the North Nassau Mental Health Center, which was the largest psychiatric office in New York (or USA, not clear from the article). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. The closing was according to the rules. If the article can be rewritten to fit wikipedia standards, go ahead. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/Restore because 2 of the 3 above "endorse" opinions are anti-encyclopedic "The rules were followed appropriately" rather than "the correct result was reached". The article in German seems to have a good bit more material, and looks quite a bit better than what's left of our article. DGG's arguments on his notability are also compelling. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The german entry is completely unsourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed. The information could come directly from the writings of the subject himself, the summary descriptions of him in his media appearances, a local or internal newspaper (many of which I have found are available online), or be outright lies. Comments regarding the notability of the subject based on his works being included in a library are interesting and potentially useful, but I tend to think that they might serve better for establishing the notability of the books themselves rather than necessarily of the author. Please see my comments regarding reliably sources material of David Ownby and David A. Palmer below. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Wait, what? "The german entry is completely unsourced?" That's very far from true. You could quibble the lack of inline citations, but de.wiki doesn't require them. Sources are listed and in some cases linked. You could also quibble whether the sources meet en.wiki's standards, and I'd agree that not all of them do. But the entry is very far from unsourced.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC) If you know German better than I do, and trust me, that wouldn't be hard, I defer to your better knowledge of the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC) relist I'm not at all certain the outcome was consistent with WP:N. And while local consensus can override, there are enough reasons this person appears to be notable that it's worth having a discussion with those issues out and in front and see what happens. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn (no consensus). The discussion began with insufficient information. More discussion is needed. Undelete, allow some editing, and allow a fresh nomination after a week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/relist - Although the closer interpreted the debate correctly, the discussion lacked focus on WP:GNG and instead was focused on personal opinions on how important Hawkins is, largely driven by Iconoclast.Horizon's contributions to that discussion. As a result, available reliable source material was not brought forward. There now is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the AfD deletion. There was some information (listed below)for David Hawkins and kinesiology. Those sources brought up his book Power vs. Force, which was a Globe and Mail listed number 1 best seller.[45] David Hawkins and Power vs. Force puts Hawkins in the news since April 2002. Independent reliable source coverage of that book also includes some biographical material on David R. Hawkins not considered at the AfD. A lot of the reliable source coverage are only book author appearance notices, but some include material that would be good for the article (e.g., [46]) Some other information that should be considered at new AfD includes: Elaine Voci (November 1, 2003). "On the night stand". T&D. 57 (11): 85. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Psychiatrist David Hawkins was knighted by Danish royalty for the work presented in Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. He teaches readers that on a primal level, the human brain is a wondrous computer linked to a universal energy field and consciousness can be calibrated on a ladder of spiritual enlightenment. The book is for readers with diverse interests in such subjects as attractor patterns for businesses, kinesiology, and personal transformation. Candice Hannigan (April 15, 2004). "Community Of Faith". Atlanta Journal and Constitution. p. 5. David Hawkins, author of "Power vs. Force," will present a workshop {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) Doug Guthrie and Kendra S (July 28, 2005). "MSU slips new fees onto tab: In addition to fall tuition hikes, students will pay hundreds of dollars in surprise costs". The Detroit News. p. A01. Retrieved August 26, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) Barbara Routen (January 11, 2007). "Democratic Club Elects Its Officers And Directors". Tampa Tribune. p. 2. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Unity in Brandon presents a videotaped workshop by David R. Hawkins, author of "Power Vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior," from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 19 and 26 at Unity, 115 Margaret St., Suites D and E. Hawkins is a psychiatrist, researcher, lecturer and author who first embraced atheism, then suffered from an illness that did not respond to treatment and then lived a hermit's existence for seven years. Close to death in 1965, he had a spiritual awakening and began his recovery, research and writing. In 2003 he became affiliated with the Unity Church. In his book "Power Vs. Force," Linda Compton, spokeswoman for Unity in Brandon, said Hawkins "conclusively proves the ability of kinesiological testing to distinguish truth or falsehood in any statement. He goes on to demonstrate the application of his method in commerce, art, sport, etc. He explains its spiritual application as a path to enlightenment." {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) Louisa Deasey (May 25, 2008). "Good vibrations. Focusing on the upbeat and thinking positive will lift your mood and your spirits. By Louisa Deasey". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). p. 16. Retrieved August 26, 2012. In the seminal book on the subject, Power vs Force, by David Hawkins (Hay House), Hawkins discusses the beginnings of kinesiological testing by Dr John Diamond, and how simple methods tested on thousands of people have proven certain words, foods, objects and ideas have the capacity to weaken or strengthen our bodies just by being in our energy field. etc. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) Jeff Pierce (July 11, 2011). "Power and Force in Your Trading". The Business Insider. Retrieved August 26, 2012. From what I found, I don't think there is enough WP:GNG reliable source material independent of Hawkins for a stand alone biographical article on Hawkins. However, others might disagree and a new AfD would allow others to review the new information and come up with their own new info by focusing on what matters: reilable source material independent of Hawkins - see WP:GNG. Probably a better approach would be to post an article on Power vs. Force (book) since that is what is drawing in most of the reliable sources who cover this area. You then could include some bio info on Hawkins in Power vs. Force (book) without having to meet WP:GNG for a biography. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The comment above makes sense, and also highlights one reason for deletion of the biographical article which has not been stated before, specifically, that there seems to be little information independent of the subject himself which can be reliably sourced. In short, there probably isn't enough information for a biography. I remember reading David Ownby's book Falun Gong and the Future of China and thinking that, between his comments in the book and the author biography from the publisher, it contained more than enough information to make a better article than the one whose content was largely deleted as unsourced. David A. Palmer, author of Qigong Fever, included enough personal information on his article on charisma in Nova Religio to make an even better biographical article than this one, based solely on the that one article. However, having looked for independent reliable sources in JSTOR, NewsBank, ProQuest, and a few other databanks, I think it probably would not meet notability guidelines. This also relates to WP:SIGCOV claims for this article, as most of the information which seems to be really independently reliably sourced from a non-local source in the restored article may not necessarily meet that standard. To what extent does the existence of a paragraph or two in multiple non-local media serve to qualify an individual as meeting notability guidelines? Also, unfortunately, I see another issue which presents itself here, although it may not be specifically applicable in this individual case, and that is the possibility of non-notable authors attempting to game the system and get their biographies included here. This is particularly true of "lesser" figures, and particularly fringe scientists and others. We recently had a case somewhat similar matter relating to the broad field of the historicity of Jesus. I will be rather circumspect, because I am not sure how many details I can legitimately reveal, but one editor sent me an e-mail after he had apparently "retired" when what was later revealed to be his COI POV pushing failed, indicating he had been included in several cable programs in multiple networks regarding the topic, and that made his ideas notable and reliably sourced, from those networks. Now, if he had tried to write a biographical article on himself, instead of inserting his opinions in topical articles, based on the information from the TV shows establishing his credentials, it might have been better sourced than this one was and might have been kept. Instead, he has been subsequently banned from the site and had been sockpuppeting like mad for a while thereafter, until I think maybe he got some sense. But I think his biographical article, had he written that instead, may well have been just as well sourced, if not better, than the material from the deleted article and the sources supplied by the review nominator here, and that the biographical article might have been kept in the first place, without the editor's COI becoming apparent, even though his ideas may have been all but or completely ignored in topical journals as many fringe theories are, so the only material available on them might be positive and his ideas would be presented in the available sources as not being the fringe ideas they rather clearly are. So, taking a hypothetical example here, let's say I am a community college professor who took the job because it was the only one I was offered. I publish an article in The Fourth R, the journal of the Jesus Seminar, and a book from a very minor press, which are significantly fringey but also appealing to the Christ myth theory camp, and to some TV networks for programs during sweeps periods. They get me interviewed on Coast to Coast AM or possibly more significant TV or radio shows, where I am allowed to expound my ideas at length without significant criticism, because I might be the sole guest on the show. And, of course, the local newspaper or potentially the newspaper of my community college runs occasional articles on me which contain enough biographical material to make a reasonably comprehensive reliably sourced article, even though most of the really biographical content is strictly local. Does that make me notable enough for a biographical article here? I think roughly similar concerns might be indicated regarding the extant article. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC) there have been frequent comments at afds that X cannot be notable for he is no more notable than the speaker is personally. This seems to be an argument based on some singularly unreliable personal knowledge, that,is, one's own impression of one's importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think you got the idea. I was actually trying to indicate that 1) If, in a few sources, there is brief discussion, perhaps a paragraph or two, of a subject, does that count as one of the required bases of notability as per WP:N? I would think the answer is, generally here, no, if it is no more than a paragraph or two. 2) Do purely local sources establish notability, even if they are available on the internet worldwide, particularly if they are the only ones which provide "significant" coverage of the subject? I think the answer there is rather clearly "no." 3) Do a few discussions of a few paragraphs each of the work of an individual in independent sources qualify the individual as personally notable? Probably not, if the discussion is too brief to really do much other than repeat what the individual said with a short response. 4) Do brief introductory discussion of the lives of authors by program hosts and the author, perhaps with a few later comments from both, qualify as significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources? Probably not. And, yes, there is a clear precedent of that type. At least one of the articles Cirt put together on a leader the anti-cult movement, a short article of only a few paragraphs, was cobbled together from short statements about the subject during his interviews regarding anti-cult activities, and he was/is one of the leaders of that movement. In fact, one of the biggest "sources" for the article was, so far as I remember, a single paragraph in a news article. Cirt himself admitted he had to do a lot of work to get the article together, even though it was, ultimately, shorter than the leads of many other articles. I think these are all reasonable points, actually. Having said all that, with the additional information produced below, I have no particular reservations about perhaps userfying the page, although it should be pointed out that any editor could have asked for the article to be temporarily restored by an admin so the content could have been userfied or forwarded to his e-mail, and, certainly, there seems to be basis for thinking the major book is notable for a individual article. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC) You cite WP:DRVPURPOSE in that you believe new information has come to light, but nothing in the previous article is required to make a new article, which would be required for the overturn according the DRVPURPOSE. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to userfy  AfD is not a vote count.  The nominator failed to note that the article was on the German Wikipedia, and the closer failed to note that the first !vote was a speedy delete criteria.  This article at one point in time was of length 80,000 characters.  In addition to the 143 reflist references, these references were cited: Chaney, Margaret K. (1996). Red World–Green World:The Hidden Polarities of Nature. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0964326132 Dyer, Wayne W. (2004). The Power of Intention. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-4019-0355-X Herbert, Nick (1987). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-23569-0 Pringle, Kevin (February 16, 2006). Ex-radio moderator and Yahoo group moderator on Hawkins' teaching, ACIM Talk at Miracles Center [143] Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York, NY: Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3 Spencer-Brown, G. (1969, 1994). Laws of Form. Portland, Oregon: Cognizer Company. ISBN 0-9639899-0-1 Wilber, Ken (2001). A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 1-57062-855-6 The word orthomolecular means that large drug companies are both incentivised and monetized to generate negative PR.  How this actually works out for Wikipedia I don't have to understand: the turbulent history of this article becomes less of a surprise.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that userification would be a reasonable course here. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Agree as per own last comment above. I have some questions regarding whether the books above are themselves "reliable" sources, not knowing the publishers of some or the reputations of the authors, but that is a separate matter. Also, of course, I think if the matter is very briefly discussed in any of those sources, those individual sources should not be used to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I notified the AFD closer as that step appears to have been missed. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/Restore: For those advocating userfy, as per discussion above you will need to userfy that to the original poster/creator in 2005 Paulbard who seems to no longer be here; I personally do not volunteer to do so. Much of this long discourse over all of the references and sources shown here, brings this to my attention WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or when it comes to "quibbling" over the details like these then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If there is such an example of where this might just apply, it is this one. From an outside of Wikipedia POV: The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention. Since I was not aware of the book or author, I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious, so I decided to look up information and ran a search engine check returning hundreds of links to the book and the author, yet I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here, and that a previous article had been deleted on PROD. I did generally respect a fairness of opinion on Wikipedia but looking at the history of this article puts that into question in several respects. I do feel that if I may be curious about this author, then others probably would be as well, and its previous history over the years supports that, including discussion outside of Wikipedia about this one article: Hawkins Entry on Wikipedia, and it makes sense, given the status of this site, to have that information represented here, especially for someone as contentious as this author. I respect the positions of the 'ardent defenders of Wikipedia' over all of the multitudes of rules quoted and various interpretations of the letter of each policy in this case but taken on the whole it collectively misses the principle . --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It can be userfied to any interested persons page. Mentioning what bloggers have said has little weight here.IRWolfie- (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Let's look at some of the statements User:Iconoclast.horizon uses to defend this article tooth and nail. Mind you, these statements have been stated by him before on other wikipages. "The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention." " I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious" "I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here" Is it any wonder why then, Wiki would have such a turbulant history in dealing with all of its overly promotional sources, if not by User:Iconoclast.horizon himself? Further, has anyone asked why User talk:Iconoclast.horizon's talk page is practically dedicated to David R. Hawkins? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) The above statements were in no way presented as 'reasons to defend' this position here, they are taken entirely out of their context by the above user. The statement was made as to how I came to learn of this author in July and my questioning a lack of article here. My personal negative opinion of the author has been stated, yet ignored here. And I am asked to produce source information, locate references, and in process answer to all of the negative feedback and issue created over this article and in so doing my userpage is criticized as being 'dedicated to this author'; again this the same twisting of facts to present something untrue in order to push a case for deletion. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I think its clear that you have a bias on the topic, whether its positive or negative is not really relevant. A bias makes it difficult to contribute to an article in a way that meets the Wikipedia:Core content policies. There are a lot of reactions against your efforts which are affecting how editors view the WP:GNG of the topic. The message you should be receiving from the AfD and this DRV is to change your efforts. A best way to do that is to gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject and write a Wikipedia article that reflects the main topic brought out by that coverage. If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too. If you do that, people will focus on the topic and not on your efforts. When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle. I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, which may generate more reliable source information to add to Wikipedia. However, the primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject " No one to date, not even at the German version, has come up with wp:reliable and wp:independent sources. There has only been one source available, questionable even at best, The Skeptic's Dictionary at 23, 2005|publisher=The Skeptics Dictionary 2. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle." Well, his books are self-published. And I argue, even at DGG, as to how all of a sudden self-published books are essential to a biography that is being challenged and debated as wp:notable? Then I get charged for being prejudice for focusing in and deleting those sources that were not wp:independent, mostly wp:unsourced material that flooded the article early on. 3. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too." The second article that David R Hawkins is related to, is called Applied kinesiology. Notice what comment Panyd (talk · contribs) makes in the history: 18:43, 13 August 2012‎ Panyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,867 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Very much not G11. Looks rather like it's duplicating the applied kinestheology article though) (undo) 4. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, " Doesn't that suggest a violation of WP:PROMO? 5. Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) says, "primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced" And I argue that efforts to find wp:verifiability have been 0, except for the information from the questionable website The Skeptic's Dictionary mentioned above. It has been argued that having this website helped balance the wp:pov from the article being wp:promo, but since it is the only reference for the page... I question that balance. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, how much of the really important information about this subject, other than perhaps his Power vs. Force book, wouldn't easily be fit into the applied kinesiology article? John Carter (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) According to my calculations, roughly 1,514 bytes (par. "Mainstream scientists...) from David R. Hawkins could be moved to the Applied kinesiology page (which is supported by good references) and reworded to wp:scope under the subsection Applied kinesiology#Criticism. Since Hawkins is not notable, and with no published summary of Operah's interview with Hawkins being available, and the self-published material that DGG promotes, just that move alone to Applied kinesiology#Criticism could put the David R Hawkins page to rest (deleted). I support and propose this move.   — Jasonasosa 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary break Analysis of Bibliography Comment:Okay, let's take a look at David R Hawkins Bibliography as brought to our attention in the lead of this page: NOT WP:NOTEABLE: Why doesn't Axial publishing an "independent small press" (their words) promote David R Hawkins' (2005) Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference. ISBN 0-971-50073-8, among their Axial titles? WP:SELFPUBLISH Veritas Publishing self publishes David R Hawkins' works and he was originally the contact for the website until he started getting a lot of calls. Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32612-4 Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32617-5 Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-964-32619-1 Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-971-50071-1 Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN 0-9715007-6-2 Note:Why should we allow wikipedia to promote someone who currently self-publishes his own work when that is against policy? His only wp:notable book is really: Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 0-716-70898-1 published by W. H. Freeman and Company Regarding: Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN 1-561-70933-6 Who wants to scrape up the tidbits from newspapers and websites that make this book notable? We know we cannot interpret the audio from Oprah's interview with David R Hawkins. Does anyone have the published documented interview? And even at that you would need a wp:reliable wp:independent source to elaborate on the interview. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It would appear that you may have deliberately downplayed and intentionally overlooked the main reason for his notability by his primary work Power vs Force in attempt to make your argument and to denigrate the rest of his work, and consequential notoriety and recognition stemming from that; again this seems to indicate prejudice. You are accusing me of being "dedicated to the author" but it would appear that '..you protesteth a bit too much..' simply to make your bureaucratic policy points. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) And yes, by the letter you are right about not interpreting the audio in context for adding content to an article, but this forum isn't the article and you clearly have Oprah stating that she read the book 'Power vs Force' in preparation for the interview and calls it "esteemed work". I am not implying an endorsement, only she could say that, but she clearly read the book and made note of the author enough to interview him. One doesn't have to have a notarized public transcript for that to be understood. Yet, nor have I presented that as reason to keep the article, just so you don't misinterpret that as well. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Analysis of Publication and Media These links given by User:‎Iconoclast.horizon for his opening argument. His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007: Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins. http://soulgarden.me/profiles/blogs/david-r-hawkins-interview-on Quick Link soulgarden.me is not a notable webpage (WP:NWEB), neither is its founder Christopher Witecki, and none of them are wp:reliable. http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force Oprah Link This is about as much information as we get for the interview without interpreting the audio: "In recent weeks, Oprah has covered topics in her Soul Series ranging from interpreting the law of attraction to gaining insight on the secret spiritual lives of children. Now, Oprah talks with Dr. David R. Hawkins, author of Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, about the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Listen in as Dr. Hawkins explains to Oprah how he reached a higher level of consciousness. Plus, Dr. Hawkins talks about the idea of a ladder of spiritual enlightenment on which our souls can be measured." This is the only tidbit that comes up in Oprah's search engine for David Hawkins! Read more: http://www.oprah.com/oprahradio/Power-vs-Force#ixzz24jY3vdMc Don't expect to get more from this link... its the same tidbit article. Barbara Walters Show Past Guest Bios (reposted at Oneness)-David R. Hawkins http://www.experiencefestival.com/barbara_walters_-_age_confusion There is no interview with Barbara Walters and David R Hawkins on this page. Why the two names appear on this page, beats me. But after all this website is not notable (WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/David_R_Hawkins/id/2047910 This link has nothing to do with Barbara Walters. This weblink is Global Oneness' "Encyclopedia", another website that is not notable (WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable. National Television Appearances: I ran a search for the following criteria at google.com (MacNeil Lehrer David Hawkins) and the first link I get is this!!!: :::http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6121431/ The Pirate Bay. (Warning! Clicking this link is at your own risk. I do not advocate this website.) This is what it says: "Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. is a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, and lecturer. He co-authored the ground-breaking work, Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, that helped revolutionize psychiatry. His national television appearances include The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, The Barbara Walters Show, and The Today Show." MacNeil Lehrer News Hour Barbara Walters Show The Today Show Notice how the above list given by User:‎Iconoclast.horizon is in the exact order. I cannot find any such interviews and no wp:reliable links were provided. Notable endorsements by public figures: "...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa "...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca "I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business...Sam Walton "Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer I'm tired at this point... Maybe Dr. Wayne Dyer can vouch for him. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) You did ask me to find references, source information, etc... I have about 5 more pages worth of complied links, of interviews, articles written about the man or things he has been mentioned in, including 2 recent books written about his works, not to mention 19 pages of negative web commentaries about him full of links, none that I have bothered to make time to go through yet. I will be happy to post them and let you quibble over each one and give your opinion as to why each isn't reliable. I just didn't feel that DRV was the proper place to go into each source one-by-one beyond what was posted in the nomination. I really don't want to bother with it but you seem very determined in your opinion against every relevant piece of material presented. We do appreciate your ever-diligent work on Wikipedia. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) And sorry that you are having trouble finding the transcripts and other things you need for confirmations to the TV appearances and radio shows. I did not find much as well, in that regard, besides reprints of past guest information and the Oprah audio; so knowing that ahead of time, I was not using that list to confirm or disconfirm, only to show 'relevant material' for the appeal, not sources for an article, as is described in guidelines --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Analysis of German related article The German version of David R Hawkins doesn't even have a reference section or any references to support any of the paragraphs that make up the article. The only thing they have are Weblinks (External links) at the bottom of the page. The German wiki's Wikipedia:Richtlinien (wp:policies) on proper sources are found at Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Theoriedarstellung (Wikipedia: No original research#Representation theory) where it says, "Alle Artikel in der Wikipedia sollen auf Informationen aus bereits veröffentlichten und möglichst verlässlichen Informationsquellen beruhen. (All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information already published and most reliable sources of information.)" Also, their definition of Original research under Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Was ist Theoriefindung?, is "Was ist Theoriefindung? Das betrifft insbesondere unveröffentlichte Theorien... (What is original research? This particularly applies to unpublished theories...)" It also states in the following paragraph, "Publikationen im Selbst- oder Zuschussverlag und private Websites sind in aller Regel ungeeignet, wenn sie keine entsprechende Rezeption in der Fachwelt in Form von wissenschaftlichen Zitationen gefunden haben. (Publications in self- or subsidy publishing and private websites are generally inappropriate when no corresponding reception in the art in the form of scientific citations found.)" So as far as I can tell, that page is in just as much violation as the English page has been. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC) But notice their wording: the "articles must be based on published & reliable sources", not "published reliable sources must be given in the article." (This corresponds roughly to our distinction, between "sourceable" , which is required, and "currently sourced," which except for BLPs, is not.) In any case, in practice, the deWP has a great many unreferenced articles, & seems to be making no effort to remove them. But I do not see the relevance here, for our article has sources--the question , as usual in deletion discussions, is their reliability. And note their wording in the policy on self-published: generally inappropriate. They are sometimes appropriate here as well as there; here we use the for example to show the views of a person, or routine uncontested factual matter. I do not know their practice on pseudoscience, though I would expect it stricter, but we have always had the policy that widely known theories, however nonsensical, and however unsupported by scientific sources, can be notable enough for an article. That's for theories. I do not think we have a policy extending that to pseudoscientists as individuals, where the criteria is the same as everyone else--except that in practice we have two opposite tendencies, first, to accept that in some fields informal sources may be the best available, and second, there is a certain prejudice agains borderline notable pseudoscientists. I do not have sufficient facility in writing German to start a deletion discussion at the deWP; it would be interesting to see the result, bearing in mind that they do decide by voting. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) OK, maybe this is not the best place to raise this question, maybe a policy page would be better, but I think it does, to a degree, specifically relate to this particular subject, and given the relevance to this page can reasonably be asked here. As a theoretical example, if the author of a self-published book sees that book make it onto a best-seller list, even a local one which is published in a local newspaper, and, on the basis of that information, and perhaps a good agent, becomes available for media interviews, does that help establish his notability? I'm actually not thinking of this particular case, although it might be applicable here, but maybe perhaps an author of a history of Palau, for instance, whose population is 21,000 total. So, again theoretically, even if the main point of the self-published book is that Palau is in fact the last surviving remnant of Atlantis/Mu/whatever, if it contained some material of another nature which might be involved in helping the author achieve "talking head" status in the media, does anyone have any idea what if anything the relevant encyclopedic content regarding him or his book would be? Also, specifically asking this of DGG for informational purposes, and I want to make it clear it is only for informational purposes, not a "gotcha" attempt, does anyone have any idea on what basis we would be able to establish knowing whether a theory is widely known enough to qualify as a "widely known theory, however nonsensical"? This relates to, among others, an old argument about whether there is basis for a Joseph and Imhotep/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person article. I am told by Christians of a biblical inerrancy POV that the theory is widely known and accepted in that branch of Christianity, and don't doubt that, but had not, at the time it was proposed, been able to find any reliable sources which gave it any length of discussion, so there was no basis for any substantive material from independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) There are no clear cut lines here. I agree that the degree of notability is disputable. About your example, though not relevant here: I think there is justification for such an article. I believe it to be it is a known hypothesis supported by publications (I can probably re-locate what I remember reading--I tend to remember that I have read something, though not necessarily in what book I read it.) sources.) But biblical studies is a respectable line of human scholarship--& can be responsibly studied by people with a wide range of religious views; The hypothesis is conceivably even true even without the belief in the inspiration, let alone the inerrancy of the Bible. (a non-believer would probably word it as a figure like Joseph rather than Joseph exactly as described in the OT.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. It would have been good for the closer to include some sort of rationale but the fact here is that there are no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that can be used for the purposes of GNG. The only source currently cited in the article which mentions its subject is this. I was intrigued by the mention above of the subject being knighted in Denmark, so I looked into it. According to his website "In 1995, in a ceremony officiated by the H.H. Prince Valdemar of Schaumburg–Lippe at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary, he became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity.". However, according to this site, that's an "honour" sold by a fake prince to anyone willing to pay $10 (ETA, actually its $10 just to get the info, then $25 filing fee then a suggested $1,400 donation. Still, it appears to fool people quite easily - I might get one for myself). Formerip (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I admit to rather wondering at that, because it did not seem compatible with the rest of the material. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: Further, why hasn't careful consideration of WP:BLP been considered for this biography? Notice the opening lines for this policy: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:" Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Which means that biographies, especially for living persons, should be scrutinized more so than religious or scientific articles. Yet those who criticize this article for it not being WP:NOTABLE, for those who take the care to remove WP:UNSOURCED and not WP:RELIABLE content, and any WP:ORIGINAL research are branded as prejudice! How dare you (Especially DGG). For further discussion See Talk:David R. Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Removal of half of the publications during the discussions seemed to me an attempt to prevent fair consideration of the individual. I accept your implied correction that it may have been a (misguided) attempt to improve the article. But the idea that the books a writer publishes--even self-publishes is not relevant content in a bibliography of his works is what I consider a true perversion of the meaning of reliable sources, For books, as distinct from minor publications, we have included this in every author bibliography I know of here. I would indeed be reluctant to use any of this author's works, no matter who published them, as sources for anything other than his own views. The principle of BLP is treating article subjects fairly. I have a considerable prejudice against the author's general direction of work myself, but that shouldn't affect the encyclopedia. I despise pseudoscience, but I consider my prejudice against it no reason to remove borderline figures there, andy more than in any other field; I do consider such attempts expressions of prejudice just as much as it would be to try to preferentially remove articles about musicians whose music one hates, or politicians one disagrees with. The very fact that I know my prejudice makes me the more careful not to let it affect my work here. It's accepted that discussions of someone's notability is not a violation of BLP; I think beyond a certain level of unfairness, it does apply to attacks upon it; saying what is the borderline is difficult--we need enough flexibility to permit rational discussion. I also stand by my restoration of content: he did publish them, and the publishers are as stated. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC) This is all good and nice... only towards the good professor who lost his mind after a moderate career (or smartly decided to make big buck off incurable stupitity or desperation). But what about being good to the readers of wikipedia? There is a huge number of kooks no serious author bother to write about. They litter local newspapers with ads and interviews, and self-publish abundantly to promote their business. Of course it would be nice to have balanced articles which would describe hem who they really are, but who really cares? Unfortunately without serious criticism there is thin chance to write an article which is less than promotion of the kookery. THerefore it is heavy insistence on solid independent sources as a basis for the article, and various hyperclaims from promotional sources must be ignored if no independent confirmation. Therefore the closure was perfectly within both the rules and the spirit of wikipedia, and this page is not a place to complain how good this article might have been if only it allowed to sit here 3-4 more years (and accumulate more fluff). Staszek Lem (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I accept there is a problem with articles where all the sources available are those in support of some weird idea, because nobody sensible would conceivably bothered to take it seriously. (this frequently is the situation for articles on paranormal phenomena) But we have no authority to decide on the weirdness of an idea. We can say something is self published. If published by a fringe press, we can add that. We can say a book is held in very few libraries. But we can not judge on what is fringe unless there is a RS saying so. We cannot be concerned that if what we give is factual information, but we think that all available factual information is biased, it would mislead the reader & we therefore shouldn't publish it. That's an expression of our own OR and our own bias, however correct they are. It's really an equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT. And I accept there is a serious and general problem about local coverage of local authors, and PR-infuenced interviews. We're getting a lot of this , in all subjects. It has no particular relationship to pseudoscience or kookiness--it is even more frequent for poets and novelists and musicians. And businessmen and lawyers and doctors. And student athletes and performers, and town politicians. And not just people: restaurants, real estate brokerages, insurance agencies, merchandisers of all types of products and services. We try to deal with the problem with WP:LOCAL and NOT MEMORIAL. I have consistently argued and will continue to argue that local book reviews of a local author are meaningly indiscriminate, and routine interviews even in national media are essentially PR, with anything the interviewee says being just his autobio and any tributes or complements the interviewer pays him just conventional polite conversation to get him talking. This is one of the reasons I thing the N=2RS rule, the GNG, should be depreciated, and notability of a person or firm judged by whether they have done something important. The assumption that only notable people will get press coverage is amusingly naïve--I find it hard to believe that even 8 or 10 years ago we were quite that unsophisticated. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC) FWIW, I do broadly agree with your point here. A sitewide Rfc on notability would be a great idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) And I third the motion. Particularly regarding some topics of some possible significant importance to the WikiProject, which still are difficult to find sourcing for, like, maybe, the emirs of each of the United Arab Emirates, it can be difficult to find. And, for some people working on fringe issues, it can be hard to find anything, other than maybe The Skeptical Inquirer, which offers independent reliable coverage. I think the Menawiki discussion currently taking place provides some indication of the problems finding sources on some subjects which we presume would be notable, but still can't be proven through sources. And, honestly, considering we now have, I think, a bit better idea of what is available in reliable sources, and in RS in English, we might well be able to perhaps rewrite them with a bit clearer idea of what kind of sources are available out there. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Afd Closer If this is overturned, I'd prefer to see a relist or a userfication. I think I closed it correctly, considering the consensus and the weak sourcing offered. I'm still a bit worried about a lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering this fellow, although there are no shortage of "hyperclaims", as Staszek Lem eloquently puts it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) What is your opinion of these two edits: [47], [48].  One edit comment is, "(I don't think this book is the source of notability)", and one says, "(remove, I don't think these sources are reliable (or in use)).  The first is an unreferenced claim that redefines that for which Hawkins is "best known", and the second removes five offline book references.  In contrast with the first edit, the German Wikipedia says, "The book has been translated into 15 languages ​​and was in several countries in the bestseller lists."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I'm Ok with the first edit, which changed it from saying "he is best know for this book" to "he is best known for his work on X subject" (which was detailed in the book). Not sure it was the best change to make, but I don't find it objectionable. As for the second dif, in which he removes several sources as unreliable, I'm not sure. I'd have to check the publishers' reputations and book reviews to be certain. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The books may well not be reliable sources about anything but their own content and their author's views, as per WP:SPS. That is not a reason to remove them from the bibliography in the article about the author, particularly not during a deletion discussion. The work an author has created should be listed if s/he is notable enough for an article, not all sub topics in an articel need be individually notable nor reliable. That this author has written, and self-published, these books appears to be a clear fact. DES (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Overturn and relist as per DGG. I am not sure if this person is truly notable or not, although from the content of this discussion and the current article i suspect he is notable as a promoter of pseudoscience. The closer may well have correctly interpreted the views expressed. But, in part because of the dubious edits mentioned above, I don't feel that policy-based vs essentially IDONTLIKEIT arguments were properly evaluated, and the discussion was, in effect, poisoned. Yes, we could userfy or delete and then have a new draft written, possible via AfC or another DRV. But will that have any positive purpose not attained by simple relisting? I don't think so. If this close is endorsed, I would be willing to userfy to anyone who expresses serious intent to improve the article. DES (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2012

