Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November

< October 2017	Deletion review archives	December 2017 >

30 November 2017

2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament – Self-vacate and relist.Multiple folks who didn't previously express support for keeping the article have now suggesting that the AfD close be overturned, so I'm going to save everybody some time and trouble and close this early. I will restore the article, and reopen and relist the AfD, such that a clearer consensus may be reached. Thanks for your time. – Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was a very thorough discussion occurring in the nomination for deletion for this tournament article. The notion for deleting the article was that it did not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. First, it strongly feels that the nominator, Sir sputnik, made the nomination in bad faith, as he previously tried to delete the 2017 VCU Rams men's soccer team article despite an administrator already clearing way for the article to meet GNG. In the discussion, there were cases that felt that Sputnik made the article in bad faith, which the closing administrator disregarded. Further, there were ample examples showing that it met and easily exceeded general notability, including that the tournament offered a direct berth into the 2017 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, which has long been determined as notable. The suggestions for the article not being notable were WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE arguments, as well as arguments that disregarded the keep arguments, saying that the links were not notable, despite the fact that the links provided were of third party sources.

At minimum, based on the discussion, that there was no consensus, and based on the rationale provided for the deletion, such as "it seems like there is a consensus", which is a lazy assumption. If an admin is going to jump to conclusions like that, they furthermore should not be an admin on Wikipedia, but I will save that for another time. When offering at minimum to find middle ground, the closing admin made a condescending, hostile remark, which I would venture could be borderline WP:HAR. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Clearly no consensus to delete, at most it's a no consensus and it probably should have been closed as keep. Smartyllama (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There was no concensus--- to the point that deletion come as a complete surprise... GWFrog (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The deletion came as a big surprise to me; if the Summit League's and Big South's 2017 men's soccer tournaments not only are accepted as articles but do so without any dispute, I see absolutely no reason that the America East Conference should be any different. There was not even close to a consensus; it seems like a majority of the arguing to delete was made by one user (Ravenswing), who relied on one or two arguments the whole time. Furthermore, the closing admin's "rough consensus" that he saw consisted of 5 keep votes and 4 delete votes. Definitely not a consensus, not even a rough one. PCN02 WPS 03:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to vote here, though I stand by my closure. The degree of to which the OP is assuming bad faith on my part is quite surprising. Less surprising, but still concerning, is the fact that the OP has notified all the keep voters of this discussion, but only one of the folks who wished to delete the article: so I will notify the rest now. @GiantSnowman, Fenix down, Govvy, Inter&anthro, Sportsfan 1234, and PhilKnight: Your thoughts would be appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The supposed strength of the deletion arguments just doesn't seem anywhere near sufficient to overcome the numerical deficit. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I made no reference to the strength of the delete arguments, which essentially assert an absence of notability. The burden to demonstrate notability lies with the folks who want to keep it: and I found the keep arguments weak. In particular, an argument that the sources exist (without explaining where or how) and an argument that if the article were to be deleted, it would be a redlink, are both weak in the extreme. The numbers matter little. Also going to ping @Sir Sputnik:, who opened the discussion, and should have been notified by the OP. Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear to me why you discounted the 10 sources in the AfD (so they did show where and how). Not saying they were great sources, but I also don't think anyone really refuted them in a meaningful way and they seem reasonable on their face. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Contrary to what the OP seems to think, I did look at some of the sources; and I wasn't terribly impressed. There's some routine local coverage of individual matches; and more significant sources that give this tournament passing mention. Judging consensus at an AfD is not just judging the sources; that would be a supervote on my part. It is looking at all the arguments presented; and in this case, I didn't see enough in the source material to discount the "delete" arguments. Vanamonde (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that it was a tad harsh for the admin to close the AFD when he/she did, but at the same the even though I voted "Keep" in the discussion it is important to remember that per WP:VOTE the fact that a majority of editors vote Keep/Delete shouldn't affect the outcome of the discussion, rather it is the depth and relevance of the articles that should. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC I actually think delete isn't _that_ crazy. The sources aren't great and some of the keep arguments were weak. But some of the delete arguments were basically JNN. The main issue was if the sources were routine coverage in some sense or not. The sources were certainly more than just box scores (at least the ones I looked at) but didn't seem to discuss the tourney itself much as far as I saw. The two sides were basically talking past each other and no real analysis was performed. I don't believe there was consensus to delete or keep. Hobit (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC - whilst I'm concerned a number of editors arguments above seem more about the vote than the arguments, I'm not sure consensus has been reached. I don't think that there is a lack of sources mentioning the tournament, my problem is that these are mainly in the form of routine reporting of matches. I think the use of these to indicate GNG is too close to WP:SYNTH. I'm not seeing any real sources discussing the tournament as an event in itself or look to review the season or something like that which would clearly show significant coverage of this specific edition of the tournament. However, it looks like a number of other editors disagree. Dont see any problem in leaving this for a while with a possible denomination in a little while of no more sources become available. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and resist - nothing necessarily wrong with the close, but probably merits further discussion to see if a stronger consensus can be reached. Giant Snowman 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 November 2017

28 November 2017

27 November 2017

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations – procedural close. An uninvolved admin has overturned the improper NAC and the discussion is open again. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC) – Primefac (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closure after 4 days - Snow Keep - did not follow the critieria, specifically " Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants". Added note that "No prejudice against re-nomination after the election is done" which makes the close seem politically motivated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my close, and I explicitly invoke WP:IAR in my defense. There was very clearly not going to be a consensus to delete the page, and having the discussion open was hindering debate and possible improvements at both Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and Roy Moore. Those who !voted delete were all supporting the content being merged back to Roy Moore; a merge discussion does not need to be at WP:AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but when two tenured admins, one of whom nominated the article for AfD, have both explained succinctly that this article is a POVFORK and/or RECENTISM, you would have been wise to take that into consideration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have backed out the close. This isn't even a case of WP:NAC. @Power~enwiki: you participated in the discussion and voiced an opinion. You can never close a discussion you've participated in. Just isn't done, even under WP:IAR. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still say damn the rules. This is obviously a very contentious topic, and having so many discussions (and uncertainty as to which discussions were relevant) was a clear harm to the encyclopedia. But fine. I look forward to some uninvolved admin making the same close in the very near future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Absolutely no good can come of leaving this open. Artw (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot as NAC has been voided and discussion is ongoing. As a suggestion, however, this is not a proper topic for articles for deletion in the first place, as there are really only two outcomes: 1) cover this in Moore's article, or 2) cover this in a spinout article. Far too much effort expended on a 'deletion' discussion already. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 November 2017

25 November 2017

Tesla Semi – Snow endorse. Also, the pot-shots about the closing admin's user page, and silly allegations about having to treat admins as royalty are out of line and border on being a violation of WP:Etiquette. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is classic case of a popular topic that has lots of media attention attracting large numbers of fans who simply cast votes that the topic is awesome, it's popular, it's revolutionary, it has lots of google hits, etc. The crystal ball policy explicitly highlights that speculation about the future that has been re-reported in reliable sources is still speculation, and a product announcement is a product announcement. AfD closers are expected to be aware of these patterns and take into consideration the popular misconception that Wikipedia is supposed to be about everything, or supposed to reflect whatever topic is trending. The rationale "potential to cause bad feeling" is not a valid reason for non-admin closure and not a valid reason to invoke the snowball clause, which specifically reminds us that "discussions are not votes". User:Iridescent was aware of one bad NAC on this discussion, and that disputed cases should be handled by an admin, rather than edit warring over non-admin closure. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse they aren’t votes but numbers matter and the best hope here, even assuming all the keep arguments were worthless would have been a no consensus close because the support for keeping was so numerically strong. Snow keep was good. Also, Dennis Bratland, Iridescent is one of our most respected admins and a former member of the arbitration committee. I’m not sure if you were talking about the former NAC, but your wording seems to imply you think Iridescent made a bad NAC here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I see on Iridescent's user page is creepy spanking porn. Where does it say they are an admin? If I'm supposed to treat them as royalty this should be announced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here. You can also check by clicking "View user groups" on the left hand toolbar. Also, I prefer the one where "Jimmy Wales" is firing the "previous WMF executive director". TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/common.js has an useful script at the top that shows dou who is an admin if you added it to User:Dennis Bratland/common.js. I agree with TonyBallioni on the preferred image.JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circle the wagons guys. If you want to be treated with deference, then act like you deserve it. You sound like frat boys. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have absolutely no idea what User:Iridescent was aware of one bad NAC on this discussion, and that disputed cases should be handled by an admin, rather than edit warring over non-admin closure is supposed to mean. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict)x2 For the record, what might be called bad feeling (I don't call it that) between Dennis and myself can be evidenced on my TP. I bring this up only out of the interest of transparency. If I am wrong to mention, please delete this section of my comment. Secondly, I don't like being called a "fan(s) who simply cast votes that the topic is awesome", which assumes I let a potential illogical appreciation of the company to blind myself to the policies of Wikipedia. While this may have been one of my earliest logged-in edits, that doesn't make me some fanboy. And "it has lots of google hits" is basically one of the definitions of the WP:GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to equate GNG to a search engine test, then QED. If that were the case we'd be creating a new article every time Taylor threw shade on Kanye. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would either belong in an article on Kanye or Taylor or List of notable times Taylor threw shade on Kanye. And that is a reductio ad absurdum because of the BLP. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Regardless of whether the nominator considered some of the !votes spurious or not, WP:CRYSTAL clearly states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented"[...] - check. It also states, "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included," - checks this too. This seems like a sound closure to me. ceranthor 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as IAR if nothing else (though I do think it meets GNG and CRYSTAL). Hobit (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as much as I dislike snowball clause keeps under any circumstance, this was not going to end any other way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. The reading of the consensus seems accurate to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse had me when the nom admitted this is a "popular topic that has lots of media attention". We write based on what RS'es cover, for good or ill, despite the much longer horizon needed to get something into a paper encyclopedia. You did know we'd effectively killed those off, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure -- there's no indication that the discussion would have closed any other way. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply due to the existing amount of coverage; that was a clear keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 November 2017

