Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2016 Deletion review archives July 2016 >

30 June 2016

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

This was a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure by AKS.9955. The discussion had very less participation, 2 of the !votes were essentially WP:VAGUEWAVE, a query to one of the keep votes about WP:NOTINHERITED was not answered and this was closed without even relisting once. I was looking for sources and was about to vote when I saw this was closed (I guess it missed it by 15 minutes or so). Per WP:RELIST, this was a good candidate for relisting as few editors had participated and more robust votes would have been welcome. When closing a discussion, the merits of the !votes have to be looked into - it is not simply a matter of counting keep votes. I believe this was not done in this case. I personally do not understand what was the hurry to close it in 7 days when there has been less participation. I requested the closer to relist but my request was denied (see discussion here). The closer has not answered my question about how it was a "clear keep" but has said "I dont see how will the outcome of the AfD change just because of your vote". I am requesting an overturning of the premature non-admin closure and relisting the article for more participation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging DGG, Hmlarson, Rebbing, Megalibrarygirl, Northamerica1000 from AfD. Other experienced non-admin closers Davey2010, SwisterTwister. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is your assumption that two votes between Hmlarson, Megalibrarygirl & Northamerica1000 were vague. Forget the so called "vague votes", you did not even participate in the AfD. The AfD was closed following the NAC process of 168 hours and all votes were keep, turning this more to SNOW. As far as answering your "questions" are concerned, lets be clear that the deletion discussion needs to take place on the AfD page and not elsewhere. IF the AfD is reopened, then you are welcome to discuss the deletion there. On my talkpage, I answered your simple request of reopening the AfD - the answer was, no I wont as I simply dont see any case. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Participating in the AfD does not have anything to do with the merits of closing. And I could not participate because it was closed minutes before - at the time when I was looking at the sources. I still feel this was a premature closure. AfD is about discussing notability and shutting down such a discussion early serves no purpose. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per my comments above. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist AfD and let more editors participate. The closure was premature. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this fairly unexceptionable close. One deletion nomination followed by three well-reasoned, policy-based "keep" !votes. Rebbing's intervention is interesting. It certainly should not be read as a "keep", but it's hard to read a "delete" into it when the user says they were looking for reasons to vote otherwise. No reason to think there had been any canvassing or bad faith behaviour that might lead to any of the !votes being disregarded. The full 168 hours had elapsed, so the idea that the close was "premature" holds no water. I would also have endorsed "no consensus" in view of Rebbing's doubts.

    But, now that I've endorsed, I would advise Arun Kumar Singh to consider granting Lemongirl942's request voluntarily. Lemongirl942's approach on your talk page was perfectly civil and respectful and a relist does you no harm. In your place, I would have agreed to it. It's still possible for you to change your mind and agree, and I commend this outcome to you.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • My initial hesitation was purely personal: my read was that the subject clearly failed GNG, but I wanted a valid reason to vote "keep" as I was impressed with the company—girl power, blah blah blah. When I came back to cast my reluctant "delete," I gave the article another look. Between the ABC coverage, the InStyle review, and the handful of (likely-sponsored) mentions elsewhere, I felt it was a close call, at least when I turned my head sideways and squinted just right, so I chose to abstain.

      (Once I've spent the time to form an opinion, I typically vote, even if my vote has to go against my preferences or what I think is best for the project. See, for example, the explanation of my vote at the Jenna Fife AfD. I am strongly opposed to reinterpreting the guidelines on an ad hoc basic to suit my politics.) Rebbing 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the close. I can see how individuals would want more comments on the discussion. That said, I can't see any other outcome besides Keep for that article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. The three votes are sparse on analysis. Megalibrarygirl simply states that the article passes GNG. Hmlarson offered little more: as my comment highlighted, her argument was premised in part on an impermissible basis (inherited notability); also, she was the article's AFC sponsor. With such a low level of discussion and only a one-week run, relisting would have been wise, and a "no consensus" close may have been more accurate. But all three editors are in good standing and made facially-valid arguments, and only the nominator advanced an argument for deletion, so I can't say the close was unreasonable.

    I second S Marshall's suggestion that the closer voluntarily rescind his close and relist. Rebbing 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse though a relist would also have been fine and I don't mind if that is what happens now. Generally, I'm nervous of closers being pressurised into changing their close (but asking them for advice or a fuller explanation can be appropriate). However, in this case I don't think the request for relisting was expressed unreasonably. FWIW, the close was not premature and I'll support the closer's decision to suggest DRV. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I probably would've closed the same as AKS.9955 (Had the nom perhaps discussed it with the !voters then I could perhaps understand but as no discussion really took place the best thing to do would've been to close as Keep). –Davey2010Talk 17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable close, though relist or even NC might also have been reasonable outcomes given the relatively limited nature of the !keep votes. As an aside, I am a bit worried that the closer is being a bit too defensive wrt his closes. Remember that people disagreeing with an action you took is not a personal attack, nor do you need to defend each action. What you want out of a DRV isn't an endorsement, but rather the right outcome even if that's different than the action you took. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but relist. I agree that the original close was fine. It's true that none of the keep arguments actually cited any sources, and sources is what it's all about. Relisting this on that basis would have been reasonable, but calling it a keep and closing it was reasonable too. But, I'm also with Hobit, that the post-close conversation at User_talk:AKS.9955#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSweat_Cosmetics wasn't what you really like to see. The goal is to end up with the right decision, not to strictly enforce policy and deadlines. I don't honestly know what I would have done in that situation, but it's very easy to sit here in my armchair and do some monday-morning quarterbacking. And, if I were to do that, I would say that had this been closed 20 minutes later, User:Lemongirl942 would have added their argument to delete, and with that in place, relisting this would be a no-brainer. And, since we're not about enforcing strict deadlines, a relist seems like the right thing to do here. In the alternative, I would encourage the closer to amend their closing statement to include WP:NPASR, and then User:Lemongirl942 could just nominate it for a fresh look.
All that being said, I think the nomination statement calling this a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure was a bit over the top. It was open for more than seven days, so it certainly wasn't premature. And the close was perfectly reasonable. Slapping an inappropriate label on every WP:NAC people don't like is getting old. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will make it clear that I am simply asking for a relist and not overturning the decision to a delete. I understand that 168 hours had passed and the closer was entitled to close it. My description of "premature" was more about allowing a bit more discussion. And yes, describing the close as inappropriate was...umm...inappropriate on my side I guess. Anyway what actually happened was that I went through the list of old AfDs, saw this and was looking closely at this, when it was closed. I found evidence of undisclosed paid editing in the article and was in the process of confirming when I noticed the closure. I immediately informed the closer at that time, though I didn't mention the part about paid editing as I was still confirming it. I just didn't expect a defensive response. Anyway, I'm OK if the NPASR is added to the close result on the AfD instead of a relist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a purely practical suggestion (and orthogonal to the rest of this discussion), if you're doing some research on an AfD that's already at risk for turning into a pumpkin, it might be a good idea to drop a note saying, I'm actively working on this, please don't close immediately. If I were going to close an AfD, and saw such a note, with a very recent timestamp (say, less than an hour old), I would honor the request. I hope other admins would do the same. There's a Template:Closing that serves this purpose for closes that take a long time. I've used that on occasion. I don't know if there's a similar template for participants in the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 5 July 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 June 2016