Fatjon Tafaj – Articles userified for improvement with agreement of the appellant. – Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fatjon Tafaj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This deletion was a mass deletion of 6 players. The closing admin correctly waited for 7 days, so the deletion is technically valid. The were two arguments which were brought up as to validate the deletion: (1) Insatisfaction of GNG and (2) Insatisfaction of NFOOTY (Albanian Superliga not being fully pro). For the insatisfaction of GNG, I feel that some of the 6 players which were deleted can have a better chance to stay in Wikipedia, especially Vangjel Mile and Erjon Vucaj (the last one was convocated by Albania last week in the game against Moldova). In addition, right after this deletion took place user:Oltianruci brought the source that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro, and I properly referenced. I cleared the issue with User:Sir Sputnik, who brought the players to deletion: he kindly promissed to not object to this DRV, as now there are sufficient sources that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro. I also tried to solve with the closing admin, but given his inexperience with football, he suggested that I go to DRV. Since the reasons to delete were (1) GNG insatisfaction and (2) League is not fully pro, and since (2) is fully satisfied, a good part of the grounds why the players were deleted in the AfD are no longer there. I henceforth ask for an individual relist to AfD, in order to be able to discuss case by case GNG satisfaction of each of these players. Albaniafutboll (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The articles were originally deleted for failing WP:NFOOTBALL; new evidence has come to light that they may now pass NFOOTBALL. However, NFOOTBALL is secondary to WP:GNG, and I have concerns restoring basic stubs that may never be improved straight to mainspace - therefore I suggest we userfy all 6 to Albaniafutboll's user space so they can improve on them, before we agree to move some, if not all, to mainspace. GiantSnowman 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I think your concern is valid and reasonable, and I agree to having the stubs userfied to my user space. Thanks! Albaniafutboll (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, that is a good idea. I've moved the 7 articles from the Afd to your userspace so you can work on them. I have no objections to their restoration afterwards, although I suggest you let GiantSnowman or another user from the football wikiproject take a glance at them before moving back to mainspace. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I'll notify GiantSnowman before sending to main space: that's prudent and good advice. I also involved Oltianruci, the original creator of the articles, and we'll work together on them. Thanks!Albaniafutboll (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 August 2012