23 November 2017

Infinite Computer Solutions – Keep deleted / salted. This has been deleted twice already at AfD (although kept at an earlier AfD), and speedy deleted an additional four times as being advertising. Of course, none of that precludes consensus changing due to a rewrite and/or better sourcing. New sources were presented here, but consensus is that they do not establish notability and the title should remain salted. I don't see any consensus either way on whether the previous text should be userfied, but it sounds like if there were to be an acceptable article written on this topic, a rewrite from scratch would be required, so I'm not going to userfy. – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

With regard to the history of the recreation, i see that there were issues with the article for being promotional/blatent advertising. However, the recent version of the article had every piece of information, cited a legitimate third-party reference. I had done a few edits on the page when it was triggered earlier for promotional content, i helped clean up the article to comply with Wiki guidelines. It would have been of value to have helped further improve the article than just deleting it and SALT! This appears more like a blanket evaluation. I see the recent deletion, was mainly due to the sources which were not of adequate quality to justify an article, although the article was not promotional. I submit to reinstate the article and appeal for editors to improve citations if so, rather than outright deletion. We should restore it and keep it open for improvement. Dhiraj1984 (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather unreasonable to expect others to fix the sourcing for you (seeing as it's you who asked for undeletion). For what it's worth, I did read through some of the sources and while I am not familiar enough with any to comment in detail, a number come off like catalogue entries or driveby mentions. Some others (such as [1]) may be substantial enough to make a case for notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore the page so we get to fix the errors? Have it up in the Sandbox mode Dhiraj1984 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Dhiraj1984, unsalt, and allow recreation.
Infinite Computer Solutions is a publicly listed company and passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The company has received significant coverage in a CRC Press book. It has received critical coverage from CRISIL, Business Line, and Business Standard. A Business Line article in particular is titled "Infinite Computer Solutions – IPO: Avoid" and provides detailed analysis about the company's weaknesses.
Here are sources I found about the subject:
1. "CRISIL IPO grade 2/5 assigned to the IPO of Infinite Computer Solutions". CRISIL. 2009-10-07. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  CRISIL has assigned a CRISIL IPO Grade "2/5" (pronounced "two on five") to the proposed initial public offer (IPO) of Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Ltd (Infinite). This grade indicates that the fundamentals of the IPO are below average relative to the other listed equity securities in India. However, this grade is not an opinion on whether the issue price is appropriate in relation to the issue fundamentals. The grade is not a recommendation to buy/sell or hold the graded instrument, or a comment on the graded instrument’s future market price or its suitability for a particular investor.
  The assigned grading reflects Infinite’s relatively smaller size in the IT services industry. The grading also factors in the company’s slower revenue growth (around 12 per cent) compared to the industry’s growth rate of 22 per cent from 2005 to 2009. In addition, Infinite is present in the lower margin service lines (application development and maintenance and testing services), and faces client concentration risk. The top seven clients accounted for 84 per cent of the revenues in 2008-09. Further, Infinite’s revenues are largely concentrated from the United States of America (USA, 91 per cent) and are heavily dependent on the telecom sector (59 per cent).
  This provides critical coverage of the subject.
  The article also provides a history of the company:
  Infinite, promoted by Mr Sanjay Govil, was incorporated on September 6, 1999 as a private limited company. The company, which was subsequently converted into a public limited company on February 14, 2008, operates with 12 offices across the globe, including the US, the UK, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia. Its delivery centres are located in Bengaluru, Gurgaon, Hyderabad and Chennai.
  The company provides various IT services such as application development and maintenance, testing services, infrastructure management services and IP leveraged solutions. Infinite is primarily focused on the telecom and media, healthcare and manufacturing sectors. The key clients of Infinite include Verizon, IBM, GE, AOL, ACS and Alcatel Lucent.
  ...
  In August 2007, Infinite Computer Solutions Inc, USA acquired Comnet International Company (Comnet), which is a telecommunication OEM focused company. Also, in 2005-06, Infinite acquired Datagrid Services Pvt Ltd, a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) company based in Hyderabad. However in 2007-08, Infinite sold its investments in this BPO.
2. Venkatasubramanian, K. (2010-01-10). "Infinite Computer Solutions – IPO: Avoid". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  Investors can give the initial public offering of Infinite Computer Solutions, an IT services provider, a miss considering the relatively high valuation that it demands and the several business challenges that the company faces.
  ...
  Infinite provides IT services to a limited set of verticals. Telecom (59.4 per cent of revenues) and healthcare (16.6 per cent) are its largest verticals. Its top five clients contribute close to 80 per cent of revenues, with its top-client (IBM) accounting for nearly 40 per cent of revenues. Though smaller companies do have higher client concentration, these levels seem quite high.
  In recent interactions with the media, many large IT services players have indicated that telecom and manufacturing are not yet out of the woods.
  This means that Infinite, with its heavy dependence on telecom, faces added risks on volume growth on this front.
  The presence of players such as Tech Mahindra and Sasken Communications with greater execution capabilities, especially on the R&D front, a key to success in the telecom vertical, as well as top-tier IT layers puts heavy competitive pressure on Infinite.
  This article provides detailed analysis of Infinite Computer Solutions' weaknesses.
3. Surjit, R.; Rathinamoorthy, R.; Vardhini, K. J. Vishnu (2016). ERP for Textiles and Apparel Industry. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. ISBN 978-9385059599.
  From page 115:
  Apart from these global ERP vendors, there are other major textile and apparel ERP giants who provide ERP solutions and are listed as follows:
  1. Datatex ERP, implemented through Infinite computer solutions
  From pages 238–239:
  Datatex NOW ERP solution, which has been implemented in many flourishing textile companies to handle their business better, was chosen along with “Infinite,” their implementation partner. Infinite Computer Solutions is an international IT company with expertise in Platformisation™ IT solutions and frameworks, product engineering, and enterprise mobility solutions. Domain experts from Infinite started the business process reengineering (BPR) phase and restructured the top 20% of the processes. The BPR process they reconfigured and finalized was called “BPR-on-fly,” which essentially set the platform ready for implementing Datatex NOW. The software was implemented in the following areas: garment and fabric sales, purchase, warehouse, costing, planning, production, and quality. Difficulties in implementation included implementing the platform in dual locations. It was handled by a dedicated core team of subject-matter experts and a technical team from Infinite. The ERP system became ready to run after a period of 16 months.
  From page 244:
  Infinite Computer Solutions came up with an option of implementing Datatex NOW ERP to handle both the textile division and the steel division. It had all the required modules to cater to sales, purchase, warehousing, costing, planning, production, quality, and HR payroll and was fully equipped to manage the latest challenges and requirements in a dynamic industry. The challenges faced in implementing the software over multiple locations were overcome by the Infinite’s team of domain experts.
4. "Infinite Computer Solutions India Ltd IPO (Infinite Computer IPO) Detail". Chittorgarh. January 2010. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  Infinite Computer Solutions is a global service provider of Infrastructure Management Services, Intellectual Property (IP) Leveraged Solutions, and IT Services, focused on the Telecom, Media, Technology, Manufacturing, Power and Healthcare industries. Infinite Computer services span from Application Management Outsourcing, Packaged Application Services, Independent Validation and Verification, Product Development and Support, to higher value-added offerings including Managed Platform and Product Engineering Services.
  Infinite Computer's major customers includes Verizon, IBM, ACS, GE and AOL. Company have 14 offices across the globe, including offices in multiple locations in the US, UK, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia. Infinite is one of the leading providers of telecom- specific offerings to service providers, OEMs and ISVs in the Telecom vertical, globally. For fiscal year 2008-09, the telecom vertical contributed to 59.4% of their total revenues.
  The article further notes:
  CRISIL has assigned an IPO Grade 2 to Infinite Computer IPO. This means as per CRISIL, company has below average fundamentals. CRISIL assigns IPO gradings on a scale of 5 to 1, with Grade 5 indicating strong fundamentals and Grade 1 indicating poor fundamentals.