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

DRVing just to get this restored to my userspace, several admins have declined requests for userfication. They are probably apprehensive because it was created by a now-banned user who abused a sockpuppet account.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined userfication because I do not consider it worth the while, and because in general I am opposed to the practice of resurrecting deleted material as a matter of course. Deletion means deletion, and undeletion should be the exception in cases where there are specific reasons to believe the content may be ready for mainspace very soon. No such reasons have been advanced here. But as I made clear other admins may feel differently; my view as the closer is of no particular importance in this regard.  Sandstein  05:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify The interpretation above was our usual practice 8years ago, but nowadays we are more likely to routinely userify if there is any reasonable chance of improvement and there are not major problems that would require speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. There is no need for drafts in userspace to be "ready for mainspace very soon". Thincat (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify while userfication isn't supposed to be used for indefinite storage of deleted content and I doubt the subject is in fact notable, the four people who came to that conclusion at AfD may well be wrong and I see little harm in allowing an experienced editor to try and improve it in userspace. Hut 8.5 21:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify I was the user who nominated this for deletion, and I still don't think that this person is notable; however there is no harm in giving him the chance to work on it in his userspace. JDDJS (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify per the above. Sandstein... if you're not going to be willing to honor reasonable undeletion/userification requests, then I suggest you take a break from deletion for a while. The things that should stay deleted are copyvio, promotion, and attack... along with repeatedly recreated problematic content. The rest of it can live on in non-index'ed user space or draft space with little real world consequence. Don't get so jaded and black-and-white on things that you're headed for burnout. Trust me, too many good admins go there needlessly. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not suffering from burnout, I'm just not interested in certain admin tasks, and these include restoring content that the community considered worthless enough to delete – at least not without a better reason than "I want it undeleted". If another admin is interested in doing that, that's up to them, I've no problem with that.  Sandstein  06:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - As the editor in the AFD asked for userification the easiest thing to do would've been to just userfy it instead of outright deleting it (Yes consensus was to delete however if an experienced editor asks for userification then well at the admins discretion it should be userfied, If Sandstein didn't wanna userfy it then they shouldn't of closed the AFD period.), Anyway all that aside I see no reason not too userfy it. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deny userfication reqeust. In general, I'm willing to userfy deleted articles if the only reason they were deleted was lack of notability, and somebody presents a plan for researching more sources. It doesn't have to be a great plan. It doesn't have to be a plan that I believe is realizable. It doesn't have to be a plan that includes an expected completion date. But, it does have to be better than, just to get this restored to my userspace. @Prisencolin:, do you believe there are additional sources you can find, which will address the concerns raised at the AfD? If so, let us know, and I'll be happy to do this for you. But, if you're just looking to squirrel the text away for no reason that advances our desire to build an encyclopedia, then I, respectfully, don't see the point. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were sources already in the article that believe should've help it pass AfD. Could an admin with access to deleted content post the links here? I honestly think the article is done, but if it isn't then I'll just wait until the subject does indeed become notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The participants in the AfD (presumably) already considered those sources, and rejected them. It sounds like your argument here is simply, the particpants in the AfD were wrong. Am I misunderstanding you? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recall adding some more sources after several delete votes were already cast, but and the voters either didn't see them or think they increased the article's notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually allow a wide latitude for userfication of deleted content like this unless there are copyvio or other serious concerns. The only reason against userfication appears to be a concern that the requestor may do an end-run around the AFD consensus by restoring the article with minimal or no improvement. I'm prepared to WP:AGF here. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Gerald Walpin – Restore. Clear consensus to do something other than leave it deleted and salted. Beyond that, all over the place. Just plain restoring it seems like the most reasonable thing. It can always be brought back to AfD for another look, but I'd suggest holding off on that long enough for people to add new information and sources. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gerald Walpin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems page was (borderline) notable, back in 2010, as covered now after death in New York Times page: nytimes.com/2016/06/27/.... Undelete, and we can add more cite sources to text. Thanks. Wikid77 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I can't say I agree with the original discussion, the reason for deletion was BLP1E. And this new source focuses on that one event (his firing and the events that led up to his firing). So while I'd lean toward a restore outcome as the best actual outcome IMO, I don't know that this source is actually all that much of a great reason to restore. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bio from the Federalist Society certainly counts as a reliable source with plenty of biographical data and doesn't suffer from the BLP1E issue. restore. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore A 20th or 21st century NYT Obit has always been considered sufficient evidence of notability. Furthermore the obit makes clear reference to other things leading to notability than the earlier concern. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something. If the deleted article was horrible then maybe it should be restored via user space but if Wikid is going to see to things right away then straight restoration would be OK by me and someone can request deletion if required. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - another source as prosecuting attorney 40 years. From a speech of "The Federalist Society" published at Univ. Chicago Law School (link: [1]), Walpin was noted as winning a 2003 legal award and named in a best-lawyers-in-America list, plus confirms college degrees and legal career. Link might support wp:GNG notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNsalt and allow recreation The original AfD was wrong, BLP1E never properly fit his case, but like a lot of politically charged things, editors let their own ideologies get in the way of encyclopedic coverage. There's clearly enough to write a bio on him, with no more than WP:DUE coverage of the political controversies. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Wikid77/Gerald Walpin - No idea what the article looked like however there seems to be a a few sources on GNews, Once the editor is done with the article they can then go to WP:RFPP and ask for unprotection (if that deciding admin believes the article is okay for articlespace). –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 3 July 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 June 2016

[edit]