Margo Rey – Relist at AfD. – T. Canens (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Margo Rey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article was originally nominated due to "fakery" and puffery, the fakery claim because the original author had apparently written another article of a business colleague, loaded with unsupported content (and as I note in the AfD conversation, there was no shortage of self-promotion in this original article either!). However, after the original nomination and 3 additional delete !votes were cast, the article was substantively revised and supported by a variety of references. Since re-write, Keep !votes have been cast by 2 people (one mine, one "weak" by an editor who was concerned that two people mentioned within the article were the same person - an issue addressed in the AfD conversation) and two Delete !votes (one as a confirmation by an earlier voter and one new voter). With conversation ongoing as recently as 6 hours ago, I suggest that the closing was premature and that consensus had not been reached because the !votes prior to the re-write were no longer relevant to the article being considered for deletion. I have discussed this with the closing admin, who suggested I request a re-listing should I choose to submit the DRV. In keeping with the DRV guidelines, I'm not restating the arguments here, merely asking that the closure be reversed and the article re-listed. I'm happy to converse about the article's content at any time should the article be reinstated. Thank you for your consideration. Vertium When all is said and done 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Addendum - I've perhaps not made it clear enough by simply linking the conversation I had with the closing admin. In it, he states that while my arguments were legitimate for keeping it, it was only my and one other keep !vote against 5 delete !votes (3 of which were prior to the article being revised. My contesting of the close is that the counting of the votes is immaterial, but rather that the consensus. I do not believe that 3 comments or !votes that were made prior to the article's revision play any role in consensus because they no longer apply. I don't want to re-argue it here, only to have a chance to continue the debate. Vertium When all is said and done 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) For clarity, these were my exact words. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 100% agree. For extra clarity, here's the entire conversation (again) Vertium When all is said and done 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Could we please have a temporary undeletion for review purposes?—S Marshall T/C 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Seconded. Theopolisme :) 20:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Done, this was the last, and presumably best, version before deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) Thank you Mark. Vertium When all is said and done 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC) From a purely technical perspective, the AfD was relisted in order to achieve what appeared to be a missing consensus. I think one cannot level the criticism of the closure being premature at the person who closed the discussion. I used the following rationale for nominating the article for deletion: "At first sight this looks to be a valid article, but the references are all primary sources except one minor appearance on a TV show. IMDB, never a reliable source, shows that she was a voice of a dog in a minor production. The article appears to be intended to create notability for this singer rather than demonstrate notability. Wikipedia may not be used in this manner. If she gains notability then an article may remain here, otherwise not." which is not, as the appellant has stated ""fakery" and puffery, the fakery claim because the original author had apparently written another article of a business colleague, loaded with unsupported content". Since DRV is a technical process based upon the technical merits of the closure of the AfD it is important that the appeal is factually correct. There is a point that one needs to close something. The closer is duty bound to weigh the quality of the arguments and the article itself, not the quantity, and I feel they have done this. So I feel I am correct in Supporting the deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Clarifying Question. Just so I am understanding you correctly (not wanting to argue), you think your original nomination should carry equal weight towards consensus even though the article is quite different then from what it is now? Because I don't dispute the nomination, only the closure. Thanks. Vertium When all is said and done 21:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I believe that the person closing the discussion has a duty to look at all the points raised and to factor those against the article as it stood and as it stands. While that does not answer your question directly it does provide a precise answer to the way any and all AfDs should be closed. This is part of weighing the quality, not the quantity, of the points raised. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I agree. The article itself and the quality of the discussion should dictate. However, the closing admin noted to me as part of the reason for closing now were that there were only two keep votes and five for deletion. So, from a technical perspective, it was closed in part due to the count, which is not consensus. Vertium When all is said and done 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I feel that you might have made that point better in your opening request than deep inside here, and may wish to add it as an addendum. I do not find it persuasive myself, but that is my right as it is your right to raise it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I apologize for not raising it explicitly. I had expected people would note the discussion with the closing admin and read it so I'll be sure to be more explicit in the future. I'm not sure why you'd find it unpersuasive, since it agrees with your point that consensus and the article itself should be the criteria, but that's your prerogative. Thanks for commenting. Vertium When all is said and done 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The closer is supposed to get it right. The art of closing is to find a way to do it within the rules. Almost any close can be technically justified. If an article is revised in the course of an AfD , it can sometimes make all or most of the previous comments moot. This is not my subject field, but the version of the article restored gives what seems to be a good reference that two (or 3?) of her records charted. The question seemed to be whether the list they charted on was a major list--and that distinction is out of my field altogether. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I do not think that the closer was at fault because he correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion before him. But from reviewing the undeleted article, it's apparent that firstly, the article that was deleted was radically different from the article assessed by the "delete" !voters; and secondly, that all the !votes were "delete" prior to the 13th August revisions, but after them, all the !votes were "keep". This fell short of a WP:HEY rewrite, but the grounds to relist the discussion seem fairly good to me.—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Except Kudpung's. Oops. Still, there's a clear pattern to the !votes, with a consensus to delete preceding the rewrite and a consensus to keep following it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Relist - Based on S Marshall's analysis of the timeline of the AFD, I support restoring and immediately starting a new AFD to review the revised article. All who participated in the first debate (on either side) should then be invited to participate in the second. - TexasAndroid (talk) If the current deleted status is overturned I support an immediate relisting for an AfD discussion and the notification of all participants in the prior discussions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Relist per S Marshall. There was not a consensus to delete the version of the article that existed at the time of the closure as it was substantially different to the version that existed at the start of the discussion. Explicitly inviting all the previous participants to the new discussion would be a good thing imho. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Relist per the three folks above me. Seems a reasonable step given the way the debate went. And notification of all would be a fine idea. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Relist as a reasonable way to find the true consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. The opinions on the later added material to the AfD and the change of the article during the AfD in fact was there in the AfD for the closer to consider, so WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information does not apply. The later added material doesn't alter the WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A key here is the independent coverage. Her husband, the successful comedian Ron White, supports her career (it's his record label, etc.). They've put out press releases to get reliable sources interested in writing about her career, but that has not yet happened. The press releases are not independent of Margo Rey, so they don't count towards WP:GNG, even though they are significant coverage. When sources write about Ron White, they do mention his wife, Margo Rey, but that information doesn't amount to enough coverage for a stand alone article even though it counts towards WP:GNG. If her records are charting, then why is it that reliable sources are not writing about her? Without such reliable source material from which to draw material for the Wikipedia article, there can be no article. Since Ron White is involved in her career, you can include a subsection in his Ron White biography about his interactions with Margo Rey's career. Once reliable sources start writing biographical information about her, you then can use that to post an article on her. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Since this looks like it will be relisted, other info that can be considered at the relisted AfD includes: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) You are correct in that no one has claimed that new information has arisen since the closing. The issue in this DRV is whether consensus had truly been reached because new information had arisen in the AfD. Your long list of article might be important to consider, though I'm concerned some of it looks far too much like the original content that caused the article to be nominated in the first place. If this closure is reversed, the article will continue to be updated and the discussed during the relisting. It should come as no surprise that I believe the subject notable, but I will make my point in the article and on the AfD, not here. Vertium When all is said and done 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Relist, I was able to come up with a good deal of secondary source coverage in some quick and easy simple searches. The deletion discussion should be relisted and restarted in order to take into account the secondary source coverage. AFD is not for cleanup, but the article should be allowed to be restarted from scratch with usage of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Antiseptic Bloodbath – Re-creation permitted. Firstly, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to raise a deletion review in order to create a fresh article that overcomes all the concerns listed in a previous AfD—although the increasing misapplication of WP:CSD#G4 sometimes does make this necessary. Secondly, by convention the administrator who closed the AfD discussion or performed the speedy deletion may overturn themselves at any time, and in this case this is what has happened. These factors justify an early close. NAC – —S Marshall T/C 07:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Antiseptic Bloodbath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The page was originally deleted due to lack of 3rd-party coverage. Since the deletion, the page has been recreated by an IP-based user. However, since the deletion, the album has been released in a physical format and review articles have appeared in the Christian music community which, while not necessarily "Rolling Stone" caliber, are from multiple independent non-self-published sources. I have edited the recreated page and the page in my sandbox to reflect these reviews. My hope is that these reviews are enough to justify letting the article stand with a Cleanup AfD tag. 5minutes (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Permit recreation: Not sure there was a real consensus for a redirect or anything else, but the redirect didn't delete the article history. Since there do seem to be some new sources, which would allow for testing by a 2nd AfD if anyone wishes, seems fine to "recreate" article.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Wrong venue DRV does not exist as prior restraint on editors who believe the concerns expressed in a previous AfD have been addressed. If the article has been changed/improved substantially, then G4 does not apply and a new AfD can be held if and when someone disagrees that the prior objections have been addressed properly. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (Yes, wrong venue, but) Permit recreation. It was a tricky close anyway, which is why I didn't delete the history. If there are more sources now (which was the problem) then fine. This DRV can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sandra Fluke – restore. There is a slight majority for restoration. In addition a few of those who wanted to uphold the closure have hinted that it can be revisited after she holds her speech at the DNC. Since this is a close call, some reasons are in order. Policywise, the BLP1E policy applies when all the reliable coverage is in context of a single event, and the person otherwise remains low profile. In this case, the "overturners" have pointed out that Fluke is not low profile, for instance being a speaker at the DNC is a high profile event, and a separate event from the Limbaugh incident. Regarding the "revisit after the DNC speech" option, I note that the DNC is only a few days away. Quite a lot of time and effort goes into these discussions, and I don't want to close this very long and convoluted discussion in a way that invites another one in a short time period. I will also note that I am unimpressed with the upholders/endorsers who called this DRV "ridiculous" and "absurd". When people have offered arguments in favor of restoration in good faith, it is demeaning to describe the discussion in such terms. The consensus here isn't very strong, but I feel that the "restore" article option is the one closest to whatever consensus there is. I am undoing the redirect. Note that the current content does not mention the DNC speech, and since that is the main cited reason for overturning, I urge those who wanted the article back to address that matter. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sandra Fluke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Things have changed significantly. Not only does she continue to remain in the public eye (For Example, In Obama email, Fluke accuses Romney of being in 'lockstep' with Akin, but she will be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention.Obama women’s advocate Sandra Fluke to speak at the Democratic National Convention After months of coverage, it is almost impossible to suggest that she is only WP:N for one event. Casprings (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Comment from deleting admin - I was not contacted before this DRV was opened, and no discussion took place beforehand. I'm still not seeing notability for Fluke outside of the Romney Limbaugh feud. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, as it appears to be directly contradicted by the sources above. For example, being a speaker at the DNC isn't a small matter. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) It's not in WP:POLITICIAN either. It would warrant a mention in the article on the convention, certainly, but unless coverage on her is in-depth then it won't pass the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "Romney feud"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) You know what he meant; Rush feud. Convention->Romney->credible mistake.Zaldax (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Add not being American to the list. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Restore - Her fame was launched by Rush but has outlived that incident. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) "fame" is "do you remember that person Rush called a slut?"--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Delete The article doesn't say anything about Rush. She'd be too young to be into that band anyway. Her generation is all Linkin Park or whatever... --MoonLichen (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Change to Provisional Keep If references to Rush are clarified as not referring to the Canadian band headed by Geddy Lee. --MoonLichen (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Restore Not WP:WIALPI not WP:WI1E, is covered in multiple reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) One event can and usually is covered by multiple WP:RS--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: it is almost impossible to suggest that she is only WP:N for one event. This will not be difficult for 209.6.69.227. Though "suggest" will be too namby-pamby. -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) For the ____ time; comments on edit not editor--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Restore She probably would've been notable even without the Rush Limbaugh incident. I don't like that she is notable, but she is and thus deserves her own page. Someone speaking at the DNC is pretty important, despite how they got there. Naapple (Talk) 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Inconceivable that anyone would know who she was EXCEPT for Rush incident. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Rush apparently thought she was notable enough to bring her up on his show. Naapple (Talk) 10:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) However inconceivable it may be to you, I can conceive it. From the Beast: "Sandra Fluke Wanted to Speak Up for Women Before Congress". Ms: "Sandra Fluke Testifies at House Democratic Steering Committee Hearing". And of course Limbaugh had some idea of who she was before publicly fantasizing about her. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Let's not fall into the same traps as in the AFD. Keep this NPOV, and avoid the personal attacks. Address the edit, not the editor. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold close and note that this discussion is to determine if the close was valid, not to !vote a second time -- most folks do not patrol deletion reveiw in fact as such !votes do not count at all here. Just whether the close was proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Note: The following non-random editors were CANVASSED for this by an editor here: Roscelese, Naapple, Stillstanding-247, Zaldax, Hoary, and Crisco 1492. [58]. The note is neutral in wording, the selection of those notified is not neutral. Collect (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC) To be a properly constituted DRV, ALL contributors to the AfD would have to be notified. The previous DRV was snuck in without notifications, which is why the Article was even there to be AfD-ed--209.6.69.227 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Collect, you're basically right about what DRVs are and are not. If I had been asked rather than CANVASSED, I'd have pointed this out. Do note, however, that the page about this says in part Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. I suppose that this, or something like it, was what Casprings had in mind. (Me, I'm dubious.) However, your assertion that the selection of those notified was not neutral surprises me. Note this example of said CANVASSING: Casprings informs his nemesis just two minutes after he informs me. -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I was trying to inform some users that had written several comments or longer comments in the AfD. I informed parties on both sides of the !vote. Casprings (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC) You "informed" a non-random sample, with strong emphasis on those who would seek to overturn the proper close. This is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS at the very least - especially with those you CANVASSed opining at the start of this DRV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) That's pretty strong evidence of Canvassing, agreed. 3 editors notified in favor of delete (including the nom. and closing admin, so really only 1), and 4 notified in favor of keep, including the two strongest advocates. To neutralize this canvassing, I will now notify ALL editors who participated in the previous discussion who have not already been notified, using Casprings notice. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, I have now notified all editors who participated in the previous AFD discussion. Hopefully that should undo any negative effects of the canvassing discussed above. Zaldax (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. There is no consensus to redirect present in the AfD. I don't think that there is a consensus to "Keep" either, but lack of consensus is a reason for a "No Consensus" close not a determination of which side thew closing admin agrees with. There is no overwhelming reason that requires the discarding of the "Keep" opinions as clearly erroneous. They make a reasonable (though not in my own view conclusive) argument that coverage of Ms. Fluke has continued beyond the single incident and that she has become a (marginally) notable political commentator or symbol (cf. Joe the Plumber). That said, given the existence of an article on the original controversy I'd probably favor a redirect as an editorial decision. But in the absence of a clear consensus there is no reason to force one. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Don't understand your point, unless you are assuming Redirect, Delete, and Merge are all separate and distinct options; in reality, they all lead to the same thing, just put in a different way. The closing Admin obviously combined the three, a completely justified action, and supporting a clear Consensus on the AfD.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) overturn/restore -- Similarly to Eluchil404, I think it's obvious that there was no consensus in the AfD to delete/merge, and I'm genuinely puzzled by that close. The arguments about subsequent developments are also moderately persuasive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold So far there is zero evidence that the AfD close was improper. There is nothing to prevent any editor from recreating this article with the new, and from my eye, information that establishes notability.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) overturn/restore. With no disparagement to the closing admin. That she will be a headliner at the DNC tips her well into the notability on her own as a speaker. She's getting coverage now and more will pile on with whatever she states. Likely Limbaugh will put his foot in his mouth again as well and try to take credit in some way. The closer wouldn't have known she would be featured at the DNC but now that she is we have tipped past the threshold. Insomesia (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) again, too many times through this process; endless "redo" demands with every mention. Time to stop WP:CRYSTAL about what she WILL become, hasn't happened yet, predictions wrong.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold deletion, but potentially with no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance I've a rather extensive argument for my (rather unusual) opinion, but as I'm working on other things on Wikipedia at the moment I haven't finished putting it "on paper" yet. I'll return here shortly, and replace this message with my actual reasoning. In the meantime, just wanted to put that out there so my position is known. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC) See extensive argument further down the page. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/Permit recreation. Its pretty clear to me there was no consensus in that AfD to redirect. The closer felt it was the strongest argument, but it was not one that persuaded the participants in the discussion to reach a consensus. And Fluke's continuing press coverage has taken a jump even since the close.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) That may be the case, but do note that the majority, or at least most vocal, of the editors who supported keeping the article have a record of supporting that position reaching back all the way to the beginning of the Limbaugh scandal. There's a difference between a "close" AFD and an AFD in which one party has no chance whatsoever of being convinced, and, to put it bluntly, showed no willingness to budge on their position. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) So there is a substantial block of editors who have a strongly held position, all the more reason there was no consensus. Life goes on.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I think what Zaldax is referring to is the fact that there are a small number of editors that repeatedly try to insert Fluke into multiple sites, always say that things Fluke are critical to multiple articles and are being turned down by multiple editors on multiple articles. Empty votes are just about never in doubt, the question is whether there are any truly NEW arguments that would cause WP to reconsider. WP articles do not exist just because a few editors "want" them.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and Restore - It was a bad close; Fluke is now a public figure and fallout from the incident lingers. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) So why has the fallout not been addressed in the RL-SF controversy article? Zaldax (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Agree. Fallout in what sense? Thus far, little, except that news hits reflect the desire of Democratic strategists to remind voters of the RL-SF controversy, a campaign strategy that was dropped in the summer due to lack of traction. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold deletion, but with no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance As the original nominator, I have a rather extensive response to this DRV. I'll do my best to address everything one point at a time. Okay, here we go... Regarding this review itself, there should have been a discussion of some sort first, as per Deletion Review policy. The lack of discussion, combined with the aforementioned Canvassing and Caspring's long history of Fluke-related edits worries me quite a bit, to be honest. However, since we're here, I'll concentrate on the questions at hand. Regarding the original AFD, I believe that the closing admin's decision was completely and totally justified. Wikipedia' deletion policy emphasizes that AFD is not a simple counting of heads, but a careful and thorough evaluation of the discussion and arguments involved. The AFD outline for "Rough Consensus" explicitly states the following: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Furthermore, the guideline goes on to state: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. (emphasis added) Several of the primary concerns relating to the now-deleted article on Sandra Fluke focused on the two bolded clauses. In particular, I argued, and still hold, that the article itself represented a potentially dangerous WP:POVFORK of the article on the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. I ask that you compare the most recent revision of the article on the controversy with the last version of the Sandra Fluke article prior to the redirect. Note that the only relevant information on Fluke's post-scandal (i.e. her "notable") actions is limited to a single section, "Support for President Obama". As argued in the AFD discussion, simply endorsing and campaigning for the President is not a notable action in-and-of-itself, and does not justify a separate article, especially in light of BLP concerns. As such, during the AFD discussion I suggested numerous times that an "Aftermath" section be created in the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article after a redirect, to cover Fluke's 2012 campaign appearances. This is especially relevant, given Limbaugh's comments on the matter (which therefore justifys inclusion in the "controversy" article). However, even after the recent revelation that she will be speaking at the DNC, this section STILL has not been created. I'm puzzled as to why this was not done, especially given the closing admin's statement: "The result was redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)" Frankly, I think Crisco hit the nail on the head. Much of Fluke's coverage was and remains passing mentions, as she remains a participant in the 2012 election campaign. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, such a feat is not notable by any means. Given that the Romney campaign has not commented on her directly, any comparisons to Joe the Plumber are faulty, as she has not nearly attained the same level of recognition. Why, therefore, would I possibly support recreation in the future? Frankly, we have no way of knowing if Fluke's speech at the DNC will be a notable event. As per WP:Politician, simply speaking at an event, no matter how notable, does not confer notability on its own, and does not justify a separate BLP article (especially given concerns about edit-warring and POV content.) As editors, none of us have a working crystal ball, and no one yet knows if her speech will have an impact, or if it will be resoundingly ignored. Likewise, in an election year, things tend to be blown out of proportion. (Note that Presidential elections are explicitly given as an example in that link.) As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can't look at every single development in the campaign to justify the creation of an article; wait and see if these events continue to be covered by reliable sources before judging their significance. As Fluke's campaign appearances and continued notability relate exclusively to her actions in the prior scandal, readers searching her name are likely looking for information about the controversy which made her notable, not her biography. In conclusion, I believe that the original decision should be upheld, and that the article should not be recreated until at least after the her DNC appearance, if not until after the election. Arguments made in the original AFD discussion continue to hold, and the lack of updates made to the RL-SF controversy article is a worrying development. Furthermore, a planned speech at the DNC does not clear the notability hurdle for article re-creation until the speech actually occurs; re-creating the article now would be jumping the gun, to say the least. Therefore, I end with this quote from Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines on restoring deleted content. "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (P.S. Apologies for the extensive length of this post.) Comment One, I tried to contact editors that were clearly involved in this. The last time I did this, I was told I did it in secrete. Two, I can't edit the SL-RL page because it is protected. Third, I thought she was WP:N a long time ago. So what? Casprings (talk) signature re-added Zaldax (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC) You could have filed an edit request, just like newly-registered or ip editors wishing to edit a partially-protected article. If you had drafted your additions on the talk page or in your sandbox, I'm sure an admin would have tentatively added them, particularly given the closing comment. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Admission of inappropriate reason for DR Using "I can't edit the SL-RL page because it is protected", when it is protected because of (Caspring's) edit warring is de facto an admission that the purpose of the DR is to allow an editor to add information that, due to NPOV concerns, is inappropriate. WP:POVFORKs are EXPLICITLY forbidden for precisely the reason Casprings just inadvertently gave; new articles are not allowed just to let one set of partisan editors put THEIR information on one page, another on another. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Sustain - This is getting ridiculous. We've had multiple closes, and a previous DRV. This is clearly consensus after 2 afds and 1 prior DRV. Similar names keep showing up wanting yet another bite at the apple. That, plus many of the comments above indicate a desire to redo the AfD rather than review whether or not the close was proper. As Collect says, DRV is not to relitigate the issue, it's to judge whether the close was proper. Concerns about canvassing only drive home that point. Thankfully there was a neutral message that went out to contributors to the prior AfD, however even with that, it highlights why DRV is not a second vote, and why this DRV is a painfully obvious attempt to keep an article that has no consensus to be kept. Shadowjams (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) As the woman keeps getting mentioned in RS'es in different contexts, the "she's not independently notable!" mantra loses steam every time. While there are certainly plenty of debates that should be in PEREN, debates over people who continue to garner RS coverage do not properly belong there, because any time you add more RS coverage, the notable/not-notable balance is changed towards notability--granted, often insufficiently per article to change the outcome, but it's also not correct to characterize repeated reexaminations as without merit. There is no such thing as a living person whom we can conclusively say will never become notable in the future, is there? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC) So when she becomes independently notable outside of the RL-SF controversy, we can create an article for her. We can't create an article on the basis that she might be notable enough in the future. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC) With respect Jclemens, that's exactly what was discussed ad nauseum in every prior afd/drv, and those sorts of discussions are exactly what ought not be happening at DRV. Those claims about new RS showing up were hardly unknown in those prior discussions, and were not only addressed, but were the crux of the entire conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Sustain' This DR nomination is a naked absurdity. Here we have a page that has been deleted twice (I think), most recently just a week ago, and the nominator comes back with "Wait! She's notable now. She really, really is. Obama said her name!" Or something, whatever it was. WELL, NO. Fluke was just a party tool and nobody would know her name at all if it weren't for Rush Limbaugh's ability to promote it. She hasn't had "months of coverage", that is pure fiction. She isn't notable now and she won't be notable after the convention. Sorry. 74.61.32.25 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold for now. Can't we just undo the redirect when she inevitably runs for congress? There's no hurry in the meantime. —Torchiest talkedits 19:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Restore. IMO, there never was a true consensus to delete/merge. Opinion was sharply divided, and although the majority of !votes supported deletion/merging, those who supported keeping the article had sufficiently reasonable, non-frivolous arguments that they should not simply have been dismissed as not being "the strongest". For what it may or may not be worth, if this had been a WP:RfA, it definitely would not have passed, even if the closing 'crat had felt the opposing arguments were weak. — Richwales 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Restore Without arguing the merits of the article itself - which can be done when it's restored, the fact that there's this much dissension about the close seems an indicator that there wasn't real consensus on the AfD. I know you admins have a tough job, but the arguments for keeping this article need to be looked at objectively. Vertium When all is said and done 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Sustain per Shadowjams. This venue is to uphold or overturn deletions, not to rehash the AfD. The closing admin took the strongest argument and appropriately closed the AfD. This is not a vote (hence the ! in front of all the people that keep talking about "!votes"). GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Miscellaneous comments. First, on this DRV. I doubt that there was any intent to "canvass", but the DRV is a mess in other ways, amply explained by others above; but also because the request is feeble on its own terms. Things have changed significantly. Not only does she continue to remain in the public eye [...] but she will be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Continuing to remain [whatever1] is not a change, let alone a significant change; and being announced as a future [whatever2] is hardly a big deal. (If [whatever2] is itself a big deal, then let's wait until it actually transpires or at least until there's an unusual degree of fuss over it.) ¶ Secondly, on AfD3. The ruling was: The result was redirect to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. The redirect arguments are the strongest of the bunch: saying that someone introduced another person is not in-depth coverage, and much of the coverage is nothing but passing mentions. Information on Fluke's 2012 activies could be merged to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, as suggested by Zaldax, but that can be done from the history of this article. I disagree with parts of this, but my disagreement is of course neither here nor there. This disagreement aside, I note that this mentions a "bunch" of arguments other than dismissively, and tentatively infer that the closer sees at least some merit in some of the arguments other than the one that he/she takes as the most compelling. As for the last sentence, such information could indeed be merged there, but I predict that its addition would be stoutly opposed by people claiming that it's irrelevant or at best peripheral to this controversy. ¶ On the deleted article: This does indeed say little more about Fluke than does the article about the controversy. But take a look at its talk page (in a stage before removal of all its content): this clearly shows extraordinary efforts to label as trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic virtually anything about Fluke that's not central to the Limbaugh kerfuffle. ¶ On Zaldax's somewhat unusual and elaborately explained proposal: I disagree with a number of Zaldax's premises. However, I appreciate his/her thoughtfulness and open-mindedness, and Zaldax's conclusion seems sensible. No lasting damage will be done to popular understanding of politicized social issues, politicking, etc, if an article on Fluke is not (re-)created pronto; it can instead wait until after the Dems' national convention, if Fluke's contribution to that convention (or something else about her) has got coverage in the meantime. Past experience of the enthusiasm -- on view in the talk page, the AfDs, and here -- for interpreting anything about Fluke as insignificant or incompetent, every event with which she is linked as "manufactured", and every comment about her as ephemeral or trivial, etc makes me suspect that this will continue and axe-grinders will have to be told firmly to lay off, but Zaldax gives me some hope. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn- Sorry, but WP:BLP1E should never have been considered in the deletion process. The policy requires that a person be an otherwise private individual who is not trying to remain in the public eye. In writing an op-ed for MSNBC, appearing at the Democratic National Convention as a speaker, none of these are choosing to remain an otherwise private life. They only strengthen her notability INDEPENDENT of Rush Limbaugh. In short, the policy used to open the AFD should never have even been considered in the discussion or the close. She has done more than enough to show that her notability is separate from Limbaugh. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Don't know how you get the INDEPENDENT part; even Obama emails refer to her as the woman called a "slut" by Limbaugh, as do the Democrat press releases. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold: previous AFD was per policy and !voters offered reasoned arguments for deletion. The subject still has a BLP1E problem.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Question: WP:BLP1E indicates it is only for low-profile individuals. Do you feel that applies in her case? Given congressional testimony, writing and op-ed piece for a major news organization and speaking at the DNC would seem to make her pretty high profile really. Or do you feel the low-profile requirement of BLP1E is not appropriate in this case for some reason? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Restore She has turned out not to be just of temporary news interest. I think anyone could have reasonably predicted that this would be the case, but some of our discussions seem to avoid making even the most conservatively sensible assumptions about the likely future. We should not make such predictions where they might lead to harm, but this is not the case here . This is an absurd overuse of BLP1E--as Umbralcorax says, it was intended primarily for private individuals incidentally the center of media interest, but I think we probably do sometimes validly use it also for individuals just over the border from private to public; however, her notability was public from the start. Closed wrongly, by a misunderstanding of either policy or the facts of the matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC) "I think anyone could have reasonably predicted" - That would still fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL, even if its a reasonable expectation. Hence why we don't phrase things like "so-and-so is an Olympic competitor from China" until the person actually competes, even if it is confirmed that xhe will compete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold deletion, but no prejudice against recreation AFTER her DNC appearance. As closing admin. My thought processes were essentially as Zaldax outlined, and I've yet to see any really in-depth sources detailing her as a person. She could certainly become notable, but I don't think she's crossed that bridge yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Strongly uphold deletion according to arguments made above, e.g. by Zaldax, which show that the subject's notability credentials have not changed. I support reconsidering the entry for possible Re-creation, in case of subsequent, relevant events, e.g. notable-enough appearance in the Democratic Convention. -The Gnome (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Nothing about the subject's notability has changed. Still fails WP:BLP1E. I'm also dismayed, but not terribly surprised at the canvassing of users that would be sympathetic toward recreation of this article. Trusilver 07:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Per Eluchil404, I can see no consensus in that debate. Per Umbralcorax, BLP1E only goes so far; Neil Armstrong and Lee Harvey Oswald are only really significant for one event. What matters is the level of enduring coverage afterwards. The notability arguments should carry little weight, because they wrongly assume that a lack of notability should mean deletion; widespread though this belief is, it's also wrong. I blame the current fashion for pretending WP:ATD doesn't matter.