Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March

< February 2016	Deletion review archives	April 2016 >

31 March 2016

User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour – Relisted. No consensus on the merits of the closure, but with one exception editors are of the view that a non-administrator should not have made it. I'm accordingly undoing the closure and relisting the discussion. – Sandstein 13:07, 8 April 2016 (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 closer and all the instructions are to discuss this with the closing admin but it wasn't closed by an administrator. Further, the non-admin closed an extremely contentious discussion about a seven year old single sentence draft. The closing remarks stated that "it is identical circumstances to several others nominated the same day, that all ended in the same result" and thus the basis of the close was not the actual discussion within it but these allegedly other nominated discussions that resulted in the same way. Note that they all closed by the same way because the same non-admin closed all the discussions the same way that day (here is 1, 2, 3, and 4) but only this one contains the fact that the basis for closure was the other discussions. Of the !votes there, we have three people supporting outright deletion, one IP saying keep citing the nonsense of WP:AGF, one who states "blank and redirect" without further discussion and finally Fagles' lengthy diatribe citing his personal opinion that "standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace" is to redirect when there is no connected history (which is a false assertion of current policy and then is quoting the "don't clean up" language from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter added here without any discussion and which is not a policy). SmokeyJoe doesn't actually vote but is arguing about the technicality that WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply because it's not actually a copy of a mainspace article since it's not a verbatim copyright infringement so it shouldn't be deleted, a policy that was entirely created by SmokeyJoe at WP:UP with so much edit warring to make it "policy" that the page is now protected. There's numerous discussions along the same line and I think having an admin close these discussions is a bare minimum here. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non-admin close. Any administrator, including yourself, even if involved, may revert a non-admin close. You should do this before bringing the matter to DRV.

I didn't !vote, but am hoping to encourage the nominator to improve the quality of his deletion nomination rationales. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the record, Ricky misrepresents me. I have argued that a verbatim copyright infringement should be deleted, always, and never have I seen anyone actively disagree. If it is not a verbatim copyright infringement, it is not to be deleted per the WP:UP#COPIES rationale, because it doesn't apply. Ricky has poor attention to details, I note. It may, of course, be deleted for other reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer. No one made the case that there was any need to delete. Deleting hides it from most users, going against our core value of transparency, and in this case, for little good reason. It's also a nasty thing for the editor to see if they ever return (and, yeah, I see contribution histories every single week with three-year gaps). A little off-topic, but I'm also with Smokey Joe about Ricky's weak deletion nominations, such as this one, where Ricky failed to note that the person in this draft has a different year of birth and sport than the article he claimed it duplicated. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-admin close, so any admin can reopen it. That said, it's also clearly in terms of policy and discussion. Also, don't see how it matters either way. So Endorse as proper closure, "eh" as to the issue. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate closure and leave for an admin. The fact that it has come here means it is inherently unsuitable for a non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The redirect conclusion was perfectly fine (and a variety of other decisions would also have been so) but I can hardly see it was "beyond doubt a clear keep" so an admin should have done the close according to the WP:Non-admin closure essay. However, these days at MFD few people pay much attention to essays, guidelines or policies, as the nominator here knows, so this particular close was a rather minor infringement. And, yes, any admin could have reopened it or, it would seem, carry out a U5 speedy deletion if they had felt in that sort of mood. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A U5 is troutworthy. Drafts are rather obviously not covered by that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp – Speedy deletion overturned. Consensus is that the user page should not have been speedily deleted because it has previously survived deletion discussions. – Sandstein 13:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content survived both an AfD and a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. WP:CSD#U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions. Process is important. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging User:Ricky81682 and User:MSGJ who closed the two discussions. The matter is being discussed with User:JzG who performed the speedy deletion under the undocumented G14 criterion (U5 was a typo). Thincat (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does JzG claim that U5 was a typo? And what is this about an undocumented G14? If it's not documented then it doesn't exist ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete the userpage improperly deleted. WP:TROUT the WP:GAME players and deleting admin who did not take enough care to respect policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:JzG#User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp is unimpressive. JzG is clearly expressing personal opinion not consistent with policy or traditional leeway in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. Abandoned draft by a user who left the building long ago, having made precisely no contribution to the project other than this draft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indefinite repository for promotional user pages. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Citing IAR here. It wasnt deleted at MFD or AFD due to process wonkery despite it failing to demonstrate any degree of notability - despite repeated requests for someone to do so. As it is unambiguously a promotional non-article in userspace, CSD-U5 should apply regardless of the ridiculous postering over the move from draft to article and back to userspace. There is also a reasonable argument that the closer of the AFD caused this mess in the first place by userfying it rather than deleting it on the quality of the arguments for its deletion at AFD. As it stands undeleting it due to it technically being an infraction of CSD-application does in no way improve the encyclopedia, which makes it a prime candidate for applying IAR. I will also point out point 6 in the box at the top of this page 'Deletion review is not for arguing technicalities'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "stuff the need for consensus decision making, the admins know how to run the project"? And what is the difference between this and the rest of old userpages? Are they all to be deleted by an IARing admin without discussion?

Just wanting to remember, can we temp Undelete to see what we are talking about? Is it an old draft (not U5-able), or was it promotion (surely the mfd nom has the onus to say so?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to go that route, the consensus at AFD was that it should have been deleted, with the two 'userfy' voters offering very weak arguments against two strong ones. The weak ones based on technicalities like the above, and the other admitting it doesnt pass GNG (the main argument to delete) but should be userfyed 'in case references turn up'. Which is a terrible rationale when it would be userfyed to an inactive user - they are unlikely to be looking into getting any refs anytime soon. But to answer your other question, yes, generally old stale userpages that are clearly promotional and have no real hope of being turned into legitimate articles should be deleted by one of Wikipedia's deletion processes, be it CSD, MFD or AFD. Arguing under which technical process to do it, and in the meantime borking them all, is precisely why Deletion Review says 'dont use to argue technicalities'. Its also why IAR exists - for when process breaks down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at these debates it appears that for some people all processes for deleting these pages are "wrong", because Wikipedia is apparently supposed to host them indefinitely in the pious hope of the Second Coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon, or the return of the user whose sole act was to create these advertisements, whichever happens sooner. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undeleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: Aware of the irony of discussing the wording of IAR, I would note that IAR says that a rule can be ignored if it "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". How does deleting stale userspace drafts improve or maintain Wikipedia? What tangible benefit does such a deletion bring to the project? A2soup (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Doesn't qualify as a U5 for two reasons. A) It's a draft article and therefore U5 doesn't apply and B) Per CSD U5 can't be applied to an article that has survived a deletion discussion. Further, there is no clear reason that deleting this helps the encyclopedia, making any IAR argument moot. Or at least no one has yet to even attempt to provide such a reason. Finally, even if someone does come up with a reason for IAR, speedy deletion is almost always a bad place for IAR--one admin should in general not be making deletion decisions unless it's on a class of things we've got clear consensus to delete. If you want to start (okay, continue) to delete things like this via speedy deletion, you need to get consensus to do so and get it added to CSD. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "draft article" by a user who registered, created the "draft article", and vanished, never to be seen again. In other words, a promotional abuse of Wikipedia user space. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your opinion on the matter trumps our definition of U5, the CSD rule that you can't U5 something that made it though MfD, and the opinions of those that !voted and closed the MfD? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have done the same if it had been created in mainspace and gone similarly unnoticed, for you to stumble upon five years later? —Cryptic 17:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Hobit the only thing happening is a push by a few editors to clear up a backlog at [1]. Deleting stale userspace drafts is not new or novel - it has been happening since the early days of the site. Eventually 100% of them are dealt with somehow as can be seen in the counter page I linked. I took a sample of 1000 userspace drafts [2] and found nearly 2/3rds were outright deleted, plus many more blanked, or redirected to mainspace. I'd estimate about 5-10% are promoted to mainspace, and finding these good pages is a good reason to work the maintenance category. Another good reason is that process finds a lot of promotion, outright SPAM, hoaxes, attack page, violations of person privacy, inappropriate copies of mainspace articles etc. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attack pages and privacy issues seem like serious problems worth addressing. Userspace spam and promotion seem like minor issues (are userspace drafts even indexed by Google, if so, maybe we could just noindex any that are problematic?). Copies of mainspace articles are generally supposed to turn into redirects I think and in any case are rarely harmful. And even if deleting all this is worthwhile, why is this important enough to people to have these out-of-process actions (U5 used for drafts, U5 used on things kept at MfD) done? And even WP:GAMING by moving drafts not ready for mainspace into mainspace? Surely cleanup isn't worth that level of disruption (those things have been the subject to discussion at at least a dozen different places)? And if those drafts _really_ do need to go, why not propose the needed changes (or clarifications) at CSD? Hobit (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again. This absurd game playing by Godsy and Cryptic and others needs to stop. A non-contributor creates a page that does not pass GNG and disappears. 52 reasons are trotted out to keep this cruft. Go improve the encyclopedia and stop this insane quest to get in the way of cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that this clean up is hurting a lot more than it is helping. Could you explain how deleting userspace drafts is helping the encyclopedia? To me it seems to be:
  - Taking up a lot of time by those going on this spree (which it's your time to spend, I get, but if you can use that argument with respect to Godsy and Cryptic, it seems not unreasonable to bring it up in response).
  - Deleting potentially useful material and driving away potential contributors
  - Causing problems by pushing our rules and standards of behavior to the point that others feel the need to step in. This out-of-process deletion is a good example of such pushing.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know why deleting all these helps the encyclopedia, let alone can justify these out-of-process actions. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The deletion was clearly out of process, and the given reason of U5 was invalid. This is also not a case where IAR should be applied. Showing users that consensus will be respected, that policy will be followed, and that admins are not above the rules is far more important than whether or not some poor-quality content sits in someone's user space for a while. Overruling a deletion discussion to delete content is something that should only be done if there is a truly compelling need (such as a legal issue like a copyright violation), and certainly never should be done just because you disagree with the consensus reached in the discussion. To the people who want this deleted, you can always try MFD again after enough time passes, which would be the proper, policy-based way to get this deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn of the U5 and even weaker return to mainspace and relist at AFD. The issue was at the AFC discussion. Obviously biased but I closed the MFD as properly based upon the discussion there. The AFD was properly started by me now that the page was in mainspace. Different standards apply to different spaces (see the MFD discussions regarding drafts and userspace drafts). Other than speculation that this was coordinated, it was not and there's no evidence it was actually moved for the purposes of suggesting it for deletion. Had I not filed the AFD, the page would likely have remained in mainspace for now showing that Legacypac's move would have been futile and pointless. I don't know what would have happened but the AFD however was closed in three days when there were two people supporting userification and two suggesting outright deletion. There is no requirement that pages be userified so let the full discussion pan out. A full AFD could have kept the page there, moved it to draftspace, re-userified it (why userify back to a user who hasn't been around in years is beyond me) or deleted it outright. U5 doesn't fit as this is a plausible draft even if it is purely promotional and the editor hasn't edited anything else. The problem is you have people who are set on opposing deleting any old drafts at all which is fine but other than that small clique which is dominating and distorting MFD discussions (while edit warring at WP:UP to get it protected), the vast majority of people wouldn't support keeping this around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Weak overturn of the U5 and relist at MfD? You can't take a userspace draft to AfD can you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it should be returned to mainspace as the AFD was wrongly closed and the U5 was wrong. That way, I have zero fault any of this. :) Realistically, second alternative is overturn U5 and start a new MFD if people want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The move to mainspace was an integral part of the collective abuse of the deletion process, the central part to Legacypac's WP:GAME. Your authoring of the WikProject Abandoned Drafts mission, encouragement of legacypac's recklessness, even pointing out new WP:GAME tactics, and peripheral support when challenged, make you the other half of the WP:TAGTEAM. The page is a good draft, but it is not ready for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tag team "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." This definitely applies to Legacypac and Ricky81682, who are the only two agressive implementers of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts unauthorized mission to clean out all old drafts from userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've accused me of that multiple times and no one person has supported your claim. We're at ANI for the second, maybe third time based on your accusations and no one has found any merit to them. Are you just going to keep repeating it and hope that someone will give it credence? Were we working with Guy who actually deleted the page? You do realize that I closed the MFD discussion as keep right? If this was my plan, it's probably the dumbest way to do it since I could have just pulled the U5 card and deleted it outright. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It remains my considered opinion. You are legacypac's enabler. Nothing you have done is indefensible, but you are involved with Legacypac's disruption. As a closer, you have been closing very well. A good closer closes in a way reflecting the discussion and not reflecting their own opinion. You are a good admin. I criticise only your normal editor role in authoring and pushing the mission of WikiProject Abandoned drafts ahead of community consensus, leading those you influence into breaking firm policy rules, especially WP:CSD, and disruptive inappropriate page moves from userspace to mainspace.

Yes, I have met Guy, a good but opinionated admin. He has expressed a strong disdain for retention of old inappropriate userpages, but appears to have little concern that the cleaning is doing more damage that it is worth. He in one comment fails to distinguish G11 applicable material from old drafts of some potential. This DRV is appropriate reviewing both the deletion by Guy, and the abuse or failure of the deletion process, specifically the manner by which the consensus at MfD can be bypasses bu a bad faith to mainspace. That WP:GAME should be repudiated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. A U5 after any keep result at a community board flies right in the face of the reasons CSD exist and the spirit of Pillar #4. @JzG: quit (ab)using the tools to supervote. VQuakr (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a compromise proposal: you suggest a process that will remove this crap, and I'll follow it. There is absolutely no defensible reason for keeping it, after all, so all we should care about is the most expeditious way of getting rid of it. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion is to ban the editors who are out to destroy perfectly good content just because an editor is taking a break from editing. People have returned after a decade or even longer so we should focus on WP:RETENTION not destroying content. 166.176.56.155 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't retain an editor who came here once, years ago, wrote a spam article, and then buggered off never to be seen again. The idea that it's "Perfectly good content" is fatuous: if it's perfectly good then move it to mainspace and let it stand or fall on its merits. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you propose a process and see if you can get consensus. That's how things are supposed to work around here... Hobit (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll propose one since I see these debates as completely pointless. PROD for userspace. Articles in userspace can be proposed for deletion if the editor in question hasn't edited in 2 years (say), they won't be deleted if the user who has them in userspace objects. After deletion any user in good standing can object, at which point it'll be moved to their userspace. Simples. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that might not be a bad idea. I would support something of this nature. Perhaps take it to WP:VPI or WP:VPR? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Misuse of U5 to perform a deletion against consensus. An enormous amount of time and energy has been wasted in the sustained campaign to delete this utterly harmless draft, despite clear and consistent opposition from the editing community. The blatant misuse of U5 should be overturned as a clear reminder that administrators are subject to consensus, and that WP:IAR has limits. Thparkth (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A page which survives multiple XfDs is plainly unsuitable for speedy deletion. Even a cursory review of the deleted text shows that no reasonable, competent, good faith editor could find that U5 applies. Clear and patent abuse by the deleting admin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn even without the XfD keeps this is clearly not an appropriate use of U5. U5 is intended for content which is not related to Wikipedia's goals. Like it or not this was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article and encyclopedia articles are very much related to Wikipedia's goals. Nor has anyone been able to articulate anything wrong with it other than the fact that the subject isn't notable, which isn't part of WP:NOT. I don't see endorsing this on IAR grounds as a good idea, as deleting the draft isn't likely to do any particular good and an endorsement would encourage other administrators to abuse U5 or to disregard the results of deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 15:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout. As it says at WP:CSD, Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria. It is mind-boggling that this was speedy deleted after surviving two deletion discussions. Our deletion process is not perfect. Sometimes we'll get it wrong. That's not an excuse for admins to just do whatever the heck they want when things don't go their way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anthony McGee – AfD deletion endorsed. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Individual is notable - original page lacked up to date information about current work. 217.138.30.116 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to provide sources that show this individual is indeed notable by Wikipedia's standards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professional: http://www.tonymcgee.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/dance/3557796/Tony-McGee-Diva-boot-camp.html http://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/london-fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography/ http://www.creativeboom.com/photography/fashion-show-60-years-of-fashion-photography-in-the-making/ http://www.atlasgallery.com/atlas.php http://www.amazon.co.uk/Swans-1-Dream-Tony-McGee/dp/0957380100/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355824944&sr=8-2 http://www.winnicott.org.uk/beautiful-book-by-leading-photographer-tony-mcgee-benefits-the-the-winnicott-foundation http://everything.explained.today/Anthony_McGee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph one is a good source - as it is an independant article by a reliable source about the subject. The rest of those are either not independant (primary source), have a COI, or are passing mentions (about a show where some of his work is on display). I would say given he has had exhibitions dedicated to his work, had (non-self) published books, and had his work displayed in other exhibitions, he passes the GNG. But I suspect the best sources will be in trade publications rather than the general press. As a fashion photographer generally the emphasis will be on the model and the stylist/designer, rather than who took the photos. I will say its borderline because of stuff like this - individual photos can be quite well-known (I have seen that Kate Moss one in lots of places, but its used about Kate Moss, not McGee). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you - I will make sure any links in the page are up to date and relate to primary sources. What is the next step for the page to be reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.30.116 (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin undelete and move Anthony McGee to Draft:Anthony McGee for 217.138.30.116 and any other interested editors to work on? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the adminhelp in case another admin is willing to undelete, but the deleted article seems to me far too promotional: "...McGee's exquisite photographs of the aspiring dancers... These images have been collected in the beautiful new book... McGee offered Londoners the chance to feel like a supermodel. McGee has opened a studio in Knightsbridge Harrods Urban Retreat to give the public the celebrity photo-shoot treatment. The experience includes a makeover and hair styling followed by a shoot with the photographer.... " etc. I think they would be more likely to make an acceptable article by starting from scratch and following Uncle G's advice:

"...don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write."

JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm declining this too; the bulk of the article is a mishmash of copyvios cut-and-paste from online reviews. —Cryptic 08:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for reviewing the deleted article. Based on it being a copyright violation, I agree with not restoring it. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 March 2016

Clarawood – Relisted. There is no consensus here about whether this non-admin closure was correct. A relist appears appropriate because the discussion was brief. Accordingly, and per the general rule that any admin may reopen a non-admin closure, I'm reopening and relisting the discussion. – Sandstein 07:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn The article was listed AfD at 17.40 on 23rd March. This was done by –Davey2010Talk in response to an ask by CDRL102. By 18.46 on the same day the discussion had been closed with a Userfied result after contributions from only these two. The admin moved what still existed to CDRL102's userspace and therefore Clarawood itself became a target for speedy deletion which then happened at 2.54 on 25th March by Malcolmxl5. As the creator of the article I therefore had no opportunity to discuss the assertions of those involved. I have already raised the issue with Malcolmx15 with no result. WP:AFD states the following "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". It also states "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies". Neither of these happened in the case of Clarawood. It also states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Again such a procedure did not happen in the case of Clarawood and my comments on talk pages were ignored, with some disdain and assertion rather than evidence I must add. The editor who nominatd for AfD went as far as to delete talk comments of mine. It must also be noted that the editor who started things with a huge sweeping edit and assertions that the article was unreferenced has a history of unnecessary and unwelcome edits which are reversed according to their talk page. In short I am convinced proper procedure was not followed, that the article was not in the state it was asserted to be in (ie non notable, unreferenced and biased trivia), that there was no opportunity to discuss the issues in a constructive way (it was gone before I even knew it was listed AfD) and as previously requested from the closing admin I would like Clarawood returned to the state it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March. I am prepared to expand on the General References quoted though this could be quite lengthy and I recall reading somewhere in the guidelines that in cases of multiple citations and attributions a general reference is more practical. I have absolutely no doubt as to the notability of the subject. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarawood123 I did add tags, you deleted them. CDRL102 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also for all, See User:CDRL102/Clarawood for the article in it's current form and its edit history. CDRL102 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The article was in a crap state and although I nominated it at AFD I wasn't aware CDRL wanted it kept (Had I known I would've skipped the AFD and userfied it), Anyway at the time of moving the article it failed notability guidelines and needed severe improvement and to me userfying was better than outright deleting, Clarawood123 is a resident of the estate (She admitted this on the talkpage) and although I have no problems with that it all seems to me like "I want my estate to have an article regardless of notability polices etc etc",

Ayway at the end of the day reversing this would only end up with the article deleted and so with the greatest of respect CW123 should probably be thanking their lucky stars that they can still edit it as opposed to writing the entire thing from scratch and to be totally honest I cant understand why CW123 even has an issue with it being in the "sandbox".... –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The page is where it belongs: userified for referencing, and also for rewriting in the appropriate tone of a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore on procedural grounds. Davey2010 nominated the article for deletion; it received one !vote which was a "keep", and then Davey2010 closed the discussion as "userfied" just over one hour after opening it. "userfied" was not the consensus outcome of a proper deletion discussion, and even if it had been, Davey2010 was obviously not the appropriate person to be closing it. Davey2010 then moved the article to userspace, with an edit summary "Userfied per AFD". Every part of this was inappropriate, and points 1 and 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE apply. The current userspace revision of the article is reasonable and in good enough state to be moved back to mainspace (though I do not know what the outcome of a real AfD would be). The least-worst outcome would be to void this utterly unsafe AfD and put everything back to where it was beforehand. Alternatively (if consensus is against me on that part) we should formally overturn the unreliable AfD but take no other action. Thparkth (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 - That's absolute bollocks - There was nothing inappropriate about it at all!, 2 - I myself and CDRL were both happy with userfy so therefore I pretty much withdrew but either way keeping the AFD open would've been a waste of time for everyone and IMHO had the it been open it would've either been closed as userfy or delete....., If CDRL wants it back in the mainspace he knows where my talkpage is, Whatever happened to WP:AGF on this place. –Davey2010^Talk 04:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear - you are doubling-down on it being appropriate to close an AfD that you also opened, and then rely on that self-authored AfD outcome to perform your desired action? You should have withdrawn your nomination rather than closing the discussion with a definite outcome. Thparkth (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - userfying wasn't my desired outcome .... My desired outcome would've been this to be deleted however someone had faith & hope in the article and as I said Userfying seemed the best choice here, I do admit I should've closed it as Withdrawn which would've been better, –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged for "not being properly written". WP:VERIFY states "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible". There was no discussion of how it was improperly written, no evidence to demonstrate the same and no opportunity to rebuff that assertion. It was also tagged for notability. WP:NOTE states the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list...Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search...If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate". WP:VERIFY goes on to say "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access". I have indeed previously dicussed that just because Davey and CDRL did not know much of Clarawood or that the article was not written exactly as they might write it, it did not mean that it was a bad article or that it should be deleted or edited in the fashion that CDRL did. One of the arguments used by CDRL for removing a very substantial portion of the article was that the information was not unique to Clarawood. The same might be said for numerous facts about numerous places and / or people, subjects, history etc. Whilst some information might be true about other places as well, eg being demographically predominantly white and Protestant, this does not mean that it is not true about Clarawood. I did tell them that all info could be backed up and added the general reference section.

In terms of process WP:DELETE states "If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible". It also says "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if it the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant".

WP:USERFY#NO states "Userfication of an article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD is disruptive to the AfD process. The editor desiring to userfy the article must wait until the process has been concluded. Note that, if all participants agree, the AfD can be closed early in favor of userfication". It is clear I didn't even get a chance to participate and I think as the writer and creator of the article I could be classed as a "major stakeholder".

Further Davey in their comment above asserts that the article will be deleted if restored. This is the whole point - he is asserting things without facts or evidence or discussion based upon his personal opinion. I have previously suggested that if the article as now sitting in CDRL's box is restored it will be non-factual and I can back that statement up. This is why I have asked for it to be restored to the condition previously mentioned and I will certainly then add further info and refs to satisfy detractors Clarawood123 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is all a bit of a pity as I'm sure everybody has been acting with good intentions. Clarawood123 is a new editor who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's maze of article policies and guidelines and more discussion about how to improve the article would have been the better way to go rather than nominating the article for deletion. There is generally no rush to delete articles that have the possibility of being improved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good Shepherd English School – No Consensus, so the AfD result stands. The discussion mostly boils down to how much weight to give WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, relative to WP:GNG. All of the various outcomes essays are just compendiums of how we've done things in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean that's how we should do things in the future. We've got this continuum of essay-guideline-policy, and it's not really clear where the lines are between them. There are those who argue that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has so much history behind it, that it might as well be treated as policy. There are also those who argue that schools in India get short shrift here, because secondary sources for them are harder to find on-line. In any case, I don't see a consensus either way emerging for any of these questions in this debate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As far as I can see this was a clear no consensus result and not a delete result. It also seems like a rather perverse and controversial closing decision, as articles on verified secondary schools are invariably kept (and the closer himself noted that he was sure that it would be taken to DRV). Much has been made of the fact that the keepers have mentioned a consensus to keep secondary school articles and/or pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It has been claimed that this is not a valid argument. What those opposing this do not seem to realise (although it has been pointed out to them) is that citing this essay is not suggesting it is a policy or even a guideline. It is merely shorthand for pointing out that a consensus to keep verified secondary schools exists and has existed for a number of years. Barely a single article on a verified secondary school has been deleted in years. I see no reason to make an exception for this one, especially when there was certainly no consensus to delete it. Whatever policy or guidelines may say, it is a fact that certain categories of articles are generally kept (e.g. recognised settlements, members of national and sub-national legislatures, railway stations) because a consensus to keep them all exists. Secondary schools also fall into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment that "What those opposing this do not seem to realise (although it has been pointed out to them) is that citing this essay is not suggesting it is a policy or even a guideline", note that the final keep comment does refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, this is still just being used as shorthand for "it didn't meet the standard of referencing and verification at which consensus has been reached to keep". Let's face it, there is a fine line between a guideline and a consensus which has not yet been given the status of a guideline. There have been attempts in the past to make the consensus on secondary schools a guideline (in the same vein as WP:POLITICIAN, say), but unfortunately these have been undermined by a couple of opponents who have wittered on about how they're right and the rest of us are wrong until the whole thing just petered out as these things are sadly wont to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use shorthand, just say what you intend to say. Not everybody understands your lingo. The Banner talk 17:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do! As does almost every other editor who contributes to school AfD discussions. Let's not get pedantic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Necrothesp earlier, I don't mind this being overturned; what I'm really secretly hoping for is that we get a real guideline. I completely agree that it's sad if stuff peters out. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree with that. We certainly need the longstanding consensus enshrined in guidelines as it has been in WP:POLITICIAN and other similar categories of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a temp undelete here? Sources are discussed in the AfD and to evaluate the claim of not meeting WP:N we'll need to see those. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Cryptic 17:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I agree. With sincere respect to User:Drmies, who knows more about Wikipedia than I ever will, I think this should have been closed as "no consensus". It was on its way to a clear keep until after the relisting, when it was cited in a discussion at the Village Pump as a possible test case for SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As a result of that, several people came to this article from the Village Pump discussion, and !voted "delete" specifically because they wanted to challenge the SCHOOLOUTCOMES tradition. I noted this in my "keep" argument; I also stated that this school "like virtually all secondary schools IS notable." Apparently Drmies missed that when he concluded that "the [keep !voters] do not argue that the subject passes GNG". This controversial "delete" closure (which Drmies knew would be controversial) will now be gleefully cited as evidence against SCHOOLOUTCOMES, although IMO there was no clear consensus to delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- MelanieN, I don't agree with your assessment about how much I know; the more I'm here the less I know. And I read your statement--it's just that, yes, you state it, but stating it don't make it so, unfortunately. The article from the New Indian Express leaves a lot to be desired in terms of its discussion of the school, and the ICBSE entry strikes me as, well, at least primary, and the content seems to be user/school submitted. When I try to find out what the ICBSE is I get an ad for Thai women. Now, Central Board of Secondary Education is a "real" organization, with real standing, sure--but I note also that since 2001 the school is "provisionally" accepted. In other words, those references aren't really strong in terms of the GNG. What that means in terms of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a different matter, and that it passes the GNG is disputed by other participants in that discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School Outcomes is a summery, not a keep-argument. The notability of scholls (and other articles) should be proved by facts and sources in the article but SCHOOLOUTCOMES tend to be used when those sources fail to appear or fail to prove notability. The Banner talk 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As long as AfD is based on the strength of arguments that apply policies and guidelines to the subject rather than a vote count, delete seems like the most sensible close. Even when challenged, those arguing keep did not attempt to refute any of the reasons given for deletion, but instead persisted to in arguing for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES bypassing/trumping notability guidelines. As this topic is sprawled out on multiple pages right now, I don't want to repeat myself too much or get into parallel discussions. Suffice to say the subject of WP:OUTCOMES is fraught and many people have offered rather strong opinions on the matter. My own is simply that if there's sufficient consensus to treat WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES like a guideline such that verifiability=notability, then it needs to be a guideline. Until then arguments based only on that essay do not refute arguments based on guidelines. When it's added to a guideline, the article could be restored, but until then I don't know how you can justify keeping an article when no policy or guideline-based arguments were presented in favor of keeping it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close For too long SCHOOLOUTCOMES has been- often unintentionally no doubt- treated as policy rather than guide. As per User:Rhododendrites, it is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for any educational establishment that would otherwise fail WP:GNG. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the undelete. I can't find sources enough to meet WP:N even with a fairly expansive view of that guideline. At the same time, I strongly suspect there is coverage out there, just that it's not easily found in English. That's sort of the point of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Further, there appear to be multiple schools in India with a similar name, making things even more challenging. I'd likely have !voted to keep on the argument that it's extremely likely there is reasonable coverage out there, but until sources are found, I can't claim the AfD was closed incorrectly. Until we have reasonable sources, we are forced to rely on primary sources to an extent I'm uncomfortable. So ~~weak endorse~~ with the understanding I'll move to recommending restoring the article if we can find more than we have (the one independent source in the article just isn't enough and I can't find anything else). If we do keep the article, it should be reduced down to things we can find independent sources for... Hobit (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've thought about it some more. I think Thparkth and S Marshall have good points. Not ones I entirely agree with. Clearly numbers are important, but strength of argument is also. That SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay _does_ matter. But it is a darn longstanding essay that no one can argue doesn't document what we've done for years and years. And I think it would be a bad thing to reopen that in a single AfD. Better to try to find a new consensus. That said, I _really_ dislike the article we have/had. It's all based on primary sources and as simple as it is, feels spamish. I'd prefer we strip it down to what we can get from independent sources as a way forward. So while I think this was a reasonable close in the individual case (though I think even there, NC was a better reading), I think it's a bad close for the encyclopedia. So overturn to NC with some reluctance Hobit (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Before an influx of WP:POINTY !votes by editors seeking to abolish the long-standing consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this AfD was heading towards keep. This influx was an abuse of process and totally against all guidelines. At the very least this particular AfD should have been closed as no consensus, just on the numbers alone. I have thought of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a de facto guideline as, it appears, many others did. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disputed, change it via proper process and by a proper and genuine community consultation. On a sidenote, WP:GEOBIAS assures us that no American school would have been deleted in similar circumstances. I believe that Wikipedia functioning as a gazetteer means secondary schools should be considered inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AusLondoner, sorry, but it's not votes but arguments--you know this. And I don't know the motivation of those voting this way or that; please AGF. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. GNG overrides any local consensus in a particular topic area as it reflects the general consensus of the entire encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES exists because there are pretty well always enough sources to establish notability in the case of a secondary school. The problem in the particulars is that outside North America, those sources are less likely to be online (and language issues may complicate search for those that are). Another complicating factor is that Google is not neutral in what it serves up. Wikiproject India has a special Google search link for English-language Indian newspapers, and although my computer is horribly slow this morning and the background on that search page keeps taking ages to load, by searching on Good Shepherd English School Karaikal I was able to find a slew of brief mentions that I believe illustrate that that rule of thumb obtains in this case, too: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some of these call the school by a slightly different name, "Senior Secondary School", "Matriculation School" - noting that may help unearth more sources. There are presumably also non-English sources. I note that although the sources I found are mostly about the school's celebration of various special days, they give the names of principal and chairman and one is about an association the school has joined, so they could be used to support a couple of added facts in the article. In other words, IMO the deletion discussion bogged down and for whatever reason, not all available sources were uncovered; it is a test case of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one that demonstrates that yes, the generalization is almost always valid, although it can be very hard to find the sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The keep arguments were the ones that followed the general consensus for these articles. OtherwiseThe current article is not promotional, and the schools compromise is one of the fe rational things we've done with respect to notability. The practical rule was adopted to avoid the previous 20 or so hotly disputed AfD discussions a day, with results no better than random, depending mainly on who had enough energy to push in one direction or another. I strongly urge us to adopt similar rules for as many types of articles as possible. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but the effort spent in debating the nuances does hurt us, because we would do much better to devote our work to sourcing and improving the millions of weak articles. (I don't think we need a test case to show that schooloutcomes gives the same results as the GNG--the GNG is a guideline to which we an simply make exceptions, and this is one of them. But it is possible to find references for any high school--the question is alwsys the smae as with other applications ofthe GNG, whether they are references substantial & independent & reliable--and those three words can in many cases be interpreted however one pleases to get the result one desires. Much better a rule like SCHOOLOUTCOMES. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, the problem is, and this AfD points that out, is that "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" is not generally accepted. I just do not see why we do not go the obvious route and try to make a guideline out of this, so we can get away from the circularity. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - agree with both DGG and Yngvadottir. My own view is that avoiding endless battles over high school notability is nothing but a positive. I'm currently reviewing all mineral articles for minor fixes, where if GNG was applied, 80-90% would have to be deleted. However, consensus is that mineral articles are kept even if only enough sourcing exists to pass WP:V. There is nothing inherently wrong with consensus overriding guidelines where it makes sense to do so. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But VMS Mosaic, which consensus is that? I suppose there was a consensus to write up SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but in this particular AfD there was no consensus to stick with that ... though (not guideline). I suppose I'm not quite clear what you're pointing at when you say "consensus can override guideline": do you mean that the consensus (of the essay) overrides the guidelines (or rather policy) of GNG? Don't get me wrong: I also don't want endless battles. Enshrine SCHOOLOUTCOMES as guideline and it's over. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, just for the record, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy; any guideline can be overridden by consensus. But to your point, let's make SCHOOLOUTCOMES a guideline and put an end to this. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed it would be better formalized, but guidelines are made by consistent practice as well as by formal decision. An informal rule that is occasionally challenged but essentially always upheld is a valid guideline. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally? It is and was far more often challenged than "occasionally". The Banner talk 15:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm sure you'll explain to us why almost no secondary school article is ever deleted at AfD and why very few editors even vote delete on those discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete Let me first say that, in general, I am an inclusionist. The relevant guideline in this case is WP:GNG. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is part of an essay and doesn't trump the guideline. Nevertheless, it should receive due weight. The essay basically states that high schools were (thus far) usually or always were kept in AfDs. These outcomes would have been in line with the relevant guideline, i.e. GNG. If by guideline this particular article should nevertheless be deleted, schooloutcomes should be read as a precaution that more independent, verifiable sources could be out there. If after careful research these sources aren't found, the guideline trumps the essay. gidonb (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame to decide to end the very longstanding and widely-accepted WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES on the basis of the technicality that it's only labelled as an essay. It is, in fact, very longstanding custom and practice here and it makes a great deal of sense, at least to anyone who thinks editor recruitment and retention is a bigger deal than our increasingly obsessive focus on notability. School articles are not usually puff pieces written by marketers.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in principle. But in researching this school, it feels like a scam of sorts--or at least a questionable school. The one solid news report we have is of students being beaten for not paying fees and the school website has spelling errors that shouldn't get past a 3rd grade reader. Our article seems to be based almost entirely on that website. So while I agree with SCHOOLOUTCOMES, even if it were a guideline, I'd still probably support dropping this down to things that can be verified by independent sources (which in this case might be that it is a school and what its address is). Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key distinction here is prescriptive versus descriptive. Outcomes is a descriptive essay. Usually high schools have been kept. That much is true and useful to take into consideration. Care should be taken, however, not to use this descriptive truth as a prescriptive statement. Every case should be critically reviewed by our guidelines, which are prescriptive. In the discussion under review the nay sayers made better use of the relevant documents, hence the closure was correct and a possible overturn should be rejected. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I rather disagree with you. Notability is a tool and like all tools it's only as good as the person using it. Its purpose, in origin, was for detecting and removing marketing spam and that's what it should be used for. Using it on everything is, generally, a waste of your time and ultimately of other editors' time at AfD, so people who overapply the notability guideline are wasting the encyclopaedia's only real limited resource. Which is why it's worth taking a stand on this.—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your response strengthens my previous statement because, if this evolving importance of notability that you observed is true, then it is a positive, important, and from an operational view even necessary development that over time we produced a critical look at each and every article in our encyclopedia. Personally, I try not to be harsh on any subject, but elementary proof of existence and importance is essential for the credibility and usability of Wikipedia. It impacts the overall quality of our project. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        We have articles on things that don't exist, like Bigfoot, and on things that aren't important, like the village of Where the Heck in Styx County, Nebraska (pop. 92). Wikipedia has very little credibility and that's a good thing: we shouldn't pretend to be credible. We already have a massive problem with people trusting us more than they should. If I had my way the disclaimer that's linked from every page would have much greater prominence. It should probably be in flashing, bright red text.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Bigfoot is a legend and exists as such. The legend is well documented in this hoax film, in tv programs, movies, books, articles, etc. A town with 92 folks may seem unimportant to you, but there are people who breath in this place 24 hours a day, for many years. A high school can likewise be important, I do not reject the premise of the outcomes essay altogether, just differ on its importance, definitely next to guidelines or policies. The rest of your ideas are also peculiar, but this may be a good outlet to send them into the world! gidonb (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The status of WP:OUTCOMES doesn't actually matter. Notability is ultimately determined by the consensus of participants at an AfD (not by any essay, guideline, or policy), and those participants can cite any essay or guideline they like in making their arguments. The argument that "we should keep this verifiable high school article because we should be consistent with how we normally treat verifiable high school articles" is a competent one that should be given significant weight by an AfD closer, whether made explicitly as I just did or in shorthand by reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The only way to find a "delete" consensus in this AfD is by entirely discounting the SCHOOLOUTCOMES "keep" arguments as the closer appears to have done. This was erroneous in my opinion and so the AfD outcome is unsafe. In fact there was no consensus at this discussion, as indeed there is no consensus on the subject of high school notability in the wider community. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus AFD is an opportunity for people to express their opinions. Some people may think the notability criteria must be strictly met and will !vote accordingly. Other people may think they are guidelines to be treated with common sense and with occasional exceptions. Other people may think a consistency of approach across articles is valuable and they may want to avert the shooting arcade game aspects of AFD. Now, it would be wonderful if all these folks could present fully-argued, erudite, considered and considerate accounts of why they feel the way they do. However for those who do not have the time, inclination or ability to do this I think their opinions should be considered even if their rationales are as brief as "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". They should be taken to mean they approve of school articles being kept along the terms of that essay. I do not mean that all arguments should be accepted. If someone says an article should be deleted because no references are to be found on a topic and then Cunard comes along with a barrow load of references, the initial opinion should be disregarded. If someone says keep because there are multiple references about a person but these turn out to be about someone else, the argument for "keep" should be given no weight. In my experience closers rarely confuse strength of argument with vehemence of argument but I think some closers (but not in this case) think that the strong arguments are those they agree with. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a courageous call perhaps, but one that I cannot find fault with. Once we disregard the "Keep" arguments which are variants of 'Keep per this essay that does not enjoy consensus support', then there's not really any policy based reasons advanced for keeping it, possibly with the exception of User:MelanieN's post, which despite making an unsubstantiated accusation of canvassing, at least attempted to get the article to cross the GNG as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