27 June 2016

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

The article was during its discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Universal trinity suddenly speedy deleted by User:RHaworth who declines now. Note that this general (mainly theosophic) disquisition contains no WP:SYNTH. The direct parallelism from a formation–perception–choice trinity from listed theosophic sources towards a calculation–proving–conjecturing trinity was not included in the sources I listed so far but I also found no source that mentions this parallelism otherwise. The term "universal trinity" is often used in theosophy so that sources that refer anyhow to the parallelisms are definitely found soon. An encyclopedia is forced to work with expression parallelisms to avoid copies so that this unannounced speedy deletion was unjustified. I request userfication. MathLine (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this needed to be deleted. No, it wasn't a hoax. ([2] for example). It may qualify as A11, but that supposes that our editor and the author of the source are the same person (or closely related) which isn't in evidence AFAIK. So restore and list at AfD just because I suppose it's not impossible there is a notable subject here somewhere (rather than IAR endorse). Hobit (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Although the juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" does appear in one source, and an article written based on that source would not be a hoax, the article under discussion was indeed a hoax as written. Either that, or WP:OR so far gone as to be indistinguishable from a hoax. In either case, I don't see there is any benefit to restoring the content, other than slavish deference to bureaucratic process. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you do a web search for the phrase in quotes, there are a lot of hits. Some even seem to be the concept this article was trying to cover. Not a hoax. Or if it is, it's not a Wikipedia-only hoax. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "article" was total nonsense. Here is a sample: "Universal trinity is the condition of the logics and mathematics perceivable by all finite entities to be separated into the branches calculation , proving , and registering derived conjectures without a known proof or disproof, it also includes the continuation of this separation to a persistent influence of three likewise separate fields on and of working minds in all social groups and their interactions, and it includes working potentials between these branches. A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation The first position of the working potential between the branches of the unsolved and of calculation. Justice is a negotiating bridge between the unsolved and purely basic work to solve it and it appears in a trinity of states, the separation of powers , as judicative. Therefore, this position is the basis of judicative..." This seems like an obvious hoax to me. If there is a concept that is called "universal trinity" in the literature, that is not what this is. If you believe that there is a source that supports this, please present it now. Otherwise, as I've already said, nothing is preventing any editor from writing an article based on sources on "universal trinity" that is not a hoax. Whether such an article meets our inclusion criteria is a separate question from whether the nonsense under discussion is a hoax. But since you believe it is not a hoax, I assume that you have reliable sources that verify the sentence "A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation", for example. Otherwise, I would invite you to withdraw your !vote here since your reasoning is manifestly based on a false premise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's just note that the nominator's actual request here was for userfication. I agree with Sławomir Biały that for the moment I don't see particularly good grounds to restore the article to mainspace; but userfication is a perfectly reasonable request.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, oppose userfication. I'm inclined to agree with Sławomir Biały that the deleted version of this article is essentially incoherent and nonsensical. The purpose of userficiation is to allow improvements to articles that are not quite ready for the article namespace. In this case, I do not see any sort of viable article coming from the content in question. There is almost zero connection between the external links provided and the intended subject of the article, whatever that might be. --Kinu t/c 22:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Userification I see no basis for declining userification. I don't think that the article constitutes a hoax per the speedy process, but that's an excusable error rendered moot by simply userifying as requested. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and neutral on userfication. Yes, it's a hoax/patent nonsense. I doubt a coherent article can come out of it. But I'm not going to rule it out. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion, oppose userfication. Let us be gentle and call it original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable source uses metaphors from which notable information is derivable by evaluating them is it then always original research to write about this information directly? --MathLine (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the meaning of those metaphors is open to interpretation/debate or requires knowledge beyond what an average person may have, then likely yes, besides if there is only a singular source on something it likely fails notability and likely fails WP:UNDUE --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if X writes a metaphor evaluation and Y wants to forbid it per WP:OR then Y has the full burden to prove that there are also other possible metaphor interpretations so that X's given interpretation is indeed something biased or arbitrary? --MathLine (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As soon as someone starts using language like "forbid" in a context like this, and the school yard cries of "prove it", I tend to suspect that discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. In short no, we are a collaborative project and we have discussions to determine rough consensus between editors, in those discussions it usually become pretty clear if someone is simply being stubborn or unreasonable, we'll give less weight or no weight to such nonsense. As noted if there is only one source for something and it's written in metaphors it is always going to be an uphill struggle to demonstrate it's suitability as a wikipedia topic. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CSD, list at AfD. I'm a hard-liner on CSD. I don't think this meets the requirement of being uncontroversial. Yes, it's badly written. Yes, it sounds pretty flakey. But there are at least some plausible sounding sources ([3], [4]) to show this isn't a complete hoax (although, I haven't found any source that tie the concept to zodaical signs). So, bring it to AfD and let it go through the normal review process. And, some people may find this self-contradictory, but if the consensus here is that the CSD was correct, and it is a hoax, then I'm opposed to userfication. Userspace is a working space to prep material for the encyclopedia. If the community judges that this is so clearly a hoax that WP:G3 applies, then it has no more place in userspace than it does in mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, do not userfy, hoax material doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg – No Consensus. This was an amazingly difficult DRV to close, mostly because so much of it is off-topic. People kept going off on tangents, engaging in ad-hominem attacks, abusive language, etc. On top of that, it wasn't a very good FfD discussion to begin with, and the FfD close wasn't great either, because it didn't give any insight into why the closer came to the conclusion they did.
I'm not an expert on copyright, and am particularly weak on WP:NFCC issues. On the one hand, that made it a little hard to follow some of the discussion, but on the other hand, I think it may be a good thing because it let me concentrate on the points made here, without injecting my own opinions. The bottom line is, there's no meeting of minds here. For those interested in counting noses, I come up with 4 Endorse, 1 Overturn, and 3 Relist. But, even if those numbers aren't 100% correct, it's still clear that there's no consensus here. So, the original XfD decision stands. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no consensus in the discussion for the deletion of the image from this article. One editor opined that it failed NFCC, without giving any reasons wny that was the case, and another editor (myself) disagreed. That is most certainly not a consensus to delete. Further, the closing admin gave no policy rationale for deletion, writing only "The result of the discussion was: remove". This is not a sufficient rationale for the removal of an image from an article, especially considering that there was no consensus to do so. BMK (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing administrator. Stefan2 cited WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c for the reason of removal from History of Abercrombie & Fitch. I ignored the latter because that was a small error on Beyond My Ken's fault (Abercrombie & Fitch was linked in the FUR rather than History of Abercrombie & Fitch, that much was obvious). However, the concern of NFCC#8 was still not properly addressed; there was an obvious lack of a policy-backed reason—"I disagree that the images of the two founders of Abercrombie & Fitch do not satisy the requirements of NFCC for the History of Abercrombie & Fitch article" was not sufficient—and the burden of proof to properly refute said claim fell on BMK, per WP:NFCCE. I simply could not have closed the discussion any other way. BMK's non-argument does not supersede the incredibly stringent project-wide WP:NFCC policy.
Please note that the image has disruptively been restored in the history article by BMK against consensus and policy. I will not attempt to remove it again as I have the brain capacity to wait out a discussion. — ξxplicit 12:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's your closing that is being reviewed, so your "endorsement" is meaningless. You did not evaluate the discussion and sum up the consensus, because there was essentially no discussion, and certainly no consensus. One editor said "X", without further explanation, and another editor said "not X" without further explanation. Your acceptance of "X" was, therefore, a personal evaluation on your own part -- otherwise known as a supervote -- and not a summation of consensus. You, in fact, did not perform what a closing admin is expected to perform, an evaluation of the consensus discussion, and instead substituted your own judgement for it. You then compounded your error by threatening to block me on my talk page, when you must have known (or certainly should have known) that as the closing admin you are, by definition, "involved" in the dispute, and therefore cannot perform a block. The only fair outcomne here is to re-open the discussion for further input, to determine what the actual consensus of the community is, and not what the personal opinion of the cloisng admin is. BMK (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that the editor Stefan2's judgment has come under very close scrutiny lately. See this AN/I thread in particular. BMK (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point Stefan2 cited of NFCC is pretty clear: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Did you prove otherwise? No, you didn't. My closure was based on the fact that Stefan2 presented a policy-based argument for the removal of the image from an article, while you simply disagreed without citing policy to strengthen your argument. Oddly enough, it's exactly what WP:SUPERVOTE#Advice to editors decrying a supervote close describes—I assume you read that part, since you're so confident that my closure indicates otherwise. I did not elaborate on my closure because it seemed obvious, but I'm sure it wouldn't have made a difference and we'd still be here. I still don't quite understand where this accusation of a "supervote" stems from. Where exactly did I indicate any bias, how did I instill my opinion despite citing the policy-based argument that led to my closure? Please do elaborate further on this point.
I didn't have to "prove otherwise" because Stefan2 made none of those arguments, he simply stated an opinion, that the image failed certain parts of NFCC, with no explanation whatsoever. You, as the closer, are not supposed to provide the arguments that the people in the discussion should have made, not are you to assume that is what his opinion meant. You provided that on your own, which if you wanted to do so, you should have done as a participant in the discussion - to which I would have responded -- and not either in your close or here in the Deletion Review. Closers may have a certain amount of discretion, but that discretion cannot extend to closing on the basis of the closers' opinion and not on the basis of the content of the discussion. That would invalidate the entire concept of the uninvolved admin who sums up consensus in their close. Again, what you did was to make a WP:supervote, which is not your job. BMK (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are incorrect; the burden is entirely on you. WP:NFCCE itself states: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Why is this? Simple. Per WP:NFCCP: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia". You failed to provide a policy-backed argument. Stefan2 citing WP:NFCC#8 is pretty self explanatory, whether or not you like or agree with it. Or are we really going to sit here and argue, "He cited NFCC#8, but I have no idea what he meant!"? His argument was clearly supplied, and I had no opinion on the matter, I simply closed the nomination based on the discussion. You did not do your part as policy requires, which is why the discussion was closed the way it was. Based on the strengths of the arguments, it is literally a ratio of 1:0. — ξxplicit 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I apologize, I had no idea that "NFCC" was a magic word, and that all you have to do is write it and the file will be deleted unless someone counters the magic word with their own battery of words. Maybe the "abuse" you see coming at admins who work the files area stems from this rather odd belief, that all anyone has to do is whisper in a throaty voice "NFCC, my precious" and the image's fate is sealed. In my neck of the woods, where we frequently call a spade precisely what it is, we have a name for that kind of thing, having to do with the undigested effluvia of bovine animals, but perhaps I'll just say that "I call shenanigans" on that concept, and that the encyclopedia would be a lot better off without that peculiar notion. Any claim that an image doesn't pass the requirements of NFCC needs to be a full and specific one, not just "It don't pass NFCC #32B". When a full and specific claim is made, I would be more than happy to counter it, but all the other deserves is negation, because, in fact, there are no magic words, just consensus discussions. Which the closer, may I repeat, it supposed to evaluate without adding their own interpretation. BMK (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's how policy is written. You not liking it is another matter entirely. — ξxplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply able to drop the stick. I decided not to escalate the situation. You're confused if you believe me to be someone who gets worked up on Wikipedia of all places; I've been threatened with ANI before, and I highly encouraged it earlier this year over my actions, yet not a single report with my name on it has ever been made...
No, you'll "drop the stick" when you simply admit that you screwed up and confused the role of an advocate with that of on uninvolved admin. There's nothing terrible about making a mistake, everyone does it, and it's usual better to admit it so everyone can move on. Digging in your heels is not the optimal choice here. BMK (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever allows you to sleep at night. — ξxplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what point was meant to be made about that ANI discussion, other than creating an ad hominem. I am well aware of Stefan2's inability to properly approach editors and have caught several of his mistakes in the past. The only things I was able to take away from that thread: 1) a slight history of Betacommand; 2) understanding the abuse editors receive over the application and enforcement of the NFCC policy, and where it stems from; 3) and the fragility of the community. — ξxplicit 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist I went back and forth on this. FfD closers generally have wide discretion when it comes to deleting non-free images. Generally it's pretty open-and-shut. This one is not. I'd think it's clear that having a picture of both of the founders in the article on the history of the company they started would be a thing we should just have. It's not clear Stefan2 felt otherwise (thus the question about looking for other images). But the fact we have nothing on where the image comes from makes things a bit less clear-cut. And I suspect there is an argument that we don't need an image of both founders (?). Realizing there isn't typically a large amount of participation at FfD, I hope that after this DRV we'll get a bit more input on a relist. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And FfD needlessly removes yet another image that benefits the encyclopaedia without doing anyone any harm. Hooray for free content ideology!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with this. I think we worry far too much about reuse by others (who may not hit prong #1 of the fair use guidelines laid down by the US Supreme Court as clearly as we do) in cases like this where use by us is clearly fair use. But my !vote is based on the rules that be rather than the rules that should be. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is true and unfortunately happens much too often, IMO, which is the primary reason I usually stay far away from the whole files area, because the deck is already stacked against usage, and then some of the regulars compound the problem by an overly strict interpretation of the rules instead of a safe and reasonable one. BMK (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's just note here that NFCC#8 is being treated, at FFD, and by some of my DRV colleagues below, as if (1) it was an objective test and (2) this image failed it. I would invite you all to set your brains to "evaluate" and then read NFCC#8 closely. I think you will observe that the criterion is entirely subjective. The image might enhance one person's understanding without enhancing another's. I think it follows that NFCC#8 should not be invoked without a clear consensus to do so, and I think FfD has been overreaching NFCC#8 for as long as I've been critically evaluating FfD closes at DRV.