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Comment:I disagree, I think that the BLP1E concerns do have a great deal of weight. It is my understanding that the BLP1E policy also exists to avoid the proliferation of biographies which can be subject to recentism, edit-warring, and to encourage coverage of such individuals to focus on the pertinent, notable events. In this case, that would be a strong argument in favor of keeping coverage of Fluke restricted to the RL-SF controversy. (At least until the DNC, if her speech is indeed notable. If (and pretty much only if) the speech is not well-received and covered in numerous RS, then I would continue to argue that a separate BLP article is not necessary.) Furthermore, I'd like to reiterate that this was a close AFD, but that does not mean that it should be a "No Consensus" outcome. As the Deletion policy clearly states, it is up to the closing admin to evaluate the arguments, and make a decision based on the points made by the contributors. Even if an AFD is sharply divided, if the closing admin feels that one side has a stronger argument they can, nay, should make a decision based on their judgement. To overturn this AFD based on "no clear consensus" after each side has made reasonable arguments would make it that much harder for admins to make difficult decisions in the future, and would push AFD even closer to a vote than it already is. Even though a minority of editors supported keep, and a majority supported delete/merge/redirect, keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" works both ways. Remember, our consensus policy states: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." I'm also a little offended by the above suggestion that participating editors ignored WP:ATD. Note that attempts were made in the past on the article's talk page to improve some of the content in question. Furthermore, when I made the nomination, it was with regard to objections to some of the fundamental aspects of the article; in particular, concerns about failure of the ten year test, redundancy vis a vi the RL-SF article (and consequent POV-Forking), persistent edit-warring, and other BLP-related concerns. This wasn't purely a dispute over page content, which is the only case that the WP:AFD page explicitly cites as a dispute usually not met via page deletion. I nominated the page not because it had not been improved, but because I believed (at the time) that it could not be improved, and that the article itself was fundamentally flawed. While some of my concerns, particularly independent notability, may be alleviated by Fluke's future appearance at the DNC, I firmly believe the editors involved in the discussion knew WP:AFD, and took it into consideration. Lastly, to address comments about notability and widespread coverage afterwards, I'd like to point out two things I also mentioned in the previous AFD. A lack of notability, especially concerning BLPs, is a fundamental reason to delete a particular article; remember that WP:IMPORTANCE is a redirect to WP:N. Keep in mind the "page in a nutshell": "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The point can, and has, been raised in the past that Fluke has not received consistent and persistent coverage from numerous independent RS in the past; instead, her coverage has come in spikes. Keep in mind recentism when considering the lasting importance of her coverage. As this is a BLP, these question should always be asked: 1) Are more readers looking for the RL-SF controversy article, or SF's biography? 2) Can this new information be included in the existing controversy article? Does it justify inclusion in a separate biography? I posit that, at least until the DNC, the answers are "Yes," "Yes," and "No," respectively. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I think that a lack of notability means "do not have a separate article". WP:ATD requires us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before recommending that deletion should take place; there's a useful discussion of the principles to be followed at User:Uncle G/On notability. A lack of notability by itself does not mean, and has never meant, "delete this material", irrespective of whether the subject is a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I agree (somewhat). Which is why we redirected (not deleted) the article, and why the closing admin (and myself) suggested a merge of the relevant content from the article's history into the RL-SF article. With regards to the linked essay, I actually feel that strongly supports many of the cases for deletion/redirection, and doesn't support keeping Fluke's bio. Really, points 1) and 2) above explain why, in my opinion, the actions taken were the correct ones. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Concur. Sorry, but suggestions were made on the AfD that if interested editors wanted to add new material and revisit the consensus on the RL-SF Controversy article, that would be welcomed, and none did. Similar result when the SF article snuck through DR; invitation to improve and see if a WP:N standard could be met, instead of going immediately to AfD, was agreed to, and instead, partisan Fluke supporters just tried to re-do settled consensus, re-add inappropriate material, and generally do a "re-do". Extensive suggestions for revision of the RL-SF page exist, and the RL-SF page exists; all people want is already there. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, sure—I'm sorry, I've been unclear. What I was saying was that the above considerations affect the weight given to the "delete" !votes in the discussion. I would assess the !votes supplied by The Man Who Would B.B. King and 209.6.69.227's as light bantamweight. The Gnome's was more substantial, perhaps welterweight sort of level. Whereas I'd put Hoary's !vote around cruiserweight for specifically addressing the opposition's arguments and for taking account of several different policies at once (he does get a mild penalty for sarcasm and attitude). Being in a whimsical mood, I've used boxing weight analogies there, which aren't meant to be taken seriously, so let's not debate those in any detail; the substantial part of this post is to try to illustrate how I think considerations like ATD affect the !vote-weighing process.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC) restore I'm unsure if the orginal close was correct or not. But thankfully that doesn't matter. Sustained coverage has made this person notable. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/Restore - A majority of the "delete" votes were of the "flash in the pan" variety which as pointed out numerous times above is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC) On the other hand, a majority of the "keep" !votes were of the "she's still notable! Look at all these stories!" variety, which as pointed out both here and in the AFD discussion glossed over the fact that most mentions of Fluke were in passing, not to mention the failure of WP:NOTNEWS. One cannot simply say "She's notable!", one must argue why she is notable. The failure to do so on the part of the "keep" editors is partially why the article was deleted in the first place. Again, I encourage everyone to review the AFD more closely, as well as the arguments contained within, and to keep in mind the purpose of a DRV. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Allow me to quote Shadowjams's rebuttal from earlier up in the discussion, which I feel summarizes some of the issues we're facing perfectly. "With respect...,...that's exactly what was discussed ad nauseum in every prior afd/drv, and those sorts of discussions are exactly what ought not be happening at DRV. Those claims about new RS showing up were hardly unknown in those prior discussions, and were not only addressed, but were the crux of the entire conversation. Shadowjams (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)" Couldn't have put it better myself. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn per Eluchil404 and Umbralcorax; if BLP1E did apply, it does not now, similar to Joe the Plumber - she is speaking at the DNC, if nothing else, and that may be connected to her activism but is certainly not connected to the "Rush controvery" - indeed, her scheduled speaking before Congress is how Rush heard about her. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Folks, there is no doubt at all that she meets WP:N. There are hundreds of sources. So those arguing she is not "notable" are frankly wrong, there are clearly multiple reliable sources that meet the requirements of "notability" as it is defined on Wikipedia. The key question is if she passes WP:BLP1E. Those that are arguing she does not, need to show all three of the following are true Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The event isn't significant and the individual's role within it isn't substantial and isn't well-documented Folks have argued #1 claiming that all further coverage (DNC speaker, as an author, endorsing Obama) and prior coverage (giving testimony before congress prior to Rush saying something) are all the same event. That seems a huge stretch, but okay. There are also arguments that the event isn't "significant". I think that can go either way. But how on Earth is #2 met? This is someone who has regularly been discussed in the media, who has two jobs in the media (if I've followed this correctly) and is speaking at the DNC. She's in no way a low-profile individual. All three of these have to be met. Meeting #1 requires huge logical contortions. Meeting #3 seems a bit of a stretch. Meeting #2 just seems impossible. No one made a good argument in the AfD that she did meet #2... Hobit (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC) You left out of the part of #2 that says WP:BLP1E is meant for "low profile" individuals. This person is in no definition "low profile."--Oakshade (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I think my statement "She's in no way a low-profile individual" agrees with you. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Gotcha, Hobit. "Meeting" a criteria could be interpreted either negative or positively and I misinterpreted your sentence. I totally affirm what you're saying. This person doesn't meet WP:BLP1E excusion criteria and has become very high profile.--Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: While I personally still hold that, until after the DNC Fluke still meets BLP1E criteria, I would like to reiterate to those in favor of restoring the article that notability is not the only criteria that the article was deleted under. Please see my post earlier for more information (I don't want to take up all of your time rehashing the same points.) Furthermore, allow me to remind everyone that, under our BLP policy, the burden of proof is on those wishing to undelete the article to establish that Fluke personally is covered to the extent that a separate, biographical article is necessary, rather than mentions in the relevant articles, and that the restoration of her biography would not violate WP:10YT, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:POVFORK, to name a few. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Uphold: As others have said, the page has been up on AFD before, and the result remains the same. Her notability, such that it is, is limited to the Rush Limbaugh controversy, and the redirect is appropriate. Once she has notability outside of the Rush Limbaugh controversy, perhaps speaking at the DNC (provided it doesn't rehash the controversy), the topic should be revisited. Biccat (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC) In order for the relevant policy (BLP1E) to apply, she needs to be a "low-profile individual". I'd think that her confessional testimony, media jobs and being a DNC speaker would put her well over that bar. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Biccat didn't cite BLP1E there, he simply reiterated that there is already a relevant article. BLP1E is an arguable point, but the fact that an RL-SF controversy article exists, and that all of Fluke's notability stems directly from said incident, is not. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I believe highly in applying the ten year test to any political articles. If Sandra Fluke will still be primarily seen as "that person Rush Limbaugh called a slut" ten years from now, then she is not notable and this article has no business being recreated. If she has some kind of legitimate notability that exceeds her BLP1E 15 minutes of fame, then I agree she's notable. I don't think she has it yet, though. Having read through every source I see so far, she is nothing but a divisive tool for political mudslinging in US politics. If this wasn't an election year, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now, because she would have already long since fallen off the radar into a permanent exile into BLP1E-land. I strongly caution against the trend toward making Wikipedia more US-centric than it is right now. If this event occurred surrounding political elections is nearly any other country, no one would care... and we certainly wouldn't be spending this much time talking about it. Trusilver 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Out of curiosity, I ran some Google Insights searchs for the term "Sandra Fluke." I'm not sure everyone hear is going to like what I found... Comparison of US, UK, Canada, Australia Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of English speakers as above, but with Canada and Australia substituted for India and the Philippines Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of internet users Searches for "Sandra Fluke" over the last 12 months] Comparison of top 5 countries with the greatest number of internet users over the past year Comparison of US, UK, Canada, Australia, India over the past year. Note the news spikes. This isn't the strongest case for Fluke's "enduring notability"... Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC) "Bonus" Comment: Here's the Google trends result for "Sandra Fluke" Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Google trends aside (however did we exist without Google?)... Notability is not required to be ongoing in order to satisfy WP:GNG. Very specifically, if you look at WP:NTEMP once a person is notable, they remain so. The additional coverage only supports ongoing notability. Vertium When all is said and done 22:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) To which I respond, Notability is not permanent. Few things on WP frustrate me more than the lack of attention paid to WP:NOTNEWS...Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC) You're quoting an essay, I'm quoting a policy. I understand your frustration, but I think the argument against notability in this case is misguided. WP:NOTNEWS is about the content of the article, not notability. The presence of an article is justified if someone has been or is currently notable. Cheers Vertium When all is said and done 02:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I am quoting an essay, but that's because I think "Notability is not temporary" is frequently misunderstood, as well as being one of the more hotly debated policies here on the wiki. That policy is aimed less at "flash-in-the-pan" type figures, as Fluke may be (again, no idea how the DNC speech will be received), and more at, say, obscure historical persons and the like. It shouldn't be used to conflict with WP:NOTNEWS; policies and guidelines do not exist in isolation. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (ec)None of that research is surprising or in conflict with the fact that her notability rose in the United States and she is now a key speaker at one of the most watched events, the DNC. Being a speaker at the event will bring even more coverage to her nulling the BLP1E concerns and tipping her well past the notability threshold. This is also new information since the contested closure of the AfD. You have written a very large amount of text (WP:TLDR by my take) and don't seem to be swaying consensus away from restoring the article as reaching independent notability. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC) No, what I've done is written a comprehensive, reasoned reply to each point laid out by the opposition; something which many here and in the AFD failed to do. Certain parties continually trumpet Fluke's notability, without explaining why they think that is the case. I have given you data, arguments back by policy, and a thourough, reasoned rationale; there is no reason to cite WP:TLDR, which by the way is one of the most presumptuous possible ways to dismiss an argument. My apologies for the bluntness, but did you perhaps consider that essay "TL, DR?" If you review this DRV, so far there's clearly no consensus one way or the other to overturn the decision. If you really want this article to be restored, perhaps consider responding to some of the above dialogue with a thorough, reasoned argument, and supporting points with policy, guidelines, essays, and evidence. Otherwise, continued shouts of "She's notable, and this will be restored", will fall on deaf ears. Best wishes, Zaldax (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I wasn't sure that google news trends were policy. That said, I see a trend line that doesn't hit zero throughout the months, showing clearly constant coverage. Coverage certainly spikes. It happens with many people. I assume the Queen of England's coverage would spike around her jubilees. However, she is still WP:N . I see most votes and most arguments supporting recreation. Casprings (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Look at how low that trend line goes, though. Furthermore, check the google insights that I also linked; no one outside the USA gives a damn. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to compare Sandra Fluke to the Queen of England; heck, it's not even valid to compare here to Joe the Plumber; not only was he a HUGE talking point, but he's running for congress! One more thing; would everyone who cites arguments of notability as reason enough to keep please address the many, many other concerns already expressed, such as POVFORKing, Edit-warring, the existence of a perfectly good parent article, and the WP:10YT? Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that this is not a venue to rehash the AFD, nor is it allowable to argue "there's a majority, so that's clearly the correct action, and therefore consensus" here (especially since many have complained that the AFD was too close to call, even though a numerical majority favored delete.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC) As to "would everyone who cites arguments of notability as reason enough to keep please address the many, many other concerns already expressed, such as POVFORKing, Edit-warring, the existence of a perfectly good parent article, and the WP:10YT?" Sure. It's not a POV-Fork by it's very definition, it's a biography about a notable person and POV issues are fixed through regular editing. Edit-warring is almost never a reason to delete an article, in fact it rather speaks to why an article would need escalating protection. One facet of Sandra Fluke biography may be more extensively covered elsewhere but that's true with nearly all biographies. And waiting 10 years seems like a really bad idea for any policy unless you're trying to keep your child from dating or driving an automobile. Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I looked at the trend line. It is still there. You are forgetting Wikipedia:BASIC. He has had coverage had coverage from multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. She is WP:N. I like google stats also. However, they don't replace wikipedia policy. Casprings (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) And you continue to deny the antecedent, as well as not take each policy in isolation. Once again, please see the fantastic advice that is WP:10YT. Point is, the trend line, and those google insights demonstrate that her notability is at present much lower than some would like to believe. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Seeing that WP:10YT has nothing at all to do with waiting ten years before creating an article, perhaps you might like to actually read it before making ill-informed comments? Trusilver 01:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC) My attempt at humor. I don't see 10YT justifying not restoring this article. Insomesia (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I see both endorse and overturn people citing WP:BLP1E in their arguments. However, those who say BLP1E precludes an article on Ms. Fluke have made, at best, WP:VAGUEWAVEs at the guideline. I challenge those who believe that BLP1E supports the preclusion of an individual article on Ms. Fluke to articulate in detail why and how you believe that it does so. Failing an articulate and detailed exposition of the supposed policy basis for those arguments, I suggest that the closing administrator should accord them appropriate (that is, markedly less) weight. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 'Restore per Casprings Go Phightins! (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)' Uphold Deletion, with no prejudice for future recreation if becomes notable for more than WP:1E. Subject is primarily notable for the event, and related after effects of, that is covered in the article Rush Limbaugh Sandra Fluke controversy. Other mentions of the individual have been of passing mention, and fall under WP:ROUTINE. As far as the individual speaking at the DNC Convention, we do not know if that event (the speech) will be notable itself, or part of a larger notable event and otherwise un-notable in the wider context of that event. (For instance because someone is the head of the delegates of state X at a number of national conventions and speak each time to say where the delegates of that state get allocated does not make that individual notable) Therefore, this presently falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Now if that, or future events become notable, independent of the subject's original reason for notability, than perhaps the article can be recreated. However, it is my belief that this discussion is premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/permit recreation It is difficult to tell from the brief closing statement what factors went into the closer's rationale or what weight was given to specific policy-based arguments. Since discussion in the AfD centered on the extent and ongoing nature of the coverage for this individual, it would have been nice to see a more detailed explanation of the closer's rationale in regards to BLP1E, especially the clause stating that the policy "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." The reference to Fluke's introduction of the President of the United States as "saying that someone introduced another person" seemed oddly flippant to me and Fluke's writing for news outlets and ongoing appearances on television do not seem to have been addressed in the closing. Aside from the quality of the close, the ongoing coverage of Fluke has continued. Most recently she has written an open letter addressing the Republican Party platform and has been slated to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Both events were met with a flurry of news articles. Given the tenor of this election cycle, it is likely we'll be hearing more from Fluke as well. Here is a sampling of the many, many news articles that have been written about or have featured Sandra Fluke since the close: [59][http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/sandra-fluke-is-back-rips-legitimate-rape/][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78] Gobōnobo c 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Some of those articles only mention the subject tangentially, and the ones that don't say somewhere in the first few paragraphs something to to tune of "Fluke, who was called a slut by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh,..." The fact that they seem to need to remind us why we should care who she is only goes further to reinforce Fluke's lack of independent notability. Without the Limbaugh incident, she would be completely irrelevant. Trusilver 00:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Comment. I'm taking on good faith that RightCowLeftCoast genuinely considers a state delegation chair's announcement of that delegation's vote to be comparable to someone who is speaking to the entire convention from the lectern as a keynote speaker for determining whether the speech is notable. My opinion differs, in that a speech from the stage will a) be covered and widely reported by the press; and b) not at all comparable to someone standing up and announcing the count of votes from their state. But, even that distinction is unnecessary as Ms. Fluke to has already surpassed BLP1E and GNG requirements - news outlets are covering her upcoming speech quite heavily and while I fully understand the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the article's content, coverage by WP:RS is the fundamental bar which must be met to identify notability. Her upcoming speech is not WP:CRYSTALBALL as it's neither unverified speculation nor is the event scheduled in any way not notable. Vertium When all is said and done 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - original finding, as what notability there is still stems from the original event. Cashing in on one's proverbial 15 minutes does not overcome that. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse merge/redirection, this is a classic case of BLP1E and for merging. If there was no Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article, then perhaps a case could be made for creating an article entitled Sandra Fluke, but both articles are really about the Rush Limbaugh statements and fallout. Fluke herself is not notable. Note the lack of analysis by secondary sources on her. Speciate (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Written, apparently in all seriousness, by Tarc, slightly above: Cashing in on one's proverbial 15 minutes does not overcome [a shortness of notability]. First, it's not "proverbial", it's cliché. (It comes from a bon mot first uttered by the pop artist Andy Warhol; and, if WP is to be believed, soon bored even him.) I have rarely encountered such repeated and desperate-sounding attempts to describe the timespan of a person's fame as "15 minutes" as I've read about Fluke. Face it: (i) Most people given articles in WP were never much written about in the newspapers; (ii) Fluke was news for days, not minutes; (iii) like it or not, Fluke is still news; (iii) to interpret Fluke's perhaps disappointing failure to gracefully disappear from public awareness (and leave menfolk free to babble about women, morals, etc) as cashing in on fame is unusually cynical; I wonder if Tarc would care for a similar interpretation of the careers of figures in politics with whom he doesn't happen to disagree. ¶ Such silly talk aside, let me repeat what DGG wisely said: This is an absurd overuse of BLP1E--as Umbralcorax says, it was intended primarily for private individuals incidentally the center of media interest, but I think we probably do sometimes validly use it also for individuals just over the border from private to public; however, [Fluke's] notability was public from the start. Closed wrongly, by a misunderstanding of either policy or the facts of the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Reply I think what people are saying is, "subtract the Limbaugh controvery, and what you are left with is not enough." As I say above, there is an article in which Sandra Fluke gets encyclopedic treatment, and a second article is not warranted. Speciate (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Completely disagree. What Limbaugh did was to propel Sandra Fluke quickly into the sphere of recognition she may may/may not have been looking for. She was on a trajectory before he made his comments, and she has taken his incredible poor decisions and parlayed it into furthering her points. Now despite the events, she is again speaking her opinions on behalf of the Obama campaign and the DNC. Without the Limbaugh foot-in-the-mouth misstep Fluke is still a national figure speaking for a constituency which may be lacking a national figure. Whatever the steps to ascendency she is now here and her coverage in reliable sources attests to that. Insomesia (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn/Allow article creation - We appear to have thrown common sense out the window on this one. There were multiple events - she spoke before Congress, Limbaugh commented, reliable sources reacted by writing and continue to write extensive biographical information on Fluke, causing more events, and more writing by reliable sources. That alone was enough for a stand alone biographical article on Fluke. Fluke has used this to create a career out of being an in demand speaker and commentator, and the reliable sources have reacted to these events by writing and continue to write extensive biographical information on Fluke. That generated more source material for a Wikipedia biographical article on Fluke. Subtract coverage on the Limbaugh controversy from the topic and you still get an incredible amount of reliable source biographical information on her from which to develop a biographical Wikipedia article on the topic. Wikipedia isn't here to make decisions based on hypothetical situations -- If it wasn't for x ... (e.g., If it wasn't for the Limbaugh controvery). Also, Wikipedia isn't here to sit in judgment of publishing decisions of the reliable sources, we merely are here to post a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topics the reliable sources cover. The reliable sources publish biographical information on Fluke, Wikipedia develops a biographical on Fluke using that reliable source information. It is straight forward. There's no basis to believe that this event-reliable source coverage symbiotic relationship will do anything other than continue, giving Wikipedia more content for the biographical article on Fluke. She's going to speak at the Democratic National Convention for goodness sake! Please admin with common sense, step forward and put an end to this by restoring the Sandra Fluke article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Relisting makes sense. The continuing long tail interest in Sandra Fluke outside of the Limbaugh controversy and evolution of Sandra Fluke as a public figure suggests than an independent article has merit as she is a public participant in notable events independent of the controversy that first made her notable. Much as Tito the Builder has emerged from single event notability for his connection to Joe the Plumber, Sandra Fluke's continued public activities suggest merit for an independent article which continues to grow. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC) No argument that Tito the Builder probably needs re-examination, but WP:OTHERSTUFF prohibits this as an argument, as was EXTENSIVELY discussed on the AfD.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Dear Uzma; on the surface, a valid point, problem is, NONE of these are either unrelated or un-connected. She was an obscure individual (and no, her Biography is razor thin, not unlike those of other 20- or 30-somethings right out of law school), she was CHOSEN as the passive face of a protest that was really by Congressional Democrats, she didn't speak or testify before CONGRESS, the same Congressional Democrats staged a media event before a Democrat audience, and the publicity that event got, mostly due to Limbaugh, not the strength of any arguments, was a highly orchestrated political effort. She is now a paid campaign operative, and mostly has a function to remind people that Limbaugh was nasty (and by implication Republicans). All the same thing. There is a real problem with the INDEPENDENCE of Fluke events, and none but the Limbaugh part really got to the level of WP:N. There IS a suggestion that the Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy that the RL-SF Controversy might need to be expanded to include the impact on the election, commentary on the Fluke comments, and the political strategy involved.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Deletion. The AfD was properly closed, and consensus, which is only being challenged on the basis that Delete, Merge, and Redirect, all of which are the same thing (redirecting the Sandra Fluke article to Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke Controversy) are somehow different, was properly evaluated. Analogies to Joe the Plumber were discussed, and are problematic (as discussed on the AfD, partly under JtP, partly under "actions" vs events) since unlike JtP, Fluke really is and was a bit player in someone else's drama. While an unknown (as both Joe and Fluke were) changing a campaign by taking the initiative ON HIS OWN, and forcing both candidates to focus on lunchpail issues is notable[JtP], in contrast, having a politician pick someone off the street to be a surrogate face on their own protest is, well, an average Tuesday (or in this case, Wednesday) on Capital Hill [Fluke]. JtP was an independent voice, changed the debate, and was adopted by BOTH campaigns as a result. Fluke has never been independent (she is now a paid campaign operative, even LESS likely to be either independent or original), never really made substantive contributions, and is ONLY being promoted as anything by one wing of one Party, and related to the PR success, the RL-SF controversy. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Agree that at some point the significance of the RL-SF Controversy has to be re-assesed, and if THIS TIME, (news spikes reflect changes in the Democrat campaign strategies) the Fluke strategy works, would be open to expanding that.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - confusion in "keep" votes Also have to remember, as pertains to the Joe the Plumber analogy; we have ONLY a Joe the Plumber article, not TWO articles on both JtP and the "Joe the Plumber - Barack Obama dispute". Several "Keep" votes on the AfD were not arguments for a separate article, but could be taken as arguments not to delete/merge the RL-SF controversy article. The decision of the admin took into account that there already was an article that included all BLP-compliant information on Fluke, and that there was both clear consensus to merge, AND that the RL-SF controversy article should remain. Keep !Votes need to address the issue of TWO articles, one of which, the Fluke article, never contained more than a few sentences of extra information not contained in the RL-SF article. Clear FORK(WP:REDUNDANTFORK, possible WP:POVFORK) , just like a "Joe the Plumber - Barack Obama dispute" would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Thus far, extensively discussed on AfD, never addressed on this DR. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC) TWO articles, one of which, the Fluke article, never contained more than a few sentences of extra information not contained in the RL-SF article: You're right, it didn't; but this was at least in part because of the extraordinary efforts made by certain editors to belittle any other proposed/attempted addition as trivial. See the edit summaries and this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Not really; few sentences because beyond the RL-SF controversy, there isn't much to speak of. Attempts to puff up the SF article immediately violated WP:PROMOTION WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RS--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah yeah. By your understanding, ex-IP, there isn't much to speak of, and the efforts were to "puff up" the article and this "immediately violated" WP:PROMOTION and the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Restore or allow re-creation. Tiresome cliches about "15 minutes of fame" notwithstanding, she seems to moved beyond merely being some radio gasbag's target. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn Per S. Marshall. The AfD discussion indicates no consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and restore as per numerous statements above. The appropriate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison is Vicki Iseman, FWIW. Both of the women involved in these two articles pass the threshold for notability at this point, although the recent comment by Anonymous209.6 about multiple articles is extraordinarily relevant. Both of these BLP subjects should have only one article which is substantially about them, although at this time the biography articles are the appropriate targets. Horologium (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC) The Iseman AND John McCain lobbyist controversy articles are an odd example. Not sure either is all that notable, but the Event article is the one that really should be the only one to remain, much like the Fluke situation. The Event article should probably be renamed to reflect that it is mostly about the New York Times, and the lawsuit from publishing unsupported rumors.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Comment More media coverage of Fluke. In Nashua visit, Sandra Fluke paints Romney, Ryan as extreme, out of step WASSERMAN SCHULTZ AND SANDRA FLUKE MAKE THEIR PRESENCE FELT AT THE RNC So how much more coverage is required before this is WP:N?Casprings (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Until she has enough independent notability that new stories don't have to start with something like "Fluke, who was called a slut by Rush Limbaugh..." It seriously makes me question her notability when every single journalist feels they must remind us why we should care who she is. Trusilver 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. I was going by Wikipedia:Notability (people). I was under the strange impression that number of RS and longevity of coverage mattered. I am glad you pointed out where I was wrong. I will be sure to take the reporters reference to an event into account. Casprings (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC) There are two new references. One is by "Hope Hodge Follow @MissHedgeHodge" and doesn't immediately look to me like an authoritative source. As for the other, it's from the website of a regional newspaper, and it speaks of "noted activist Sandra Fluke" before it mentions Limbaugh. Yes, it does indeed say that she "clashed with commentator Rush Limbaugh" and later that "Her testimony prompted Limbaugh to call her a prostitute, among other terms." Yes, it's conceivable that without such nudging, readers wouldn't know who she was. But NB that the very same article reminds use that Limbaugh is a "commentator" and talks of "Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis." Why not simply "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" -- is their notability so minor that the author has to remind his readers who they are? Or is it perhaps that certain arguments may be used to belittle Fluke but not to belittle those at or close to the other side of the "war on women"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC) (ec) The Nashua Telegraph story linked to above, IMO, portrays Fluke as a feminist spokesperson generally, and the story is not simply a rehash of the Rush Limbaugh incident. Yes, the story does make passing mention of Fluke's clash with Limbaugh, but this is reasonable as a way of identifying her to readers who will remember her from that earlier event. I have believed for some time now that Fluke merits an article of her own (not simply in connection with the Limbaugh thing) — and as I said a while ago, I disagree that there ever really was a strong consensus for deletion in the first place — and the Nashua Telegraph story reinforces the opinion I had already held for overturning the deletion. — Richwales 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Nice ad homenieum argument, hoary. It's always hilariously ironic to see someone accuse another of bias while glaringly betraying their own bias in the same comment. I regret to inform you though that I could really care less about any of the players in this little drama except from the aspect of how it affect the project. American politics has, from a world perspective, an extreme tendency to turn anything into a politically divisive news story. That presents certain problems from our perspective... things that common sense tells us should never be notable suddenly become notable with the WP:GNG rubber stamp. I suppose it was Ms. Fluke's good fortune that she was called a slut by someone notable in an election year, because had that not been the case, we wouldn't even be talking about it. The project should always be looked at from a world perspective, yet we have the tendency to create bushels of US-centric political trash articles. I would LOVE to say that the subject has some kind of notability that could stand independently without the connection to some windbag on the radio, but she doesn't. She's an election year political tool meant to somehow rub some Rush Limbaugh dirt off onto a presidential candidate through guilt by association. I have noted before that if this was almost any other country in the world, we wouldn't even be discussing this. If you feel that the subject has a legitimate claim to notability that can stand without the Limbaugh connection, then that's a perfectly reasonable argument. However, I do think everyone should look at the big picture and make sure we aren't just allowing WP:V to automatically equal WP:N. Trusilver 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Ad hominem, I guess you mean. You fascinate me: (i) How have I attacked an argument by attacking its messenger, and (ii) what is the bias that I have glaringly betrayed? (In the meantime, I'm happy if I have caused hilarity.) ¶ You end by pointing the reader to WP:N. I've just reread the topmost part of it; is there any other part to which you'd like to draw my or others' attention? -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 August 2012