From what I see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES enjoys broad support. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it has its supporters, I think the fact we're even having this discussion would indicate that it is hardly a wide consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: I think you're making the time-old mistake of thinking a couple extremely vocal people makes "hardly a wide consensus". ansh 666 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn due to canvassing from the RfC at WT:AFD, as noted by other editors above. SSTflyer 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify where the canvassing took place, SSTflyer? I don't see any note about this or about an RfC above. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Special:Diff/712702051. My mistake, the RfC is at WT:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. SSTflyer 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That RfC was opened after the AfD closed, though (in response to it), so I don't see how it could have had an impact on the deletion decision. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the claim is that I engaged in canvassing at WP:VPP, then I don't see how my post there falls foul of WP:CANVASS. I certainly didn't select an audience on the basis of their opinions, and indeed didn't contact individual editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse these days it seems that we have developed a rather self supporting argument that says we don't delete these because they are normally kept with each time we do that just reinforcing the rule, this flies in the face of consensus building and "consensus can change". --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus clearly hasn't changed, since other secondary school articles are still being kept at AfD. This is an anomalous result that was certainly not a clear delete case and flies in the face of both consensus and consistency. Had it been a clear delete result then that would have been different; it was most certainly not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the consensus is clearly being contested. And quite often. The Banner talk 14:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Almost always by the same editors, who are strangely enough the ones who don't agree with it. Once again, not everyone has to agree with a consensus for it to be a consensus. I don't agree with every consensus on Wikipedia either. That doesn't mean I don't accept them as the collective will of the greater part of the editing community. To do otherwise once a clear consensus has been reached is merely disruptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There has to be a way for people who disagree with a consensus to be able to challenge it, though, otherwise consensus could never change. While behaviour that ignores consensus is disruptive, I don't see how making delete arguments in AfD discussions could be considered disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha, there is the classic "disruptive" argument to quell an unwelcome discussion. But did you also notice that the defenders of Common Outcomes are also almost the same few editors every time? The Banner talk 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should just log in with one of my secret alternate accounts and close this is "highly contentious; no consensus." However this cookie ends up crumbling, I think the length of this discussion and the variety of arguments confirm what I foresaw (or feared) when I closed the AfD. Wikipedia, for better or for worse, is kind of a bureaucracy, pace DGG, whose point on practice is well taken ("guidelines are made by consistent practice as well as by formal decision")--but it's optimistic, as this case proves: we like rules and in many cases we need them.
Consistent practice would have worked in this case if (and I'm hypothesizing here) the sourcing had been just a little bit better; in most cases, that is never a problem in the first place. Whether secondary schools should be automatically notable is not really the discussion here; I closed the AfD the way I did because the participants had opinions about SCHOOLOUTCOMES and noted GNG/sourcing problems. (S Marshall, it's entirely possible that schools are written up with promotion in mind, esp. if it's schools whose status in for instance a public education system is a bit unclear, as seems to be the case here.) For all practical purposes, and in most AfD discussions, secondary schools are automatically notable. I do not deny that SCHOOLOUTCOMES has great validity, but the extent of that validity is clearly unclear. What's left is to write it up then, as a subsection of NCORP or whatever is more appropriate. More than likely there will be consensus for it. I nominate User:S Marshall to do so--S Marshall, that won't "end" SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it will be a promotion. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drmies: I found more sources! Enough mentions, with MelanieN's entire article, for the school to squeak by under the GNG in my estimation. Unfortunately we are here at a page where what we have to assess is the merits of your close, rather than the merits of the issue. That constrains me. I wish we still had the ARS, who would have known about the specialized search over at Wikiproject India. (Instead we have at least one participant here arguing that the school itself must be some sort of scam, based on the quality of English on its website. Unfortunately that is in my experience typical for English-language schools in India; I suppose the websites are written by students familiar with web-page design, and not by the English teachers. However, whatever teh truth of that, our opinion about whether a school is good should never be the basis of whether we have an article on it.) I find myself reluctant either to say that the AfD participants did a poor job or that you did a poor job, but that's my brief. Either that or recreating the article myself or editing the temporarily deleted version, either of which would be taken as disruptive editing or simple cheek. I'm not sure this is winnable, and it will serve as an ugly precedent. Is there a win-win solution here? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Thincat. In short: people are lazy. Also, User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs. ansh 666 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer correctly didn't give much weight to opinions based on the "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" page, because it is an essay and not a community-adopted policy or guideline. Admins are expected to weight the strength of arguments in closing AfDs, and they are supposed to do so based on policies and guidelines because these alone express a wider community consensus. Sandstein 07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 March 2016

Austin Wade Petersen – No action. It is not clear which administrative action, if any, is contested, and there is at any rate no consensus here to overturn any action. – Sandstein 10:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was originally deleted because the person the article was about was not notable enough. Since the original deletion, a new article was rewritten with additional content and additional sources, but was still speedily deleted (and redirected) for WP:G4. Petersen has since gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results. He is also going to appear in a nationally televised debate with two other top contenders for the Libertarian Party nomination, which was sourced in the newly rewritten article that was speedily deleted. This demonstrates his viability to be a serious contender for the party nomination, and thus a notable public figure.

Comparing the last revision of the old article with the newly rewritten article, I don't feel like these are "substantially identical" to justify a speedy deletion of the new article. --Hamez0 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the article has not been deleted, but it has been fully protected in a state where it is a redirect, which produces a similar effect. I considered speedily deleting as a purely promotional page, but decided to leave the revision history visible instead.

I see that for some reason Hamez0 chose to come straight to deletion review, rather than consulting me on the matter instead. I also see that he or she did not even inform me of this deletion review. I don't know why: perhaps it was just an accidental oversight. Thanks to Cryptic for informing me of the deletion review.

Hamez0 is perfectly right in saying that the new article is not identical to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, and that is precisely why I did not even consider deleting the article under speedy deletion criterion G4. However, the consensus at that discussion was that the subject is not notable enough to be the subject of an article, and that instead the page discussed should be a redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If someone had edited that page to make it back into an article, then it would have been reverted to a redirect, and if it had been repeatedly restored to an article, contrary to the consensus in the discussion, then it might very likely have been protected to stop the disruption. Creating it under a different title should not be able to circumvent consensus, and I see no reason why changing the title should cause it to be treated differently than how it would have been treated if the same title had been kept.

I have checked every one of the sources cited in the article. Most of them do not even mention Austin Petersen. A few briefly mention him in passing, such as including his name in a list. A couple are by Petersen, not about him. The very few which do more than just about mention him are not independent sources: for example, there is the web site of his political party, and there is thelibertarianrepublic.com, which on its "about" page says "Petersen has turned The Libertarian Republic into a powerful online news source for the public". In short, the reasons for deletion which were advanced in the deletion discussion apply just as much to the new article as they did to the old one. Repeatedly restoring the article, in defiance of the consensus view at that discussion, is disruptive. The decision was that we should have a redirect from Petersen's name to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Since the use of article protection to prevent such disruption has effectively been contested (though I am not convinced that deletion review is the best way to contest it), I can take the article to a new deletion discussion, if necessary. I believe doing so will be a waste of people's time, as exactly the same reasons will apply as applied first time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above message, I have seen a report claiming that Austin Petersen has been claiming that the decision to replace the first article with a redirect was done by a conspiracy set up by a rival member of the Libertarian Party, who has been very critical of Petersen. Whether that has any relevance to the sudden appearance of single purpose accounts and IP addresses all working to get Austin Petersen coverage on Wikipedia in a promotional article I don't know, but there is sufficient likelihood that it should be born in mind, and it might, of course, be relevant to any new deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the original AfD. The consensus there was clear and was totally in accordance with Wikipedia standards and usual practice: an unelected candidate, who is not notable for anything but being a candidate, is given a redirect to the relevant election. I would add that the subject has plenty of coverage at that page, including a photo in two places.

Hamez0 claims that the subject has "gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results". That does not appear to be the case. There have been one caucus and two primaries, where his placement was 7.5%, 29%, and 3%. All of this is spelled out in sufficient detail at the election's article and I can see no justification for a separate article at this time.

It's true that DRV is the wrong venue for this, because both closures as well as the protection were procedurally correct. Don't blame Hamez0; they came to DRV because they were told to, on the article's talk page - where as many as 60 brand new, special purpose accounts have posted comments, each individually titled "Contested deletion". This is obviously due to offline canvassing somewhere, and is coming from people who have no idea about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of an article. This is as good a venue to discuss the situation as any.