5. Kumar, John Satish (2010-01-14). "Infinite Computer IPO Subscribed More Than 43 Times". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  Information technology services firm Infinite Computer Solutions India Ltd. said late Wednesday that its $45 million initial public offering was subscribed more than 43 times at the end of order-taking, with strong responses from all sections of investors.
  The share offer for 11.5 million shares received more than 422.56 million bids, with the qualified institutional buyers portion subscribed 48.44 times, the high networth individual section 106.02 times, and the retail tranche 11.07 times, the company said in a statement, citing data from the National Stock Exchange.
  ...
  The IPO also received bids from nine anchor investors--including T. Rowe Price International Inc., Carlson Fund India, Lloyd George Investment Management (Bermuda) Ltd.--who had been allocated nearly 1.73 million shares at 165 rupees a piece.
6. Menon, Ravi (2010-10-21). "Infinite looking at acquiring two US firms to boost IP delivery skills". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  To strengthen its IP-leveraged solutions business and capitalise on opportunities in the telecom sector, Infinite Computer Solutions (ICS) India Limited is looking at acquiring two US-based companies focussed on telecom-specific Intellectual Property (IP)-led solutions. Infinite is looking at acquiring companies with revenues in the $10 million-$15 million range, said Infinite chief executive officer Upinder Zutschi.
  ...
  ICS acquired telecom OEM-focussed firm Comnet International in an all-cash deal in August 2007, which helped it obtain IP domain expertise and integrate IP development into its revenue sharing model. The same year, ICS exited its investments in Datagrid Services, a Hyderabad-based BPO firm, which it had acquired in 2006.
  ...
  ICS operates 12 offices across the globe including in the US, UK, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia employing 2,700 people. The company runs its delivery centers in Bangalore, Gurgaon, Hyderabad and Chennai.
7. Sahu, Ram Prasad (2010-01-11). "Costly software". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
  The article notes:
  Infinite has three lines of business or service offerings—application management or IT services, infrastructure management and product and IP-leveraged solutions. The company which counts IBM, Fujitsu, GE and Verizon, America’s largest wireless carrier, as its clients is focussed on generating business from large companies operating in verticals of telecom, media, healthcare and utilities. While Infinite has had to make do with smaller margins initially due to its Fortune 500 company focus, it has gained in terms of the size of contracts, experience in handling large projects and steady revenues.
  However, analysts say that the company is taking a big risk on its thin roster of clients (the top 5 contribute 84 per cent of revenues, with Verizon alone contributing nearly 40 per cent) and can cause problems if vendors are switched or work is downsized. The company however believes that the scale, complexity and familiarity with the critical processes ensure the “stickability” of the vendor. The company also faces geography risk with 90 per cent of its business flowing from the US.
  While the long-term outlook for software services is strong and recent uptick in hiring is a positive, the recovery in the US and other developed markets continues to be shaky. Though a predominant share of the future business will continue to come from the US, the company signed a multi-million dollar deal with a European company in 2008 and is looking to diversify its geographic risk further.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Infinite Computer Solutions to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, don't unsalt, don't userfy it would be a waste of everyone's time. Cunard's sourcing doesn't actually address the notability concerns, it just takes up a lot of space. This has been deleted enough times that we know what the outcome of the next AfD will be. I don't see any reason to repeat the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak 'keep deleted' I generally find Cunard's sources to be on-point. And I always appreciate the details being provided. But in this case, the coverage is mostly about the IPO or other business transactions. And the parts that are about the company, feel like they were written as a press release. Weak because there is coverage. I just don't think that coverage really covers the company itself in a very useful way for writing an article. Hobit (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is inaccurate to say that "the parts that are about the company, feel like they were written as a press release". No press release would say this:
Investors can give the initial public offering of Infinite Computer Solutions, an IT services provider, a miss considering the relatively high valuation that it demands and the several business challenges that the company faces.
—Venkatasubramanian, K. (2010-01-10). "Infinite Computer Solutions – IPO: Avoid". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2017-11-29. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
The article goes into substantial detail about Infinite Computer Solutions' different weaknesses. Specifically, the article says:
1. Infinite Computer Solutions "provides IT services to a limited set of verticals" and "these levels seem quite high" compared to other companies.
2. Infinite Computer Solutions has competitors like Tech Mahindra and Sasken Communications that have "greater execution capabilities" such as in R&D.
This information would be "very useful ... for writing an article" and it is clearly not just "about the IPO or other business transactions".
There is other useful information for writing an article about the company in sources such as CRISIL, which covers the company's history. It cannot be considered "written as a press release" since it also includes critical information about Infinite Computer Solutions' fundamentals. CRISIL gives the company an IPO grade of 2/5 and says "the fundamentals of the IPO are below average relative to the other listed equity securities in India".
Here are more non-IPO sources about the company:
1. Bhatnagar, Parul (2012-02-22). "Infinite Computer Solutions: Sluggish telecom vertical, delayed government payments add to company's woes". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
  The article notes:
  Lower revenue from a key telecom client and delays in revenue recognition from government projects continued to hamper the top line of Bangalore-based Infinite Computer Solutions for the second consecutive time in the December 2011 quarter. However, expected traction from the top client and large deals in the coming quarters will be future growth drivers.
  ...
  At the current market price of Rs 88.7, the stock trades at three times its earnings for the trailing twelve months, which is much cheaper in comparison with the similar-sized industry rivals. However, high client concentration and delays in revenue recognition continue to be the major concerns.
  This provides critical analysis of Infinite Computer Solutions' strengths and weaknesses.
2. Shinde, Ranjit (2013-02-13). "Infinite Computer: IP driven revenue to boost profitability". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
3. Shinde, Ranjit (2012-08-28). "What's driving the stock of Infinite Computer Solutions?". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
4. Subramanyam, R (2004-09-04). "Infinite turns offshore model on its head". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2017-12-02 – via The Economic Times.
5. Sachitanand, Rahul (2003-08-13). "Infinite looking at acquisitions to grow". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2017-12-02.
Sources about the company range over a decade, demonstrating that it has received persistent coverage.
Hobit (talk · contribs), would you support userfication to Dhiraj1984 (talk · contribs) to give him or her a chance to improve the article?
Cunard (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, keep deleted, and keep salted- The AfD close was correct based on the discussion there, and I don't see anything in the sourcing presented since to justify re-creating it. Given the previous disruption surrounding this advertisement, I think keeping it salted for now would be prudent. Reyk _YO! 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 November 2017

21 November 2017

20 November 2017

Draft:Sabrina Ho – Obvious sock – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user Primefac deleted Draft:Sabrina Ho due to "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Editorofthepage1) in violation of ban or block". However, upon review of Draft:Sabrina Ho's history, editorofthepage1 did not create the article. Judgewang (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SarekOfVulcan with Bag Balm.jpg – Speedy restore - this is a slam dunk. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was included in a group deletion list as unused, despite incoming links from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4. Fastily declined a REFUND, but suggested I consider a DRV. While it's not a big deal to not have this here, I would like it included for context on the linked discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly out of scope for the discussion and should have been restored on request. Fastily can you explain why you are expecting us to clean up after you please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Per procedure and as a matter of courtesy. There were other participants in the deletion discussion (@XXN, @Whpq, @ Davey2010) who expressed opinions, and I am uncomfortable performing a unilateral restore without giving them an opportunity for input. -FASTILY 07:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per my comments here. -FASTILY 07:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 November 2017