Business school par – Endorsed Copyvios are never undeleted so this nomination is doomed to fail. Please review our inclusion threashold and rules on reusing other people's material. You are welcome to begin a new article in your own words. If you need help why not drop into our project for helping new users write policy compliant articles. – Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Business school par (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Hello I've created the page Business School PAR twice and every time it was speedy deleted because it was an advert. Please answer me why is it considered as advert, having in mind that this page is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZŠEM Thank you for your answer. Sincerely, Parovci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parovci (talk • contribs) The page was deleted because it contained promotional language. In fact at least part of the article was copied from various pages on the institution's website in violation of copyright, and we do not undelete copyright violations under any circumstances. Hut 8.5 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 August 2012

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter – merge endorsed. Consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the AFD close. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) By my count 16 of 37 (43% of respondents) were in favor of keeping the article with the rest split (10.5 each) among merge and delete. I find reading a consensus to merge a bit questionable. Furthermore, by my observation, the content was never merged into the page. These Foo on Twitter articles have been quite controversial. At the original DRV, I have pointed out that even User:Jimbo Wales is in favor of WP supporting social media content according to his State of the Wiki address. My question in this case is whether consensus really existed to do anything to the article. The closer (Fram (talk · contribs)), who was also the closer at Justin Bieber on Twitter, clearly favors the merge arguments, but I do not believe that they reached a consensus. It seems to me that the interpretation that the less than 30% who voiced an opinion to merge voiced more policy grounded arguments is weak. I think content should be WP:PRESERVEd until there is true consensus to do otherwise. I think we can be fairly certain that if this was closed as no consensus, further debate would be opened in subsequent AFDs until a stronger consensus emerged. I find it premature to side with anything other than no consensus when over 40% say keep, less than 30% say delete and less than 30% say merge. Even combining delete and merge into one voice still leaves us with a 43/57 voice that is not really a consensus IMO. Arguments can be made that AFD is not a vote, but I just don't see the lack of cogency required for that to be relevant. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to NC I think the !vote was, at TonyTheTiger says, fairly close. But moreso, the closer closed the discussion indicating that WP:NOT applied here. I believe if anything the discussion leaned the other way. Disclaimer: I was planning on filing a DRV here too... Hobit (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Weak endorse (the mandated merge), but maybe "no consensus" between "keep" and "merge". I disagree with the closer's implication that the discussion found that WP:NOT was crossed. Some alleged so, but others disputed, and the allegations were not substantial. I might recommend a relist with the only options being "keep" and "smerge and redirect". I predict that this hypothetical, if tested, would support the second. I.e. I see a rough consensus to mandate the merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) What mandated the merge?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Not the best word choice. Essentially, the close, finding a consensus for merge and redirect, forces interested editors to retrieve content from the history to merge into the target, as their best option. Of course, no one is forced to do anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Comment by AfD closer. Votecounts and "Jimbo said" are hardly compelling arguments. As I have stated elsewhere, we shouldn't on the one hand discourage "me too" votes and on the other hand have a votecount at the end of the discussion (in general, not just for this discussion alone). Furthermore, people should take into account all opinions, from the first and the second AfD combined, not just the second AfD on its own. There is no reason to only give the second AfD any weight, and not the first one. We should also take into consideration Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 98#Appropriateness of "X on Twitter" (or similar) articles, the closest we have to an actual articulated policy or guideline. As for "the content was never merged into the page."; the content is still available in the history of the original page, anyone who wants to "preserve" it can do so. Fram (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) TonyTheTiger, are you under the impression that it's up to the closer to perform the merge? It's not. That's content-related work, and for those admins who still do any content work, they're doing so without their admin hat on. With their admin hat on, their jurisdiction is conduct and consensus, not content. The closer says "the consensus was merge" and then waits for the debate participants to do it. (This means that many "merge" closes don't actually happen. I've noticed that we Wikipedians, as a group, are often much better at saying what other people should do than at doing things.) I'll recuse from adding a word in bold because I participated in the debate. What I said during the debate was that a merge was the objectively correct close but I couldn't see a local consensus in that particular discussion for doing it. That is still my position.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I fail to understand why if you have come to the conclusion that there was not consensus, you would not state that in bold. BTW, I do not feel the closer should merge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Because as someone who participated in the debate and has already expressed a view, I'm not to be coming to this debate without preconceptions. I don't know whether the regular DRV closers give people who participated in the AfD less weight, but in many cases I think they probably should, because a lack of objectivity clouds judgment. Recognising this, it's my usual practice not to add a word in bold when analysing a debate in which I participated.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I think that the close was reasonable, and I'm not impressed with the reasons given to overturn. Jimbo's opinions on the subject don't carry any more weight than those of any other editor, and even if they did it wouldn't make any difference (I'm sure almost all editors believe Wikipedia should have some coverage of social media, and I'm sure Jimbo wasn't trying to say that all articles on social media should be kept). As pointed out by S Marshall above an admin who closes a deletion discussion as Merge is not obliged to merge the content, and whoever does this would also have to decide what content should be merged (an issue that wasn't mentioned during the debate). There's nothing to stop anyone merging the content right now. WP:PRESERVE doesn't have any application: as noted by the "Problems that may justify removal" subsection, if the Delete commenters are right that the page fails WP:NOT then that policy agrees that the content can be removed. It may be best to think of the Merge closure as a compromise between the extremes of Keep and Delete. Merge is technically a variant of Keep, and many of the Delete commenters thought some sort of merge would be acceptable. Hut 8.5 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with Smokey Joe, that keep or merge are the only two policy based rationales, here, as I indicated in the second AfD. And as I also noted, the sources, including two textbooks lead to keep over the unsubstantiated NOT claims (both in text and spirit). The first AfD was found to be procedurally defective, and not to have been grounded in policy. As for the Village Pump discussion, which is not a policy or guideline, that was also addressed by discussants in the second AfD, and found wanting, as a basis for consensus in this case. Finally, I take exception to the closer on their talk page indicating they completely discounted my argument, either because they misunderstood it, or because they have a particular bias in regard to the topic. Like S. Marshall, my position has not changed; it is also contrary to the close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn There was no consensus for any particular outcome. The closer's comments above indicate that they based their decision upon another discussion at village pump not the actual AFD discussion. That village pump discussion is not policy and was not mentioned by anyone in the AFD discussion. The close was therefore a supervote, being based just upon the closer's view of the matter, not the discussion. Warden (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Incorrect: "That village pump discussion is not policy and was not mentioned by anyone in the AFD discussion." Please reread the "merge" comment made by S Marshall on 07:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC). It was also referenced by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and by Arathald. Fram (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I see. The comments of Marshall and Arathald, which were informed by the outcome of the RfC, both indicated a consensus to Keep in this case. Czarkoff dissented and presumably still wanted a merger but there was no consensus for this. Warden (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC) You apparently don't "see". Marshall clearly changed from "keep" to "merge" based on the RfC... Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Marshall said, "I can't pretend there's a consensus in this discussion to do that. [merge]" and confirms this above. When well-informed participants are plainly saying that there is not a consensus, you should please listen rather than imposing your view. Warden (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Could I be the one to interpret what I said, please? I did change from "keep" to "merge" based on the RfC, and I said that "merge" was the objectively correct close. I also said that I can't see a consensus in favour of the merge in the debate. Fram's close takes account of more than just that one debate; I'm not sure whether I agree with that approach or not, so I've kept quiet.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you. We agree that there was no consensus and this is my position here. For avoidance of doubt, my !vote of Overturn stands. Warden (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) We agree that there was no consensus in that particular debate. In my view the substantive question here is whether Fram had to close (a) just the particular debate before him, or (b) a gestalt of all the various debates on that subject that had taken place. If (a), then an overturn would be the correct outcome here. If (b), then I think we would have to endorse, because taking the various debates as a whole, there is indeed a consensus to merge. I'm undecided because I can see good arguments that support both positions.—S Marshall T/C 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) The gestalt approach would be poor procedurally because it would allow admins to pick and choose admissable discussions and so exacerbate the problem of supervoting. But, in any case, the RfC on village pump did not indicate a single, uniform outcome for such cases. The closer of that discussion found that "For the vast majority of celebrities, their use of social media is best covered within their main biography. There may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable...". Ashton Kurcher is clearly one of these exceptional cases because of his prominence on Twitter specifically, with sources calling him the King of Twitter, for example, and this point was made during the discussion. Fram's interpretation seems more severe than the finding of that RfC and so was doubly improper as it followed neither discussion. Warden (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's one of my main concerns with the gestalt view. Another is that if an older debate is taken into account, it violates the principle that consensus can change. But equally, if I've expressed a view in one debate that was then procedurally closed, or restarted due to sockpuppetry or something, should I have to copy/paste it into the new debate before it "counts"? That represents an opportunity for bad faith users to game the system the other way, by preventing sysops from considering things they really should consider. All in all it's probably best if we don't have a firm rule on this.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) There are two ways of dealing with lack of consensus: one of them is the tradition Non consensus close by which we keep a separate article, and the other is the less traditional but equally useful compromise of a true merge of a substantial portion of the content. To characterise one as a matter for AfD to be decided by consensus as evaluated by an admin, and the other as consensus to be found by a discussion on the talk p. to be evaluated by whomever chooses, is really artificial. In some cases for various reasons a merge is not a possibility; in this case it clearly is. Our formal policies are of no real help here--they represent an excessively rigid categorization of the possibilities. Technically, Col. W's view has much to be said for it, but I still would not follow it, if only because it is very likely to lead to further inconclusive discussions. In terms of the best way of handling the actual material at issue, I'd follow S Marshall. I think this is just the sort of situation for which IAR was designed, where the rules do not produce the best and most reasonable result. (In the longer run, we really need to reconsider deletion policy with respect to the problem of individual vs. merged articles--I have long argued for deemphasis of the concept of individual articles as opposed to keeping content; I recognize it leads to fuzzier results, but I think the fuzziness is often closer to the actual situation. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse— the administrator did a good job in closing the Afd. There was certainly no consensus to keep the article in that form. And regardless of how many editors voted keep, some of the imput from them could have been easily discounted whilst determining a consensus (not going to say who). A small paragraph on the main article is more than enough. Till 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Since when do we merge when there is no consensus to do anything? The fact that there was no consensus to keep does not mean that if there was no consensus to merge or delete that we should do anything but close as no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure There was clearly no consensus to keep and a merge means that some of the content will still exist, even if not as a stand-alone article. The fact that delete/merge were pretty much evenly split would lead to the conclusion that there was no clear consensus to delete, even if there was agreement that the article as such should not exist. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Since when do we merge when there is no consensus to do anything? The fact that there was no consensus to keep does not mean that if there was no consensus to merge or delete that we should do anything but close as no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think I explained my thinking properly. The consensus was clearly in favour of the article not existing. It could have been deleted entirely - merging allows the relevant content to be somewhere on Wikipedia. If I were a deletionist, I could be happy that the consensus to not keep the article had been followed - if I were an inclusionist, I could be happy that the relevant content has been left somewhere on Wikipedia. It could have been closed as no consensus, but that would imply that the keeps and deletes were more evenly argued, whereas in this case the consensus was clearly to get rid of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure, as the most logical outcome given the multiple discussions involved. (Disclaimer: I participated in said discussions). --Nouniquenames (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure Also, the vote count ratio is irrelevant for weighing up the consensus. An appeal to what Jimbo said is an appeal to give Jimbo a supervote. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure: the arguments in favor of keeping were too weak, and head count doesn't help to hide this fact. Are we going to run through deletion revisions every time TonyTheTiger disagrees with discussions' outcomes? Oh, and again the supervote of Jimbo Wales... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure: seems like the most reasonable interpretation of consensus. Can't find any error with the admin's reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - The "merge" and "delete" voters are essentially arguing the same point and can be lumped together. They are both saying, "There should not be a standalone article on this topic" and the only difference is what happens after the article is removed (i.e. is it merged/redirected or is it deleted). Therefore, if we're going by vote counting, it's more of a 60/40 in favor of merging. Apart from counting heads, if we look at the first AfD (full disclosure: I closed it), the first DRV, the VP RFC, the second AfD, and now the emerging consensus at this DRV... I think the consensus is absolutely clear, and I feel like we're beating a dead horse on the subject. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I was going to close this but then I realised I had voted in DRV1 and also that there were two important issues that hadn't been airsed in the DRV. Firstly, merge is functionally the same as keep so it is utterly nugatory to seek to overturn a merge to a keep. The second issue picks up on some the concerns expressed here on how we judge consensus. Not only do we not count votes but the weighting we give to competeing strands of opinion can and should reflect the wider weight of community support for those particular strands On that basis it is not only reasonable but actually proper to allow a meta consensus to inform the outcome of a local discussion even where the strand of the meta-consensus is not widely represented. I therefore endorse this close. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - It's odd that 'merge is a form of keep' and that 'merge is a form of delete' have both been argued in the endorse comments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Not actually: merge is both keeping information and not keeping article as whole, and in this particular case it is something that intersects with most "keep" and "delete" rationales. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, merge is a form of keeping information for the editor and deleting it for the reader. Editors will be able to find the information if they search edit histories, but readers who search the merged content will not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC) My findings are different: when I follow wikilink Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, I'm redirected to merged information. What am I doing wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The article at issue here was over 6500 characters of readable prose. The section you are pointing to is less than 400 characters of readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The target article isn't protected, and the AfD was closed with "merge" outcome. This means that encyclopedic content should be merged to the target by the interested users. As the deletion log and DRV record of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter unanimously suggest, the most interested user is TonyTheTiger, who happens to be you. So probably you could address your concern ("merge is a form of ... deleting [information] for the reader") yourself? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Alanscottwalker - obviously I am not in agreement with the argument that merge is the same as delete or I wouldn't have made my comment. If you search DRV and Talk DRV for merge is keep you will find hundreds of discussions and DRVs where this has been aired. Up until 2009/early 2010 the process would have been to close all DRVs that were merged if the nominator wanted it changed to keep because DRV in those days took the view they were the same. Afterwards, consensus changed to allow discussions to run because we accepted responsibility for confirming a merge outcome was correct in an AFD. Although some do insist that merge is delete, a close reading of the archives will show that this view has never gained consensus. I'm not trying to pull tenure here but I have been a regular at DRV since 1996 and closed hundreds of them when I was an admin so I'm confident I do understand how we work here. If you disagree please feel free to review the archives. Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "I have been a regular at DRV since 1996"? That has to be some kind of record ;-) Fram (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I wasn't arguing with you, I made an observation on the odd juxtapositions. (But if you want argument, in relevant particulars, "Keep" "Merge" or "Delete" are not a form of each other, they are distinct actions. In AfD, they are essentially recommendations about what to do organizationally with article content, and DRV's purpose is to ensure that in cases where consensus can be read, the consensus action has been taken, instead of what the closer would prefer. Or in cases of no consensus that no action be taken because of that AfD, except to note no consensus.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I do not think that Jimbo was talking about making a separate article for every single b-list celebrity's twitter feed when he spoke of being inclusive toward social media. And even if he was, it would remain a bad idea. The arguments in favor of relisting are either weak or inapplicable. The closure was correct and procedural. Trusilver 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Oh, please. Overturning a decision on a stand-alone about a valueless topic with some valuable info that is not strong enough as stand-alone? No, thank you! And I haven't read the 2nd AFD that I was involved in. Why relying on arguments and policies? To make a point? To inspire a change on policies and guidelines about how to argue? To inspire many essays about how to argue and to not argue? <end rant> Anyway, this nomination proves why the humanity in general is falling apart. --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and block the next person who decides to beat this thoroughly dead horse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse reasonable close. I was going to close this DRV as consensus seems clear, but decided that my participation in the RfC on this topic area could reasonably be seen as compromising my objectivity. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 August 2012

Samantha Brick – Closure endorsed, but allow recreation. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Samantha Brick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Since the entirely proper close of the AfD (nominated due to BLP1E) Mrs Brick has become a contestant on the highly respectable program Celebrity Big Brother. She is now no longer notable for only one event and has attained the minor celebrity that makes overturning of the deletion the thing to do, methinks, so the article maintains its history when the big brother stuff is added to it. I have not discussed this with the deleting admin, Black Kite, for the simple reason that according to his talk page he is on holiday, so there would be no point! I will of course notify him however. Egg Centric 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Egg Centric 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Yup. Hilarious though it is to see Celebrity Big Brother called "highly respectable", the substantive point is correct: she's over the bar for a separate article now. If I was in charge of Wikipedia then it wouldn't cover Samantha Brick, a woman who I personally find rather annoying, but our criteria are what they are. I'm also fairly confident that Black Kite will agree.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I notice about one celebrity per season without articles, so we have apparently decided that this does not automatically constitute notability. I doubt they are omitted because we were unaware of their existence. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC) BLP1E really? She's been the main topic in over 100 news articles (e.g., name in article title) since at least October 2010.[79] and has been mentioned in about 400 reliable sources going back to April 2009. It may have been one event that thrust her in the spotlight, but the reliable source coverage expanded well beyond that into all aspects of her life. Her actions draw persistent news coverage of her life and there's more than enough biography info on her to create a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. A quick look at the reliable source info shows that it probably is more negative coverage than positive and WP:NPOV likely would have the article with a negative slant to reflect the news coverage. It's not Wikipedia's job to protect people who intentionally and persistently chose to thrust themselves in the spot light and receive negative coverage in response to their effort. That being said, I'm not going to request the close be overturned given up-to-now difficulty of writing a biography that meets WP:NPOV. It may be better to wait until an editor steps forward to produce a draft article that, rather than cherry pick the negative news coverage, provides a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature and meets Wikipedia's core content policies. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I find ironic that between the administrators' noticeboard and here, you've written almost twice as much prose as ever existed in any version in the edit history that you want undeleted, Egg Centric. And the largest (non copyright-violating — N.B.) versions spent more prose discussing the Daily Mail than they did the article subject. In fact, for almost all of that history the "2012 controversy" and discussion of the Daily Mail comprised all of the article bar one short introductory sentence and a useless infobox that largely repeated it. That is, of course, because editors suffered from recentism and didn't really want to write a biography, just a summary of what was recently in the news/on television. The only one who did want to write a biography, Hmcog (talk · contribs), apparently couldn't write xyrself and so resorted to copying the writing of others wholesale. The sad facts are: that you're going to get one 10 word sentence of useful content (which you could probably replicate right now) from the undeletion; and that it's not a protected redirect, so with this much typing you could have written an actual biographical article from scratch by now. Uncle G (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) That may be but I wanted to preserve the history (and avoid a speedy as recreation of deleted content) Egg Centric 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - original AfD. Looking through a few of the past Celebrity BB pages I note that most...but not all...participants have Wikipedia articles, as in the past they were notable for something else. The few that do not appear to be D-listers, relatives of famous people, or somesuch. So, simply being a part of the cast is itself not inherently notable. I'd say if she wins, then that will certify article-worthiness on that alone. Though I'm rooting for my Jersey Boy the Sitch. :) Tarc (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC) allow recreation Original AfD was reasonable, but it seems clear that the primary cause for deletion, BLP1E, no longer applies. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse (Delete and/or redirect). Agree that the keep arguments were very weak. I recommend that attempts to recreate start by expanding coverage at the redirect target, or via a userpage/incubator draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation. The AfD close was an obvious one at the time, but obviously circumstances change. On the other hand, I spat my coffee out at "the highly respectable program Celebrity Big Brother" in the nom. Cheers for that :) Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation. Tarc's right that being in Celebrity Big Brother isn't enough by itself, but that shouldn't be an issue since notability is now derived from at least two events. At the very least it deserves another AfD since the main argument for deletion, BLP1E, is no longer applicable. I'm not too keen on the idea of expanding coverage at the redirect target as the new content wouldn't really be relevant to the Daily Mail article... Alzarian16 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close. Also permit recreation since April 2012 AfD-closing admin agrees with that.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close but allow recreation given changing events and the thoughts of the closing admin. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC) If her notability isn't for what she did before deletion is there anything work keeping from the older article? Can someone restore it temporarily so we can have a look? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 August 2012

Muhammed Qasim – Speedy close. The article has been restored and the AfD has been re-opened. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Muhammed Qasim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article History purged after redirect by User:The_Bushranger on G7 grounds upon User:Waggers request, but Waggers does not appear to have created the page, nor could I find any history of him making this request on the AfD, User_talk:The_Bushranger, User_talk:Waggers, nor their contrib histories Special:Contributions/Waggers, Special:Contributions/The_Bushranger. On the otherhand, I did find a notification of deletion from DBigXRay at User_talk:Geo_Swan, which is a common courtesy provided to the creators of an article under AfD. The Bushranger was not contacted due to my concern that he may continue to engage in this behavior without admin oversight. Joshuaism (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Most of the time, a G7 request won't be on an afd or user talk page, but a db-g7 tag on the article itself. The google cache (linked in the drv header above) shows that this is the case here, and that it was requested by Geo Swan, not The Bushranger. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC) "The Bushranger was not contacted due to my concern that he may continue to engage in this behavior without admin oversight.". Well I'm not sure what concern you have, someone did an action (or in this case didn't) which I disagree with, therefore they must be a bad person who must be stopped, so much so that I won't afford them basic courtesy of talking to them. Heard of assume good faith? As per normal DRV practice "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." and since there seems to actually be no real problem here, I suggest this be closed. 62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Could someone who can see the history please confirm that it was Geo Swan who added the db-g7 tag? If so, then this DRV can presumably be speedily closed. If not, then there's a muddle of some kind that does lie within DRV's purview.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I did start Muhammed Qasim. As many long time contributors know, I started most of the articles on Guantanamo. Did I request a {{db-g7}} on it? I honestly don't remember requesting a {{db-g7}} -- although it is possible I might have. How can I have forgotten a {{db-g7}} request of less than a week ago? I'm sorry, but one particular persistent contributor has been nominating articles I started for deletion at a pace for more rapid than I can meaningfully respond to. Franky, it has left me rattled. Two of the articles the persistent nominator recently nominated for deletion I realized actually described a single individual -- but under different names, based on different references. I don't remember requesting a g7 on one of those articles -- although that is a reasonable thing to have done. Both of those articles that it turned out described a single individual, described a Moroccan, repatriated to Morocco in early 2004. I just checked. Muhammed Qasim is an Afghan, repatriated to Afghanistan in 2007. So, if I placed a {{db-g7}} I must have been rattled by the tendetious efforts of this persistent nominator, and placed it on the wrong article. Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Based on what Geo Swan says, the g7 must have been a muddle or mixup of some kind (whether on Geo Swan's part or someone else's). It seems quite apparent to me that the Bushranger must be notified, and the article must be restored.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I'm pleased to see that The Bushranger has been told.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC) The article was deleted by Waggers following the placement of the DB-G7 tag by Geo Swan in this edit, where he placed a db-author tag on the article. I did not "purge the article history" - that happened when Waggers deleted the article; all I did was procedurally close the AfD as the article was already deleted. Given that this appears to have been a misclick on Geo's part, I'll happily undelete the article and unclose the AfD to let it run out. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC) The article has been restored and the AfD unclosed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2012

Paige Clark – Speedy overturned 1) yes, even this assertion of notability is enough to prevent A7 from applying, per long-standing consensus; speedy is not for things where there is a good-faith disagreement among editors. 2) An editor in good standing who was NOT the author of the article (the appellant here) had already declined the first speedy deletion request. Only G10, G11, and G12 should be readded if declined inappropriately--the rest go to AfD. Any editor is free to AfD this at any time. – Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Clark. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paige Clark (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Article was speedily deleted (A7). The article had a claim of significance or importance by stating the subject of the article was the 2012 International Junior Miss Maryland. Criteria A7 states: " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." On the talk page the nominator stated that the references showed that Clark competed in the contest, which would make the claim credible. Both the nominator and the admin focused on the notability of Clark instead of the proper standard of a claim of significance or importance. Based on this, I believe that the matter should have been taken to an AfD instead of speedily deleted. I have discussed this with the deleting admin [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rmhermen&oldid=507626484], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rmhermen&direction=next&oldid=507627748], and [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rmhermen&direction=next&oldid=507628912]. Per his (or her, sorry, I don't know their gender) suggestion, I brought it here for review. I believe that the article should be restored, and if it is to be deleted, should be via the AfD process. Also, the admin Rmhermen (talk · contribs) stated that the review was based on if the article would survive an AfD, which I don't believe is the proper standard. GregJackP Boomer! 03:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I have no particular interest in this article but am curious why the links above don't work. If someone could fix those... Rmhermen (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Crisco1492 speedied it again. I've left him a note.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 August 2012

Cheese dog – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cheese dog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This AfD is too contentious for a NAC close. Others had commented for delete/redirect but these appear to have been overruled by the non-admin. I think it should be re-opened and allowed to finish. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The debate had run its full seven day period and was overdue for closure. Available options given that debate were "keep" and "no consensus". If I'd closed it, I would have gone with "no consensus", but "keep" was probably within closer discretion. As for "too contentious for a NAC close", that's simply wrong. Experienced non-admins are perfectly well able to close discussions, and given the ongoing, steady decline in active sysop numbers, we need them to be able to do it. I've never been able to understand why our procedures give administrators the authority to unilaterally overturn a non-admin close, but for some bizarro reason they can. I'd be amazed if you found one who was prepared to overturn this one.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Sure they can close non-contentious AfDs, but this AfD wasn't uncontested, there was an argument raised by Jeremy that wasn't adequately addressed by anyone and that was essentially ignored by the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Uncontested" is the wrong standard for NACs. Jeremy's argument was essentially ignored in the closure, but a close doesn't have to address every single point raised in the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse: Looks fine to me, seems not worth a DRV if the purpose is splitting hairs on whether NAC was best way to close.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse: I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. The concerns people who voted "Delete" on had were addressed pbp 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I don't see Jeremy being adequately addressed in the discussion, or "The provided sources still do not do it. These are all reviews, passing mentions or recipes taht only show that the thing exists. There is nothing in the new "References" that provide the required depth of coverage required to keep this as a stand alone article." Where is that addressed? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) A single editor's concerns aren't enough to force a no-consensus close, by an admin or not pbp 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Yes it can, and I can give a simple counter example that should always hold: copyvio concerns. There was a legitimate argument that was not addressed, but ignored in the NAC. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC) The consensus here is clearly to endorse but you seem fixated on the fact that this was a NAC. Usually when you are the lone voice arguing against consensus you need a damn better argument than a non-admin did it. Would it make you feel better if I went and got my bit back and reclosed it as keep with the same arguments because functionally you won't get a different outcome here?Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse-Keep was the obvious consensus. Who closed it is immaterial. I'd also note that a redirect and/or merge could still be done if there was a consensus on the relevant talk pages to do so.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Close looks fine. As someone complains, all we need is any admin to put their signature to it too. It should not require a DRV discussion to consider a NAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse The Delete !voters there articulated no reasonable policy basis for their opinions, so yes, this was a proper NAC in that it wasn't even within the administrator discretion zone, as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Jeremy's argument for significant coverage is based on WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I was the one who closed it and here is my rational for that:The nominator gave 2 reasons for deletion-No sources and not notable. Sources were added after the AfD was initiated, and as of notability, the nominator has not told that how does this fails the notability guidelines. His concerns were fixed, and that is what my closure was based upon. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) But there were other respondents than the nominator. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse The redirect/delete arguments were early in the discussion and once the article had been worked on all the votes were to keep. Based on the accepted principle of giving less weight to early votes if an article is improved I find the close perfectly understandable. If I were still an admin and closing it I can't see myself deleting or redirecting it so all good. Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Where was this [80] addressed? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The last 3 keep votes all comment favourably on the sources. This implicitly means they have assessed the sourcing and found it acceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - The delete/redirect votes' comments have been addressed. ZappaOMati 23:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse, reasonable in my view, although if the original poster wants I can re-open it and immediately close it again so that it's been done by an admin. That would be useless process wonkery though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC). No, don't undo anything, just append your signature to the existing close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - I detest non-admin closures but this is one of the few cases where a smidge of WP:IAR seems to be appropriate, given how absurd the initial nomination was. Its a flippin cheese dog, a fairly common fair/festival food item. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse The last comment in the discussion was on 5 Aug, "Keep based on all the great work done to the article, which now has about half a dozen good references." The discussion was then silent for 5 more days without further comment until the close. There was therefore no contention - discussion had concluded after the article was improved and the finding of consensus seems quite reasonable. Warden (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2012