I suppose the article could be userfied to someone, to see if they can write a new, sufficiently sourced article. But in effect they already did that (changing the title to get around the previous AfD) and their efforts were not sufficient. As JamesBWatson notes, the new sources do not amount to significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources; about the only sources aside from election coverage are things like Youtube and IMDb which are not accepted as sources here; and the subject still fails the criterion of WP:GNG. I would not favor starting a new AfD; as things currently stand it would just get swamped by Special purpose accounts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how DRV is the "wrong venue." The redirect was an enforcement of the decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen. Per WP:DRV: "Deletion Review is a forum designed primarily to appeal . . . disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions." I do not see any other recourse for those who feel this individual merits an article. Furthermore, the "Contested deletion" titles were automated when the readers clicked the button "Contest this speedy deletion" on the speedy deletion template. I'm not sure if there was a concerted effort by the Petersen campaign, but the "Austin Wade Petersen" page was linked to in a tweet Petersen retweeted. I speculate that Petersen's Twitter followers followed the link to the Wikipedia page, saw the speedy deletion template, responded by clicking "Contest this speedy deletion", and then provided their reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification about why they all have the same subject title; that makes sense. I wasn't arguing that this discussion shouldn't happen; in fact I think it should. Although strictly speaking this site is for procedural matters only, as I commented above, this seems like as good a venue as any to discuss the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this was the recommendation on the talk page. DRV is also the place to come if 'new information is brought to light', such as additional references or significant changes. I don't know if that's the case, but here's the place to discuss it. I'm curious how User:JamesBWatson is so previously involved as to be offended. Prior involvement doesn't seem obvious, and we might benefit from a brief explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote "though I am not convinced that deletion review is the best way to contest it" it seems that I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant to say was that going straight to deletion review without first consulting the administrator involved was not the best way to contest it. As for zzuuzz referring to my being "offended", I don't feel at all offended, and if my tone gave that impression then again I didn't express myself clearly. As for being "curious how JamesBWatson is so previously involved", the article referred to in the heading of this discussion, Austin Wade Petersen, has not been deleted, but I protected it as a redirect, which, as I said above, produces a similar effect to deletion, so I assumed that the review was of my action. Also, the comments from the editor who started this review make it clear that he or she is contesting what has been done to that article, on the grounds that it is different from the one deleted at AfD, not contesting the original AfD result. I am not sure whether that answers zzuuzz's doubts, because I'm not sure whether I have correctly understood what those doubts are, but he or she can, of course, give me a more specific question if further clarification is needed.

I agree with MelanieN's comments about the original deletion. I also agree with her that there is no evidence that there have subsequently been changes to the notability of the subject. The treatment of the second article is more debatable, and it was precisely because I thought there was room for debate that I only protected it, rather than deleting it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The doubts stem simply from the fact that this DRV was started a full hour before JamesBWatson protected the page. I'm simply saying that this is the proper venue, and there is no reason for Hamez0 to have contacted JamesBWatson. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Thank you for that clarification. It hadn't crossed my mind to check the timings, as my protection seemed to me to be the only thing which could be regarded as equivalent to a deletion. In that case, the review must have been intended to refer to redirecting the article, rather than to my protection of it, unless it was intended to refer to a mere nomination for speedy deletion, in which case deletion review certainly wasn't the right venue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the instructions for this site do say "Before listing a review request, please: 1) Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose." But Hamez0 is a fairly new and inexperienced editor, and I believe we should cut them some slack; they did what they were told to do at the talk page. It looks to me as if this request is actually directed toward what Hamez0 mistakenly thought was a G4 speedy deletion. The dozens of protests on the talk page are clearly meant to be arguments against speedy deletion - which didn't happen. In any case, I think we should discuss the article-vs.-redirect question here, on its merits, without regard to proper venue, and without trying to clarify which administrative action the protest is directed toward. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have explained things to Hamez0 on their talk page, and they seem to understand the situation now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 March 2016

27 March 2016

26 March 2016

25 March 2016

Joseph Atwill – Unprotect and allow recreation Any editor is free to create new articles and/or redirects at these titles. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

New references available to support notability JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Since the 2007 decision, Atwill has continued to accumulate references in reputable sources as well as individual blogs, and his book was translated into German and published by Ullstein Buchverlage. Contrary to the original decision, Ulysses Press is also a reputable publisher in the field of spirituality. Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah, continues to be a best-seller in its category, and it is covered in an article in German Wikipedia. While many reviews are negative, the importance of his work is in some ways vindicated by the vehemence of the opposition.[reply]

Here are links to secondary sources on Atwill's work.

'Reputable Sources'

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/caesars-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims-6436318

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-of-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-to-pacify-the-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html

http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/interview-jesus-war-den-kaisern-eine-hilfe_aid_356977.html

http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/146983.das-kreuz-mit-dem-heiland.html

http://community.zeit.de/user/berndkoch/beitrag/2008/12/25/das-christentum-eine-propagandaluege-der-flavier

http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/nc/buch/details/das-messias-raetsel-9783793420910.html

'Notable Critics' (That is, these critics have their own Wikipedia bio articles)

http://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense/

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

http://freethoughtnation.com/a-conversation-on-the-caesars-messiah-thesis/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

Atwill citations already on Wikipedia --

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Messias-Rätsel (nice article in German)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory (link in 'other reading' section)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier (link in footnotes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (bullet point, but no link, in 'Documentaries' section)

The original delete decision was entered by BorgQueen. I posted a deletion review request to her user talk page six days ago, and there has been no response, although BorgQueen has been active on Wikipedia editing other articles since then.

Thank you for your attention, JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments? My understanding was that this article was put on the list of items protected against creation, but now I have also read here that the pre-2008 protection system may be deprecated, and I don't know if it's still in effect. Wikipedia editorial policy as discussed here would permit the article to be re-created without administrative action. I suppose if I don't hear from anyone, I'll try to create the page and see if the system will permit it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirect Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah.
Author Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah in 2008.
This article from The Independent, this article from the Discovery Channel, this article from the International Business Times, this article from The Christian Post, and this article from The Huffington Post are primarily about the subject's book. Since most of the sources discuss the book and its ideas, I recommend allowing recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirecting Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah until there is significant biographical information about Atwill.
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove protection. It's been long enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after 8 years this should pretty much automatically be unprotected, I can't really understand why it was protected in the first place, one recreation and instant long term protection I would certainly hope wouldn't happen today. That said I'd note Cunard's comments above on what the appropriate article should be, and of course any created article is still subject to further deletion scrutiny. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrprotect, Hullaballoo makes the case more directly than I might have. It's my guess that Cunard's suggestion will be the final outcome, but that would best be left to a discussion at the article after recreation. --joe decker ^talk 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If we undelete one article , it should be the article on the person. If someone is known primarily for one book, there's a chance for expanding the bio, for they may write another, but the book article has no real prospect of expansion . I also point out that blog postings about a book or an author are not published book reviews, no matter who wrote them. The deWP article is in my opinion a disgrace, for it is totally without 3rd party sources -- what I think it shows is that they never noticed it, for they usually do very much better than that. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the substance of the first part of this. If the author suddenly becomes more notable for writing more books etc. then there is nothing to stop the article being spun out as a full blown article at that point, we don't need to worry about an undetermined future now. I'm not saying an article on the author would be wrong, but I can't see how incorporating it with the book for now would be wrong either. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question At the moment, Atwill has self-published another book, many blog articles, and podcasts. However, little if any of this activity has achieved much notice in reputable published sources. Accordingly, I assume that such materials wouldn't contribute to his notability at the present time, nor would they be suitable topics for Wikipedia? If this is correct, I'm inclined to agree with Joe and Cunard that the article about Caesar's Messiah would take priority. In light of the "Undue Weight" guidelines, I also agree it would be best to stay with one article for now.

Question DGG says that reviews in blogs are not published, which is true. However, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." This seems to imply that blogs by authors regarded as authoritative may, in some cases, be used. In this case, the subject book should be classified as a work of popular nonfiction, which is notable because it has been discussed in several reputable journalistic sources. However, those discussions tend to be rather superficial, while the most perceptive reviews of the book are in those blogs by authoritative authors. They also give a more balanced view of the book's reception. Accordingly, if it's OK to use those sources, it will be possible to write a much better article. --JerryRussell (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archaeological Society of Slovenia – No action taken. The nominator never clarified what he was requesting, so closing this with no specific resolution. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was closed as no consensus, but the article still has the notability tag. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific request you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfD showed that the article topic meets the GNG but the article itself is in a bad shape and should be improved. Still, this is not a reason for deletion. --Tone 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be mistaken: the AfD was closed as "no consensus" (no decision on notability), not "keep" (subject is notable). Anyway, as the AfD is closed, I can't see a looming deletion threat. Rebb ing 05:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Constant relisting is a bad idea, and the participants were unsure about whether there were more sources in Slovenian, so no consensus was the appropriate decision, as it allows time for editors to find sources. Esquivalience ^t 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominator clarify what precisely he/she wants done here? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 March 2016

Power Rangers Ninja Steel – Procedurally closed. This request looks like an exercise in sock- or meatpuppetry. The article was salted because of sock recreations, and now only IPs and a checkuser-blocked editor have joined this request. Any future request should be made by a registered editor in good standing. – Sandstein 10:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted by someone who believes the person who wrote the article was banned. I think the article should be reviewed and not deleted until it's proven that they're indeed banned. 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undelete. Don't know made the article, but it should be restored at least for the length of this discussion. After all this is confirmed by reliable source to be the next Power Ranger season. 38.86.168.55 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Not only did the banned person get the article deleted, but now it can't be created again despite legitimate sources. 166.171.184.177 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'd be willing to write the article, but the article is indeed blocked from creation. I'll try WP:RFPP and see if someone can undo the protection se we can write it. Sales Actor MSK (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC). User was blocked.[reply]
comment: I'm restoring this discussion as only the above use was blocked, not the person who started it.47.23.36.122 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth – Overturn and Relist. The conversation went off in a number of different directions. I don't see any consensus on the standing of 166.176.57.187 to bring this to DRV, so no action on that. There is, however, pretty good agreement that this was an inappropriate WP:U5, so overturning that. There was no consensus on the question of whether this draft should be deleted, assuming proper process had been followed. DRV is not the place to decide that question anyway, so relisting it at MFD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be because it's the IP with the weird crush on Ricky81682. I doubt we should feed their infatuation. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure by default due to the nominator failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankveil: There's arguments that WP:V doesn't apply to drafts so hoaxes are being opposed on the basis that you can't delete it as a hoax because the actual truth of what is claimed is irrelevant since it's just a draft. It's utterly bizarre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just showing the event isn't isolated and drawing a comparison. Not sure about personally opening a DRV on it at this time, though someone else potentially could, it's being a discussed at other places at this time as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here. Rebb ing 06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I was wondering if the strong antipathy to the page is because it was in some way abusive. I now understand that it is because it is an edge case. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)#[reply]

Superficially, that argument has some merit. In this case, however, it is fatally undermined by the fact that the user has made no other edits at all, and has not touched this page in five years. That undoubtedly looks more like a WEBHOST violation than an actual attempt to write an article. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that a plausible draft is turned into a WP:WEBHOST violation merely by editor inactivity and the passage of time is unsupported by policy and consensus. Thparkth (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is not what I did. I looked at the page and reviewed it in context with the user's non-existent history. I paid no attention at all to anything else - no vote, super or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two reasons why this is actually important:
  - CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right.
  - IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit.

So yeah, to me this is an important issue. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective.

You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relist for a proper discussion. This is not the placeto decide the merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn U5 and relist for a proper discussion. The thing should still be deleted but it should be deleted because it deserves to be deleted. Otherwise, I still say that if anyone wants to adopt this thing, I think that would kill all further arguing here, unless again people take merit to the ridiculous concerns about an editor who five years ago put up a promotional draft and never did anything since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, looking at the temp undeleted draft, I see something with no chance of establishing notability, and too much promotional aspect to allow it to lie around live indefinitely. I even oppose allowing someone else to adopt it, its age is irrelevant (WP:STALE is not a good guideline). It should be deleted with reference to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but is it not a CSD candidate on any criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Draft was a credible draft for mainspace, and for that reason is U5-ineligible. Secondly, there were valid "keep" votes at MfD, which override speedy deletion, as speedy deletion is for routine cases for which there is no desire for two-sided discussion. There is a recent trend of liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria that must be repudiated. Admins are not the ruling class of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clay J. Cockerell – No further action required. It's unclear from the discussion here if the original WP:G11 should be endorsed or not, but it's kind of moot. During the course of this DRV, the article was substantially edited, and there is reasonable agreement here that in its current form, it's acceptable. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this article last year and it was deleted for what the administrator says was too promotional. I requested that the article be undeleted and I was told that it was definiately promotional and that it would not be restored and that I would have to come here. According to the reason the administrator says it was deleted, the page would have to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The criteria also says "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." The subject is a scholar and doctor and is notable (please see his references in Google Scholar). I would request that the article be undeleted as it is not promotional in my opinion. If it is considered promotional by others, I am not sure that it is such that it would need to be completely rewritten. Thank you for your consideration. Studenttopics (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a temp. undelete here or could someone otherwise provide a copy of the article? Hobit (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored history for discussison here. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. It is possible that the individual is notable, and that a new article can be written. But this one is an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles don;'t continually referto the subject as Dr., don't emphasise the person's hobbies, don't contain text like "He is married to his high school sweetheart, ..., also a native Texan and they wed in..." , don't advertise the person's products that they sell to their patient, don't list things like "being named as an honoree for Who's Who in Health Care by the Dallas Business Journal" as notable awards. What does show these features is a person's web page, and that's where this sort of content belongs. The puffery here extends to giving local newspaper references for ""Abilenian enters medical school" and "Exam Lets Abilenian Skip Sophomore Year". That;s the kind of thing a fond parent puts in the family Christmas card--or that a promotional WP editor puts in when trying to add every scrap possible Yes, I could conceivably have rewritten it & tried to show notability, but it would have meant rewriting from scratch, for I consider not a single one of the paragraphs usable as they stand. But I've done too much helping promotional editors earn their pay at my expense, by substituting my proper work for their bad work. I'll still do it for an article someone really famous, for that serves the interests of the `encyclopedia and its readers. (In case it applies, I also would like to remind the editor of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. We at this time have no rule calling for the deletion of articles on the basis that they might violate the terms of use, but only do so on the article oontent. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a good speedy deletion. Maybe an article can be written about this person in an appropriate tone, but it would indeed require a fundamental rewrite. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this was a terrible article. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~not endorse~~ I understand why it was deleted, but I think creating a stub based on the article would have been just as easy as deletion (the first paragraph would be a reasonable, if not ideal, stub). At the same time, I don't think we want this article as-it-is around, so I can't !vote to overturn. So... Once the DRV is done I'll try to create a new article based on the old one and then I'll ask for a history undelete to keep attribution. It will be a lot shorter, but meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow the recreation. I generally worry about editing an article that has been temp undeleted so I was going to wait until we are done here. But HW did a better job than I would have, so net win! Hobit (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the article in question was intensely promotional and there is no way it could be "fixed", you'd have to start from scratch. However, permit creation of a stub or other article on the topic if it can be well sourced and non-promotional. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
With respect to Hobit, even the first paragraph is so full of puffery that it would need a fundamental rewrite. The last sentence is ok, but a single sentence does not an article make. This solidly meets both the letter and intent of G11; endorse. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, Wikipedians decide that an article on a topic would be acceptable but we don't want this article. The relevant essay is WP:TNT. This is slightly at odds with our deletion policy at WP:ATD, which says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Historically this used to be a contradiction which we resolved by refusing to delete fixable content, demanding that the content was fixed instead. However, nowadays this has been considerably simplified by the addition of a paragraph to WP:ATD lower down on the same page, which reads: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. A neutral, encyclopaedic article about Mr Cockerell would be acceptable. The deleted content was a vanity advertisement of the kind that does not belong on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. – the article never was taken to AfD. It was speedy deleted, so the "completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD" clause does not apply here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cunard, I stand corrected. My position is that I have no objection to an article with this title existing if a user in good standing takes responsibility for it, and Hullaballoo appears to have done so.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The article is ghastly, but cleanup would require extensive pruning/stubbing rather than a fundamental rewrite. Whacking about two-thirds of the text and light copyediting would be sufficient. That wouldn't be a fundamental rewrite, just about two minutes' editing at most. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Hullaballoo so he can edit it for a couple of minutes and then restore when he feels it's ready. Don't mind it being restored if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