Zara Durrani – Go and troll somewhere else. – Hut 8.5 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject is notable, should be in Wikipedia:Core biographies and the article closer has a bias against Canadian people. American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse. The premise is absurd, and the nom is almost certainly a sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek – As above. – Hut 8.5 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject has become notable due to him being Taylor Swift's second boyfriend, him writing a blog on American expats, and his Reddit accounts on /r/r4r over on Reddit. There is also a cybersecurity paper published in July 2009 by John Bambenek which was available via hackforums and also via Gigi Hadid's Facebook page. He is also notable for having been in a relationship with Gigi Hadid and astroturfing her in 2013, which there is some evidence about. This article was deleted due to the bias of the administrator and it is quite clear this belongs in Wikipedia:Core biographies and needs a relist. American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse. As above, the premise is absurd, and the nom is almost certainly a sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 November 2017

17 November 2017

Steak and Blowjob Day – Request to recreate denied – Stifle (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi! The article was deleted on XfD nine years ago, being a paraphrase of its "official" websites. I wrote a more reasonable draft, using three sources that were published after the deletion. I'd like to undelete the article, but I am not sure if this is the right place, so please help me! Wikisaurus (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I have proofread it for you. I do think this revised article would be ok to move into namespace, and would support that. fish&karate 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to move the draft to mainspace without needing to ask permission here. No way this would ever be G4 eligible, and it has some shot of passing an AfD. I'd vote to delete it at an AfD per "Wikipedia is not a place to promote ridiculous holidays that have received minimal coverage in human interest pieces, regardless of what the GNG says", (a policy that doesn't exist but we can delete by it anyway). I'd suggest that this DRV be closed and the OP can move the draft at their own discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The OP can't move it into mainspace because the title is salted. I'd support getting rid of that though. Hut 8.5 18:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Ah, I didn't notice that log entry. Yes, sure. Remove the salt and let the OP move at their own discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Coming back around to this, keep the salt so we don't have to waste time at an AfD. Per "Wikipedia is not a place to promote ridiculous holidays that have received minimal coverage in human interest pieces, regardless of what the GNG says", which common sense tells us is an implicit part of NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and not bureaucracy. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Permit move to mainspace, but therecan still be another AfD on the new version. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AfD decision -- this page should stay deleted. One of the original commenters stated that it is an "imaginary holiday made up by a radio personality". That remains true, and the most telling sign is that all independent sources refer to it with the sole purpose of demeaning its notability and importance: (1) "bogus" (2) holiday in scare quotes (3) "makes us want to gag" cnzx (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline recreation. Minor piece of pop culture ephemera, notability not established by the draft's sources, which are mostly gossip/tabloid-type publications. Sandstein 12:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted/salted. We're not the encyclopedia of pop culture. The offered draft doesn't give any evidence of notability by our standards. Notability is not established by coverage in The Daily Dot or Urban Dictionary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt, allow recreation, and list at AfD.
The most recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (Third Nomination) was closed 14 June 2006, over 11 years ago.
The nominator's draft at Draft:Steak and Blowjob Day contains three references published after the last deletion:
1. Klee, Miles (14 March 2015). "The short, stupid history of 'Steak and a BJ Day'". The Daily Dot.
2. Jones, Anna (14 March 2013). "It's Steak and BJ Day! Should We Be Offended By That?". LA Weekly.
3. Jones, Feminista (2014). "What's the Deal With "Steak and Blow Job Day"?". SheKnows Media.
Here are other sources I found:
1. Tango Magazine (14 March 2017). Is A Steak And BJ Day A Symbol Of Male Privilege Or Feminist Opportunity?
2. The Daily Beast (13 March 2015). Saturday Is ‘Steak and BJ Day’
3. Miami New Times (14 March 2017). Steak and BJ Day Is Today: How to Celebrate
These sources and the newly written draft are enough to prevent deletion under {{db-repost}}. These sources are enough to justify another AfD after 11 years.
Cunard (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt Per Cunard. Like it or not, it does appear to have sufficient RS coverage after the last AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per RoySmith, etc. Wouldn't have a chance in hell at AFD, and trying to pretend things like Urban Dictionary and Daily Dot are reliable sources for an encyclopedia is just laughable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted -- just pop culture trivia; not encyclopedically relevant. The draft does not present evidence of WP:SIGCOV; the sources are local, insufficient for notability and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per nom. The last eleven years haven't improved matters. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 November 2017

Conso International Corporation – Site ban on nom enacted. Clearly there is no bar on any editor in good standing writing a GNG compliant article without the taint of potential paid editing – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin deleted the article under the premise of G11. When I contacted him to discuss this, he told me he had deleted it as a paid edit (and then archived that discussion immediately). Not only was I not paid to create the article, but I don't think G11 is considered grounds for deleting paid edits anyway. But that needs to be beside the point because I was NOT PAID ONE THIN DIME TO CREATE IT. I have openly declared my paid edits, and this was not one of them. The article was written neutrally and included multiple reliable independent citations that discussed the subject in depth. I am getting tired of being falsely accused of this. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the current admin noticeboard discussion leaning towards a siteban for KDS4444 based on egregious abuse and undisclosed paid editing. Spammer spamming spam. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no accusations of undisclosed paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Said the only person defending him there. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with criticizing any editor for things that they did. Just don't make stuff up - it doesn't help. - Bilby (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was double filed. I am reproducing KDS4444's comments below from the 17 November log. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a refiling of a previous request for deletion review for which I had not provided the complete/ correct name of the deleted page. I had given my reason in that filing, and now cannot locate it. Article was deleted under G11 but deleting admin, whom I contacted and who then immediately archived our conversation, claimed that he had deleted it because he believed (falsely) that I had been paid to write it (which was simply not true, and G11 doesn't usually apply to such cases anyway, does it?). I left a notice of this deletion review on that admin's talk page, and it too was removed. I don't understand what is going on here, but it is reaching a level of absurdity. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Overturn CSD, list at AfD. Looking at the deleted text, and following up some of the cited references, this doesn't seem so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 should apply. I doubt it would survive WP:AfD, but that's the right place to decide. As for the paid editing, that's not a WP:CSD. And, as for the OTRS abuse and possible site ban, at this point, that's just a discussion. I agree that looking at the discussion, it's pretty clear where it's going, but that's not license to jump the gun until a formal decision is made. And even then, banning a user does not imply deleting content created by that user without due process. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Endorse the site ban has gone through, the PROD rationale was correct, and there is no chance of this surviving an AfD because the pitchforks would show up within a minute of it being listed. The community's time has been wasted enough by this editor already and we've site banned him for it. Let's not waste any more time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I don't think the text of this article met G11, but I doubt it has much chance at AfD and I don't think we should give that courtesy to a banned paid editor. Hut 8.5 20:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 November 2017