Turkey Mountain inscriptions – It seems that there is almost unanimous agreement both here and at the original AfD that there should not be a standalone article on this subject. There is also no strong consensus here to overturn the closure to Merge, nor is the argument to overturn significantly more compelling than the argument to endorse (and to be honest, whether it's closed as delete or merge will practically result in a nearly identical result in the long run). So, I'm closing this DRV as no consensus, defaulting to endorse the original closure. To be clear, the result of this AfD has no bearing on whether or not there can be mentions of the inscriptions within Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma. That can be discussed and decided on the talk page of the article, based on available sources. The fact that there were not enough sources for a standalone article does not necessarily mean that the available sources are insufficient for a mention elsewhere on Wikipedia. – -Scottywong| talk _ 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Turkey Mountain inscriptions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Involved editors are being overly hard-handed and disallowing any mention whatsoever of the fact that there even exist inscriptions located at Turkey Mountain on the main article Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma, despite the following facts: 1) This is one of the main reasons Turkey Mountain itself is notable; 2) It was shown that these inscriptions at Turkey Mountain are indeed mentioned in multiple, easily available book sources that have been widely deemed reliable to establish notability at least; 3) Anyone can easily get this information from any other source on Turkey Mountain, but evident hostility to the subject prevents it from being alluded to on wikipedia only, and 4) most importantly for DRV, the comments on the AFD from uninvolved editors actually generally supported a MERGE of the info into Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma, except that certain editors now aren't allowing this fact to be mentioned there (where it has actually been noted for many years), claiming the AfD result for Turkey Mountain inscriptions now forbids it. Also, before I created the article Turkey Mountain inscriptions a few years ago, the main information had originally resided at Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma, but this seems like a procedure of doing away with informing readers about this fact altogether on any page, and leaving the Turkey Mountain Oklahoma article without anything notable to say as well. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - I sympathize with the frustration being expressed here, but I don't think it makes a difference. The question of whether these inscriptions are notable enough to have a stand-alone article is distinct from the question of whether they should be mentioned in some other article (and, if so, to what extent). The AfD answered the first question, not the second. The answer to the second question is determined by relevance and DUE Weight (a NPOV issue), and should not affect the deletion. They are different situations that are governed by different standards, laid out in different policies. While I do not think that all the editors who opined at the AfD understand this distinction, I don't think their misunderstanding substantially affects the ultimate outcome. These inscriptions simply are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. As for the issue of merging... Most of the sources that mention the inscriptions do so as a passing mention, in the context of discussing a related fringe theory (see: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses). If we are to mention these inscriptions somewhere in Wikipedia (and I actually think we should), we should give them the same amount of Due Weight that they are given in the sources... in other words, we should not do a strait merger of the text. The most we should do is a brief in passing mention. Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Except we have no reliable sources for it, and it's also undue promotion to mention it in a non-dedicated article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I'm struggling to make sense of either limb of that remark, IRWolfie-. Do you mean you know of no reliable sources for the fact that there are petroglyphs on Turkey Mountain? What is it supposed to be "promoting" to mention them?—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding sources, the TRUTH is that numerous sources were found on this topic. But the opponents of mentioning this (who are the same ones participating in this review) all asserted their personal expertise over each and every one of these published sources, declaring their uncited original opinion that the inscriptions were "grafitti" automatically trumped all the published sources that these are inscriptions. They used the circular reasoning argument: "If they mention inscriptions then the sources are a priori unreliable, now go find some reliable sources that mention them. What? You found another one? Oh well, it's unreliable, because it mentions inscriptions. Now go find another one, that mentions inscriptions AND is reliable, which we will not accept either for the same reason we just gave." That's what happens when the same editors set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner over the published sources they don't want mentioned. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC) No reliable sources exist, beyond some tourist pamphelts etc, stating mere existence of markings. The only reliable sources in the article were synth to the topic (those which cover the form of pseudoarchaelogy in general). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC) You're right, it's trivial to find sources that say the petroglyphs exist. I've very little time for pseudoarchaeology but I do think it's important that Wikipedia takes the time and space to give readers the facts about it. I'm not saying that we need to be Snopes, but I am saying that debunking guff of this kind is an important part of the encyclopaedist's work. We should cover the petroglyphs, truthfully and accurately. For example, we might say something like: "In places, there are inscriptions on the rock. Source x claims that the petroglyphs may be in Ogham script. If so they could be evidence of pre-Viking contact between the Old and New Worlds (see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses), or modern forgeries." We can leave it to the reader to work out for themselves which is the more likely explanation. We may also wish to make use of this source, which at first blush looks rather helpful.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Comment. I agree with Blueboar's statement of the situation. The problem is that a couple of editors at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) now appear to take the position that no mention of these inscriptions will be allowed in that article, because the close was "delete" rather than "merge", and one has stated that DRV is the only remedy.[81] I've asked the closing admin to clarify, but in any event the discussion at the still-existing article should not be controlled by an AfD close on a different article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The text that was present pre-AfD has been replaced with the text of the deleted article. In essence, it has been merged despite consensus against that. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Consensus against that"? Is this some new definition of the word "consensus"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion closed as do not merge into Turkey Mountain, but delete. But the text was merged following an inappropriate non-admin closure of the AfD by Aarghdvaark: [82] during the AfD. This inappropriately merged version has since been kept in the article despite it being reverted: [83]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Comment nobody wanted the article to stay - I would call that a consensus. But there was no consensus as to whether to simply delete the article or merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). The admin who closed the afd argued that "No one supporting the merger of the article has countered ... [the argument that there are] no independent sources to establish notability". But no one was arguing for the article to stay, so that wasn't an issue. The admin decision is probably a good one - it is not notable so the page shouldn't be in Wikipedia even as a redirect. However that does not mean it is open season on any mention of the topic elsewhere. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Sure they did: "Since there is no mention of the petroglyphs the few sources I could find written about Turkey Mountain, they should not even be mentioned in that article either. Basically, they are scratchings that look like letters and could have been made anytime". I also asked twice about sources and got nothing back. Also not mentioning it in the corresponding article is exactly what delete means. The consensus was for delete, not merge; hence we delete it and do not merge it into the other associated article. it should be self evident that delete means we don't merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC) "Also not mentioning it in the corresponding article is exactly what delete means." - No it is not. Delete means only one thing, which has been pointed out many times before: That it's not notable enough to have it's own article. It does not mean it can't me mentioned anywhere else. This has been pointed out several times now. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC) There were two options discussed at the AfD. Merge, or delete. Merge means inserting the text of the article into Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma. Delete means not doing that, and just deleting the article. Delete was chosen over merge in the discussion. Ergo, we do not merge the article. The content which is being inserted to Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma is that taken from the deleted article. To insert the text into Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma a discussion as wide as that in the AfD should take place, otherwise the consensus holds. In all AfDs, when delete is chosen it always means delete, not (partial) merge elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) If we do have an unattributed merge here, then that's a problem with our GFDL- and CC-BY-SA content licencing rules and should be fixed. But does this mean that a real merge has happened, or just that topics from the deleted article have now been covered elsewhere? The fact that an AfD concludes with "delete" does not, and never has, prevented the topics from the deleted article from being covered in a different article.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The text was inserted with "merging with Turkey Mountain inscriptions - see that articles afd" [84]. That is unambiguously a merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I broadly agree with Blueboar, but I get to his conclusion via a different route. My analysis is that it's verifiable that there are inscriptions on Turkey Mountain. It's NPOV-compliant to mention their existence, and it wouldn't violate WP:NOT to do so. The only substantive debate is about the origin of the inscriptions. Now, to me it's as plain as the nose on your face that they're a hoax of some kind; but that in itself doesn't preclude a mention on Wikipedia. And the fact that something's likely to be false but believed by some of the more credulous people in the world puts a basic duty on us, as a responsible encyclopaedia, to explain it properly. This is why we have content about Bigfoot. It's why we have content about the Moon landing conspiracy theories, or baraminology. And it's why we need content about this. There's also the fact that the outcome wasn't policy-compliant to consider. WP:ATD has been disregarded. I don't think the closer misinterpreted the debate. But I think the debate reached the wrong conclusion. The options I like are "overturn to merge" or (if we decide to enforce "DRV is not AfD round 2" in this case) "relist, with instructions to AfD participants that they should decide where to cover this content".—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close The original poster has given no reason as to why the admin close was incorrect, or incorrectly weighed up the consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The instructions say to notify the closing admin. The original poster has not done so; so I have (the only person who was notified was someone who voted merge [85]). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close - As per IRWolfie. (This is the first DRV I've been involved with, so sorry if this isn't how you do it.) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse merge or delete were reasonable outcomes from that discussion, so I can't say the closer abused their discretion. That said, a deletion (rather than merge) outcome doesn't mean that the issue can't or shouldn't be discussed in the parent article. We can certainly mention fringe theories and in this case there is now doubt that the inscriptions exist AFAICT. So WP:FRINGE doesn't really play a role unless someone wants to say more than "they exist and folks come to see them for reason X" Hobit (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC) WP:FRINGE does play a role for undue promotion; saying they visit them for "reason X" per WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Well, the petroglyphs are mentioned (in passing) in several reviews of bicycling trails on Turkey Mountain (in fact, it seems that one bike trail is commonly known as the "petroglyph trail"). I think these are enough for us to at least note (in passing) that the petroglyphs exist. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Exactly. And a brief mention that they are likely bogus would be just fine. If there is forged painting that is notable, we don't suddenly become less likely to mention it because someone has a crazy theory that it isn't forged. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Except in this case they are SYNTH-ing sources that make no mention at all of the topic of Turkey Mountain, to promote their POV viewpoint on that article that "anything suggesting pre-Columbian /pre-Norse contact is automatically to be rejected as forged, no more questions need be asked, and nothing to see, please move along." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close noting that the editor (Til) who brought this here not only did not follow procedure here, but also canvassed during the AfD (which was noted in the closings statement. The sequence of events is relevant - in May 2008 Til removed the disputed fringe material from the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article and created its own article. That article has just gone through the AfD process. During the AfD process an editor merged it with the TM(O) article. There's been a dispute as to whether it should be there. It concerns me that one way around a deletion decision can be a merge, which is one reason why I removed it. Later I asked the closing Admin for his opinion. If we do allow this, I can see a possible scenario where after an article is deleted editors move its material from article to article until they finally find one where no one objects or notices. Is this a good idea? Note that I wrote this hours ago and it got lost in an EC I didn't notice. I see Til is now objecting to content he added himselfwhich is the 3rd edit to the article, the earlier ones also being Til's - which would mean that we just get left with fringe claims, claims about petroglyphs that have absolutely no reliable sources mentioning petroglyphs (so far as I'm concerned, those sources would be rock art specialists, not Farley et al). I don't think reviews of bike trails are enough to say there are petroglyphs. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) The claim that the article did not mention the inscriptions before some material was moved during the AfD is false. Please stop claiming this, it is not helping. Some material was copied over, yes, but that is of no relevance either for this deletion review or for the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Is this aimed at me? I don't think I said the article didn't mention the inscriptions before the AfD took place. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Then I misunderstood. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to Redirect From the above discussion and the edit history of Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma), text was merged from Turkey Mountain inscriptions before the deletion close; according to WP:MERGETEXT, the edit history of the Inscriptions article, therefore, needs to be preserved by redirect for copyright licensing purposes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse close. I think the decision is technical rather than about the content (as nobody was arguing for the article to stay). The reason we have this DRV on Turkey Mountain inscriptions is because it was claimed[86] at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) that the only way to argue for content on that page was to go for a DRV on Turkey Mountain inscriptions. So the purpose of this DRV is apparently to argue about content on another article, which is clearly not the purpose of a DRV. I think we should forget about Turkey Mountain inscriptions and this discussion should be redirected to talk at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma), but that it should be noted that a delete decision on one article has no bearing on another article. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse with the caveat that DRV and AFD do not supplant local talk page discussion. --NYKevin 02:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn (to redirect, with possible merge to Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma)). There was a consensus that there should not be a standalone article. There was not a consensus against a merge and redirect. Multiple people, including the nominator, were discussing a merge and redirect as a workable outcome. The subject already has mention at the target. I note that User:IRWolfie- opposes the merging of any content, but that discussion was unfinished and belongs on the talk page of the target anyway. If User:IRWolfie- is right, then the page can be just left as a redirect. There is nothing in the history that can't be allowed to stay available there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to merge per WP:ATD, if there is a reasonable merge target for the verifiable content, regardless of whether it has standalone notability, deletion is not a policy-based outcome. Having said that, I agree with the above posters that deleting one article makes no difference at all to whether the content could be re-created in another article. Mind you, as also noted above, copy/paste merges from the deleted article create licensing issues, which is another very good reason to avoid deleting anything if there's encyclopedic, verifiable content that can either be merged or rewritten into another article. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC) What reliably sourced content do you wish to merge? What those in favour of merge appear to be ignoring is that we don't have any reliable sources for what was in the article; except for those that are a synthesis to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Have you looked at the offline refs? I have not. If they've been discussed and adjudicated as non-RS somewhere else, I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Hi, I am the admin who closed this deletion discussion. I won't make too much comment here, but I clarified my close in response to questions at my talk page. What I wrote here may be of interest. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) The WP:Copying within Wikipedia issue noted by S Marshall and confirmed by IRWolfie- is valid: the merged text was a licensing violation while the source article was deleted. The delete outcome can be maintained with a workaround from WP:Merge and delete, but the easiest solution is restoring (already done, albeit temporarily) and redirecting Turkey Mountain inscriptions. Some of merged text dates back to the initial revision from 2008. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to merge. There was no consensus about how much to merge, and so the closing was a supervote. The closer additionally said that "No one supporting the merger of the article has countered this argument, so no strong case has been put forward against deletion" It is not necessary to put a strong case against deletion, it is necessary to put a strong case for deletion. The relevant rule is at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of articles "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) There was a strong case for deletion, which was summarized in the closing statement directly before the quote you took out of context. The point is that nobody countered those arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) No independent sources exist is a strong argument for not merging. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC) IRWolfie's contention since the beginning has consistently been to declare that no matter how many books or sources discussing the inscriptions are found, each and every one is invalid, reason being because they mention inscriptions. Then, to continue the circular argument, he challenges me to find a RS mentioning the inscriptions, but with the caveat that if it mentions the inscriptions, it too will be invalid. (You know that old chestnut) This is obviously an impossible standard, being imposed by IRWolfie. It may be the reason that he was not "answered" the last time he said "there are no RS that there are any inscriptions, period" on the AFD, is because it is no different from the same position he has been repeating from the get-go. The fact that no one answered him the last time he repeated it, should not have swung the consensus from "merge" to "delete" IMO. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to merge or redirect - For the reasons above, and the following significant new information has come to light since a deletion: Susan Jakobsen (February 2, 2000). "Mystery mountain". Tulsa World. Retrieved 19 August 2012. provides details on the inscriptions. That info can be added to the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) In case the article deletion is upheld, the references cited in the article were: Fell, Barry (1984) America B.C. : Ancient Settlers in the New World, New York, Simon & Schuster Farley, Gloria In Plain Sight: Old World Records in Ancient America, self-published, http://www.gloriafarley.com/ Williams, Stephen (1991) Fantastic Archaeology, Phila., University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-8238-8, pp. 264-273 Feder, Kenneth L. (1996) Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, Mountain View, Mayfield Publishing Co., ISBN 1-55934-523-3, pp. 101-107 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I can hardly see on article in a local paper is "significant new information". :-) Also, note that Farley is self-published and hence not a reliable source, and Williams and Feder do not mention Turkey Mountain. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to redirect purely for attribution reasons. Whether or not we want to incorporate text from the deleted article into the main one, which should be debated on the talk page, some of its text is now contained in (at least) the history of the main article and needs to be properly attributed via either a redirect or a history merge. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 August 2012