        I've always thought that FfD is attractive to people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. There are some exceptions, but by and large they're here to remove non-free content. This is a conflict that those of us who are here to build an encyclopaedia we'll need to deal with at some point. Non-free content that's not doing anyone any harm and plausibly enhances someone's understanding should not be removed.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Cryptic and I must have been typing at the same time. Interesting!—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If BMK attempted to argue his interpretation of NFCC#8 to any extent, I would have relisted the discussion. It is honestly that simple. But again, there was no attempt made. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 23#File:Selena Gomez - Revival (Official Standard Cover).png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 23#File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png, both of which I closed as "no consensus" because sound "keep" arguments were made. This is what an effort while citing policy looks like, something several users in this discussion should take note of.
        • Also, way to set a terrible example of how to handle a disagreement. Completely undermining the diligent work—a majority of which don't even deal with fair use at FFD—of handling the thousands of images per month pumped in our direction. Instead of commenting on the users, focus your efforts on the subject at hand. — ξxplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem as I see it isn't with NFCC#8 so much as with FfD's interpretation of NFCC#8. And I'm afraid that's about users. Yes, there are useful policy changes that could be made ---- we certainly need a rule for how to deal with Crown Copyright, which to my amazement and despair FfD usually treats like commercial fair use images, and I keep meaning to draft an RfC on that ---- but I'm afraid I think that a substantial subset of FfD users aren't here to build an encyclopaedia.