Sabrina Ho – socks have no agency to raise DRVs – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was wrongfully subject to speedy deletion as according to the administrator, who I spoke with on their talk page, it too closely resembled an advertisement or promotion. While certain portions of the article should be removed for this reason, many parts are neutral, factual, strong encyclopedic content with over seventy references to credible publications such as South China Morning Post. I intend to fix this article and improve the overall tone so that it more closely aligns with proper encyclopedic language. I do not believe a complete rewrite is necessary and we can substantially enhance the article using its current edits as a foundation. Thank you. GünniX1 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I offer no opinion on the merits of this article, but do note that it currently exists at Draft:Sabrina Ho (following a brief existence at User:MacauWizard1/Sabrina Ho). So, If you want to work on it, my suggestion is to work on the current draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point , some good editors have been working with it, instead of the large number of sockpuppets who previously dominated the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If good editors have fixed the draft, then why hasn't it been published as an article to Sabrina Ho. You wrongly deleted this article. There is not consensus. As @CapitalSasha: pointed out on @Emir of Wikipedia: User_talk:Emir_of_Wikipedia: "Can you help me understand why this was tagged as G11? It does include a lot of puffery but the article seems to include evidence of notability (at least many mentions in what seem to be reliable sources) and it doesn't strike me as needing to be "fundamentally rewritten" to be acceptable for Wikipedia." Please revert your mistake and allow there to be consensus among editors.WikiWhat888 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment that this doesn't seem to be G11 territory, but much of the article does indeed read like a resume and so I think the best course of action would be to complete the cleanup of the article in the draft space and then move it back to its original location once that is done. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person who opened this request has been blocked. The draft was moved to Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng by MacauMan888 who looks like a sock of WikiWhat888. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not initiate this review and I am not a sock. I have published the draft to an article as it meets all Wikipedia eligibility standards and the language has been significantly improved. MacauMan888 (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Contains Chinese text – Speedy endorse, WP:DRVPURPOSE item 1 under "should not be used" applies. – Stifle (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a CJK font installed, and so do many other people, but a lot of CJK fonts don't contain every CJK character encoded in Unicode, and some people still don't have any CJK fonts. As far as I know, if a non-admin "delete" closure was made but the page has not yet been actually deleted, the closure can still be (non-admin) nullified. KMF (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I can't believe we're still fighting the unicode wars. This was a unanimous decision in a well-attended and intelligently argued discussion. I can't see any possible way this could have been closed any other way. I remember the days when not every device supported upper and lower case. We've moved past that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an utterly uncontroversial close, perfect for an NAC, per RoySmith. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse. An argument that might have deserved further attention in the discussion but which would have had no chance of changing the outcome, and certainly not a valid reason to overturn.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only possible way of reading the discussion, even if that comment had been made in it. Hut 8.5 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as one of the main TFD admins. This was a good close, and as per the above sentiments there's nothing that I (or any other admin) would have done differently as far as the result goes. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 November 2017

Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo – Relist, which seemed to be what all the overturns to no consensus were suggesting either directly or indirectly. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) – TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a non-admin closure which looks like a vote count rather than a review of arguments based on policy. I asked the editor to reverse his close and let an admin deal with it. His response was to tell me to open a discussion on the talk page of the original nomination or nominate it a second time. His exaplanation of his close reason seems abit garbled but would seem to support my original view that this was a vote count. Whpq (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant endorse- I don't think anyone else could have closed this differently. I will say though that the extremely garbled explanation doesn't give me confidence that this closer would be able to carefully judge a more nuanced discussion and I'd suggest they slow down with the NACs. Reyk _YO! 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that closing the discussion as delete would not be likely, but given the lack of any independent reliable sources offered in the dliscussion to support the keep arguments, a no consensus outcome would make more sense than a keep, but I agree with Spartaz below that a relist with some informed participation would be the best outcome. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I personally see no consensus either way. The majority of the keep votes are textbook arguments to avoid but functionally I see no benefit in moving it from keep to NC or getting an admin to void the keep and reclose NAC. What is needed is a better discussion so I'd recommend the closing admin consider relisting at their discretion or noting no objection to early renomination in their closing statement. Quite agree with Reyk about the closer slowing down their NACs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've engaged with the closing editor multiple times in the past on various issues, most recently on an incorrect re-listing. Their response has been of absolute silence, unless nudged strongly. I would concur with Spartaz here. I too would advise the closing editor to relist or noting no objection to an early renomination – but my guess is, this would be an IDHT case, until they are quite strongly suggested this. Lourdes 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh unless the votes can be proven to be sock-puppetry or by associates of Suman Sen, the close should stand. It was open two weeks, nobody other than the nominator supported deletion, and there's a plausible argument to keep the page. All the references other than social media are in Bengali which makes it hard to evaluate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus I'm not sure about closing as Delete given that there wasn't any support for that from anyone other than the nominator, but the Keep arguments were both very weak and well rebutted. That should preclude a Keep closure. I would suggest that it would be reasonable for the article to be renominated in a month or so, unless the concerns are dealt with through improvements to the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Void close and reopen discussion. This was essentially unanimous to keep, but that just shows that it's a classic example of why AfD's should not be closed by counting votes. Not a single one of the keep arguments even came close to policy. Closing this as delete would be entirely justified, but there would be less drama if it were just relisted and hopefully we can get some more insightful analysis. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't think it could have reasonably been closed any other way. Suggest renomination. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle:--Seriously--You are supporting a closure based solely on the arguments of the article-creator and a trio of sock/meat-puppets (whose purpose of wiki-existence is more-or-less to promote the author and his books)?!Winged Blades^Godric 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - So, you think whoever creates Wikipedia articles, try to promote something or someone? I have crated more than 60 articles and always tried to write it in a neutral point of view, never intended to promote someone or something. Now, you might have heard of ABP Group, one of the largest media network in India, they also have book publishing house. If they say something about an author (who had previously published a book with them), what do you call it - "A self promotional activity"? I have given references, for the story and for the film based on it, but those are not being accepted. Taniya94 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taniya94:--Mark my words.I said that about the three accounts that participated in the AfD save you and the nom.And those are not being accepted, because none of them is a reliable source.And if you think, every book published by Ananda and associated publishers is notable by default, well...Winged Blades^Godric 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could not be reasonable to close as delete an AFD where nobody other than the nominator argued to delete. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the keep arguments are so off-the-wall as to cary zero weight, then yes, closing it as delete might be reasonable. Well, OK, WP:SOFTDELETE. But, preferable to that would be to get more informed input from other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Void close and reopen discussion:--Per RoySmith.My mother-tongue is Bengali and the sources are crap.At minimum, make this a NC and I will revisit it soon afterwards.I echo that the closer is seriously incompetent at communication.And when a short story, published barely two months back is claiming to meet GNG, hmm.... Winged Blades^Godric 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this was at best a NC, or a relist. The closer did not adequately consider the nature of the support. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per Hut 8.5. The weakness of the keep !votes, despite the !vote count should've led a relist. A relist or a new AFD would be appropriate if anyone wants to pursue it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I've carefully gone through the "references" using Google Translate. The references are from the author's Twitter and Facebook, from the publisher(s), and there is at least one ref (currently #6) which is simply a piece of text, not a reference to any publication or anything. The publishing "houses", judging from their websites (blogging platforms where "articles" are added by a username which coincides with the site name (Ekabinsha), so it's not a reputable house which employs writers/journalists who need to be credited by their names) appears to be a decidedly low-brow purveyor of cheap entertainment. I know this type of pulp publications consisting of short stories, and these kinds of things NEVER merit even being remembered by those who read them two weeks after they've read them. IMDB lists everything in film world, including cheap junk which this very strongly appears to be. The problem with the close is that the closer's weak command of English not only would have prevented him from understanding a more nuanced discussion, had there been one,—I doubt he understood Wikipedia's policies well enough when (or if) he read them; specifically the policy of judging arguments by their merits, not counting the votes. None of the supporting votes had any meaningful arguments; they were merely assertions "this DOES meet the standards", and they were all convincingly debunked. The close would have been different had it been done by anyone who understands that it's not a vote count. Latreia (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation I've just conducted for another AfD shows that user Taniya94, who was a major participant in _this_ AfD just might have a COI here. Details to be found on my AfD page. Now, the "keep" voters on _this_ AfD which we are reviewing _here_ were:

1) Taniya94;

2) IP 103.75.161.34 who, weirdly, has been spotted as the only other contributor (save for one random categorizer) on an article which I've submitted to AfD, with the other contributor being Taniya94;

3) User:Sathi.Mondal who is also, weirdly, a collaborator with Taniya94, and not just a collaborator, but a collaborator on drafts;

4) Sumit997, whose only two contributions to Wikipedia so far is limited to voting on this AfD and working on THE SAME draft of an article for a book which releases TOMORROW.

I think I have thusly presented a very strong case that the vote on the summary was pure sockpuppetry. I have no idea how to properly report sockpuppets, I hope that someone else, a more experienced Wikipedian, can do this for me. Four accounts listed above. Whpq, maybe you might be interested in doing this. –– Latreia (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPD: The sockpuppet investigation is taking place here. ––– Latreia (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist at AFD, it somehow got through AFD by the holy trinity of sockpuppetry, nobody else bothering to comment, and a bad non-admin closure. It's *this* close to being speediable, frankly. fish&karate 14:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 November 2017

Nicola Pellow – AfD closure endorsed – Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that there was a clear consensus to delete, rather than than to close as no consensus. I brought this up with the closer (Sandstein), but they were unwilling to overlook the voices that voted to keep. My concern was that even though there was a vocal opposition to deletion, that opposition wasn't based on policy, which in this case should have mainly been BLP1E/BIO1E. There was one vote to keep based on ANYBIO #2, but as I pointed out in the discussion, that guideline was read incorrectly, and that it actually favored the delete side. The nominator (Icewhiz) was very thorough checking for sources, and there simply wasn't anything out there to sustain an article here.