97 seconds work with my machete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of the article was WP:ADMASQ but not to a horrible degree so it should've been cleaned up instead of G11ed, saving time. Nonetheless, the article is fine now, and the subject is most likely notable (h = 40) so no concerns. Esquivalience ^t 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:CSD#G11 says:
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
The deleted revision did not require a fundamental rewrite as demonstrated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup here.
Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 March 2016

22 March 2016

Whirling – Endorse But, reading deeper, it's clear that there's room for further discussion, and that can continue on the article talk page. I get the impression that if better sources were found, at least some of the people who argued to merge during the AfD (and argued to endorse, here), would be more willing go along with splitting this back out into its own article. So, go research sources, and then try to build consensus for the split on the talk page once you've found them. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many reasons against deletion, and the merger. Please review the AfD discussion page first and foremost to get a flavor of what went down. In summary form: Whirling is a dance genre and a dance technique. A well-sourced page was created, in contrast to existing pages for Sufi spinning and Tanoura, a separate style of dance originating in Egypt. The discussion seemed to be leading to consensus that improvement to all three was necessary, and compelling arguments were made against merger of the three (one of the editors' suggestions). The merger resulted in incoherence. This is a request for a neutral review and thorough/impartial discussion. A related discussion regarding NPOV is afoot at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Strange controversy over Whirling. This is an important topic in the contemporary dance and visual arts community. Thank you for your help ahead of time. Viapastrengo (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator in this AfD. I nominated the article over a lack of sources per WP:GNG, not the content of the topic itself. Viapastrengo's defense of the article was based on the latter. For what it's worth, I was surprised that the discussion was closed without being relisted, given that it had re-scoped to include the merge of a third article, which had only had a few days' notice. Also, for full disclosure, I should mention that I reported Viapastrengo for sockpuppetry during the AfD, for apparently contributing to the discussion from multiple IPs. Ibadibam (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the candor, and the good faith that was evident in the original set of exchanges between all of us on the AfD page. For what it's worth, I was perhaps quite surprised by the vigorous nature of the AfD arguments on a topic that in earlier times would have been very uncontroversial and a perfect candidate for incubation. Hence, when I was asking everyone to give time and was making a sincere request to entertain this in good faith, because sourcing continued throughout. If the tone came across as brusque, that's one thing, but I trust it would have been clear to anyone who was reading the sources being provided that the typology of whirling was not merely some academic shell game, but had real life/death implications. I don't know how to get this across any more plainly, but characterizing Sufi whirling as giving rise to (and still subsuming wholly) a modern dance tradition with stage performances by women, in dress costumes, just paints with a huuuuuge and grossly inaccurate brush. The images that emerge from these brushstrokes include a larger target on the backs of Sufi practitioners in modern-day Turkey; incomprehensible and unnecessary associational links between an apolitical dance and/or dance technique and particular spiritual traditions; general confusion. What was meant to be captured by the original whirling article was a dance style/genre/technique -- with no particular predicate connections to a Western or Oriental or Fusion or other dance tradition. It captured a dance that is performed on many stages all over the world, and in popular media (Dr. Oz) and in fictionalized accounts (Katniss Everdeen's Girl on Fire scene). In the course of the discussion, it was made clear that substantiating a particular genre of dance would be slightly more different than substantiating the notability of, say, a political figure, because it'd be significantly easier to flesh out the textual authorities for the latter. With respect to the former, as was made clear with reference to dances like Dub (dance), sourcing would necessarily include non-textual authorities, in addition to traditional sources. In the tradition of describing a musical genre, and any other non-textual artistic genre. This required nurturing, support, incubation. Instead, there emerged a strange, classically Western, textual fetish in the AfD discussion. This resulted in merge suggestions that then had to be counteracted, which raised all sorts of new issues. Long story short, the merger was very sudden and grossly ill-conceived. This should have been incubated, relisted, developed ... wikified ... as a set of disparate concepts/traditions. This much was obvious from the discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the sources, and stated the problems with them during the AfD. Most of them were exclusively about Sufi whirling and did not support the topic previously covered at whirling. Others were primary-source examples of particular performers and performances that did not include information about a broader movement, genre or school of dance. To infer from these isolated examples a broader trend is original research, something that's outside the scope of this encyclopedia. I can appreciate and respect that, as an academic, original research is your line of work, but there are already other venues and platforms for that. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions; it restates the conclusions of secondary sources. Were you, or a colleague, to author a paper on this topic and get it peer-reviewed and published, I would be happy—proud—to cite it here. In the meantime, if you would like to "incubate" the topic, I invite you to continue working on the article as a draft. And please, please do make sourced contributions to Sufi whirling, as your contributions are still needed to improve Wikipedia. Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not original research. Take a look at the original article. Take a look at the sources that were offered. Original research and sui generis arguments were raised in the XfD discussion, not in the article, and it is wrong to mischaracterize the stem article as original research. Take a look at the Dr. Oz clip. Whirling as dancing is discussed as a stress relief technique for, say, menopausal women. Then the globally-syndicated show pans to women whirling in choreographed dances. How this belongs in Sufi spinning is beyond me; how the noms can continue to maintain this as a non-notable dance or dance technique is beyond me, when the sources pointed to the contrary ... beyond me; how anyone following this discussion fails to see the epistemic danger of lumping these disparate practices together ... beyond me. So, Ibadibam, I appreciate you imploring others to continue contributing, but if a genuine good faith contribution is going to be met with this level of hostility, intellectual insensitivity, and outright DP violations (no-notice merges, discussion closures, three-way mergers because someone feels they got the gist on what is and isn't a particular dance, then frankly, this form of WP is ... beyond me. I hope everyone gets a chance to revisit their own implicit biases and to shift some paradigms as a result of this. Because nobody on the nom side should feel comfortable with the way this discussion went down. I realize that our coding fingers are typically used to cursory arguments. But the level of discourse here should have alerted everyone to the stakes in the discussion. I'm just disappointed so few of the editors took time to connect the dots on the real-world implications of this.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Not an obvious close, but it feels correct. The Keep !votes failed to argue notability of the topic. Reverse the redirect only if there is clear repudiation of the merge at Talk:Sufi_whirling, or if there is demonstrated consensus for a spinout. Whirling looks to be definitely a variation based on Sufi_whirling, and should be mentioned in that article first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: Apart from the "keep" opinions not making a serious notability-based (i.e., sources-based) argument, another factor that led me to largely discount them was the fact that the "keep" opinions were made by one registered editor and a bunch of IPs, which is often a sign of canvassing, meat- or sockpuppetry. Sandstein 10:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure was correct given the discussion. As SmokyJoe says, it may well be that the merge target folks find the merge to be untenable, in which case we'll have to figure out what to do. But we need sources to keep this as a stand alone article. I don't think we have them. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without sourcing strong enough to support a standalone article there are really two options - No article or proportionate coverage in another article. The argument that we should somehow apply a different standard for substantiating notability because a topic is somehow a special case is not an uncommon argument in DRV and usually read to meant the standard can't be met. I'd also note a common mistake is conflating volume of argument with quality of argument --82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I do not know whether ofr not there was the making of an article here, but I can tell that there was no consensus in the discussion. the reason given by the closer should have been given in the discussion, for it represents , not the view of the consensus, but their own view of what should be done, which is sometimes called a "supervote". DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This doesn't feel "supervotey" to me. Although there was considerable strength of feeling on the "keep" side, it wasn't backed up by either evidence of notability, or by an argument that an exception to the regular guidelines should apply. The closer is entitled (and in fact, required) to consider the weight of the arguments advanced by each side. In this case I think the close was well-considered and reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did feelings become a legitimate basis for voting? Moments earlier, and on a different topic, Thparkth felt that "[...] this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote." Thparkth then goes on to note the considerable strength of feeling on the keep side. Not really. There was considerable strength of argumentation for why the two, then THREE, articles should not be merged. The result wasn't just a supervote, but a super-duper-vote, with a resulting article that is super-duper confusing and dangerous in light of all of the arguments that were raised. The discussion was not true to the original ethos of WP, and if there's a lesson here, it is that super-feelings can apparently pass for serious argument. More importantly, I urge everyone to take a look at the related NPOV discussion because the deletion noms made clear what their real beef with the original article was, and it seems that notability was pretextual. The real motivation was Ibadibam frank admission that Western whirling didn't deserve to be at the same level as centuries-old Sufi spinning. I thanked Ibadibam for the honesty there, and everyone should have clued in to the good faith nature of the discussion that was developing. But that was not a notability critique. It was a deeply dangerous exercise of editorial discretion against strong arguments to the contrary. The attempt to then develop post-hoc rationalizations for a merge of THREE (3) articles, one of which had practically nothing to do with the discussion, and was merged with little to no notice nonetheless, shows not just supervoting, but the exercise of superpower, which is unfaithful to the credo of WP. Original research, sockpuppetry, quantity ≠ quality, and other afterthought rationales are disingenuous and completely misrepresent the essence, and consequences, of the XfD discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 March 2016

20 March 2016

Dartmouth Winter Carnival – Moot. I'm not exactly sure what's being requested here. I suspect all that's going on is some content that appears to be deleted is really just obscured by redirects which have been layered on top of it. And, that can certainly be confusing to sort through (it took me a while to trace it all out, and I've been doing this forever). But, all the various articles mentioned here still exist, and have full histories which can still be viewed (and mined for redirect purposes) by any user. So, my suggestion is 1) Be WP:BOLD and go ahead and merge whatever you think is worth merging. If people get upset by this, they'll let you know, and you can sort it out then :-) 2) When you perform your merge, make sure you leave a detailed edit comment and/or note on the target talk page explaining where the material came from. This will help us comply with our licensing, which requires that we preserve attribution for all contributions. 3) If you have trouble finding the particular bit of material you're looking for, just ask for help. Ping me or any admin, and we'll be glad to help you navigate the maze of history. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore former article Winter Carnival as Dartmouth Winter Carnival, to subsequently merge in Dartmouth College traditions#Winter Carnival.
One of the main arguments in the 2004 AfD discussion was that the article on the Dartmouth carnival tradition was mistitled under an all too generic title Winter Carnival. The other main argument was its supposed non-notability. While the current text isn't sufficiently sourced either, it contains a number of notability claims. Furthermore Google books lists quite a number of relevant hits, even including a few of books specifically covering the tradition of the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. --PanchoS (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am being dumb, but a have a couple of questions:
Given this was deleted some 11 years ago, before you apparently started editing, what makes you believe there is useful information above and beyond what is already in the merge target?