            As for FfD rounding on me for "completely undermining diligent work"? I'm stunned by the sheer irony.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. I agree with Hobit; Explicit's decision is reasonable but we needed more participation in this discussion. NFCC#8 is obnoxious but it's a policy and BMK didn't engage with it at all. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have uncovered a free image of Abercrombie; see Talk:David T. Abercrombie#Free image. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was pretty obviously in line with WP:NFCC. Kelly hi! 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn NFCC#8 is being used inappropriately, pretty much any time I see it used. The anti-fair-use proponents routinely expect ridiculous things in terms of 'understanding'. If a relevant non free photo of a founder of a major company fails to be acceptable for an article on that company, what will EVER pass NFCC#8? Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't inappropriate, this is exactly what NFCC#8 says. As a foundation-based policy, it overrides any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no quarrel with the policy, just the interpretation thereof. Picture of person on the article about that person or the company that bears his name? Not only is it appropriate, it is also what we would expect from any encyclopedia article. Sorry if I'm showing my age here, but I grew up with Encyclopedia Britannica. NFCC#8 should be limited in its interpretation to removal of things that clearly are irrelevant, excessive, or superfluous. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – definition of image being used decoratively. Anyone who seriously suggests that removing this image somehow reduces readers' understanding of the article History of Abercrombie & Fitch is deluding themselves and us. The image remains available for use in David T. Abercrombie, which is valid. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, absolutely, showing images of the two men, Abercrombie and Fitch who created the firm "Abercrombie & Fitch" is most certainly "decorative", without a doubt. BMK (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for supporting me. [Yes I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you've actually helped made my point, which is that not seeing pictures of two people who created a firm will in no way make it more difficult to understand the article about its history.] Stifle (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided as to whether this met WP:NFCC#8, and thus the decision to remove it from the History of A&F article is the right one. But I know I don't like the way we got there. #8 is fundamentally different from the other NFCC in that every one of the others is either entirely or almost entirely objective: Either an image has been previously published, or it hasn't. Either it's used solely in non-disambiguation mainspace articles, or it isn't. Either its description page has its source, a copyright tag, and a rationale for the articles it's used in, or it doesn't. #8, though, and to a lesser extent the "could be created" clause of #1, is a judgment call, and interpretation of policy in deletion discussions is the role of the discussion's participants, not the closer. There wasn't any discussion whatsoever of whether this article met NFCC#8 in its deletion discussion, merely an ambivalent assertion that it didn't. It was closely followed by a question about WP:NFCC#1 (which wasn't cited) in a manner that suggested it was a restatement of the same issues; and of course it was the question in English, not the bare assertion in cryptic Wikipedia shortcut-ese, that BMK answered. We can hardly fault him for that. Relist so the issue can be argued properly. —Cryptic 19:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you folks can do whether the hell you want to do, I am -- once again -- giving up on uploading non-free files (except movie posters) to Wikipedia because you (not all of you, obviously, but many of you here in this discussion) make it almost impossible to do so, with your overly strict ultra-literal interpretation of the rules. When you do that, when you drive good editors from improving articles by behaving in that manner, you actively harm the encyclopedia, and I want no part of it, so take it all, it's once again your private domain over which you can rule and feel important. I'll return to what I do, which is to improve articles, and in that way improve the encyclopedia, and you can do what you do, which is to find every possible way to restrict images from being used, harming the encyclopedia. (The famous but probably apocryphal story has the business magnate telling the coterie of lawyers that he has on retainer not to tell him what he can do, but to find ways of doing what he wants to do. I wouldn't advise you folks to apply for that job.)
I really don't give a tinker's cuss whether you reopen this or not, Explicit's close was clearly and obviously an overstepping of the bounds of what a closing admin is expected to do, but because the same things happens day after day in file work, some of you seem to think it's just peachy. Well, it isn't. It's totally antithetical to the purpose of having an uninvolved (huh, right, as if there was an "uninvolved" admin working in the files area) admin closing a consensus discussion, and I am actually shocked that it can be seen as anything else.
Your sense of power and "responsibility" comes only because you have perverted the purpose of the non-free rules, which is first and foremost to prevent us from getting sued. That's the bottom line, which I doubt many of you understand. I think that you think that we're dealing in absolutes, when what we're actually dealing with is judgment: Will using this image get us into trouble? That's it, that's what it all boils down to, but some of you can't see the forest for the trees, so you insist on chopping them all down so you can see the forest better.
Once again, let me make it clear: what you do actively harms Wikipedia, and if you turn off your computer at the end of a busy day of deleting images with a warm glow for all the good work you did, you are lying to yourself. The obvious problems should obviously be taken care of, but it doesn't take much smarts to do that. If you have to cite sentence 4 of sub-paragraph 6, you are off the rails, and would be better off helping the encyclopedia by searching for and fixing every instance of "teh" and "amd".
Anyway, enjoy yourselves, just don't try to scratch that nagging feeling in your conscience, because it ain't going away. BMK (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the NFCC is not solely about us getting not-sued. The NFCC policy is such because the goal of the foundation is narrower than "whatever's legal". That contributors to this project don't like the project goals as laid out by the foundation is surely undesirable, but that's where we are. Lots of shouting and treating everyone as if they are all thick and must all be wrong because they don't see it the way I do is not constructive. I somehow doubt the foundation will be swayed by "I'll stop uploading stuff unless I get my way" --82.14.37.32 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When a non-free image is used in one article, the argument that it should not be used in another seems much weakened to me (a wicked person will be able to download the image and use it unlawfully anyway). Anyway, in this case if the image Mackensen has found is OK (are you sure it's not Postman Pat?) the non-free image will be removed from both articles. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Cryptic. Rebbing 19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again BMK misses the point. The NFCC is not about getting not-sued; that's a distant second to upholding the principle that this project is about making a free encyclopedia. If BMK wishes to not upload further non-free content, I will gladly assist in motivating him along that path. Yelling at people, treating them as stupid, and telling them they're wrong is unlikely to sway them to his point of view. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 June 2016

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

This DRV meets at least two reasons per WP:DRVPURPOSE, Deletion Review may be used: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; ..... if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; REASON 1: Wrongly closed by failure of the non-administrator closer to comply with WP:NAC which states "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. There was no clear outcome and a contentious debate. The user who closed it is not an administrator and was asked not to close it. REASON 2: New information has come to light such as the cause of death, that there is now testimony about drug use on the plane, source of drugs, drug treatment plan was going to be started, and realization that this was a very notable death and notable events surrounding death. ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE: Suggested by a user that voted delete that I or someone pursue DRV. The final result of the AFD should have been "no consensus, default to keep" or, in light of further new information since the AFD, a "keep". Thank you Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST as this user closed the AfD so wouldn't oppose it but would oppose overturning his own decision.Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Consensus at the prior DRV shows that the AfD was closed correctly and the close rationale by RoySmith pointedly says that any discussion to resurrect the page should occur at Prince's talk page. The thing about DRV is that it's only supposed to look at whether or not the original deletion was valid and the last DRV closed as it being valid. Now that said, there's been enough since then to where the article would likely survive another AfD. However that discussion needs to occur on the article's talk page and if successful, you can feel free to recreate the page without going through DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already dealt with this, and there is no need for us to deal with it again at this point. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I see no mention of the two reasons in this complaint as being addressed in a previous deletion review. I also see that SST Flyer made the original Delete decision so his comments are complete inappropriate and should be striken. A judge never decides on an appeal of their own decision. For example, if a judge rules one way, that same judge is not on the appeals court. I vote mainly because I see a very bad process going on, which is some User trying to uphold fairness and the rules but seeing opposition. Frankly, I don't care about Prince and don't know the lyrics to any of his songs, short of a phrase or two. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2016