I realize that WP:OSE, but I've seen a couple deletions recently (Günter Bechly and Nassim Haramein) where there was vocal opposition to deletion, but policy still won out; I don't see any reason why that shouldn't have been the case here too.

--Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment - the raw !vote count stats tool shows 3 to 4 for delete, while this was actually 5 to 4 for delete (E.M.Gregory and DGG are missed by the tool) in raw head count.Icewhiz (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. My reading of the AfD shows roughly equal numbers of people arguing each side, and both sides presenting plausible arguments about the significance of the sources. That sure sounds like No Consensus to me. On the other hand, WP:RENOM gives some advice that might be useful here. My suggestion is to just wait a bit and if you still feel this should be deleted, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I !voted to delete, but a non-consensus close was not unreasonable. However, AfD closes cannot be judged simply by the extent of opposition--each article and each discussion is different. In this case, the question was the extent of the contribution to a very major development; with Haramin, (which I did not see) it was unimportant pseudo-science but with some press coverage & could be argued either way; where there was no question it was pseudoscience & no significant notability ; with Bechly, (which I regret not having seen)) in my opinion, it was prejudice against a person's view on evolution but where they had done work which is normally considered to always show notability,using the absurd argument that the notability of his work was irrelevant to his notability. (prejudice of this sort is something I have almost given up on trying to combat here, but now that I have seen it, I will bring it to DelRev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk 02:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) DGG • contribs) [reply]
Endorse This was actually a valid BLP1E argument, which is astoundingly rare on Wikipedia. Having said that, no consensus existed. I would encourage a merge discussion as a next step, rather than fighting over deletion/renomination. The D in AfD is 'deletion', not 'discussion', is it not? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As closing admin, I refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Nicola Pellow. Sandstein 11:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The argument that it was the team, not the individual, which is notable was not successfully refuted. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A straight argument over the subjective term "significant coverage" with neither side budging. If push came to shove, somebody could always start a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think we must get away from this idea that once we fight the good fight to save an article, then somebody can give it another try to delete it, immediately afterwards, is absurd. It is an entirely destructive process, draining in terms of time to particpants, and destrutive to WP in the long term, and could lead to the unecessary removal of whole swathes of WP. A settling period is needed, perhaps 3 months with qualifications. scope_creep (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially what WP:RENOM says. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RENOM is an essay;the principle is right, but I do not think there is consensus for the times involved; in fact, I remember arguing for the concept many years ago. In particular, considering the much more stable understanding of notability now, and the somewhat more consistent discussions at AfD, I would say that after a NC close an article can be renominated immediately, because the objective after NC is to get consensus, but a delay is often preferable in order to get another discussion, not just a continuation--and, strategically, because if one really does want to get something deleted, it's more likely to give a different result after an interval. I think a month is usually enough for that, though I would (strategically) wait longer if it's really been contentious, and certainly if there have been several successive NC closes. After a Keep close, it's different: then the 3 months makes sense. The particular problem 8 years ago was people renominating after several successive keep closes. often as many as 5 or 6, waiting only a month or so each time. As RoySmith correctly says, by that technique anything can be deleted, just counting on the usual variation. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I !voted to delete, but there was no real consensus in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I divine a rough consensus there to merge to an article on the whole team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

LiAngelo Ball – No Consensus. There's disagreement here whether this was a BLP1E or not. The contention is that he'll almost certainly attract more attention in the future. If that's the case, we can always revisit this again. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the past, the article for LiAngelo Ball was either deleted altogether or was merged outright with his father, LaVar Ball (albeit under the poorly named "LiAngelo ball"). Besides the fact that LiAngelo has managed to provide the same successful outputs back in Chino Hills High School as his brothers Lonzo and LaMelo Ball (the latter of whom isn't even in college yet), there has also been recent information regarding LiAngelo Ball as one of three UCLA men's basketball students to have shoplifted in three different stores in China, which under Chinese laws hold different scrutiny than what we have here in the United States, with the idea that he and his two teammates could face 3-10 years in prison for their crime. Not to mention some information is being put out that he could be permanently banned from visiting China altogether, as well as President Donald Trump having asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to help resolve the case at hand. The point is this probably holds enough merit to hold him accountable for a proper Wikipedia page now instead of just being redirected to his father's page. Sources are down below...

Thank you for your time. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore This was a classic BLP1E, correctly decided DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though correctly decided, the general political interest seems to be continuing; the best solution might be to move to Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, per DGG. Amongst other things that Wikipedia is not, it is not a pressure site to get someone out of jail free. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn He doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS but meets WP:GNG. In fact even before the China fiasco he had already met WP:GNG, so I don't believe this is WP:BLP1E, because he's almost certainly going to play ball again and will attract attention anywhere. True we have WP:NOTINHERITED but the guideline is fuzzy, and to me there's little doubt he's already more famous than most professional basketball players around the world. His younger brother LaMelo Ball also doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS and while he is believed to have more potential (a subjective statement, even though I also agree with it), LiAngelo and LaMelo appear to have similar levels of media coverage. Timmyshin (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 November 2017

Everipedia – Userfy. I've undeleted Everipedia and moved it to User:C933103/Everipedia. I've also merged in the history from User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia to eliminate the content fork. Due to the number of times this has been created and deleted, I've held off on unprotecting the mainspace title. Once the proposed improvements are made, please use WP:RFP to request the protection be lifted and cite this discussion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request a copy to my personal sandbox for both deleted from 2017 March 22 and see what I can do about its notability and POV. The website have generated a bit independent media coverage due to content issue related to its article on a few different incidents, including report on its article about Mr. Dao in respect to the United Airlines incident, and media report on its article about a suspect for the Las Vegas mass shooting incident. That should satisfy the notability requirement. The 2012 October 12 version should be more extensively reviewed judging by its history but that's already moved to User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia, I would like to see how the March 22 edition can be incorporated and neutralize too. @Bishonen: C933103 (talk)

Endorse previous deletions because there's no other way they could have been closed, but I have no objection to userfication. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the deleted 22 March 2017 revisions to C933103's userspace as C933103 has requested. Unprotect Everipedia to allow recreation after C933103 is done with adding sources to the draft.
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 November 2017

Ches Crosbie – Endorsed.Unanimous consensus. – Winged Blades^Godric 16:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Running for leadership of a provincial party, Q.C., one of the province's most high profile lawyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The evidence of notability may well change in future, but at the moment the only option is to improve the coverage at Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Newfoundland_and_Labrador_leadership_election,_2018#Ches_Crosbie. In future, seek consensus for a spin out at Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2018. Until then, follow WP:BIO1E. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Write so much RS'ed content on him in the redirected article that the editors there beg you to spin it back out. :-) Overturning a redirect on a BLP is a really high bar to overcome. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean "_not_ a really high bar"? Need to overcome BLP1E, which is not much different to BIO1E? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I do mean a high bar. We have special rules on BLPs vs. covering the person in context of another article, do we not? Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 November 2017

Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar – Closer reversed their closure; discussion is back open again. – Primefac (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-admin closure which did not take full account of the discussion. Closure reason was not a fair explanation of the consensus from the discussion, clearly took no effort to weigh policy arguments offered. Closure of AfD of this kind should only be done by admin, particularly when there is no clear policy based consensus and the reasons for closure may well be used as precedent in future AfD on the topic. JMWt (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. There was no clear consensus to keep. Closing an AfD requires more than tallying !votes. Pburka (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse All comments except one were keep. As the application of the policy here is disputed, all the arguments were sufficiently policy based If it had been closed as non-consensus, then there might have been grounds for del rev. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 November 2017