Category:Islamophobia – category renames endorsed. I am fully aware that there are reasonable arguments here supporting an overturn. The possible options are "endorse", "overturn", and "relist", and while I find none of those closures entirely satisfactory, I believe that "endorse" is the result that is closest in line with what consensus and arguments that have been presented. Note that the outcome of the CFD was a rename of categories, not a pure deletion. The issue here is made all the more difficult by the strongly political aspects of the subject matter, aspects that strike at fundamental issues related to freedom of religion, racism, and tolerance. The real-world aspects have led to horrific atrocities and continue to be the subject of utterances and actions that are very distressing. There are persuasive arguments that islamophobia is a common term used to describe the hatred towards muslims and Islam, and the concerns that renaming the category to "Opposition to Islam" represents a whitewash (or as DGG put it, an example of political correctness) of a term that is actively used in academic sources are by no means without merit. On the other hand, people who supported deletion make a persuasive point too, when they say that "islamophobic" is a loaded term and a disparaging term, one that causes trouble when articles are put into those categories. As such, an article on "islamophobia" is fine, but categories that label subjects as "islamophobic" can cause trouble on the affected articles. For an article on a self-proclaimed critic of Islam, there may be disagreement over whether that article belongs in an "islamophobe" category, while it is easier to agree that the article belongs in a category with a less loaded name. A comparison to the Category:Homophobia has been used. While I see the point, there has not been to my knowledge any centralized discussion of "phobia against certain groups of people" categories in general. As such, these are handled on a case by case basis, and sometimes different cases will yield different outcomes on what may seem to be parallel issues. Onto the outcome. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, there are basically three options. A "relist" in order to generate more input would, the way I see it, only cause a further delay, and we would be facing the same dilemma in a week. Both the CFD and this DRV have been well and thoroughly discussed, and the arguments have been laid out. Relisting could maybe cause a shift in numbers, but it is unlikely that more clarity would arise. For a "overturn", there would need to be some sort of consensus that Mike Selinker's closure was incorrect. While I see that the closure was certainly a controversial one, he had reasonable support for his closure in the WP:NPOV policy (in particular: "Prefer nonjudgmental language"), and his closure has been endorsed by a slight majority of the participants in this DRV. As such, I am closing this with an "endorse". The result will undoubtedly frustrate many of those who presented reasonable arguments for why "islamophobia" was the most common and used term, but on the other hand the more "politically correct" category names have more support, and will probably be less contentious when articles are put into them. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Islamophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Category:Islamophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (This discussion applies to all the relevant sub categories too) The obvious consensus of the relevant discussion was to keep all the categories. A number of users provided strong rationales for keeping the categories, inter alia demonstrating that is is the scholarly term and the term widely used by governments and international bodies (e.g., the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe), as also established by our main article on Islamophobia which states in its opening sentence that "Islamophobia describes prejudice or racism against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims" (the term also has a template, that was decided to be kept in a previous discussion, and much more). The users who wanted to delete the categories, a minority, only cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "it's right to hate Islam" and other inadmissible, non-policy based and politically extreme "arguments", and without citing any sources (see also this discussion). The consensus of the discussion to keep the categories is in line with the already established consensus on how to treat the subject in its main article, Islamophobia. In any case, even if counting the "it is right to hate Islam" guys, there was no consensus to delete the categories. The only acceptable, policy-based outcomes would be either keep or no consensus, not delete. Moving categories for hatred and prejudice against Muslims to "opposition to Islam", while we at the same time have categories for Antisemitism, conveys a politically extreme and Islamophobic message, as pointed out recently in media coverage on Wikipedia. Unless the categories are all restored per the consensus in the relevant discussion, we will now have no choice but moving the Antisemitism categories to Opposition to Judaism to retain a consistent category hierarchy and avoid racist double standard (Category:Islamophobia in Israel was deleted (against consensus), while Category:Antisemitism in Palestine is still there, a striking and POV double standard). JonFlaune (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt For the record, again, Category:Islamophobia has been deleted already 8 times (log) and it keeps getting re-created even after three succesful CfD-nominations (1, 2 and 3) to not have it. Thus, I believe the page should already be salted. Yes, in the latest one many also voiced to keep them, as many did voice not to keep them. Deletion nominations are not a direct vote, even though 13 did propose to delete it and 8 voted to keep it (against what you called a consensus). But it was the arguments that did weigh in, and the admin who closed it offered a very good rationale for deleting it. You can't just say that there was an obvious consensus while there never was. Simply, it can't just be recreated again and again and claimed that there is a consensus for it, while it's pretty clear there is no such consensus at all. --Pudeo' 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Closer's comment. I've given a rationale for the close, and I'll let that speak for me. I would like to say that despite Jonflaune's claim, no one in the discussion made an "it's right to hate Islam" claim. That's a staggeringly inflammatory statement to make about a discussion where pretty much everyone kept their heads. I hope this one fits that description too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Er, what do you call "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" and other nonsencial politically extreme, non-policy based delete "votes" (although it's of course not a vote)? For every honest editor, it's overwhelmingly clear that the outcome of the discussion, per policy, was a consensus to keep the categories. In these discussions, only policy-based arguments count. Demonstrating that it is the established scholarly term, used by international bodies (the EU, the Council of Europe, the UN) etc etc. counts. Unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a group of POV warriors pushing WP:FRINGE views, ignoring scholarly discourse, does not count. In any case, there was no consensus to delete the categories. Even if counting the non-policy based arguments, there was still no such consensus, and policy would dictate a "non consensus" close, not a deletion, and the categories would be retained as no consensus to delete them. In a recent discussion, you demonstrated having a strong POV on this issue and were hence not an impartial party to the discussion. Closing a discussion on an issue on which you hold a strong POV, and using that position to enforce the opposite result of the consensus, is unacceptable. JonFlaune (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Where have I demonstrated a strong POV on this issue?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC) First off, you failed to answer my question. When you have done so, I'll answer yours. My question was: "what do you call "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide""? JonFlaune (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) An argument? That comes far short of "it's okay to hate Islam." I think a reasonable claim of that sort could be made about Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. In any event, if that's the worst anti-Islam statement in a discussion, that's a pretty hate-free discussion about Islam.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC) If you think so, I guess there is no need to elaborate on why you are not an impartial party to the discussion. Again I notice that you you take the personal and completely unsourced (and WP:FRINGE) opinion of a Wikipedia user at face value, instead of considering sourced, rational and policy-based arguments (such as: Which term is used in scholarly discourse? Which term is used by the mainstream media? Which term is used by international organisations? How does Wikipedia's own main article on the subject, which is the result of much discussion, treat the subject?). Btw., at least two users have pointed out that the particular statement is an extreme statement that means "it is right to hate Islam", and it's a prime of example of the utterly worthless WP:IDONTLIKEIT that should be discarded completely. JonFlaune (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You should note that the closery perhaps was Mike's first Islam-related edit in his Wikipedia editing history (he's not involved in any Islam debates). Claiming "a strong POV" with his very reasonable closing message is quite incomprehensible, and your tone is getting somewhat rude. With all due respect, perhaps you should cool off a bit. But I'll response to your question: that's called criticism of religion, obviously he meant legitimate criticism of Islam. You shouldn't overinterpret. --Pudeo' 01:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) We are here discussing the against-consensus deletion of the category for Islamophobia which according to its main article "describes prejudice or racism[1] against, hatred or irrational fear of Muslims", and has nothing to do with criticism of religion. The user in question has deleted a hierarchy of categories that took hours to build, against a clear consensus and against policy. JonFlaune (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Well, okay, if this is going to center on whether I have a bias that I don't think I've demonstrated, let's look at the record. I've closed several thousand CfD discussions over the past six or seven years. Since I tend to close controversial discussions, some of them have been about Islam. Here's what I've done in all Islam-related CfD discussions I've participated in. It looks to me to be all over the map, but your mileage may vary. Since these categories have come up probably a dozen times in some form or other, you can look through them and find what you want to find, I guess.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, Jon, I don't see that in recent discussions Mike has demonstrated a bias that would taint the close. I disagree with the close, but I don't think it was biased - I just think it misread the consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Basically he just ignored all the policy-based rationales and the main article on the subject, while taking the unsourced, fringe assertions of the "It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide" guys at face value, which in itself indicates a strong bias. Moreover, anyone reading the discussion can see that, even if accepting the non-policy based "arguments" as valid arguments (which they are not), there is no consensus whatsoever to delete the category. Hence the result would be no consensus (and no deletion of the categories). Scholars, mainstream media and policymakers don't discuss whether Islamophobia is a legitimate term. It is the long-standing established scholarly and accepted term for hatred against muslims, recognized as an equivalent term to Antisemitism by all of polite society by the 1990s. Only the politically extreme reject the term. Describing it as "opposition to Islam" is the WP:FRINGE position. Wikipedia cannot support the fringe position. JonFlaune (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn. First, well-deserved pat on the back to Mike for his lengthy and thoughtful closing comment. It's very much appreciated. However, I don't think that he did due diligence in weeding out non-policy-compliant arguments and non-arguments (most of the delete !votes simply asserted that the term was non-neutral, while keep !votes pointed out that it is the common term used by scholars and major world bodies; we also got several users making the tired old "hatred of Islam is rational, therefore it is not a phobia" comments that we also see with homophobia and that ignore established usage for the sake of a POV; and a number of other useless arguments). I'm also iffy about the treatment of the redundancy issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Can you point out a comment in the CfD discussion which claimed that hating Islam is okay or defended it? Please, it's very unhealthy for this discussion to make offensive strawman statements. You shouldn't discredit views that you don't agree with simply as "non-arguments", instead you should have countered them. --Pudeo' 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Among others, "Opposition to Islam is not necessarily the same as Islamophobia. It is possible to criticise Islam for what it actually does to other people and religions worldwide truthfully...labelling statements of fact as 'Islamophobia' indicates that the term has no legitimate foundation" and "The term is a recent creation of certain groups meant to push the position that opposition to Islam is inherently irrational and maybe even a sign of mental disturbance" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt It was deleted many times.Its a POV fork from Anti-Islam categories.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt. While WP:CCC is an important principle which dictates that we don't censure users for bringing up again an earlier decision for reconsideration, and that also means recreating previously deleted articles, categories and templates can be done, either because the issues that caused them to be deleted have been ostensively remedied, or, consensus has in fact changed, this principle can also be abused. And this seems to be what is happening in the case of these categories which are programmatically recreated following each consensus to delete. This gaming of the system needs to be addressed, and I agree that now is the time to make a decision to salt these category names. __meco (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC) As you are very well aware, the consensus was to keep the categories. There was no consensus to delete the categories. I agree it's time to finally close this issue as the categories were decided to be kept, and the persistent attempts to delete them are just disruptive and damaging Wikipedia. It is the well established scholarly term used by all relevant international organisations and only rejected by the likes of Breivik, and the discussion decided to keep the categories, so they are to be kept per the consensus of the discussion. (I also noticed that you nominated the template for deletion again, despite the fact that it was apparently already kept in a recent discussion). JonFlaune (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse thoughtful close. There is indeed a consensus to delete present in the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC) There are 8 strong keep votes and 0 valid delete votes, only unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("it is right to hate Islam"). The consensus is to keep the categories. We don't count worthless unsourced fringe views/IDONTLIKEIT from POV warriors, as opposed to policy-based arguments that demonstrate which term is the scholarly and predominant and widely accepted term. JonFlaune (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You can't seriously claim that every vote to keep it was valid (even per someone else votes) and every one against it was invalid. That's just contemptuous. And then again, if you go on that road, is WP:ILIKEIT a better reason? --Pudeo' 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) While I agree that the close was kind of arguably in accordance with the consensus, it strikes me that Category:Islamophobia is an excellent candidate for a category soft redirect to Category:Anti-Islam. If it's been re-created seven times as the discussion implies, then leaving it as a redlink is just asking to have the whole discussion again in another few weeks. (The closer should read this as "weak endorse but redirect as a separate and subsequent editorial action.")—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) The category had been a soft redirect to Anti-Islam earlier to prevent recreation atleast once before, but it was created again anyway. It didn't have adequate protection and perhaps wasn't watchlisted by someone eager to revert it at the time, and then all those articles and subcategories were added and it was again too late by then. --Pudeo' 13:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) We realise that you strongly endorse the decision, Pudeo; your enthusiasm is commendable and your many comments in this DRV will doubtless be helpful to the closer. Salting is a blunt instrument. There are times when it's appropriate, such as when dealing with persistent bad faith re-creation, but careful consideration is necessary before using it to resolve differences of opinion between good faith editors. We should examine alternatives before we go ahead with page protection. One of those alternatives is a category soft redirect, which may well stick this time.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I agree. However, eight category page deletes and three succesful CfDs is quite extraordinary, isn't it? That's something to consider. For the last time the category was re-created only 14 days after since it was last deleted. It seems deletes and soft redirect (it indeed was a soft redirect before the last delete) haven't helped. --Pudeo' 15:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC) It's nowhere near as clear-cut as that, I'm afraid. Eight page deletes means relatively little. We see a lot of speedy deletions here at DRV; a speedy deletion just means one individual sysop made a judgment. With all due respect for Mike Selinker's clear and well-thought-out closing statement, he is wrong to give weight to the number of speedy deletions. A speedy says nothing at all about what the community thinks; it's of no help in judging consensus. Three CfDs has a great deal more weight, but on examining the previous CfDs I note that they're far from conclusive and there were more than three of them anyway. The first CfD here was (correctly) closed as "no consensus". The second CfD here was closed as "rename", and so was the third one here. The fourth one is the one that we're considering. In fact, this most recent discussion is the only time there's be a consensus to delete this category. In the circumstances, and given the good faith disagreement that still prevails here, salting (which is fundamentally an anti-vandal tool) is simply inappropriate. While I sort of semi-endorse the deletion, I urge the closer to find a less unilateral solution than salting here.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC) But speedy deletes were based on those two rename CfD results. While I accept your point that the number of speedy deletes is not the most decisive thing (8 is alot anyhow), the problem however has been that someone recreating that category has been claiming a consensus for it. But mind you, the rename result of the previous CfDs essentially means the same as delete now. That is, because we already have the categories Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam, naturally the result can't be rename anymore because those more ideal categories already exist. It was either returning to earlier situation of not having this category (based on rename) or decide to recreate the category again despite having another category on the same issue that was renamed. --Pudeo' 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I also support the soft redirect. If I'd thought it deserved to be salted, I would have salted it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Soft redirect is not bad option but maybe it should be fully protected to prevent recreation?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Okay by me. But if you guys want to salt it, go ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt The arguments were balanced and not the one sided slam dunk keep consensus some may have wished for but the fact these categories have been repeatedly deleted and recreated pushes towards permanent deletion. I would likely have closed the discussion the same way, but without such an eloquent closure summary. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to keep I really don't care for the Islomophbia/Homophobia terms, as they are loaded language. But the keeps had clearly stronger arguments (commonly used in scholoarly circles, we have an article on the word), where the deletes are more worried about the loaded nature of the term. I don't see how that's a policy-based reason to delete, let alone one that is stronger than the keep arguments. The parallels to antisemitism are also strong and not really overcome by the delete votes. I do think the closer took a really good shot at this, but I really don't think the policy-based arguments were weighed appropriately. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn as absurd and a violation of Not Censored, which takes precedence as a principle. There's a standard word, universally used. "Islamopobia" is the contemporary politico-religious opposition to the asserted political role of the religious movement. It's in my personal evaluation as disgusting and dangerous as any other religiously based political hatred. However, it exists, and calling it a more polite and indirect name won't make it go away. WP describes the world as it is, and the ugly parts are ugly. Trying to use euphemisms is censorship of an insidious sort. Not censored means, among other things, that we name things for what they are called. There is a term to describe this sort of thing: Political correctness, a term originally used by some vaguely Maoist-influenced parts of the Left in a positive sense, but now widely understood in its true negative sense to be the attempt at unreasoning and intellectually dishonest censorship of one's opponents. I don't think WP is free from it. It shows up most at the things people fear, but are ashamed to admit it. The people who use it normally don't admit that it applies to themselves, but argue that it represents balance and even-handedness and freedom from prejudice. They have it backwards, and they are an obstacle to honest discourse. I'm aware that some out-and-out bigots may also use the term, but anyone can use even objective language to a bad purpose. I know what I'm saying is not likely to very popular, but all the more reason it is necessary to say it. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I'm surprised to read this diatribe coming from this specific direction. Are you sure you are presenting an argument for DRV and not your belated opinion for a CFD that you missed? I would expect a vastly experienced CFD contributor like DGG to at least address the issue of whether the closing admin has acted in error. But that seems not to be even a tangential focus in the above post.__meco (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that this is not very relevant in terms of DRV, but Islamophobia is not the only term for these issues. It is definitely a notable term and of course warrants an own article. But it's not the only name. Category:Anti-Islam exists, and if you will look at Google Scholar search 2720 results for "anti-Islam" and 379 results for "anti-Islamic sentiment". Anti-Islamic sentiment does also have a negative connotation much like Islamophobia, albeit less controversial. It's not censorship, in any case. How many categories do we need on the subject? --Pudeo' 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) This comes up occasionally: what kind of comment is in scope for DRV, and what kind of comment is outside it? On the one hand, there's a convention that DRV is not AfD round 2. But on the other hand, that convention is sometimes suspended (tacitly or explicitly) because in order to perform its function properly, DRV needs to be more than just a venue to oversee procedure. A lot of DRVs are about difficult and marginal cases, or where there's been some perceived need to disregard procedure, or where an editor suggests that procedure should have been disregarded. And in a few extreme cases, there have been occasions when a DRV has overturned a XfD on the basis that the XfD was simply wrong. So as to allow for this, our normal custom and practice is to allow DRV particpants very wide latitude to comment. The regular closers here can all be trusted to disregard anything that's genuinely irrelevant. DGG is not obliged to discuss whether Mike Selinker made a mistake. (In fact, in some ways it's good that he didn't. The closer of this discussion has probably received more than enough input to reach a finding on that point, and we can probably move on.) In short, regardless of whether or not DGG's comment has merit, I'm positive it's within scope.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Of course my implication is that he made a mistake because he should have disregarded views that were attributable to prejudice, or incompatible with Not Censored. Presumably he didn't find them such, and that was an error. Others have made the same error in this sort of dispute. I do not blame him for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 14, 2012‎ (UTC) I'm deeply troubled by both what you and S Marshall, coming to your defense, write here. I have therefore opened a sub-thread in relation to an already ongoing, related discussion at this page's talk page. Please report to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#This discussion as related to an ongoing DRV. __meco (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and Salt it is clear that we should name the category with a more neutral title. While some may try to distinguish "Islamaphobia" from "oppostion to Islam", the reality is the former is an attack term, and its use shows that the user is engaged in polemics, not anything substantial about the accused. The fact that we are called "Islamaphobic" for taking this action just shows that the term itself has little meaning beyond "we will shame you into doing exactly what we want you to do."John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt - User:Timrollpickering pretty much said what I was going to say. Though I will add that if someone else accuses anyone else of prejudice/"bias" simply for disagreeing with their assertion, I think I'm going to start an AN/I discussion to consider that individual's continued ability to edit on Wikipedia. (What I have read in this discussion has clearly more than annoyed me, so I'll recuse myself from doing the actual blocking.) We are a collegiate project. And that is definitely NOT collegiate. There is (unfortunately) genuine/real prejudice in the world (of many kinds), which real people have to deal with on a regular basis. To call out prejudice/bias when you have a difference of opinion, or you feel you aren't getting your way, is just wrong. There is just no word strong enough to express how wrong it is. - jc37 23:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC) How about anathema? __meco (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus For a change I find myself agreeing with DGG and Hobit. This was deleted on the incorrect assumption that the word Islamophobia carries an implicit POV. The obvious parallel, as has already been pointed out is Homophobia, for which we have a well-developed Category:Homophobia. Although the word may be loaded when used in certain contexts, it is the common scholarly term used in discussing anti-Islam sentiment. ThemFromSpace 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC) With all due respect, your argument misses the point. We're not discussing the article Islamophobia, we're discussing a category hierarchy that has been hugely abused by POV warriors. __meco (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The only POV warriors are the ones trying to portray Islamophobia (the universally accepted term, in polite society including scholarship and mainstream media, for racism and hatred against Muslims) as "legitimate cricism of Islam," as reported by the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen recently[87]. According to the article, "people sharing Anders Behring Breivik's views are waging an ideological war to promote their ideas on [the English] Wikipedia," trying to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate cricism of Islam." The President of Wikimedia Norway is interviewed, stating "there is no lack of people who share Breivik's opinions among users on Wikipedia." JonFlaune (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn It does not appear a consensus was reached. In one sense its odd to claim a category is POV, as the purpose of a category is to categorize (eg., someone authoritatively categorizes this (topic) as Islamophobia). The neutrally proper inquiry is whether it is a way of categorizing things that is valid with reference to sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Exactly. There is a difference between personal opinions of Wikipedia users that are unsupported by sources (such as when one user wanted to rename the template for Islamophobia to "Islamorealism"(!), without reference to anything but his own opinion), and the opinion held by sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is based on reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. If sources use a term, then we use that term. In this case, Islamophobia is (as amply documented and established) the universally accepted term among the sources upon which Wikipedia is built, whether scholarly sources, mainstream media sources or official (EU, UN etc.) sources. Even the Jerusalem Post uses the term[88] and the Anti-Defamation League considers itself opposed to Islamophobia. It is well established in scholarship and other sources that the term is really only rejected by the far-right fringe. Those wanting to delete the term in various contexts have not presented any sources whatsoever supporting their assertions, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "rename to Islamorealism" and similar "arguments.". JonFlaune (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Overturn and keep as it's the established term and there is obviously a need for such a category or it wouldn't have been recreated. The discussion should have been closed as "no consensus". Also having articles about islamophobia (racism against Muslims) in Category:Anti-Islam is not good for anyone as it creates a mix-up of criticism of the religion and hate against people with Muslim ethno-religious background (even if it might be an overlap). As mentioned in the discussion Category:Islamophobia corresponds to Category:Antisemitism. So would you support merging Category:Antisemitism into Category:Anti-Judaism? // Liftarn (talk) Overturn to keep And do the equivalent of salting when it comes to keeping. Having said that, I believe Mike Selinker's closing argument was quite reasonable, aside from noting that "phobia" has something to do with irrational fear (word roots don't translate automatically into word meanings). However (and understandably: reviewing this requires quite an effort) it doesn't address som facts that are absolutely central to the matter. It was mentioned earlier by Pudeo that there are about 3000 hits for "anti-islam"/"anti-islamic sentiment" on Google Scholar. The tally for "Islamophobia" is 10 000. A topic search for "Islamophobia" on the somewhat more prestigious academic search engine Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters) returns 171 hits for "Islamophobia", a further 26 for "islamophobic" and 27 and 12 for "anti-islamic" and "anti-islam" (with significant overlap). On another prestigious search engine, JSTOR, the numbers are 334 for "Islamophobia" 133 for "anti-Islam". The three first articles returned for "Islamophobia" on Web of Knowledge are titled Islamophobia and Its Discontents Assailed by the right as a fiction, anti-Muslim bias is all too real for those who live with it Islamophobia's Sugar Mama Donor Nina Rosenwald has helped bring the anti-Muslim fringe into the mainstream Coping with Islamophobia: The effects of religious stigma on Muslim minorities' identity formation for "islamophobic" they are: Europe: Hotbed of Islamophobic Extremism Coping with Islamophobia: The effects of religious stigma on Muslim minorities' identity formation (overlap) Backlash of multiculturalist and republicanist policies of integration in the age of securitization These aren't the blog posts of some fringe lunatics. These are peer-reviewed research articles. Islamophobia is a real problem, and it is receiving far more scholarly attention than the finer points of the term's loaded connotations. There are also scholars in the field who note that the term is somewhat loaded due to current political polemics, but it is important to note that they do not consider it feasible to discontinue its use, nor do they advice against using it, but rather propose more stringent definitions or that new terms be introduced in order to differentiate better. That is, however, quite tangential to this discussion. The main point here is that "Islamophobia" is the established term for describing prejudice or hatred against Muslims, and if there were to be only one category, that is if we were to subsume rational criticism, prejudice and hatred under the same umbrella, it should still be named "Islamophobia", and not "anti-Islam" - on the basis of a purely numerical count. But, finally and crucially, as Liftarn mentioned, anti-islamic sentiments and Islamophobia aren't necessarily the same. Categorising them together is highly inappropriate towards fair, intellectual critics of Islam. Defining the borders will certainly lead to controversies, but that should and can be handled on a case-by-case basis by using appropriate sources. Best regards, benjamil talk/edits 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It is indeed problematic, but if you look at Category:Homophobia it doesn't list a single person or organisation as Homophobic. Even if some American conservative Christian organisations are anti-gay, it would be rather controversial to do that. Category:Antisemitism does that to people though, which is wrong I believe. All of Islamophobia is Anti-Islamic, but not all of anti-Islam is Islamophobic. Thus, "anti-Islam" is the umbrella term for it all. So, besides Category:Anti-Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam is another category needed simply to add counterjihad? --Pudeo' 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Weak endorse. On one hand, I think it looks like a stretch to pull a consensus out of what looks like a no consensus. However, I am swayed by my view that mainspace categories are powerfully assertive of facts to the reader, and that these categories are troublesome, and that they contain no content themselves, and so if there is no consensus that they should exist, then no concensus should default to deletion, in the case of mainspace categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Would the same apply to Category:Homophobia and Category:Antisemitism? And the end result, categorizing Anders Behring Breivik, 2011 Norway attacks, Kach and Kahane Chai, Eurabia, Counterjihad and the English Defence League as "opposition to Islam", is this correct or neutral? According to which sources? And is it fair to categorize Breivik, Kach and Kahane Chai and the English Defence League together with non-racist critics of religion? JonFlaune (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I would not catergorise Anders or any single act under anti-Islam, not directly anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt as per Shrike and others. Let the add that I believe the article Islamophobia is powerful and evolving with the work of many hard-working editors. I hope the effort is directed to continuing the good work there. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse and salt, a difficult close that was bound to cause controversy and find itself at DRV, but one that I see as reasonable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC). Where are the sources and policy-based arguments demonstrating the WP:FRINGE point of view to be "reasonable"? In fact we have a clear policy-based consensus to keep all the categories. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not admissible. I'm still waiting for those sources, I have not seen a single one supporting the assertions of those wanting to delete the categories. JonFlaune (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) This is not CFD mark two. You presented your argument, but consensus was against it. You lost. I suggest you try to retain some dignity by accepting that and moving on, rather than stamping your foot like a petulant child having a tantrum, and desperately trying to get a term loaded with POV and subtext re-integrated into the category system. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC). Consensus was clearly to keep the categories, so you lost, not I. You continue to make assertions unsupported by any sources, and I take this as confirmation that sources don't exist. What you are claiming (Islamophobia to be a "loaded" term) is a WP:FRINGE POV, that sourced and policy-based consensus did not support, and that has so far not been supported by a single source in this discussion or elsewhere. In fact even our main article on Islamophobia establish the exact opposite, and has been demonstrated, there are plenty of sources establishing it to be the recognized scholarly and official term that is only rejected by the far-right fringe. If you have any sources supporting your assertions, then show us them. Deletions on Wikipedia are based on Wikipedia policy, not your personal opinions, so personal opinions unsupported by sources and policy don't count. JonFlaune (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for quoting that alphabet soup at me rather than getting the point, but nobody without a strong pre-existing POV going into that discussion could reasonably claim that your point of view found majority support. Nobody is disputing that islamophobia is a real phenomenon, which is why we're not talking about deleting the article of the same name. Nobody is disputing that it's a bad thing and that Breivik is a dangerous racist idiot. However, there is a clear consensus that using a nebulous and politically explosive term like that in our category system is not wanted, for the same reason we don't have categories entitled "Racists", "Idiots" or "Child Molestors". I expect that the next point you'll make is that other stuff exists, namely the homophobia and various anti-Zionist categories, and that we should delete those if we are to be consistent. I agree, but that's a discussion for a CSD on those categories, not one for DRV. I will not respond further to any further replies from you here unless you bring some actual policy or insight to the discussion, rather than just repeating a rejected point of view over and over. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC). Comment: Aftenposten is Norway's largest newspaper. In April this year they had an article titled "Supporters of Breivik in edit wars on the Internet", stating that they were "waging an ideological war to promote their ideas on Wikipedia". The specific issue was the portrayal of Islamophobia in the English Wikipedia, or more precisely the attempt to portray Islamophobia as "legitimate criticism of Islam". The President of Wikimedia Norway was "alarmed" over the issue. Several Norwegian newspapers have already reported on this following a more in-depth article by Norway's leading left-wing daily, and I can guarantee more press coverage on this issue if Islamophobia is portrayed as "opposition to Islam" per the fringe POV. JonFlaune (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Atherton – allow recreation. A draft for a new article in userspace was presented in the DRV. The support here is clearly for letting the article at least have a chance at AFD, and I will therefore move that into mainspace. I see no need for a "procedural" AFD because if someone believes an AFD is in order, they are free to write up a nomination themselves. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Atherton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Having had a discussion with User:The_Bushranger he/she has advised me to prove notability and pass through this system. I believe the lack of notability was the lack of references to secondary sources and I think I have now rectified this (at least in volume - I think citations need to be adapted differently for different types of sources). I would therefore ask for the page to be re-instated. I am an infrequent user of wikipedia and have never used this process before. So apologies for any mistakes. Amanda Paul (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Comment Article was userfied to User:Amanda_Paul/Paul_Atherton. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC) At the least, this justifies another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I'm with DGG. Sourcing at that level passes the relatively low bar for DRV to allow re-creation; detailed source-assessment really belongs at AfD. Let's call it "move to mainspace without prejudice to an AfD nom if desired."—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC) List at AFD, I'm not sure it'll survive that, but there is enough sourcing at least to give it a shot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC). Allow recreation - I found something in the May 4, 2012 Evening Standard (looks like a letter to the editor Paul Atherton of Simple Productions wrote).[89] It doesn't help, but shows that there's not much on Simple Productions and Atherton. Here's an article about his Coke film.[90]. Also, there's sources in the draft article. Seems reasonable to allow recreation of the article. If someone then wants to list it at AfD, they can. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2012

User talk:182.178.24.34 – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:182.178.24.34 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) A sysop incorrectly applied WP:CSD (i.e. actually abused his privileges) and refused to discuss his mistake. I would not object if that page ended in deletion at some point in the future (say, after a week). But not now, where such deletion may conceal a part of reasons for blocking a vandal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC) The page history consisted of a warning from ClueBot and some vandalism from the IP which was reverted by Elockid. Why would we need to keep such content around, exactly? Hut 8.5 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) We do have a policy that this should not be done in the absence of some other reason--the usual ones are creation by a banned user, or vandalism, by which I interpret vandalism on the page itself. In this case, there was vandalism on the page itself, and that should have been cited as the reason. It wasn't very severe as vandalism goes, just a bit mapped image of a grinning face and the words "I am a troll", but there is no reason to leave that visible, even in the edit history. I think the best explanation of treating vandalism in such a manner is the essay WP:DENY. I would have given a better explanation , but I don't think it much of an error. The admin involved is a very experienced vandal fighter and checkuser--just to be sure I have looked at a few dozen of his recent user space deletions, and I think them all entirely justified. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC) WP:DENY is good, I respect this policy. Should Wikipedia override WP:CSD for the greater glory of WP:DENY, though? If some sysopped vandal fighters will routinely lie about deletion reasons, this may lead to distrust to entire page deletion system. Such thing as WP:CSD#G6 implies that a reason for deletion is technical, not political. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Amend the log to cite G3 not G6, to to mention obvious trolling. Should G3 explicitly include blatant trolling? Should revision deletion be used instead of full deletion? Due process is not required in responding to trolling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC) If we don't have a CSD that empowers an administrator to delete obvious trolling, then that's a deficiency we ought to rectify. I can't see that it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to restore this content. I accept that Incis Mrsi's nomination appears to be arguable in accordance with our rules, but I suggest that this would be one of the relatively rare occasions when rules should be suspended in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I think that speedy deletion of pages created or used solely for trolling, pure and blatant, is normal, and should be normal. I have boldly edited WP:CSD#G3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I reverted it because I think trolling is a form of vandalism, so mentioning it isn't really necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) You may be right that trolling is a form of vandalism, but it clearly isn't obvious to everyone. I have disputed your revert at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G3._Vandalism.2C_Hoaxes._Includes_trolling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Correct deletion – Use some common sense; that dreck does not belong, nor is it ever justified, on Wikipedia, ever. --MuZemike 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Just a bunch of flames. We all know that user_talk pages are generally useful. If one feels that this particular page is not, then s/he has to substantiate this. I do not think that the user_talk of a recently blocked (say, a hour ago) dynamic-IP vandal is a useless thing. Everyone could see that the vandal was warned, continued with his vandalism and was rightfully blocked. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Your initial statement, I would not object if that page ended in deletion at some point in the future (say, after a week). This defeats your justification for retaining a page as deleting a page after a certain amount of time would still deny everyone the information that the user was blocked correctly. You're not making much sense to me. Elockid (Talk) 03:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I am not familiar with alternative opportunities to attract the community's attention to Elockid's abuse. A direct talks proved insufficient, but the case is too petty for ArbCom or so. Now, Wikipedia will know that Elockid's deletion reasons should not be trusted. He either will avoid "I am an administrator and hence do the right thing" ethos in the future, or will eventually have his privileges recalled. The fate of the unreg's talk page really does not matter. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I don't object to revision deletion of trolling, but why delete the warning from ClueBot. Also, the page should now contain a CSD deletion notification. Elockid, why not just blank the trolling, and optionally block the IP if it continues? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC) One of my main criteria to performing revdeletion is that there is a useful or extensive history. There was none in case. Another is the severity of the edit or disuption. I wouldn't call this a high degree of inappropriateness or an elevated level of disuption which is what revdelete is supposed to be used for. In any case, I am also under the impression that Incnis Mrsi would still call that inappropriate as it conceals the reason for blocking. A little background info. Prior to that IP being used, the person was already disrupting Wikipedia. This was not their first time. This is a returning vandal who has already been warned and blocked previously. Elockid (Talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) IMHO there was nothing wrong neither in the prompt blocking of that dynamic-IP vandal, nor in (eventual) deletion of his trolling and its consequences such as ClueBot warnings. There is another thing which is wrong: Elockid consider his troll-fighting to be a high-priority task, which can override WP:CSD and even the consensus. Trolls should be reverted and ignored, but not used as a pretext to break established rules. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC) What consensus would that be? As far as I can see, I don't see any consensus. Unlike WP:Help (WP: ) which I repeat has no authority to dictate what's right or wrong whatsoever, you've already been directed by two users at another policy, WP:IAR, yes it's an actual policy. Furthermore, your statement of Non-criteria 13 was incorrect. Ahem: The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. I didn't even use this as a justification for deleting the page. Yes, this is maintenance. Elockid (Talk) 13:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC) It is really sad that, even after a week of discussion, Elockid failed to realize that his deletion was neither technical nor uncontroversial (G6 implies both). It is even more sad that Elockid apparently does not understand some things about foundations of Wikipedia. These are WP: Five pillars and decision of users which "dictates what's right or wrong whatsoever", not (secondary) policies and guidelines themselves. Secondary policies are policies because express the consensus, not because they exist. Of course, I know what means WP: Ignore all rules. In this exact case, this means that a user_talk page could be speedily deleted for the greater glory of Wikipedia even if "non-criterion 13" discourage this. But any such decision implies a responsibility and requires a substantiation. I would not doubt in Elockid's trustworthiness were the deletion reason be just a text string "a page does not constitute anything but a dynamic-IP trolling" (although I possibly disagreed with that outcome). Filling the reason field with "G6" was merely a deception (i.e. lie), not "ignoring rules". What substantiation did Elockid, DGG and MuZemike provide? "We are sysops, we know better what is The Right Thing…" or even an outright Internet flame. I do not see how template talk: Usertalksuper, indirectly mentioned by Elockid, is relevant to this case, but if Elockid insists, I could comment on his thoughts on that matter too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC) How about S Marshall who also mentioned WP:IAR? He/she is not admin. I am insisting that you need greater familiarity with policies, regulations, community norms. You've been incorrect in one, thinking that non-criteria applies, and two, WP: says what's right and wrong even though though there is no right way. Non-criteria doesn't discourage this. Let me repeat what Non-criteria covers, The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. Non-criteria would apply if the sole reason was that it was just an IP talk page. However, that is not the case and as such there is no discouragement as it would only be discouraged if the primary reason was because it was an IP talk page. Let me quote this from the policies and guidelines page, "The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." This does not mean that policies and guidelines are secondary and suggests quite the contrary. See right below the five pillars page how there's the policies and guidelines. Users develop these and develop policies and guidelines on what should and should not be done. So yes then, those are things that dictate what's right and wrong. That is how English Wikipedia operates. If you are not aware of this, then I highly recommend spending more time here. Btw, I don't see how any of the comments here constitute internet flaming. Elockid (Talk) 17:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2012