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Australian middleweight boxing champions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure that I believe does not fall within the limits of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. It did not look like a clear consensus had been reached nor did it appear to be non-contentious. I believe it should have been left for an admin. I commented, but did not vote, at this discussion. I have posted a notice of this discussion on the talk page of the discussion's closer. Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • IAR Endorse, for the same reasons I gave in the List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV, below. Some of the delete comments were clearly not in accordance with established policy, i.e. I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep. I could maybe, possibly, see how this might have been closed as NC, but there's no possible way it could have been closed as delete, so the close seems good to me, and nobody would even be questioning it if the closer owned a mop. Given some of the absurd hazing I've seen at WP:RFA, I can't blame people for not wanting to put themselves up for adminship. We need more people willing to do good work, not chasing them away because of our stupid rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - At the end of the day consensus was to Keep and personally even I would've closed as such (and I'd imagine anyone else would too), Perhaps a more lenient closer may of closed as NC however regardless it's still a keep. –Davey2010Talk 04:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Improper closure by non administrator. Non admins should stop closing these things unless it is 100% clear cut and not controversial. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per RoySmith. It would be ideally closed by an admin, but it was closed correctly (I could see a NC close here, but many of the delete arguments were about cleanup and so should be given less weight). Hobit (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best NAC I've ever seen, but by no means the worst. If it would make the process wonks feel better I will vacate the close and reclose it myself (also as keep). Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, unnecessary drama, clearly lack of consensus for deletion, A NC close would had been a viable option, but at the end of the day it would not change anything. Cavarrone 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot If Stifle wants to reclose it as keep, he can do that, and someone can bring it back here, and that would likely be endorsed as an admin did it. Admins are like black belts: you don't get the bit and then get the good judgment, you demonstrate the good judgment and then you get the bit. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Luvelli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As discussed with MarPatton, she request to WP:USERFY the article to put more development to the article as she can. Donnie Park (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