How is this request different to what was already done a couple of weeks ago? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, The earlier text is available here if anything should be merged. Thincat (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The outcome of the 2004 deletion discussion was a merge to Dartmouth College and my reading of the histories is that this was done on 21 August 2004. In June 2006, the Dartmouth College traditions page was created with, it seems, a copy&paste from the Dartmouth College page. Things have been complicated by a couple of moves of the merged from page and a recent split of the history with oldest edits moved to Dartmouth Winter Carnival, which I really don't think was necessary. Better to leave those edits with the original page, which is now at Winter festival, and make sure attribution is in place, and to make sure attribution is in place between Dartmouth College and Dartmouth College traditions--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the short form of what I'm saying is that there was no deletion so the OP's request is moot (but there is a bit of a mess and attribution required). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation it's been a long time and there does appear to be coverage that at least approaches the GNG. This of course provides no protection from future AfDs. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat and Malcolmxl5: Indeed, as Hobit stated, the content is already there in the history, so this is all about getting consensus for restoring that content. But what's the big surprise? Finally, AfDs and DRVs are all about obtaining consensus for a requested action. The actual action is just what follows from the result. However, I should have pointed it out better. --PanchoS (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need prior permission to merge this content anywhere else (or, indeed, to recreate the article with improvements) but, if you do, I think this DRV should agree to provide it. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Sheehan, Larry (December 1991). "Dartmouth's Carnival". Snow Country. The New York Times Company. pp. 135–139. ISSN 0896-758X. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  This 1988 article^WebCite from The New York Times about the magazine Snow Country notes:
  While most skiing magazines cover only skiing, here comes a magazine called Snow Country that will also report on off-season activities in its monthly issues.
  The premier issue of Snow Country will come out in March. The magazine is a product of Golf Digest/Tennis Inc., part of The New York Times Company's Magazine Group. Regular monthly publication will begin in September.
  The article notes:
  If I'm no longer the picture of youthful abandon, neither is the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. Mounting concerns about alcohol abuse, sexism and vandalism—the cornerstones of adolescent development in my time—have forced college officials to put a lid on things. Visitors from other schools, who swarmed here to chug beer and ogle coeds in earlier decades, are now greeted by locks on dorm buildings and bouncers at frat parties. Revels continue, but with less fervor. Dartmouth's Animal House days, upon which screenplay writer (and Dartmouth graduate) Chris Miller based his script, are all but gone.
  The first winter carnival was organized in 1910 by the Dartmouth Outing Club as a field day to help students break the routine of the northern winter with hearty outdoor exercises. Physical fitness had long been a Dartmouth obsession, and even today wimps and couch potatoes are barely tolerated. In the first year, interclass competitions were held in ski jumping, cross-country ski racing and snowshoeing. A few years later, other colleges were invited to participate, and soon the event began to, well, snowball.
  As the carnival grew to become one of the premier intercollegiate winter sports competitions in the country, so did Dartmouth. A story in the February 1920 issue of National Geographic, hailing the carnival as the "Mardi Gras of the North," was credited with increasing admission applications threefold.
  The school received national attention again in 1939 when Hollywood released a comedy about the weekend called Winter Carnival. The movie was not a commercial hit, but it did capture the eliquishness of the Ivy League social experience. It starred Ann Sheridan as a glamorous former co-ed who happens on the campus in flight from an unhappy marriage. She takes up with a young Dartmouth instructor and competes with women from Smith and Vassar for the carnival's "Queen of the Snows" title.
2. "Life Goes to a Party: At Dartmouth's Winter Carnival with a Snow Queen from Alabama, and 1,200 other girls". Life. 1937-02-22. pp. 62–64. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article notes:
  Major annual event at the country's No. 1 winter-sports college is the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. This year the 27th annual carnival week end of sports and fun was inaugurated early in the afternoon of Friday, Feb. 5, when virtually the entire Dartmouth student body of 2,500 gathered at the Norwich-Hanover railroad station. In chugged two special trains bringing some 1,200 girl guests as well as representatives of nine other college teams which had come to challenge Dartmouth's skiing supremacy. Scattering their belongings in the 22 fraternity houses which had been vacated for them the girls settled down for a breathless week end of outdoor and indoor merriment, saw one one of their number who came from Alabama chosen Carnival Queen of the Snows for 1937.
  Besides providing a week end of sport and pleasure for several thousand boys and girls, Dartmouth's 27th annual Winter Carnival reestablished for the third year the college's skiing supremacy over nine other teams, including Yale, Harvard, Williams, Canada's McGill, and a group representing the skiing cream of several Swiss universities. Second to McGill in the ski jump, Dartmouth won the downhill ski race, the cross-country, the slalom, and the combined downhill and jump.
3. Townsend, Reginald T. (1921). "Dartmouth's Great Winter Carnival". Country Life. Vol. 41. Doubleday. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article was published in 1921 so is in the public domain. The article notes:
  MOST of our colleges have a great many things in common; their courses, their buildings, their athletics are more or less similar. Yet each has achieved a certain distinction which has accrued to it for some special reason or other. Princeton perhaps is renowned for the beauty of its rounds and a builings, Harvard for its age and aristocracy, and Williams for its collegiate atmosphere. But Dartmouth College in New Hampshire is fast becoming famous for a novel and unusual reason—its winter carnival. Dartmouth is one of the few colleges fortunate enough to be situated where it can best turn to account our rigorous winter climate and it has been far-sighted enough to make good use of this fact. So each year Dartmouth holds a winter carnival.
  It was back in 1911 that a certain Fred Harris, a student of that year, formed the Dartmouth Outing Club for the purpose of developing winter sports at the college. At first the Club contented itself with taking long snowshoe and ski tramps into the country; but as interest was aroused and more students joined, the Club, through the financial aid of a generous alumnus, expanded rapidly and the idea of having a winter carnival was taken up and adopted.
  The carnival as a rule lasts for three days and enough is crowded into this short space to leave one gasping for breath at the end. For not content with holding outdoor meets, there are also basketball games, glee club concerts, dramatics, and a ball—in fact all the paraphernalia of the regular college prom. One dashes from one event to another until far into the night to a point of utter exhaustion. For the carnival is essentially a festival of youth, and youth will be served—at least on this occasion. You wonder where all the older people disappear to during the carnival, for all you are conscious of are hordes of pretty girls in sport costumes, with bobbed hair, accompanied by youngsters not yet out of their teens. Said one fair young carnival maid behind me at the Dramatic Club's play to her escort, in speaking of a professor and his wife, "They're not really as old as you make them out. Of course they are old—twenty-eight or thirty—but they are not decrepit yet.
  Now, to be a success a winter carnival must have snow and ice. So all the way up from New York we looked eagerly out of the car windows for snow. Nor were we disappointed, for snow covered the ground when we arrived at Hanover. But alas for our hopes! The following day the mercury climbed up to forty degrees and as it climbed the snow disappeared and the brown earth came through. Then indeed was there wailing and gnashing of teeth! Hastily the freshmen were banded together and with sleighs and teams of horses set to work transporting snow to the ski jump so that anyway this piece de resistance might take place. Then the entire college: professors students and guests gave themselves over to solemn prayer. Dartmouth must be a very pious community, for if ever prayers were answered, theirs were. With nightfall the thermometer slid downward and snow began to fall, not fitfully but heavily. All night it snowed; all the next day and far into the night. With sighs of infinite relief we realized that the carnival was saved!
  With the snow came the gathering of the clans. The house party guests—each fraternity had a house party—came on every train, and the students of the other colleges who were to compete put in their appearance. One saw familiar faces. Here on skis clad in a sort of Eskimo parka was Fred Harris, the founder of the Outing Club; as Johnny Carleton, the college champion long distance ski jumper, whose specialty is turning somersaults on skis; George Frost, president of the Dramatic Club, under whom the college players gave one of the best college plays ever staged; and Ellis O Briggs, the president of the Outing Club, to whose energy and resourcefulness was due the success of the carnival.
  For if there was one thing more noticeable than another it was the efficient and businesslike manner in which the carnival was conducted. Everything was run on schedule time with no unnecessary confusion or excitement.
  At the Saranac and Lake Placid carnivals the costume de rigeur for men and women alike is the sport suit. One puts it on in the morning and only takes it off to go to bed at night. At Dartmouth, it being a town, the costumes were different' few of the girls wore knickerbockers and those who did looked selfconscious. And no one wore them after sundown. Of course it would be absurd I suppose to attend a glee club concert or a frat dance in such a costume, but a change of clothes, especially to evening dress, tends toward formality, and one missed the easy informality of Lake Placid evenings. It was amusing to see a girl in evening dress with the sheerest of silk stockings, go clumping about the snowdrifts in arctics. That reminds me: to be in fashion at Dartmouth one must never fasten one's arctics. The students go about with them open flip-flopping at every step. This I am told is a labor-saving device invented by students hurrying from one class to another. Fired with ambition I determined to cast off the shackles and wear my arctics unbuttoned, too. At the first few steps two of the catches ripped off and at the third I went down for the count flat on my face in the snow. Having no classes to bother with, I hastily reversed the decision and fastened them up to remain that way from then on.
  THE carnival opened with a grand parade led by the student band and made up of the students and their guests. The college buildings were lit up with festoons of electric lights and the procession wound its way to the ice rink through lanes of red and green fire. Add to this the effect of countless Roman candles, held by the marchers against the white snow, and the blackness of the night, and you can imagine the weird beauty of the scene. The company seated itself around the ice to watch Mrs Charles Blanchard (Theresa Weld) do fancy skating. Now there may be something more graceful than Mrs Blanchard's figure skating, but if so we have yet to see it. The audience apparently was of like opinion, for they filled the air with enthusiastic "wah-whoo-wahs" of delight. Then came a tug-of-war wherein a dozen or so burly freshmen equipped with ice creepers, succeeded in pulling a like number of equally burly sophomores around the rink to the huge delight of the first-year men.
  As if this were not enough excitement for the start of a carnival, everyone swarmed around a huge bonfire and while rockets tore their hissing way through the air and bombs burst into myriads of colored lights, the crowd sang college songs until the flames burned low and the last Roman candle sputtered out.
  The intercollegiate aspect of the carnival began the next day in the midst of a driving snowstorm, five colleges participating—McGill University, brilliant birds of plumage in flaming red sweaters; Middlebury College, University of Vermont, Williams, and of course Dartmouth. As we came on to the field a panting figure on snowshoes and wearing a red sweater came staggering out of the woods on a neighboring hillside. Staggering is the only word to describe his method of locomotion With his head swinging from side to side and his face working convulsively, the runner lifted his heavy snowshoes painfully at each step and, spurred on by the cheers of the crowd, crossed the line, winning the snowshoe cross-country race for his alma mater, McGill. It was a dramatic finish of the ski cross-country race, when another McGill runner reached the final lines so exhausted that he could hardly guide his skis.
  ...
4. "Lift Your Spirits with a Winter Carnival". Skiing. December 1984. pp. 246–249. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article notes:
  From the beginning, winter carnivals have been regarded as a sovereign cure for cabin fever. Thus it happened that, in 1910, a Dartmouth undergraduate named Fred Harris wrote a letter to the student newspaper, proposing that "a ski and snowshoe club be formed ... to hold a meet or field day during February." This would, he pointed out, provide an answer to that perennial question: "What is there to do at Dartmouth in the winter?"
  ...
  When Fred Harris wrote his letter to the student newspaper, he laid the foundation of those two durable Ivy League institutions, the Dartmouth Outing Club and the Dartmouth Winter Carnival, which this winter will celebrate their 76th and 75th birthdays, respectively. (Though there was in fact a competition in 1910, with ski jumping and races on skis and snowshoes, it was not until the following winter that Harris's brainchild reached its full potential. In 1911, the "field day" became a full-fledged bash. A dance was scheduled, and 50 females were imported from suitable colleges, making a truly significant break in the tedium of the New Hampshire winter.
  To this day, the Dartmouth Winter Carnival remains the very model of a collegiate winter weekend. It is so popular, in fact, that college authorities now do their level best to discourage interlopers, meaning not only the likes of you and me, but also the hordes of undergraduates who traditionally descend upon Hanover from institutions as far distant—in geography and style—as Southern Methodist Univ. Girls, generally, are more welcome than boys, even though Dartmouth went coed in 1972. The buses that bring in the dates from Wheaton and Wellesley are still ungallantly known as "meat wagons," but their cargoes are considered a cut above the brainy young women who actually matriculate at Dartmouth.
  The article discusses a 1939 film about the Dartmouth Winter Festival:
  There is even a movie about the February bash in Hanover, called (of course) Winter Carnival. It was made in 1939 and starred Ann Sheridan. It is of absolutely no importance as cinema, but it does happen to constitute one of the sadder footnotes in American literary history. Furthermore, the tale is a pretty fair instance of the mad-cap energy that traditionally has gone into this one weekend in February.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dartmouth Winter Festival to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 March 2016

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group – AfD keep close endorsed. – JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notabilty rules disregarded. The article only gives:

a link to a link page of B'Tselem
a link to a hasbara organization with one sentence about the stated goals, a reference to a report of PHRMG itself, and one sentence about the funding, without references
a link to an article of an outspoken pro-Israel advocate on a Jewish opinion platform, with barely info about PHRMG
a link to the Washington Post, 1997, with merely the announcement of the foundation of PHRMG and a few citations from a PHRMG report.

While Bassam Eid is still sometimes mentioned as the founder of PHRMG, the organization itself has long ago ended its activities. See also: User talk:Sandstein#Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. Qualitatis (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the litmus test for hypocrisy and double standards, because Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor was deleted. A comparable organization that is far more notable than the completely irrelevant PHRMG. I know that every article is reviewed independently, but there is a real problem if different criteria are applied to similar articles. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I agree that the sources presented are not the best, but it's up to the participants in the AfD to evaluate the quality of the sources. A majority of them felt the sources were sufficient, and the close accurately reflects that. As for the organization itself has long ago ended its activities., that doesn't mean anything. We've got a whole set of categories about defunct organizations. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD close reflected the consensus of the discussion. The argument made by Qualitatis here, even if completely correct, does not show any grounds for overturning the AfD. Thparkth (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The outcome was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where errors in the deletion process can be called out. An admin closing a deletion discussion in line with the consensus is not an error of the deletion process, even if you don't like the fact that it wasn't closed the way you wanted. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the deletion process include the considering of manipulative editing of the review page to create double voting, considering that only 4 voted to keep and 2 (including the nominator) to delete, and most importantly, considering the not upholding of Wikipedia rules. Nothing surprising. This puppet-show is only a confirmation of my already assumed policy of hypocrisy and double standards. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitatis, deletion discussions are not closed by counting votes, but even if they were, four "keeps" versus two "deletes" would probably result in a "keep" outcome. There aren't really any "Wikipedia rules" on notability - only guidelines. A clear consensus at a well-attended AfD can absolutely override any notability guideline if the participants feel it is appropriate. That didn't even happen in this case though - the consensus seems to have been that the topic was sufficiently covered in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which is the "normal" way notability is demonstrated according to the guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulative editing of the review page" (assuming you mean the AfD page) - all I see is thoughtful commenting by experienced editors, some of whom specialize in the deletion process and very definitely have no personal agenda regarding the notability of a defunct Palestinian NGO. Thparkth (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it was not a well-attended AfD, just as with the previous deletion discussions. I referred to this edit from E.M.Gregory, where he turned a notice of Sir Joseph into a vote (Far too notable to delete). --Qualitatis (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it was well-enough attended to reach a safe decision. There is nothing wrong that I can see with the edit you highlighted - you might disagree with his opinion or his argument, but it was evidently presented in good faith. Thparkth (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong and evidently presented in good faith? He put another's name under his opinion, although he had already voted. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....? No he didn't. Thparkth (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Anything notable remains notable; WP is a permanent record, and additional material was found and added during the discussion. No other close would have been possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closer's evaluation of consensus was plainly accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 March 2016

17 March 2016

Um Vichet – Undeleted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to this, Vichet has since played for the Cambodian national football team, meaning he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I've taken the issue up with the deleting administrator, but they've been inactive since November. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by this as well - I've restored the article. Giant Snowman 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gernot Wagner – Recreation is allowed if the article can be properly sourced. – Sandstein 10:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

<REASON> was deleted in 2012 for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, as well as lack of primary sources. Many more primary sources exist now (or could be cited). German page by now exists as well. Restore prior page and provide better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.133.162 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

The afd - especially since it was weak, with only one participant other than the nominator - is no barrier to a re-creation that explicitly overcomes its reasoning, which new sources would do. The ones at de:Gernot Wagner, though, don't: that article cites the publisher's page for one of his books, his personal homepage, http://www.universum.co.at/ (which doesn't mention him), and searches for his name at ft.com and nytimes.com (which either have zero results, or they're both paywalling even search results now; I'm not certain which). These are actually worse than the sources that were in the English Wikipedia article when it was deleted, so it shouldn't be restored on that basis. —Cryptic 01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a NYT subscriber, so I'm able to search behind the paywall. I found a couple of items that mention him ([3], [4]), an op-ed by him ([5]), and a letter from him ([6]). Hmmm, and another letter to the editor, about him [7]. The problem is, none of them are hard news stories. They're all op-eds, letters, blogs, and the like. Still, there are multiple sources, and it is the NY Times, so I think a reasonable notability argument can be made for allowing recreation, hopefully backed up by additional sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion given is incorrect: it was never deleted based on an earlier discussion. If this is to be recreated--which is fine with me--please cite SECONDARY sources, and rewrite the article in a more objective form. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted first by proposed deletion and then following a deletion discussion, both in 2012. As this was over three years ago, there is nothing stopping a new page being created now except for the matter of sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, provided that secondary sources are available. Primary sources are irreleveant in determining notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

16 March 2016

15 March 2016

Ari Shaffir – Speedy close as No action required. As noted below, there's no need to come to DRV to recreate this, given how long ago the AfD was. See WP:RECREATE for guidance. Just go ahead and write the article. Be aware, of course, that another editor can propose it be deleted again if you don't provide the required sources to establish that the subject is notable today, even if he wasn't six years ago. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted in 2009 for failing WP:N. He now hosts a Comedy Central TV show, This Is Not Happening (TV series), and has a Comedy Central special X538 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X538, this was six years ago and is stale. You should simply recreate the article, taking care with the sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 March 2016

13 March 2016

12 March 2016

Ayra Mariano – Moot; the article has been restored. – Sandstein 20:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

My page was deleted for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The discussion for deletion was 5 months ago and I believed that there are so much new information that came since then so I recreated the said page. I cited proper sources and I followed the notability for entertainers but the page was once again deleted. I left a message to the administrator who deleted the page but I received no response. MBdemigod (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review is unnecessary. MBdemigod posted to my talk page, and in response I restored the article. Only after I had done so did I see that MBdemigod had created this deletion review while I was looking into the matter and drafting a reply to his/her message to me. MBdemigod left me about 16 hours between posting to my talk page and bringing it to deletion review: for about 8 of those hours I was asleep, for many more I was doing other things than editing Wikipedia, and for a small part of the time I was dealing with other matter on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 March 2016