O. J. Murdock – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
O. J. Murdock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <Redirects are cheap> I think that O. J. Murdock should have been redirected to History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012 (or Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster) with the page history in tact. Suppose that someone created a redirect to Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster while Murdock's name was listed there. The redirect would likely not have been deleted per WP:CHEAP. Murdock's name is mentioned at History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I have no objection to the redirect, which is a sensible idea, but I'm not sure I understand why it's necessary to restore the history beneath it. Could you elaborate on that please?—S Marshall T/C 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Easier to restore the history that exists than to recreate it. A similar thing was done with Lisa Chan.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC) It's not necessary to restore or recreate it.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Strong endorse of the adminstrator's AfD decision. And it should not be redirected because it does not meet any of the criteria of Purposes of redirects. Sorry, I initially was hoping to find a legitimate reason to support keeping the article or at least redirecting it, but it became clear that there wasn't one. The article was already discussed in huge depth and with the input of many editors at Afd. And then it was carefully reviewed by an administrator. So there's no point in rehashing all the issues. You can read the AfD discussion. The meticulous comments and reasoning of User:Dirtlawyer1 throughout the AfD discussion make it abundantly clear why Murdock does not meet the notability standards and why it should not be redirected. And there are many others who supported his position. The article clearly should not be redirected to the History of the Tennessee Titans or Tennessee Titans current roster because (1) he never played a game (or even a down) for the Titans and (2) he is not on the team's roster. By the way, the only reason Murdock was mentioned in History of the Tennessee Titans is because User:Jax_0677, the editor who created this discussion, put it there. And he did so four days after the AfD discussion started (Afd started July 30, Jax first commented in Afd August 2, then Jax add Murdock content to Titan History article August 3). I've been told that no one should add contentious content like that while there is an intense AfD discussion going on. Then another editor reverted Jax for WP:RECENTISM, which was followed by Jax0677 reverting the revert, with the edit comment "this is the topic of an ongoing discussion at WP:AfD for O.J. Murdock". So editors let Jax have his way temporarily and waited for the AfD decision (even though the Murdock content never should have been in the Titans History article anywyay). Well, the Afd discussion is over and the Murdock article was deleted. And the content that Jax added to the team's history article was also then removed (by me). Sadly, Murdock had zero effect on the team's history, so he shouldn't be mentioned in it. Look at the content of that article and you'll see how inappropriate and out of place it would be. The article is solely about the team's perfomance. It contains absolutely no content regarding the personal life of any player, let alone a player who never took the field. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 08:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) I need to emphasize this one issue... This article cannot be redirected because it does not meet any of the criteria of Purposes of redirects. It needs to be understood that User:Jax_0677 inappropriately added content about Murdock's suicide to History of the Tennessee Titans four days into the Afd discussion. This was one day after he started participating in the AfD discussion, so he was fully aware of the AfD. So by adding the Murdock content, he was then able to cite one criteria on Purposes of redirects, which would of course qualify the article for a redirect (if it was content worthy of inclusion). The criteria he cited was "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." So we have four big problems: (1) Jax0677 inappropriately added the contentious content about Murdock while an intense AfD was taking place, (2) when he commented in the AfD that he had discovered Murdock was mentioned in another article and so it therefore could be redirected, he didn't reveal that he had just added the content, (3) he reverted the revert of an editor who told him the content was not appropriate for the article, and (4) the contentious content was clearly not worthy of inclusion anyway (and still isn't) because that article is solely about the team's performance, and includes nothing about the private lives of any players, let alone one that never played. I wish I had known about this while the AfD was going on, but I discovered it aftewards when I looked at the revison history of the Titans article. Jax0677's actions actually caused at least one editor to change his recommendation from Delete to Keep because he was unaware of what happened. I must note, though, that I assume good faith from Jax0677 and that perhaps he simply didn't realize that what he was doing was improper. I'm sorry, I feel we just shouldn't even be having this discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Consensus is perfectly clear and the idea of a redirect was raised in the AFD and failed to gain traction. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Dirtlawyer1's arguments were strong enough deletion was reasonable and not redirecting was a reasonable outcome given the discussion. In general if someone isn't quite notable before "an event" we tend not to consider them notable after the event. I will note that if non-trivial coverage of the suicide exists after (say) mid-Sept. it might be worth bringing it back to DRV as sustained coverage (say folks use it as a basis for a wider discussion of suicide or sports or something) could overcome the BPL1E issues. Hobit (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I don't think the AFD was closed improperly, although I was on the side of Keep. However, I can see some merit in retaining the article history in some way--perhaps through Userfy or holding the redirect. The good it could do is that if the subject comes back to be notable (as it seems some think is possible) then the history is intact and can be built from. The downside is we suck up a few extra bytes of memory on the server. I don't see a problem with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I am the editor who nominated the article. My overall opinion hasn't changed, Murdock failed notability guidelines and the closing administrator made the right decision....William 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse AfD close - There's not much news coverage of him: AAU national gold medalist in the 200-meter dash (Tampa Tribune August 31, 2001), Tampa Trailblazers track results in 2003,[91] a purported career ending arrest in Oct 2006, 2011 sidelining injury and a Feb 2011 effort to get in front of scouts,[92] and died of an apparent suicide in front of his old high school in July 2012.[93] Most of the significant news converge in response to his death, so a Wikipedia article on the topic might be Death of O. J. Murdock, which isn't a basis to redirect to Tennessee Titans anything. I think if the original article were more respectful of his entire life as covered by sources rather than focusing on how he died (particularly with the Wikipedia article being within a few days of his death), consensus might have swung towards keeping the article. As for the AfD close, I don't think separating the coverage outside of the tragic events from coverage of the tragic events is how notabilty per GNG should be judge because, by that parsing approach, any topic could be deemed not to meet notabilty per GNG. But looking at the totality of all coverage on O. J. Murdock reviewed at the AfD, I think the AfD close was correct in the consensus to delete with policy-based arguments. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Reverse the deletion Like, 76.189.114.163, I contribute regularly to articles and discussions (such as this AfD), but unlike 76, I don't overwhelm those who disagree with me with multiple long passionate replies. I hope new editors take a look at this case objectively, including the various published reliable and independent of secondary sources mentioned by multiple editors. My short version of the case: unlike 76, I don't think its a problem that he never played an NFL game. While I can understand why editors would establish WP:NGRIDIRON as a guideline, I think that the judicious invocation of WP:IGNORE is warranted in this case. To quote myself: It is the combination of his somewhat troubled personal life, his professional-quality athletic career (including the track accomplishments mentioned by Paul McDonald), and his high profile suicide (it made news front-page on cnn.com as opposed to just sportsillustrated.cnn.com) make the subject notable. One admittedly sad way of looking at it is that the suicide [ which has larger implications due to other recent NFL-related suicides ] clinches notability in the same way that playing in one NFL game would have. 72.244.206.167 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) @72... First, editors can read the AfD discussion for themselves and see why this article was deleted. They don't have to take my word for it. The explanations in the AfD by User:Dirtlawyer1 alone will clearly lay out all the flaws in your reasoning and why the decision to delete was correct. Second, other editors have a right to know the full background of the Murdock discussion. Third, contrary to your claim that you "contribute regularly to articles and discussions," your contribution history shows you edited for a total of four days over the past two and a half years, and the last time (before today) was one year ago. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Comment supporting deletion reversion Forgot to mention that in addition to the factors supporting notability that I mention above as 72.244.206.167, Murdock reached the highest level of professional status in his chosen sport as an unrestricted free agent, a notable exception to how most high-achieving recent college athletes enter the NFL. Just another example justifying WP:GNG, one that is comparable to the arbitrary bright-line rule of meeting WP:NGRIDIRON's single-game threshold. — 72.244.206.50 22:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC), editing previously from the 72.244 IP subnetwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.50 (talk) Thousands of undrafted players have played in at least one NFL game, and thousands more have been training camp bodies like Murdock who never played in a game. Almost none of the training camp bodies are notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Reminder we're not talking about restoring the article here, we're talking about restoring the history of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2012

e2v – Restore and rewrite – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
e2v (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) the page e2v has been deleted for advertising, but I have tried to explain to the person who deleted it that it was written as an explanation of what the company does, using the pages from BAE Systems as a style template. I am happy to address any specific issues with areas he considers unacceptable but a straight deletion seems very harsh. It has also left a dead link from the English Electric Valve Page which it has been recommeded was merged with the e2v page. I'm just frustrated and confused by the rules this person is applying. I am not going to rewrite it as he might just go back and delete it again, but it seems wrong that there is nothing about e2v on wiki (this week we were in the news for supplying the imaging devices for the Mars Curiosity lander with NASA and will be a part of this amazing search for life on Mars) but wiki does not want to know our history or allow peole to understand about e2v. We are not advertising to individulas, we are just providing an oveview of what we do and our important discoveries. Would appreciate your help in understanding where we go from here. 194.106.220.86 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It's hard to write about your own company, because there's a conflict of interest there and because many people who write corporate profiles are accustomed to using marketing language. Wikipedia doesn't want that. We're very averse to corporate marketers who want to use our prominent position on the internet as a shortcut to free publicity. But that doesn't mean you can't have an article on e2v. What it means is that you can't have that article on e2v. I think the best way forward will be for you to work on the article in the article incubator, so I hope the outcome of this review is to incubate the deleted article. Please ensure that the article only contains information available from independent, reliable sources and not press releases or corporate publicity. It should use a dry, encyclopaedic, neutral tone. Articles about corporations should begin with something like: "(Name) is a (nationality) corporation based in (place). It was founded in (year), has a market value of (value) and (number of) employees. Independent reviewers say ..." In an article about a corporation, you should not produce quotes from the company's marketing department. There should be no eulogistic references to the founder or chief executive. The word "solutions" should not appear anywhere in the article, and neither should a detailed description of any particular products. (If they're notable they should have articles of their own and if not there need not be much information about them.) The article should not attempt to piggyback on something else of general interest (the olympics, the curiosity rover, the search for life on Mars) but confine itself to the exact topic in the title.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Have you read up on our advice around editing with a conflict of interest. I can't see the deleted article but usually the problem in cases like this is that a user with a close connection to a subject finds it very difficult to write objectively about the subject and ends up with an article that reads like it is promotional. We do have a very hard line on this because Wikipedia is a project managed by volunteers who give up their own time to the project and we are wholly supported by charitable donations. Many of us feel very strongly that we are therefore very ill suited as a vehicle for commericial enterprises to make money by puffing their products here. I'm not suggesting for a minute here that you have done that, but I'm saying this to give you the context of why the article may have fallen fowl of the rules. If you want to set up an article and have it reviewed and fixed before it goes up then I suggest you offer a draft at articles for creation but please avoid reusing copywrited or prepublished text. Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Restore and I will personally rewrite it and merge with English Electric Valve Company, under the assumption that it will be easier for me to make a proper article out of it than for the original editor. (When a company changes name, it's our usual practice to have just one article, under the name of the current firm, unless the history is so complicated that this would be confusing) I am not sure I would have deleted it as G11--I would probably instead have done the merge to rescue it. What it mainly needed was condensing, removal of excessive internal links to their customers, product listings, buzzwords, and inappropriate bold type headings and other emphasis, Whether to regard this as the sort of thing fixable by ordinary editing depends on who judges it. I consider that this degree of rewriting is not all that much more than normal editing, but I know I am prepared to routinely do more extensive work of this nature than most people here. I think that everything that S Marshall & Spartaz say is correct, but this particular article does not seem to suffer from all of the common defects they pointed out. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Restore per DGG. 194.106.220.86, where you got into trouble is that you apparently wrote the article base on what you know about the company and based on information published by e2v. You might think these the best sources for information, but Wikipedia works the opposite way and considers sources connected to the company, uh, not the best. What you should do is 1. use source material written by people independent of e2v (e.g., books, newspaper articles, magazine articles not connected with e2v) and 2. format the e2v article based on Category:FA-Class WikiProject Business articles. As for the advertising assertion, your lead sentence, "e2v is a leading global provider of technology solutions for high performance systems; delivering solutions, sub-systems and components to advanced systems companies, for specialist applications within medical & science, aerospace & defence and commercial & industrial markets," seems like advertising. Please post on my talk page if you want more details on that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 August 2012

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show – Unprotect redirect and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi. A few months ago I wrote an article for this Ed, Edd n Eddy movie. I wrote a bit about the production, and copy-pasted a Wikia Plot, just so it'll be a replacement for the plot which I was writing in my sandbox. However, a user named User:Barek deleted the page, and after I posted it again, the same thing happened. However, I believe that this has enough sources and an un-copy-pasted plot, as well as slightly more info on production to get the article unblocked: Here it is. Not the best ever, but I've seen much, much worse. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) unprotect and list From what I can tell the article hasn't been recently deleted, but it has been redirected and been fully protected. It has also undergone two AfDs. The first result was to delete, the second to redirect and protect. The draft has three possibly acceptable sources where none existed in the article that was the subject of the last AfD (Toonzone, tv by the numbers, and Animation Magazine) though each are short and blog-like. Everything else seems to be plainly non-independent or not indicative of notability. But worth a spin at AfD I'd say. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) As a note to Khan, the copying and pasting of Wikia might be able to be kept if you provide attribution (most are licensed like us) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse 2nd AfD close - No significant new information has come to light since a deletion. See WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. For a movie, you would think there would be more source coverage of the topic. The only thing I'm finding is November 16, 2009 ranking, the last movie first grader Shelby Davis of Mossy Creek Elementary saw was Ed, Edd and Eddy's Big Picture Show (his favorite lunch is Peanut butter and jelly sandwich),November 25, 2009, and the favorite movie of Alex Porter, 14, is Ed, Edd and Eddy's Big Picture Show.June 26, 2011. AfD2 closed 3 January 2011 and the sources in the draft are before that date, were covered between AfD1 and AfD2, and don't amount to anything more than trivial information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Uzma. I'm not seeing the sources that are in the draft in the article ([94], nor did I see them in the AfDs. What did I miss? I went back and looked again and I'm still not seeing them in either AfD. Help? Hobit (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2012

Easy projects – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Easy projects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) As required per WP:GNG, a subject of the article should enjoy the significant coverage, which is defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail". As acknowledged by closing admin (Amatulic), the coverage of subject was not trivial only in two sources. Though one of these sources (article on gigaom blog) indeed covers the subject in detail, another one (article on BNET news site) only provides a brief overview, which wouldn't allow a person familiar with topic to identify it if the software's name was omitted. As this case is borderline, the numerical !vote count (once author and users with no few or no edits outside the topic excluded) is clearly on delete side, and previous deletion discussion on the topic (then also featuring same references) was closed as delete with unanimous consensus, I request to overturn the discussion result to delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse no consensus It's a pretty big hurdle to overcome a "no consensus" close when the opinions of editors are balanced numerically, and the argument you're making just doesn't seem adequate to the task. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC) As Jclemens says its a very difficult thing to overcome a no consensus close but I have serious concerns about the close. Firstly, the closing admin states categorically that there are two good sources. I'm not finding a consensus for that argument in the discussion. The sources are adduced by obvious SPAs that are clearly editing under a COI and given the history of promotion of the article they should really not be given the same weight as the opinions of the sources put forward by established users who found them lacking. To me that looks like a stonking supervote suggesting that the closing admin would have been better adding their own opinion and leaving it to someone else to close. Secondly, if the closing admin believes that there are adequate sources to pass CORP then they should have closed this as keep not no consensus. Thirdly, in acknowledging and then disavowing an industry interest I think any reasonable closing admin who thinks that their close will be controversial should recuse and simply opine as a normal editor. Having said all that, I think the fundamental flaw with the discussion is that there isn't quite a clear enough weighting and validity of the sourcing to resolve this out of no consensus and on that basis I can't find an argument to overturn the close. That said, I think this would have been better relisted with clear directions on the need to discuss the sourcing. I'd be included to endorse but allow an early relist to discuss the specific issue of those two sources. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) This sounds closer to reopen, doesn't it? To clarify things: personally I didn't dive into discussing the sources in detail as I thought that the question was rather obvious, and no uninvolved editors (apart from alleged SPAs) actually questioned the statements about bad sourcing. That actually was the reason I brought the question here: in the deletion discussion I see no opposition (again, except for SPA !votes) to my view expressed in this DRV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I think its too late to reopen this. Personally, I rarely gave SPAs as much weight as established users unless their arguments are extremely well founded in policy but the rules say an admin may give spa votes less weight, not that they have to and I think that's what skewed this outcome. Really though, more detailed analysis of the sourcing by the delete side would probably have swung it their way. Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) The standard for WP:GNG is not "if an article includes reliable sources that show the topic has received significant coverage ..." Also, the standard for WP:GNG is not "if a deletion discussion brings forth reliable sources that show the topic has received significant coverage ..." The standard for WP:GNG is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ..." The argument you're making just doesn't seem adequate because you limit it to the sources reviewed, not whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It's also not helpful to note "the numerical !vote count" which goes against the montra, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads." Since the close was no consensus, feel free to relist it at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) If you continue reading WP:GNG, you'll find a phrase "address the subject directly in detail". In case of software this is obviously reviews. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Ideally, it ought to be substantial reviews. However, I have also seen articles challenged on the basis that there are only reviews, and not academic discussions, or not news articles. And when there are reviews, the question is usually how substantial and independent they are. The wording of the GNG is deliberately vague, with the intention of being flexible, and the interpretation of it is up to the community in each individual case. As a rule , the community considers such factors as what is customary and expectable for that particular type of subject. We have normally been quite liberal with respect to computer software. Certainly it can be relisted, normally after a month or two, with the purpose of the delay being to give people a chance to rethink things and for possible additional sources to become available--or be found not to be available. and it would have made more sense to have done so rather than brought a non-consensus close here. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Note, most recent AfD was closed 4½ months ago with unanimous delete consensus. This AfD only differs in participation of article's author and editors with little to no edits outside the topic. I get it as the re-evaluation you talk about, though strained by votes of novice/SPA editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - there's a balance of opinions, and a marginal meeting of WP:GNG - a perfectly sensible no consensus. WilyD 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Comment from closing admin: The nominator should not be faulted for bringing this here, because I invited him to do so. As to my close: In an AFD discussion, arguments should matter more than votes, and if someone makes a compelling argument, it's irrelevant who presents it, therefore I won't ever discount a reasoned argument just because it came from a single-purpose account. If anything, I tend to discount the "me too" voters who add nothing to the discussion, regardless of who they are. That is how AFDs should be judged. I saw compelling arguments on both sides, SPA or not. I looked at the sources being argued about, and found two independent ones devoting significant/exclusive coverage to the topic, giving the topic borderline WP:GNG compliance. There wasn't any obvious consensus about the value of those two sources, so given the arguments, I closed as "no consensus", knowing that this might be controversial due to the past decisions to delete the article on this same topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2012

Liam McEwan – Listed at AfD, in the version proposed for creation. This is a request for unprotection and thus arguably made in the wrong forum: Because the deletion as such is uncontested, the unprotection request ought to have been made at WP:RPP. The discussion here has turned into a discussion about the notability of the article, and results in no consensus as to whether the article should be unsalted. If a DRV discussion results in no consensus, closers may relist the article at AfD at their discretion. I choose to do so because the article has not previously had a proper AfD discussion in which the subject's notability could be discussed. If the AfD results in a decision to delete, the page should be re-salted. –  Sandstein  13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liam McEwan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am requesting desalting of this article name. The article, in various other guises, has been A7 speedy deleted numerous times over a number of years, and subsequently salted. However, there is a new version which seems to assert notability, and is backed up by reliable sources parked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. I have not contacted the administrator who I presume salted this, PMDrive1061, as they are marked as retired and have not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. Ritchie333 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I am not convinced that a Shorty award proves notability , and I certainly would not consider that it does for one in a category where the subject was one of the 6 nominees and all six received first place, as here. The only other third party source in the article, the NZ Herald, is a RS, but the article is just about the station where he broadcasts and does not even mention him. I think that until there are better sources, the only reasonable conclusion is Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Like DGG, I would not consider that this particular award shows notability. The sources in the AfC article are not sufficient either - the NZ Herald one does not mention him, 4 others are all from his radio station - and all appear to be "routine" coverage for a radio station anyway - and the final one is the Shorty-connected one, which is not sufficient for our purposes. Leave salted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unsalt - Salting is a way to prevent the repeatedly recreation of an article without concern for its prior deletion history, process, or consensus. Listing the topic at Articles for creation demonstrates a desire to put the topic back into the Wikipedia machinery, seek consensus, and address its prior deletion history. Unsalt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. I don't think the topic Liam McEwan meets WP:GNG. I didn't find anything on Liam McEwan radio host. Also, the first of two sources listed at Articles for creation that is independent of the topic, Battle of the Auckland airwaves doesn't mention Liam. The Shorty Awards source could support the text, "Liam McEwan was nominated for a Shorty Award,[95] but that's not enough information for a stand alone Wikipedia article. He's in radio, so it is very odd that someone hasn't written information about him. Given his opportunity to come to the attention of others to write about him, he seems less GNG notable than others who are not in the public eye. If the topic is unsalted, it should be resalted immediately if any of the prior problems reemerge. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Leave Salted or Re-Salt if necessary. Subject is not notable. He and possibly his friends and/or fans have repeatedly attempted to create a Wikipedia article about him since 2007 (see User talk:Liam.mcewan) when he was 11 years old. At 16, hosting a short radio program on a local community radio station broadcasting at less than one watt power does not make him notable. Winning a Shorty award where there was no clear winner does not establish notability (and would still be questionable even if he were a clear winner). As noted above, the only reliable source listed in the AfC doesn't even mention him, only the radio station. The other sources are unreliable, primary or both. If the article somehow passes AfC, it would immediately be nominated for deletion, unnecessarily taking time and effort better devoted elsewhere in WP. DocTree (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unsalt. This is a wiki, and a good faith user wishes to write an article in this space. That's sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Keep salted. If even DGG doesn't think there's an article to be written here, there probably isn't. To unsalt and move the AfC to mainspace when it will almost certainly be again deleted at AfD is a pointless waste of time and resources. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Keep salted - I just checked the new draft (and marked it as 'being reviewed' by the way) and still don't see enough WP:42 references to pass WP:GNG. mabdul 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC) List at AfD. http://twitpic.com/900rgg shows that he has had direct coverage in a newspaper. There is more than sufficient claim to beat WP:CSD#A7. This subject has never subjected to an AfD, and given the amount of interest, if someone wants a discussion, we should let them have it. I agree that the sources would be probably judged as not meeting the WP:GNG, but not meeting the GNG is not a speedy criterion. If found non-notable at AfD, I recommend a merge and redirect to The Flea 88.2, where the subject already has some coverage, but less than what is can be seen, sourced, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation but list per SmokeyJoe. This is no longer a speedy, so let it try at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Leave salted, the result is or at least should be clear here. A valid unsalting request would include a list of the independent and reliable sources covering the article subject in depth. It doesn't seem such exists here, and throwing it through AfD or otherwise is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If the sources still don't exist, still disallow, meme or otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It sounds like you are accepting that this DRV discussion is serving as an AfD discussion? If not, then accept that there has been no deletion discussion. What you are therefore advocating is that administrators be allowed to speedy delete on their judgement of sources and WP:N. This denies the ordinary editor their role in running the project. You are headed the wrong way. “Leave salted” also seems to ignore and rule out my point that this title probably should be a redirect to The_Flea_88.2 (a decision that should be made editorily, or at AfD, but not at DRV). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bianca Jade – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bianca Jade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) She is a notable person: a latina entrepreneur who has devoted her life to women's fitness and helping women to prolong their lives with the new concept of fitness fashion & trend. She has been written about in many newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs and appeared on tv furthering this modern-day fitness movement. She is becoming a household name in women's fitness and comments about her not being pulled up on Google searches or having a relevant references from respectable and credible news sources is wrong because there is plenty of evidence in favor of her notability. Her page does wikipedia lots of good because it does women lots of good because it does th ehealth & fitness community a lot of good. But most of all she is NOTABLE. ShanaScala (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I can't see this adds anything over the AfD, writing notable in capitals doesn't make an impressive argument. What's required is multiple non-trivial coverage in independant reliable sources. The commenters at the deletion discussion said the ones in the article didn't meet that standard and couldn't find others. To overcome that you need to find those sources and list some of them here (Read WP:GNG for a better description of what non-trivial etc means). Without those sources, this DRV should be closed as it's merely disagreement with the outcome, something the DRV specifically isn't about. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure. No other decision was possible with the AfD as it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion - reliable sources could not be found. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I saw the original article and commented at the AfD. It was a puffed-up vanity piece of the most humorous sort. Endorse. ThemFromSpace 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse no other outcome was possible. However, at least one, if not more, Bianca Jade's are notable and would meet WP:GNG. Not sure if the above listed Bianca Jade is one of them. There's a Bianca Jade who was 16 on August 7, 1993 that was Australia's only entrant in the internationally acclaimed Ford Supermodel of the World competition.[96] If she kept up with it, she probably would meet WP:GNG. A search for Bianca Jade in The Age turned up some good info on Bianca Jades (you would have to go through each article to see who it is talking about).[97] Part of the problem is that Jade Jagger's mom is Bianca, so there are a lot of articles that mention her mother, Bianca and Jade. If Bianca Jade noted by the above original DRV poster has been written about in many newspapers and magazines, then ShanaScala need only create a Wikipedia article using those reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse – Not only was the AfD result unquestionably correct, but the person who submitted this review seems to be continuing in gaming the system and continuing the ruse regarding the sources, which in my view is disruptive. I also strongly recommend that the AfC creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bianca Jade of MizzFIT, also be deleted as the point is clear that the sole purpose of the article in the first place has been for blatant PR/promotion. --MuZemike 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure - no other outcome has been possible and there are no reliable source to be found. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse I'm not seeing any evidence that the AfD was wrong or that anything has changed. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.