inappropriate non admin closure under WP:NAC. This non admin should not close AfDs that are close like this. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this has already been discussed on your talk page. As per WP:NAC, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. This AfD does not meet that. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my TalkPage, I too pointed out that "non-admins can perform AfD closure as Keep, Redirect, Merge and no consensus". You are reading only one part of NAC and not reading it full. I gave you a link there and I recommend you read it. There are other points after "....experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep"; you are totally ignoring that fact just to build your case. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be ignoring important parts of the pages you're citing here. You cited this in support of the view that non-admins can make no consensus closures. This says that "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination". In other words if an AfD has very little participation and has been open for some time then it's OK for a non-admin to close as no consensus for lack of participation. This was emphatically not one of those AfDs - it was an AfD with substantial participation where opinion was divided. You also ignored the fact that the same page says "No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus." This AfD was one of them. Non-admins are indeed allowed to close discussions where the result is obviously Keep, but that has nothing to do with this case. I suggest you refrain from closing discussions of this type in the future unless you manage to pass RfA. Hut 8.5 20:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also quoting Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participantsthis AfD has clear debate . LibStar (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • IAR endorse. WP:Non-admin_closure#Pitfalls_to_avoid says, No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus., and this closure clearly violates that rule. But, it's a stupid rule. The important thing is that we get to the right endpoint, and looking at the AfD, I'm convinced we did. I can't imagine closing this any way other than NC. The only possible alternative action would have been to relist it. But, since it was already relisted once, was open for 26 days, and had attracted reasonable, policy-based arguments on both sides, from a total of eight editors, a relist was hardly necessary, and probably pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen so an admin can close it. This is a clear example of a discussion which shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. As the closer seems to have a pattern of questionable non-admin closures of discussions (at least two have been overturned in the last two weeks) I think we need to make it clear that this action isn't appropriate. Hut 8.5 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The result should be keep because a non-admin was so disruptive that there is a DRV and so much manpower used to correct a wrong. The default of disruption like this should be an automatic keep, not re-litigate. Otherwise, that just encourages non-administrator misconduct.Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm curious. Were they overturned simply because they were NACs, or because they ended up with the wrong result? Could you provide links to them? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Woodward, closed as Keep, subsequently overturned and reclosed as Redirect (which is more in keeping with the discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoroastrian Students' Association, closed as Keep when only one person other then the nominator had participated, overturned and relisted. I can see lots of other dubious decisions which didn't lead to overturn, e.g. closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Michel Coulon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Roy as No Consensus when they should have been left to admins in a similar situation to this one, and closes of discussions where there was substantial debate such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Avidan. Hut 8.5 22:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments on the cases brought up by Hut 8.5,
    • Wayne Woodward, I too had closed it with a comment "Merge / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage". Since I was new on NAC, instead of merging / redirecting myself, I left the remark like that. Discussion on this subject can be found here. It was Bonadea & Davey2010 who pointed that out. Let me make it clear, the decision was not overturned but the procedure was corrected.
I would like to highlight this AfD discussion (exactly similar case except the closing comments) which ended in merge vote BUT the merge was not performed. This AfD was closed by RoySmith. See how the merge was finally performed.
  • Zoroastrian Students' Association. Do we count number of votes or look at the quantum or go by the merit of the case? Between 16th June and today (11 days), what did the AfD achieve apart from few relisting? At WP:AFDEQ I read "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote". You two guys are admins, please help me understand this.
  • Jean-Michel Coulon & Rudolf Roy: An honest question to both you admins. Are non-admins NOT supposed to perform NAC? In NAC, under "appropriate closures", I read the following. Quote "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" Unquote. Where did I err?
  • Dan Avidan. Its a clear keep outcome? Why are we even discussing this closure?
Please let me have your thoughts. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above you are completely missing the point of that quotation on no consensus closures. It says that it's OK for non-admins to close as no consensus in the case where the AfD has been open for some time and has seen very limited participation. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for non-admins to perform other kinds of no consensus closures, and the same page advises you against it earlier on. The discussions you're closing as no consensus aren't ones with limited participation, they're ones with significant participation where opinion was divided. The guideline here is WP:NACD, which says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. No consensus discussions usually fall under this, except for the special case where the AfD had limited participation. The same goes for AfDs which had substantial debate or where lots of editors disagreed with the eventual outcome.
I think it might be best if you took a step back from non-admin AfD closures. I'm sure you're trying to help but it looks like you're getting in a bit over your head. That closure which you excuse on grounds of inexperience was a mere two weeks ago. Hut 8.5 10:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I mean shit I know in the past I've perhaps pushed boundaries but that's a whole new level! - The AFD should've without a doubt been relisted and I also notice a growing trend in the editor making extremely questionable closes, I appreciate they wanna help but I personally think they're doing more harm than good, Anyway although technically there is no consensus at the AFD it still should've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 03:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Davey2010, I can understand your frustration. You raised objection on a NAC performed by me (entire discussion here) and forced me to open the AfD. When I refused, you threatened me and took the matter to DRV. Here you were told by Newyorkbrad & SmokeyJoe that the NAC was proper and that the matter should not have been brought up to DRV. Not to be embarrassed further, you closed the DRV yourself citing "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!". Are you trying to get back at me for that instance? If not then rather than making opening ended and lose statements, talk on merit (like you did in case of Wayne Woodward and I immediately acknowledged). In case of Wayne Woodward also, the closure decision was NOT overturned and only the process / approach was improved. I gave a point by point explanation (read above) of the cases being discussed. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might wanna read WP:AGF - I don't hold grudges especially over something stupid as an AFD and I find it extremely worrying you would bring that up and simply assume I'm holding somesort of grudge but to answer your question No that AFD has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments,
Your entire talkpage is full of complaints and I myself have noticed you've closed a few AFDs that should've been closed as a different outcome or relisted (My only reasoning for not bringing it up as I couldn't see the point in arguing and arguing and arguing with you),
At the end of the day however you see it your outcome WAS overturned ..... You closed it as Keep and I reclosed it as Redirect ..... thus it was overturned. –Davey2010Talk 13:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Everyone, this is taking far too much time and is not worth spending energy (atleast not mine) on this matter any further. I am not a vandal and neither do I have any COI in any of the AfD, not worth "fighting over it" and scoring brownie points. AfD nominators start getting upset when their desired AfD results are not met. In the interest to move forward; I recommend following;
    • Involved admins in this matter - please tell me the NACs (I am involved in) that should be opened and re-listed. I will gladly do it.
    • I will continue to perform NAC but ONLY clear keeps for now. Wont touch NC.
    • Since you guys are admins, I suggest you make the related policies better and not so vague that it can be interpreted either way based on convenience. It should be either Black or White - cant be grey.
Let me know if something else is needed and lets not waste time on this worthless discussion (and trust me, the outcome of NONE of the AfD are going to be any different than what I did). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people coming out with the hierarchical bureaucratic stuff above need to show that a sysop would have closed it differently. If they can't do that they're wasting our time.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point - No admin would've closed it at all - It would've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The competent ones would have closed it. WP:RELIST says ...relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. I accept that there's currently a fashion for chickenhearted sysops to fill up AfD with no-consensus debates that they really ought to have closed, but all they're really doing is wasting volunteer time.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they wouldn't as there's alot of competent admins at AFD who relist instead of closing, I agree there's some that should be closed as such but on the whole I don't see the issue with relisting and regardless of what RELIST says relisting is always preferred over closing as No Consensus and I've even witnessed it here that Relist is preferred over closures. –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel WP:RELIST gets it wrong and should be ignored (unlike what was done on this NAC) but you feel the close was wrong because it violated WP:NAC? It's hard to argue that there was a process problem with the close when your preferred close also runs afoul of our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple thoughts, in no particular order.
    There was absolutely no reason to relist this debate, and there's hardly ever good reason to relist one that had received this much participation, or even a third as much; about the only time where it might be correct to do so is if substantial evidence had been added to the article or AFD shortly before closing that would likely impact the outcome. The few times I've looked into closing afds since becoming active again I gave up in frustration after edit conflicts trying to close multiple debates with people unnecessarily relisting them, in a few cases minutes after their daily log page became eighth in line.
    There wasn't a consensus for deletion, so the outcome was correct. The folks with boldfaced "keep" arguments didn't have terribly strong, policy-based rationales for them, but the rationales of the folks with boldfaced "delete" ones were even weaker. There's perhaps weak consensus for a merger, but it's not nearly strong enough to impose based on the afd, and the last step of a merger is not deletion except in extraordinary cases (which this is not). Go work it out on the lists' talk pages.
    There isn't anything at all vague about WP:NAC's statements about no-consensus closes. It explicitly only permits them is if there's both "little or no discussion" and there's "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (and the latter should be mentioned in the closing statement). If you can misread the essay so badly as to think it's supporting other kinds of no consensus closes by non-admins instead of going out of its way to forbid them, you're probably going to miss enough nuance that you actually shouldn't be closing debates as no consensus, if at all.
    On the other hand, if you'd indicated here that you understood that WP:NAC guided you not to close but you did it anyway, I'd have had much less of a problem with that. Like RoySmith, I think that it's dumb for WP:NAC to say this. The debates it says are ok for non-admins to close aren't the ones that take up a lot of time to do. A history of only closing such doesn't help us evaluate a candidate at WP:RFA, either, since there's hardly any room for judgment in closing those; all it would show is that he would be the kind of robotic rules-bound buttonpusher admin that we're not really in desperate need of. —Cryptic 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Only realistic close choice (though keep would have been a close second IMO) and a WP:TROUT to LibStar for the pointy nomination statement and generally poor behavior at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion review is a review of the nature of the close. If you have issues with my behaviour take it up elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Non-admins should not be closing discussions other than the most clear-cut keeps. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as an admin if that helps. No other way that this could have been closed, and a relist is clearly inappropriate as there was plenty of participation and no indication that another week would have moved this any closer to a consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse as closing user. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I understand that this AfD was open for quite a while. However, I personally see a result tending towards a merge here (instead of a no-consensus). Although open for 3 weeks, the AfD was relisted only once. Relisting helps to generate visibility and places it at the front of the queue increasing the likelihood that more editors will vote. I would have preferred to relist it again and wait for more opinions. Relisting twice is good enough for me - should nothing change after the second relist, it can be closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 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 June 2016