8 November 2017

7 November 2017

Selena Zhao – Endorsed but now overtaken by events. Recreation permitted and I will undelete for courtesy's sake. Further nomination at editorial discretion but please give the OP a few days to get the article into shape before considering it. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting a review of my close of the AfD due to an appeal on my talk page; IP 65.112.8.203 has proffered some sources on my talk page to argue that there is sufficient coverage to justify restoring the article under GNG: [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. They all look substantial and on-topic to me but I don't know enough about the topic to judge reliability, independence and secondaryness. I note that the IP also attempted to argue that the topic meets WP:NSKATE; personally I am not convinced and the two participants in the AfD after being summoned contested the claim on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but reopen existing AfD. Let's get the easy part out of the way first; there's clearly nothing wrong with the close, as it stands. I would have closed it the same way. On the other hand, when somebody who didn't participate in the discussion objects to a close, I consider what I would have done had the arguments they're making now been part of the original discussion. I'm not hugely impressed by the sources, mostly because they're all in sport-specific media. But they're at least plausible, and if they had been brought up at the end of the AfD, I probably would have relisted it, with a relisting comment urging people to spend the next week evaluating those sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was a consensus that they failed the sports specific guideline, which means we should assume that any coverage would be routine and not pass the GNG unless there is a strong argument that the coverage is extraordinary for someone in that field. There is no evidence of that here, so I see no need to relist. As always, anyone is free to recreate an article on their own if they believe it will be different enough to pass G4 or a subsequent AfD, and I take no position as to whether or not they should do that: it is up to their discretion, and it should be evaluated independently of whatever the outcome is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about sources. The GNG and SNG's are just shortcuts. As mentioned by others, this AfD was not well attended. But, more than that, it wasn't well argued. Every argument was just a variation on doesn't meet some guideline. As I said above, given the lack of any objection, it was fine to accept those arguments and close it as it was closed. But, the arguments would have been a lot stronger if they were, I looked at X, Y, and Z sources and this is why I feel they're not good enough. But, I don't get the impression that anybody bothered to look for sources. So, now we have somebody who is presenting some sources. They may or may not be good enough (and, as I said above, my personal opinion is that they're not), but AfD is the place to figure that out. DRV is a terrible place to evaluate sources, because we end up arguing partly about the sources, partly about the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed that deletion review is a horrible place to assess sourcing, which is why my typical comment here notes that we should not be used as a way around either G4 or a future AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restore and relist we have new sources that have a reasonable claim of notability. I agree someone could just recreate the article but A) they wouldn't have the initial article as a starting point and B) if someone does speedy it as a G4, we'll just be back again. We're here now, may was well restore and relist. I'm by no means certain the sources are independent enough, but that's what the discussion is for. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point of G4: if the article hasn't been improved to the point where it addresses the criticisms of an AfD, we don't want to waste another 4 weeks of people's time going through 2 relists and a DRV. People are always free to recreate if they feel they can address the concerns in an AfD, but they should not come here to seek exemption from G4. To the case itself there is no reason to suspect that with the sources the AfD would have turned out different, so relisting would just be a wasting more community resources. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Improving the article would be easier with the original article as a starting point. The news sources are all fairly neutral and independent, and would be used to improve the current article. All news sources are creditable and the subject is "fairly portrayed" in as neutral terms as to be expected from any news article. None of the news sources are written from the subject's own viewpoint, instead maintaining a "balanced, disinterested" viewpoint. To verify the merit of these sources, Skate Canada and Icenetwork have also been cited frequently in many other Canadian figure skaters' article pages as well, affirming that they have been accepted in the past as independent, appropriate sources. Lastly, there is an additional article written chiefly on Zhao [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.130 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - #1, I do think the outcome would likely have been different. The discussion wasn't exactly well attended and some of those sources seem solid. The point of the relist is to find out. #2 As noted above by 65., it's a lot easier to add to the article than it is to create one from scratch. And asking someone to put in that work _readoing_ the article only to have someone come along and speedy it seems like asking too much of a volunteer. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A failure of the sports specific criteria is usually an indication that the subject will not be considered notable regardless of the sources: it provides us a lens through which to evaluate sourcing to see if it is significant in the context, which the GNG is utterly useless at on its own for athletes. I don't see anything here that would have changed the outcome, so I see no need to waste other volunteer's time with a direct relist. I'm fine with restoring it to draft to allow it to be improved and then independently evaluated in NPP for G4/AfD, as would be the case for any userfied content that did not result from a DRV request. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd consider that a reasonable "second-best". But it will be the same amount of work, as once it is recreated we're almost certainly back to AfD. Prefer to save the work of having the sources added and article updated if people think the sources aren't enough. But as I said, a reasonable second-best solution. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "That's the point of G4: if the article hasn't been improved to the point where it addresses the criticisms of an AfD..." No, that's not what G4 says at all, TonyBallioni. It actually says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." (Emphasis mine) "Sufficiently identical" doesn't mean "falls under the same AfD rationale", it means it's sufficiently identical. Identical is a very specific wording, and doesn't cover merely similar articles. That's why Template:db-repost is the named shortcut for G4, and Repost has been part of the wording until replaced with "substantially identical". Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jclemens, we're not in disagreement on any of those points, and my wording does not contradict them. As to your point 3) below, failure of the sports criteria is a sign all of the coverage related to sports should be considered insignificant and run of the mill. One of the strongest arguments for the sports criteria is that despite its text, we use it as a de facto exclusionary criteria in practice because it is so loose. I'll repeat again: the GNG is utterly useless when it comes to sports and only serves to let us know if the subject passes the DEL7 bar: that any high school quarterback in the US automatically passes the GNG is probably the best example why the sports criteria is best applied this way. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, expand, and re-mainspace. Oh, and endorse 1) The AfD was meh but not contested. 2) The sources are fine--multiple long pieces on her from multiple years provide GNG being met. 3) GNG trumps SNGs, so whether a sport-specific criteria is met, she has the coverage, and 4) G4 or restart from scratch would both be silly outcomes, but of course someone could AfD it with these new sources added once it was back in mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and relist. The sources provided by 65.112.8.203 (talk · contribs) were not discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Zhao. The AfD therefore should be relisted to allow editors to discuss whether those sources establish notability. Furthermore, the AfD participants left perfunctory comments that showed no indication that they had searched for sources. One was "per nom" and the other was "Fails NSKATE and GNG, just not enough coverage to justify and article".
That the closing admin wrote:
They all look substantial and on-topic to me but I don't know enough about the topic to judge reliability, independence and secondaryness.
is clear evidence that these sources had a chance of affecting the AfD's outcome had they been presented.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per NSKATE and NSKATE#2, "Figure skating figures are presumed notable if they...2. Competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships... The topic earned entrance to the 2015 ISU World Junior competition by winning Canada's Junior competition in 2015, but as per the IP, "missed qualifying for the Junior World's long program by 2 spots (or 1 point)".

NSKATE#5 is, "Medaled at a non-Grand Prix international senior-level event (commonly referred to as "senior B" competitions..." As per our article, 2015 CS U.S. International Figure Skating Classic, she finished 3rd in the free skate there; but the article shows that medals were awarded based on a score that included the short program, where the topic's combined score placed her fifth. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to wrong venue no argument for deletion. In this AfD, there was not a valid nomination that considered the alternatives to deletion. No questions were raised regarding article content, so notability was the only consideration. The topic remains in the encyclopedia after the article was deleted, so content deletion for notability was not policy based. There is plenty of material for an article.
The question of notability, as per WP:Deletion policy, is a matter to be discussed on the talk page of the article, or with RFC if necessary. Analysis shows that the topic comes close on two different points of NSKATE, although given that the topic is still competing means that there is no hurry to resolve the issue of notability, and doing so is even a bit bureaucratic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources look reasonable, more than reasonable to sway AfD participants. Undelete, add the new sources, and allow anyone to renominate after one week. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation. The close was the only reasonable one to be made, but the new sources mean that the WP:GNG may now be credibly met. No prejudice against re-nomination outside of this DRV if someone wants to take it back to AFD for a closer look. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

6 November 2017

5 November 2017

4 November 2017

3 November 2017

2 November 2017

Arianne Bellamar – Endorsed by default. Not a single shred of support for nomination after a week. – Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weinstein related sexual assault allegations against Jeremy Piven caused the Late Show to cancel his appearance. Story is developing. Kire1975 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ariane Bellamar? I don't think it's a good idea to base an article around an allegation of sexual assault. And since the last version of this article was deleted more than a year ago it wasn't mentioned at all. Hut 8.5 07:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No per the legal and ethical principles that form the basis of the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 November 2017