10 March 2016

9 March 2016

8 March 2016

7 March 2016

Donald Drumpf – Relisted. This is a contested non-admin early closure. Initial discussion here does not indicate an immediate consensus. Per WP:NACD, "closes may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at deletion review." I am accordingly reopening the deletion discussion in my individual capacity as an administrator, in the hope that the energy that is being expended on this conversation can be redirected towards the discussion on the merits, where it will do more good. I also recommend that the closer consider stop closing non-unanimous, non-expired AfDs, because if I recall correctly this is not the first closure of theirs that I've had to undo. – Sandstein 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This WP:RFD discussion closed prior to the 7-day recommended discussion time by an editor who stated a somewhat non-neutral comment in the discussion (WP:INVOLVED). Also, per WP:NACD, it may be wiser to have an administrator close this discussion since opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment (Endorse): First off, the whole discussion was muddled by the fact that one of the possibilities to redirect this to (Donald J Drumpf) was being AfDed while this discussion was going on. After that was closed, it made perfect sense for somebody to close this RfD the exact same way, that is, in favor of redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). When I closed it, I considered it unlikely that it would be closed any other way. It wouldn't have be closed as a disambiguation because the only person who wants that is Steel; and also because two of the three pages have been merged, with the third page easily accessible from the merged pages. It won't be closed as deleted because few, if anybody, want to delete it. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald J Drumpf, because that is now a redirect. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald Trump because only a handful of people support that redirect, and most of the ones who don't think that redirecting it there violates policy. That leaves redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as the only viable option. And you have another recently closed discussion on top of it. I'd note that I did not vote on the issue of whether Donald Drumpf should be redirected to Donald Trump, to Donald J Drumpf, or to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). I'd also note that, at one point, Donald Drumpf was both a redirect and a disambiguation, which I felt needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, especially considering the volume of traffic to the page. p b p 20:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one thing I forgot: even though it only ran for 4 1/2 days, it had over 20 participants. p b p 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy close of this DRV: :You know, Wikipedia gets a black eye whenever a redirect is RfDed or DRVed, because people who are using it can't get where they're going. This is especially troublesome on a highly-viewed redirect. Shame on User:Steel1943 for extending this process for one minute longer than when the outcome was clear, let alone one week. p b p 20:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: You have seemed to forget that the purpose of DRV is to ensure that the community agrees with your close, specifically the circumstances that led you to close the discussion under the WP:IAR circumstances which you did. I don't agree with how you closed the discussion, but hope that consensus can be formed on your close in a timely manner no matter which way the discussion sways. Yeah, DRV is basically the "last stand" when there is a disagreement such as this, but I hope that this disagreement between the two of us can be resolved rather quickly by the community. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: If I thought it was even remotely possible that the community en masse would disagree with the outcome I concluded, I would not have closed it. Your DRV is particularly problematic in that it doesn't weigh in as to whether the outcome was correct or not. Instead, your DRV focuses almost entirely on procedure. If the correct outcome was reached, even with incorrect procedure, the outcome (which I might add isn't deletion) is almost always endorsed. p b p 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Actually, I did question your closing outcome as well ("...opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split.") Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: procedure can be important. I suggest to you that if you followed the procedure that we would not be here right now. There was no good reason to close it early and it is a legitimate complaint. I am endorsing this closure, however I don't find this DRV to be out of line whatsoever. HighInBC 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closer: This close was incredibly classy, the best, all the editors I know were very very impressed by it. This is the type of DRV we simply do not need, and I feel the "early" close was within the range of appropriate discretion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert close and Relist - Three issues with the close: The closure was early (WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who has even !voted (WP:INVOLVED/WP:CLOSE). Discussion was ongoing. There are circumstances where an early close is allowed, this isn't one of them (WP:RFD/AI again). I recommended a revert to the closer on their talk page, and as was pointed out there, I even voted in concurrence with the outcome of the close. If Steel1943 hadn't raised this issue, I would have (I actually considered raising the issue at WP:ANI last night with the hope of a speedy revert of the close as an administrator has that prerogative when it comes to a nac). The argument that the outcome of the close was correct only holds water if it is unreasonable to think the consensus could've changed if the standard time remaining had been allowed to pass. There was enough variance and shifting circumstances around the discussion that it should have be left open for the full time (new opinions may arrive and those already participating may realign). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still say if you have no problem with the outcome, you shouldn't bother with a DRV. I will maintain to my dying day that the vast majority of admins wouldn't have closed it any differently. You mention the circumstances changing; I accounted for that (by essentially counting votes for Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as votes for the same thing). Since nearly of the votes in the last 48 hours of the RfD were to one of these two pages, it made perfectly good sense to me. p b p 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: In response to your response to Godsy's comment above. See, here's the thing: When it comes to the fact that I brought this discussion to DRV, I couldn't care any less about how your assessment of the discussion's consensus in your close coincides with my personal opinion about what should happen to the nominated page. (Godsy may possibly share this opinion, given their statement that they were going to bring a discussion about your close to WP:ANI.) This DRV discussion is here because you have essentially invoked WP:IAR to counteract three separate guidelines regarding closing discussions. My concern (and probably Godsy's) is that you closed a discussion improperly, not because your closing result was right or wrong, but because your opinion that the circumstances of the discussion allowed for you to close the discussion when you did (and for that matter, at all) are questionable. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: If your concern is less the outcome and more my behavior, you are at the wrong forum. This is a forum for discussing outcomes. If you want to discuss my behavior, try here instead. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: The outcome of that discussion was that it was closed by someone who I believed should not have closed it for the reasons I have already stated. I asked you if you would reopen the discussion: You said you would not. Thus, we are now here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no support to delete. Not a deletion matter. Resume discussion on the best target on the redirect talk page, at Talk:Donald Drumpf. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not for determining targets of redirects: that's what WP:RFD is for ... and that's the type of discussion's close that's being discussed here. This comment is a rather interesting bit of circular, confusing, misleading bureaucracy. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Steel1943, you are mistaken. Altering the target of a redirect should be discussed on its talk page. RfD is for deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Discussions for redirect target changes and redirect deletions are both purposes of discussions at RFD, now that it is "Redirects for discussion" rather than "Redirects for deletion". If RFD still had the old name, I would agree with you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Makes sense, since redirects will be retargeted a lot. Incidentally, when was the name change? I don't see a record of it. Still, DRV is for reviewing deletions and deletion processes, and as there is no deletion involved here, it is out of scope for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Prior to the RFD, it redirected to Donald Trump. It redirects to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) now. p b p 15:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: The point is that it would never have been closed as delete, by me or by anybody. SmokeyJoe's comment is somewhat of a vindication of what I've been saying, namely that this is a place to discuss whether it was wrong to close something as keep or not. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pbp, partly at least. The discussion showed a consensus to keep. A note on decorum at WP:DRV. It is your close being reviewed. You should make a statement, and answer questions, but should not be badgering or bludgeoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) @Purplebackpack89: I'm quite aware of what SmokeyJoe meant by their comment, but thank you for adding your personal spin on things. If you have a issue with the fact that this is essentially the only venue to post a discussion for an XFD discussion when the close is contested (even if deletion is not suggested anywhere), I would recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review and posting a move request so that this venue can be renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the article itself is beyond ridiculous (Never Mind). Who would possibly believe that this topic would be remotely important enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article? At most, the article would be a stub, with no more than ten sentences total. Delete this article, have some common sense, people. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFancyFedoraWielder: This isn't an article; this is a redirect. Donald J Drumpf was once an article, but was deleted and is now redirected...to the same place this article is redirected, Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). p b p 01:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFancyFedoraWielder: I was about to tell you something similar to what Purplebackpack89 just informed you, but they beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I'm sorry then, I didn't read deep into this... --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyh, this DRV is why early closes and SNOW closes are usually bad ideas; if this had just been allowed to run to its conclusion, it would have been dealt with much quicker than is going to be the case now. Probably the existing close will stick, as it was the direction the discussion was inevitably moving towards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

IMO, that's on Steel1943 for it taking so long. This entire DRV is ridiculous, disruptive and should be closed immediately. There is no way the RfD was going to get closed any other way than the way I closed it. There is no way this DRV is going to overturn it. Steel1943 is way too hung up on process and seems to be willing to waste a lot of other peoples' times to make some sort of point about it. p b p 15:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Changes were still happening with the related pages. That, and I don't feel like I need to repeat for a third time the three reasons why you closing the discussion is questionable ... and itself disruptive enough to have at least two editors (including myself) want your close overturned. Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: The whole "Changes were still happening" argument holds no water at all, because:

The discussion was closed after the Donald J Drumpf AfD was closed (by an admin) as merge
Because that discussion was closed, there was really only one way to close this discussion.

And I hate to repeat it, but if the closure is correct but the closer is wrong, it is a waste of time to have a DRV. DRV isn't about chastising closers, it's about changing outcomes. Except for this DRV, which is about you wasting a lot of mine and other peoples' times because you want to teach me some sort of lesson or make some sort of point. Be the better man and withdraw this DRV p b p 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: I find it rather amazing that you are accusing me of "wasting a lot of ... [time]" when you were actually the one who intiated this "waste of time". Let's do the math here. If you had just reopened the discussion like Godsy and I requested on your talk page (after you closed the discussion only 4 1/2 days after it was opened, I might add,) the RFD would have probably have been closed after the 7-day period had elapsed. Instead, you chose not to reopen the discussion, resulting in this DRV. So, here's the timeline you chose for this: Instead of the RFD playing itself out after the 7-day period, if you add the 4 1/2 days the RFD discussion was open, plus the 7 days this DRV will be open before it will be closed, plus the 7 days the RFD will have to be open again if the result of this DRV is to "overturn", the RFD will have to be relisted, which will require it to be open for another 7 days. So, right there, that's a grand total of 18 1/2 days ... and a whole 11 1/2 of those days could have been avoided if you had just reopened the discussion as asked. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand @Steel1943:, 14 days could have been avoided if you hadn't started this. 14 > 11 1/2. 7 days of your 11 1/2 will be avoided as you will not have a consensus to relist. And you will not get a consensus to relist because you have not provided one iota of evidence that a closure different from the way I closed it was ever going to be in the cards. Stop being disruptive. p b p 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: What's disruptive (apparently based on your last statement) is your lack of ability to know when you should not take an non-admin administrative action, especially when this DRV is a direct result of you refusing to reopen the RFD (since, after all, Wikipedia is a community-focused project.) And as already proven, if I hadn't opened this DRV, some other action would have still happened in response to your questionable close. At this point, the quickest way to get this off both of our plates is for you to reopen the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: ...And about your inquiry for me to "prove it could have been closed differently." Yes, it could have been closed by an uninvolved administrator after the RFD's 7-day recommended discussion time. I have already stated a few times in this discussion that my concern isn't your assessment of the consensus (I honestly couldn't care less about that), but the fact that you WP:IAR'ed three separate guidelines that went against you closing the discussion and when you did. I think that this discussion should not have been IAR closed in the matter which you closed it, or for that matter, IAR'ed at all. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a different outcome. A different outcome would have been if the closer had deleted it, turned it into a disambiguation page, or redirected it to Donald Trump. The reason I closed early was because I consider it unlikely that it would've been redirected anywhere else. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close While the full 7 days should have been allowed to occur, there is no doubt in my mind that this would have ended up the same way. While the closure was premature I see no reason to overturn it. HighInBC 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's something about US presidential elections that seems to drop Wikipedia discussions over the event horizon into a black hole made of pure, 180-proof stupid. I'm going to use some of the most emphatic language I've ever used in the seven years I've been a regular at deletion review, and I make the following very strong statement with all due forethought: I have never seen a case that so thoroughly satisfied WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5. It is completely impossible for deletion review to endorse an early snow close by a non-admin who participated in the debate. We have absolutely no choice except to overturn this. I express no view on whether it would be appropriate for an uninvolved sysop to snow close the debate, but this close simply cannot stand.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the part where you prove that it could have been closed with the result being different than mine, @S Marshall:. The fact is, it would have been closed the exact same way had it run its course, and you, like Steel1943, have not proven otherwise. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Castle Point Anime Convention – Recreation allowed. – Sandstein 10:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AFD was five years ago, and since then the event has gotten larger (almost tripled in size according to the website) and gained more third-party news coverage. I believe the event might be notable enough and have enough reliable sources to have its article restored (or at least rewritten in some form, since I cannot see what was deleted). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's here for DRV? It was a pretty straightforward deletion which hasn't resulted in protection, so if you think an article can be written that meets the standards, then please go ahead and write it. If you really need the text of the original article back (which I can't see why you would assume you would since as you say a lot can change in 5 years) then WP:REFUND to userfy or indeed any friendly admin should be able to do that for you --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I misunderstood policy then. I didn't realize DRV was not needed. I guess this can just be closed and I'll work on rewriting it? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely you can, as I said if you want the original text then WP:USERFY is an option to work on it before moving back to mainspace. Or as SmokeyJoe says it can be restored into mainspace if it's going to be promptly improved (there are plenty of people with itchy fingers who will likely list it for CSD or AFD if it doesn't get improved) --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Awesome. I'd probably opt for userfication until I can get the article into a better state, since I'd imagine the old article will either be completely useless or really outdated. At least in the latter case I'll have something to go off of. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enough has changed. Allow recreation or undelete in mainspace to be promptly improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation. If anyone then wants to challenge it , they can. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 March 2016

5 March 2016

4 March 2016

3 March 2016

Einstein syndrome – Recreation and/or restoration allowed. I'm unprotecting and undeleting the page so that can happen editorially. – Sandstein 07:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several reliable articles can be found at https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22einstein+syndrome%22.
Darold Treffert has written about Einstein syndrome at http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/oops-when-autism-isnt-autistic-disorder-hyperlexia-and-einstein-syndrome/ and http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/outgrowing-autism-a-closer-look-at-children-who-read-early-or-speak-late/.
Stephen Camarata has written about it at https://mitpress.mit.edu/blog/five-minutes-stephen-camarata and http://cognet.mit.edu/book/late-talking-children-symptom-or-stage in a book chapter.
Thomas Sowell wrote a book on this at https://books.google.com/books?id=680LYsUXPZAC&dq=mit+press+einstein+syndrome&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
A book review of Einstein syndrome in a journal is at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017956224167 Ylevental (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already declined an undelete request for this, as the AFDd article was already restored to a user sandbox at ......User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome the possible result here is to allow recreation. But first the sandbox should be improved rather than trying to make a new page.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. But it seems that this is not the most recent version of the article. The logs seem to indicate that the most recently deleted version of the article was either a new version, or a version cut and paste from the first version -- and then improved by the addition of new references. I looked at User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome, it cites just a single reference. But the version discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome had multiple references.
  Note: The most recently deleted version was deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Since it was either a new or improved version, that suggests an overworked administrator didn't realize it was a new or improved version that required a new AFD before being deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the sandbox article anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ema--or/Einstein_syndrome However, I do not have a Highbeam subscription, so I need someone with one to add the Highbeam sources at https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22einstein+syndrome%22. Ylevental (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to mainspace and if anyone wants another AfD, they can list it for one. This isn;tthe same article. Personally, I think it is good enough now to passAfD even in itscurrent rather sketchy state. Articles aren't expected to be perfect. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to mainspace -- Last month I participated in the recent discussion at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 223#Einstein Syndrome. I was convinced that it sounded like there were sufficient references to merit coverage in an individual article.
DGG has confirmed that the most recently deleted version of this article was not a duplicate of the version deleted after an AFD. It seems to me that means that when administrators deleted the new and improved article under G4, they did so in error.
WP:REFUND is specifically for requesting undeletions that should be uncontroversial. Shouldn't restoration of an article deleted under G4, when it was not a duplicate, be uncontroversial? Didn't the person who nominated a new and improved version of the article for speedy deletion under G4 have an obligation to nominate it for a full discussion at AFD? I think everyone agrees that REFUND should not be AFD round 2. It is unfortunate that happened, in February. Although it is frequently pointed out that this fora should not be AFD round 2, sadly it does often end up being AFD round 2.
If this article should have been uncontroversially restored via REFUND, can we simply restore it, give those who think the topic merits coverage a couple of days to bring it up to date -- and then, if there are people who think that new version should be deleted, can then they then make their arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome 2? Geo Swan (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the recreation of the article as a G4 in 2016 at Einstein Syndrome, as I always read G4 as being applicable when the new article was near enough the old article as to have (virtually) the some content; that is what I saw here. As with all my admin actions, I don't mind if they are overturned. There was another article at Einstein syndrome which was deleted as a G4 by Favonian in December 2015. Lectonar (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I think working on User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome might be a good way forward. Lectonar (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:Alex Gilbert – Recreation declined. Further actions, such as a block or deletion of the draft, should be discussed in the appropriate fora. – Sandstein 07:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello All. Ok so since the last Deletion Review I did last year more sources have come to light for this article. Sources range from 2 years in coverage. The new sources on this page are as followed. The Original Deletion have nothing to do with the subject. I have been trying to get this article into the mainspace for too long now. It was approved last year but then deleted because it had to go through a deletion review. I am going to give this one last try. I have cleaned up the page and removed the small sources on the article. The previous deletion reviews are from August 2015 (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_August_24 with more significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.

[8] - Campbell, Leigh. "The Social Media Project Helping Adopted People Find Their Birth Parents". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
[9] - This website could help you find your birth parents through social media | SBS. SBS Australia. Retrieved 2016-03-02.
[10] - Mulroy, Zahra. "This man's 9000 mile journey to meet his birth mum ended with a surprise twist". The Mirror. Retrieved 2016-01-29.
[11] & [12] - www.newstalkzb.co.nz. Retrieved 2016-02-02
[13] - Sunday- (2016-02-02), Russian roulette, TVNZ, retrieved 2016-02-02

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPopovRU (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion The Huffington Post Australia article is not independent: 98% written by him. SBS ditto, with the addition of an number of pictures from his scrapbook. The Mirror at least reworded some it it, but they used the same pictures. Newstalk, the same thing, only on video. TVNZ just the same. All of this is the subject's publicity, and we shouldn't be adding Wikipedia to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. The thing with a undeletion review is that it talks about the old deletion that was nominated. This is old nomination not relevant to the article. There are many other sources on the article that provide notability. These ones listed here are just new ones found since the last review. Which came up as no consensus. The fact is, is this article is endorsed I believe it will become notable in the near future so I would like to leave the Draft Live. This is simply requesting to unsalt the article Alex Gilbert. If the article goes live into the Mainspace I would like to see it go through an deletion nomination if it gets nominated and that will make a final decision on the article. Overall this article has gone through the basic notability for Wikipedia. I will otherwise leave the DRAFT on Wikipedia for the moment. Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deny recreation per DGG's excellent analysis. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair call. No problem. I am sorry to annoy any editors. I tried to work on this article but it looks like it is not going to go anywhere soon. But thank you for your help .--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deny recreation, speedy close this DRV, ban user, salt draft title. This guy has been working on getting this article into wikipedia non-stop for 2 years, to the exclusion of all other editing. It's been dragged to all sorts of different forums (most recenty, The Teahouse), and he's been nagging numerous editors on their talk pages. This is the ultimate WP:SPA. User should be banned for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, block disruptive self-promoting WP:NOTHERE account. The nominator said it himself: "I have been trying to get this article into the mainspace for too long now." On that point, I agree completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and blatant undelete. Dude, we've got more news sources here than 95%+ of all of Wikipedia articles. We are past WP:ONEEVENT with ongoing sourcing over years in reasonable sources. Feel free to send it to AfD, but this is heads-and-shoulders above our sourcing requirements. Further, no one has given an actual policy-based reason for deletion here. Which is, you know, kind of the point of DRV. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly. Why would you block me? You guys asked for more information and I have found it. This is just turning into a personal attack on the subject now. And the old deletion nomination has nothing to do with the current subject DGG. Look at the policies not the typical ban of a user. I am able to work on a Draft if I want. I don't see why that is not allowed? And on a sidenote, where does it say it is written by him on any of those articles? From the subjects scrapbook? I don't see any scrap book anywhere. Newstalk is a Radio Show by the way if you look at the sources and with TVNZ it is a whole entire News Story on the subject. Nobody in this forum is looking at anything clearly at all. I am allowed to add to it as its more notable sources AS YOU ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION. This is really just personal attacks on me and on the subject. 'Based on DGG's excellent analysis?'. Are you really serious? I also comment again and again because nobody is seeing any improvements. What is wrong with the sources on the article? What policies on Wikipedia say that NONE of these sources are allowed? Does this article not pass basic notability? Have you seen other articles on Wikipedia? None of them are perfect. I don't understand why all the attacks and hate. It has passed WP:GNG. It passes WP:ANYBIO too. There is really no WP:GF here. At all. I am very unhappy with this has turned out to be. Please can any of you editors help? or am I really doing the wrong thing here? Im pinging some Wikipedia Admins who help with Bios - User:Keithbob, User:Cullen328 , User:Malcolmxl5, User:Ryk72 , User:Carrite and User:Doug Weller. Thank You. I really am over this. That is all I am going to say. Спасибо - Spasibo --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some hunting in the history, and found the deleted talk page for the original article. For those who don't have rights to see the deleted page, I quote:

I did not ask for an Article
I dont want one
Please DELETE ARTICLE!!!
Thanks
Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex436 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that's legitimate, we have the subject of a biography asking for the page about himself to be taken down. That should override all other considerations. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith , that is dated from 2009. I doubt that that has anything to do with the topic now. Especially the old high school rapper deletion from 2007. That is most likely a different person. See the facts for what the article is about now. All of this subjects events only happened from 2013.--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another note RoySmith - I think you just personally just don't like the subject. I mean the point of this is to go by the policies, not search for some school kid contributions. There are many Alex Gilbert's in the world. I mean look at the contributions Special:Contributions/Alex436. Are you really serious? I doubt it is legitimate. Look at what the user has been editing and all the issues on the talk page about uploads and article creations about rap albums User_talk:Alex436. The Draft Draft:Alex Gilbert is about something that happened from 2013. So many personal attacks on this page. This draft has passed basic notability. I don't know whats with the attacks. Do people just not like Russians? You tell me. I just would like to simply put the draft on the mainspace. Is that too much to ask? If it goes though a deletion nomination then that is fine. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmitry, I'd suggest you calm down a bit here. While I think keeping this deleted is the wrong thing, founded on a really bad reading of WP:BLP1E and some people's rather strong thoughts on how to deal with perceived WP:COI concerns, Roy isn't saying anything out of line. Avoid the personal attacks (and yes, the COI charges against you are also a form of personal attacks, but sometimes life isn't fair). Hobit (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 March 2016

1 March 2016

Nextiva – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 08:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I have familiarized myself with your conflict of interest guidelines and have previously edited Wikipedia years ago. I offered to assist my company with this article after hearing that it was recently deleted. As I have experience with Wikipedia, again many years ago, I offered to help.

The page was nominated for deletion here and the discussion was closed as delete by administrator @Vanjagenije:. I realize that deletion discussions are not a vote count, but I would like to point out that there were a total of 5 keep votes and 6 delete votes. 2 of the delete votes came after the time period for the discussion had run out and prior to an administrator reviewing for closure. The deletion rationale given was that there were no valid arguments for keeping. On the contrary, I feel that there were no valid arguments for deletion, or in the least there was no consensus for either. After reading through the votes and rationale provided by each person, I cannot see how a conclusion could be drawn for deletion.

I wrote a message to Vanjagenije requesting that the page be undeleted, but was I was informed that I would need to come here with that request. A link to that discussion can be found here. I am copying and pasting my rationale for the request in the next paragraph which should serve as the reason for why I feel it should be undeleted.

There are many sources out there which are press releases or are what Wikipedia may consider non-reliable sources, but there are many that are reliable sources such as The Arizona Republic, LA. Biz, The Huffington Post, and more.[14] [15] [16] Please consider my request to undelete the article and allow it to be a Wikipedia page. MikeBVIse (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a bad-tempered, unpleasant debate. I'm sorry that you're not seeing Wikipedia's best side here. We've got a vocal and articulate faction arguing to remove this content, and a lot of energy has gone into making that argument... but although the keep side make their case with less vigour and passion, it doesn't seem completely without merit to me.
As background, there are a lot of reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers and we've become very efficient and detecting and removing promotional content. We've had to develop these muscles ---- otherwise our encyclopaedia would rapidly fill up with promotional content and nobody would be able to find anything useful in among all the spam. I think the deleted content has triggered our spam defences and I don't think it will help you to try to get it restored. I'd suggest you see the discussions to date like this:- Wikipedia doesn't want the versions of this article that have been submitted so far but we might, possibly, be prepared to accept a brief and strictly factual article with this title. I think your best approach now would be to create a short, incredibly concise and non-promotional, userspace draft for DRV to examine.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I completely understand. If Wikipedia is used as a platform for marketers, then it loses its purpose as a free encyclopedia. People will no longer want to use it for unbiased information and it simply becomes just like any other website. The debate was not so unpleasant as I can see how people get upset about spam and promotion and the longer you edit Wikipedia I am sure you start to get more emotionally involved. That is why I am here. I want to let you know that I do work for the company but that the article is not intended to be a promotional platform. We have a website and other marketing platforms that we use. The page is simply a way to say that we are here. From “outside” Wikipedia, I can tell you that a page here is not necessarily for promotional. It’s almost a sense of pride to be notable enough to be included.MikeBVIse (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, there's nothing to be proud of in having an article in Wikipedia that your company had to pay for or write itself, ditto the twice deleted paid-for article on its founder Tomas Gorny by a prolific spammer who is now indefinitely blocked. That sort of thing actually detracts from a company's reputation rather than enhancing it. Something to think about. We're an encyclopedia not a business directory, and as you say, you don't need Wikipedia as a marketing platform, so ... Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, although the closer's second sentence was a bit strong. In the end, Wikipedia is forced to be quite strong on enforcing the line detailed at WP:CORP, as you show you understand. You need to demonstrate reputable commentary, preferably critical, definitely neutral, by independent others. Independent commentary that sounds promotional will be immediately discarded as evidence for meeting WP:CORP. Independent coverage does not include mere descriptions or factual reporting, it must be secondary source content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As I said at afd1, "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia" But if it is the case that they are now actually really notable, then possibly an article can be written. It would then need to br brought here before moving it to main space DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closure accurately reflects consensus and was not unreasonable. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. First, I agree with User:S Marshall about the tone of the AfD. Really, folks, there's no need for the kind of vindictive language used here (on both sides). The most important thing in a discussion like this is an evaluation of the souces. Thank you to User:Voceditenore for his clear, concise, and well-reasoned analysis. To me, his comment is the only part of the AfD worth reading; the rest is just people venting at each other. I should also address the comment that, 2 of the delete votes came after the time period for the discussion had run out . There is no time limit. The 7 day discussion period is generally a lower bound. There's really no upper bound. It is routine for people to comment on AfDs only when they roll off the daily listing page and onto Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old/Open_AfDs. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought, regarding the statement, the article is not intended to be a promotional platform [...] The page is simply a way to say that we are here. Saying that you are here is the very definition of promotion. Companies spend huge amount of money on brand awareness, which is just a fancy way of saying, letting the world know we're here. Mike, please don't take this comment the wrong way. You seem like a nice guy, with good intentions. And, certainly, I appreciate the fact that you have been up-front about your relationship to the company. But, as you have seen, the misuse of Wikipedia by companies for promotional purposes is one of the major problems we face today, so people get kind of sensitive about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse. There were no procedural flaws. The first AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva) was closed as a clear "Delete" on 19 September 2015. The article was then recreated and taken to AfD again in December 2015 under the title Nextiva Inc. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc.). That was closed as "No consensus" with one of the "keeps" coming from the paid editor who created the article and the other "keeps" poorly argued (in my view). The third recreation led to the AfD in February 2016 which is under discussion here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (2nd nomination)). That one was indeed ill-tempered, but correctly closed as "delete" on the weight of the arguments. There were 7 "Deletes" (including the nominator) and 5 "Keeps". However, the "keeps" were [1] from the paid editor who created the article; [2] and [3] as a rebuke to the nominator with no other evidence of why it should be kept and no participation in the previous AfDs; [4] weakly argued using same arguments from previous AfD and rebuking the nominator; and [5] a weakly argued "borderline keep" which included a rebuke to the nominator from a paid editor (unrelated to the Nextiva article) who had been contacted off-wiki for an opinion about the AfD. Note: I only participated in the final AfD. I have no idea what the previous two incarnations of the article were like, but presumably the third one was meant to be an "improvement". Voceditenore (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Edited by Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% comfortable with the extent to which this DRV has focused on the third AfD. There were in fact three AfDs in relatively rapid succession and they went delete, no consensus, delete. In the past where there have been quick renominations, DRV has tended to take all of the discussions into account ---- in other words, we've felt it wasn't necessary for a user to copy/paste their comments from one nomination into the other in order for those comments to have weight. If we endorse the first and third closes, as we are doing, then we are also overturning the second one, and I'm not comfortable that we've paid enough attention to that yet.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow that, S Marshall. Quite a few articles are deleted on their second, third, or even fourth nomination after having previously been closed with "No consensus" or "Keep" decisions. How is this one any different? I don't think you can automatically assume that anyone who has !voted "keep" or "delete" in a previous AfD would have !voted the same way in a subsequent one or even have made the same arguments. Can you point to a DRV discussion where the previous AfDs were taken into account and this led to an overturn of the final AfD? Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key part of what I'm saying is "in rapid succession", i.e. where an article is not only repeatedly nominated for deletion, but renominated several times in the same short period. This situation was historically so common, in cases such as Daniel Brandt or the GNAA, that by the time I started participating at DRV, which was early in 2009, it had its own shortcut: WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. It has subsequently become rarer, because editors have realised that if you allow an article to be nominated for deletion time after time, eventually there will come a time when its defenders fail to show up. They have not been persuaded or convinced to change their mind; they have merely been exhausted. This is not a good way of making meritocratic decisions so it was understood that DRV required a gap between successive nominations or it would tend to overturn to keep.
Of course, every time this has actually occurred at DRV since I became a regular here ---- at articles such as Ashida Kim ---- the waters have been muddied by attempts to argue, e.g., that there was something really important that the previous discussion didn't take into account, or that there was bad faith participation in the AfD, or other kinds of special pleading. That doesn't alter the basic principle which is as I have stated: if I make a good argument in one discussion, I should not need to repeat it in another discussion on the same subject a few weeks later.
This is not the same as the (more common) case where nominations are separated by a period of three months or more. Wikipedia has always accepted that consensus can change.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I can see your point as a general one. But this isn't quite what happened here. The first AfD resulted in deletion. The article was then recreated 2 months later under a slightly different title but on the same company. In my view, the recreation of the article under a different and less apt title looks like a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny of the recreated article. Presumably it was considered sufficiently different from the first one by an administrator not to be eligible for WP:G4? But this confusing kerfuffle at ANI and this conversation make me wonder. The sequence is unclear, but it looks like the recreated article evaded G4 scrutiny, and was thus taken to AfD. It was then argued that the "no-consensus decision" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc. "trumped" the original delete decision and thus any possibility of a G4 deletion. Has anyone here actually compared the two versions of the article? I'd be interested to know how different they actually were. Anyhow, assuming the recreated article was significantly different from the first one, we are only considering two AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (2nd nomination)) which were two months apart. I'm not seeing this as three AfDs in rapid succession. If they were not significantly different, then Nextiva Inc. should not have been restored and moved to Nextiva which prompted the third AfD. "Keep trying until you get the decision you want" works both ways, and it's quite possible that this is exactly what the article's creator was doing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the sequence is unusual. I observe that the participants in AfDs #1 and #3 included a number of people whose basis for !voting "delete" focused on the article's defenders' conflict of interest, so they were applying a criterion that doesn't actually appear anywhere in a community-approved policy. I note that many editors opined the content in question was promotional (and it undoubtedly was), but this is a fixable problem and would normally lead to rewriting rather than deletion. In fact, I generally feel that it's AfDs #1 and #3 that were defective. We've got to the right result because Nextiva isn't notable, but the way we got there stinks. Our main job at DRV is to make sure the deletion process is correctly followed. It hasn't been.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trouts all around. I find myself as usual in agreement with User:S Marshall. There is nothing against the rules about writing articles like this if you declare your COI, but as far as I can tell the discussions concentrated to a large degree on this fact. If you want to make an argument for "no paid editing", then go and do that at VP or something, rather than trying to backdoor it in through AFD case law. I don't think an overturn is justified as I don't see that this company meets the GNG, but gosh, some of those arguments are ugly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It's not against the rules,because it is possible to write a decent article even with COI if there is actually underlying notability . But experience has shown that it is first, very difficult for people with coi to judge whether the notability is really sufficient--coi in general and financial coi in particular will usually give quite a degree of unconscious bias even with the best intentions. Second, experience has shown that it is very rare for people with coi to be able to write a NPOV nonpromotional article. Our skepticism about such articles is justified by experience. (I would in fact be prepared to support a change in policy that writing with a financial coi is never permitted, because the trouble that it causes here and the amount of time spent in dealing with it far outweighs the occasional exception. But at present the policy is indeed "strongly discouraged".) DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Lankiveil and S Marshall that using COI/promotion as the key or main component of a "delete" argument muddies the waters at an AfD, often resulting in snipe-fests and to DRVs like this one. It's far better to simply concentrate on the evidence of notability as provided by the references, which is what I try to do. Having said that, these paid brand-awareness articles for "up and coming" businesses are problematic in that inexperienced editors are often misled by the plethora of press releases, press release-based articles, interviews, and planted name-checks masquerading as perfectly formatted "references". Citation overkill is a typical ploy used by paid editors of company articles. It was used in Nextiva by adding a press release-based Bizjournals.com "article" about the employees participating in a local Ice Bucket Challenge simply to verify the name of the company's head of marketing. That is a simple fact which can be sourced from the company itself. Ditto using an article completely unrelated to the company which simply name-checks its founder, allegedly to verify who the founder is, when that is already available in two other references, both of which were (essentially paid-for) interviews with the founder. Yet they add to the quantity of coverage which is often mistaken by AfD participants for the quality of coverage. In a sense, there is no way that articles about these sorts of companies can be anything but promotional, no matter how "neutrally" they're written. Why? Because all these articles do is propagate the company's press releases and non-notable industry "awards" (many of which are paid for in themselves). Editors who frequently deal with this incoming flood, and it is a flood, often use "promotional" as a short-hand method of describing that phenomenon. They shouldn't do it and should take the time to spell it out, but it's understandable. Re Nextiva's Ice Bucket Challenge, which made the rounds of all the PR reprint websites, I suggest reading https://www.nextiva.com/voip/mondays-with-mike-what-the-als-ice-bucket-challenge-can-teach-you-about-marketing.html (no hyperlink, the Nextiva.com domain is blacklisted here). Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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