International Project Management Association – Allow recreation, but I'm worried that unprotecting right away before the draft is "ready" or improved with the sources in this DRV will only lead to more spammy recreations of this oft-G4'ed title (I'm sure nobody actually wants this nor that.) So, whenever Peter Ellis is ready, this DRV's consensus is sufficient to justify the unprotection of the article and the publishing of Peter's draft. @Peter Ellis: when your draft is ready you can request unprotection to me, to any admin, or to WP:RFPU, just include a link to this consensus. – Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The IPMA is a well-respected, international association with over 60 member (country) associations world-wide. It has been established for over 50 years, has an open scheme of governance and control, is based in a country with a rich and strict legal system (Switzerland), had a notable previous name (INTERNET), holds annual world congresses, conducts an annual competition for a worlds-best-practice example of its stated art (project management), and offers a world-wide scheme of project management certification. - Peter Ellis - Talk 10:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I never got to see the page myself, but the rationale for deletion was still justified and this argument is just WP:ILIKEIT again. @DGG: @Randykitty: Pinging nominator and closer, respectively. ToThAc (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow rewrite. The AfD wasn't particularly useful, but the problem was the discussion, not the close per-se. Plenty of socking on the keep side, but the delete arguments weren't particularly insightful either. The real problem is there was no real analysis of sources. The version of the article that was deleted was so bad, it's not worth restoring. But, if somebody could write a new article from scratch with good sources, there's no reason a two year old AfD result should prevent them from doing so. Personally, I'm doubtful this organization is notable, but that's a question for AfD if it gets brought back there. I'd prefer to see this done as a new draft and sent through WP:AfC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm fine with recreating this in theory, but only if good sources can be found. The sources I've seen in the current sandbox draft, and the books presented by 86.17.222.157, below, do not in my opinion, meet WP:ORGDEPTH. So, userfy the deleted draft if desired, keep researching sources, and use WP:AfC to get some review/feedback when you think it's ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for User:Peter Ellis. Trust User:Peter Ellis's judgement to re-write or re-start, including to move it back to mainspace without going through AfC. That's a pretty horrible AfD. User:Peter Ellis and User:DGG may well have a useful conversation at their leisure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to userification. I nominated for deletion based primarily upon promotionalism; during the course of the afd the promotionalism was removed, but no 3rd party sources added. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFT - I did not see the original article. See my thus unbiased draft in my sandbox, here. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to your draft. The problem is, as written, this doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. You've got some references, but they're mostly first-party, i.e. the IPMA, or it's member national organizations, writing about itself. What you need are reliable third-party sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ellis, I looked at your draft. You're putting in some work but have not yet identified two sources that demonstrate notability. I suggest that you start with these two sources, as starting with inappropriate sources for the foundation doesn't lead to a good article. I also wish that people would draft article in specific subpages to the topic, and not mix edits on multiple topics in the one history. Mixing the history makes it very hard to track the attribution history, especially when there is an old deleted and undeleted article in the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation if based on independent reliable sources such as ISBN 9781118000281, ISBN 9780191629389 and many other sources with significant coverage. Such sources should have been brought up in the original deletion discussion, but people who might have done so were probably put off by the blatant sockpuppetry there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for those ISBNs and found several matches for each. Can you be more specific? Book titles? A page number where we can find the passages about the IPMA which meet WP:ORGDEPTH? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you searched and found several matches, but the books I pointed to are The Wiley Guide to Project Organization and Project Management Competencies published by John Wiley & Sons, with mentions of this organisation on 23 pages including significant coverage on p. 316, and The Oxford Handbook of Project Management published by the Oxford University Press with mentions on 8 pages including significant coverage on p. 121. It really shouldn't have taken you more than a minute or two to find those for yourself. And they are only the first two notability-granting sources that I found quickly. There are loads more sources found by a book search and I haven't even looked for academic papers or news sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the ISBN link you supplied, and you get to here. Form that page, click on the Find this book on Google Books link, and you get to this search results page, which has four entries on it. It really does help to provide the most specific link you can; the less guesswork you leave for the reader, the better. Thank you for the clarification. BTW, you can get a link directly to the page by clicking on the "chain link" icon in Google Books, i.e this. That gets somebody to the exact passage. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and allow recreation. International Project Management Association currently has full create protection. It should be unprotected to allow Peter Ellis to restore his draft (which is now at User:Peter Ellis/sandbox/International Project Management Association) to mainspace. Excluding the single-purpose accounts, the AfD had very low participation. Other than the nominator, only one other editor supported deletion. I recommend treating this as a soft deletion.
Here are some sources not discussed in the AfD:
1. Morris, Peter W. G.; Pinto, Jeffrey K., eds. (2010). The Wiley Guide to Project Organization and Project Management Competencies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 316. ISBN 1118000285. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  The International Project Management Association began as a discussion group comprising managers of international projects and has evolved into a network or federation comprising 30 national project management associations representing approximately 20,000 members, primarily in Europe but also in Africa and Asia (International Project Management Association, 2003). The International Project Management Association has developed its own standards and certification program (see my chapter earlier in the book), which maintains a central framework and quality control process but encourages development of conforming national programs by national association members. The International Project Management Association and member national associations promote their standards and certifications program in competition with those of others, primarily the Project Management Institute. The IPMA is hampered by its structure as a federation, by vested interests and priorities of its national association membership, and by lack of funds available for international and global development, which is a particular issue regarding the large number of member associations representing transitional economies who require subsidization of their membership and services.
2. Morris, Peter; Pinto, Jeffrey; Söderlund, Jonas, eds. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0191629383. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  Most national associations for project management, including the APM, are themselves members of an international umbrella body, the International Project Management Association (IPMA). The IPMA provides a forum for dialogue, knowledge-sharing, and coordination of the activities of its member associations, as well as providing an international framework for project management formation and accreditation. At the same time, acting for all members, the IPMA implicitly discourages international expansionism on the part of any member association, working on the principle that there should be one association to represent each nation. The sustainability of this position in an era of gloalization is open to question, as project managers move internationally within and between multinational firms, and routinely coordinate cross-border activity. One signifciant challenge to multinational visions of project management professionalism is PMI; PMI is not a member of IPMA and has a more aggressive globalization strategy, having established substantial chapters in over sixty-five countries to date (PMI 2009).
3. Bae, Hyun-jung; Lee, Hong-seok (2017-11-03). "IPMA Korea celebrates 8th anniversary of Incheon Bridge". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The article notes:
  The IPMA Research Conference is an international academic event seeking to bring together researchers, experts, scholars and practitioners in project management.
  Though a relatively small gathering of some 60 members, it is largely recognized for the close interaction between field practitioners and academic researchers.
  First held in Berlin in 2013, the event has so far been hosted in China, South Africa, Iceland and now for the first time in South Korea.
  ...
  Since its establishment in 1965, the IPMA has sought to introduce a value creating project management system in 68 countries across the world.
4. Vaskimo, Jouko (October 2016). "4th IPMA Research Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland" (PDF). PM World Journal. Vol. 5, no. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
5. Ingason, Helgi Thor; Schoper, Yvonne (2017). "Project Management and sustainability - review of the 4th IPMA Research Conference 2016". Project Management Research and Practice. University of Technology Sydney. doi:10.5130/pmrp.v4i0.5467. ISSN 2207-1415. Archived from the original on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The article is from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/PMRP/article/view/5467.
  The abstract notes:
  The 4th IPMA research conference was held on Project Management and Sustainability in Reykjavik, Iceland from September 14th - 16th 2016. In this article, we give a general outline of the structure of the conference, the main findings and what they mean for the project management community.
6. Richman, Larry (2002). Project Management Step-by-step. New York: American Management Association. p. 284. ISBN 0814426573. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  International Project Management Association, P.O. Box 30, Monmouth NP25 4YZ, United Kingdom, phone: 44 1863 531007, fax: 44 1863 531008, www.ipma.ch, [email protected]. IPMA is a nonprofit organization founded in 1965 that promotes project management internationally through its membership network of project management associations, individuals, and companies. It provides certifications, conferences, seminars, courses, research, and publications.
Cunard (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restore or relist Close was okay given the problematic discussion. But sources look like enough to at least relist and maybe even restore (I'd lean toward relist myself). Hobit (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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