[edit]
  • Keith Paterson – Endorse AfD close as correct, but moot Opinion here is that the close was correct at the time, but recent events have rendered moot the fact that the two-year-old merge finding was never executed . I'm going to indulge in a slight supervote by including in this close Rebbing's suggestion that this is without prejudice to renomination should anyone feel it necessary – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Keith Paterson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years ago the AFD discussion was closed as merge. Nothing wrong there as that was a correct reading of consensus. As far as I can tell nobody has made any attempt to merge the article until I came across it today. I noticed that in January 2015 (6 months after the merge close) he was awarded an MBE.[5][6] I think this new information might now make him notable enough for a stand alone article. Note that Black Kite, the admin who correctly closed the AFD, has since retired. The respondents at the AFD were @DGG, Ritchie333, Peminatweb, Gregkaye, Sig1068, Xymmax, Lankiveil, Whpq, and XiuBouLin: AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have to endorse the original close, but since nobody has done the merge, it might be best to quietly take the tag off. The AfD respected consensus and was closed within policy - I wanted a keep, but went for merge as a second choice. A search for sources reveals the MBE but not really enough sustained coverage to clearly make a difference to the original article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to leave it where it is and remove the merge tag. An MBE does not show notability itself but does add enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
World Class Manufacturing: (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. I found, days ago, that I had lost access to the article itself and to all history and references to it, including the deletion deliberations, because (as noted by someone in authority when I raised the issue) an inadvertent colon had appeared right after the title of the article (e.g., "World-class manufacturing:"), which caused a block against access. 2. I failed to make a copy of the article and need it now to complete this request for deletion review. 3. I suspect that the final decision to delete was based on my initial, very rough and inadequate creation of the article (In my talk I thanked DGG for pointing out the flaws). However, on noticing the recommendation to delete, I searched and found and included extensive information mainly from books, plus a few published articles on the topic, World-class manufacturing. I had not dug into the hundreds of articles on the topic that have been published, thus to use them to further improve the article, but could not do so since the article was delisted. 4. If I had received timely advice about flaws in the article (e.g., dictionary, original research, synthesis faults) I could easily have made the necessary corrections. 5. I communicated with the administrator about these matters, and so, now, am taking the next step. Known and knowable (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Known and knowable: You're going to have to list those additional sources, not just assert they exist, to gain much traction here.
    It's late here and I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something looking at the deleted article; but am I correct in assessing this as a specific set of practices with an unfortunately generic name, not the "general superlative" for which DGG nominated it for deletion? —Cryptic 02:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have contributed to DGG's referring to the title as a "general superlative," because in my original, brief, poorly-done entry of the article, I think I started off referring to it as a generic term that ...." But, as sometimes is the case with a good title, "world-class manufacturing" may have been coined initially (in a book and in a later article by the Harvard professors) partly BECAUSE it had a familiar ring to it. It's similar in that respect to Just-in-time manufacturing, Lean manufacturing, and other terms that have become prominent (vs. obscure terms such as 5S, to which the reader might wonder, "huh?) and are in Wikipedia. But thank you for your advice--that I need to list those additional sources. I would be pleased to do that, and have extra free time now that summer is here. I'm still a Wikipedia rookie, have learned a lot in this deletion matter, and expect to do much better in the future.Known and knowable (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding to this talk, because I've just done a partial literature search for World-class manufacturing, the most notable finding being that an article in French with that exact title already exists in Wikipedia. It includes bits of the same material that was in my deleted article. My search, still preliminary, also yielded 26 articles, many from refereed journals, with that term in their titles; and a list of 16 "world class manufacturing professionals" that turned up from LinkedIn (e.g., Onu Kiliç, World Class Manufacturing Supervisor at Türk Traktõr). All for now.Known and knowable (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any person can call himself world class anything if they choose. We have had probably half a million articles that described a person or product or company as world-class or cutting-edge or the equivalent. I try to remove all such phrases I come as across as puffery. There seems to be no formal qualification or certification involved. I undeleted the article for inspection: (1) the lede defines it as "“being better than almost every other company in your industry in at least one important aspect of manufacturing" which seems defined to enable any major company to make the claim, depending on how it chooses to define "almost every" and "some important aspect". (2) The central part of the article says "As for companies that have adopted the WCM term, one stands out: Italian automaker Fiat,..." whose program it goes on to describe in detail. If this isn't blatant promotionalism , nothing is. (3) the last third of the article is a summary of book chapters, but it does not seem to indicate what book. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the temporary undelete. I'll respond first to the puffery angle and then to your three points. Yes, world class can and is applied to athletes, opera singers, and whatnot. But "world-class manufacturing" has been elevated into manufacturing similar to that of lean, Toyota production system, just-in-time--along with other terms that are not popular in other contexts (e.g., cellular manufacturing, Six Sigma, total productive maintenance, 5S, multi-skilling, statistical process control, reengineering). Hayes, Wheelwright, and Clark might have hoped that the title of their 1988 book, Dynamic Manufacturing (which I cited in my weak opening sentence to the article), would have caught on instead of World-class manufacturing. But The latter term, though it can be seen as puffery, caught on as a collection point for a wide range of manufacturing concepts and methods probably because it IS a common expression.

As to your three points: (1) I fully agree that "being better that almost every other company ..." is a ridiculous statement. I included it partly because it was among the earliest writings on WCM and also that it was written by three Harvard profs who were (probably retired by now) about the most prominent academics in their field of operations management. But it was a poor way to open the article, and it should be eliminated and replaced by a better opening. (2) I'm sure Fiat/Chrysler wants the public to know about its "world-class manufacturing," in that it does have promotional value. But in my further research today I learned that they have some kind of a WCM institute that propagates their WCM concepts rather deeply into the organization, with people designated as WCM functionaries in Detroit HQ and in their plants in various countries. In my today's research I've found other companies that in the 2000s have similarly established a WCM presence in their organizations: CNH Industrial, Whirlpool China, Saint-Gobain Brazil, Maserati, Unilever Germany. In a re-write I would cite articles about these other WCM users, and downplay Fiat-Chrysler's. (3) The book is the Schonberger/1986 book that was the subject of the preceding para.; it should have been cited as such in the continuation under Factory methodologies.

In this new paragraph, I'd like to show you some evidence that world-class manufacturing has/had become much more than the common puff term. I apologize for inundating you, but here are a lot of articles, mostly unearthed today, on various aspects of WCM; quite of few of them come from refereed academic journals (I would intend to cite these kinds of sources in order to greatly improve the article):

Fast, Larry. 2016. What is world class manufacturing and how do you measure it? IndustryWeek. (Nov. 2-4); http://www.industryweek.com/measure-world-class-manufacturing (accessed 24 June 2016).

Hopper, Trevor, Jazayeri, Mostafa, Westrup, Chris. 2008. World class manufacturing and accountability: how companies and the state aspire to competitiveness. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 4/2: 97-135.

Storey, John; Harrison, Alan. 1999. Coping with world class manufacturing. Work Employment & Society, 13/4 (December): 643-644.

Gharakhani, Davood. 2011. Identify and ranking obstacles of world class manufacturing implementing by the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1/5: 10-18.

Digalwar, A.K., Sangwan, K.S. 2007. Development and validation of performance measures for world class manufacturing practices in India. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, 6/1 (June)

COLIN, N. World-Class Manufacturing versus Strategic Trade-Offs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 1992, vol. 12, issue 4, p. 55 - 68.

W.J. Vrakking, P. Mulders. The implementation of ‘world class manufacturing’ principles in smaller industrial companies: A case study from consulting practice. Technovation, Volume 12, Issue 5, July 1992, Pages 297-308

Schonberger, R.J. 1986. The vital elements of world-class manufacturing. International Management, 41/5: 76-78.

Silva, L.C.S., et al. 2013. Cost deployment tool for technological innovation of world class manufacturing. Scientific Research, JTTs, 3/1 (January); open access paper; www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27019[predatory publisher] (accessed 24 June 2016).

Owens, Jeff. 2015. 10 steps to achieve world-class manufacturing maintenance practices. Plant Engineering (May 11). http://www.plantengineering.com/single-article/10-steps-to-achieve-world-class-manufacturing-maintenance-practices/16a02f4a380350e95d06083e2851aa6c.html (accessed 24 June 20160.

Jaap van Ede, Ir. 2015. Unilever’s new and integrated program for world class manufacturing. Business Improvement EU (19 October); http://www.business-improvement.eu/worldclass/Unilever_World_Class_Manufacturing_Yamashima2.php (accessed 24 June 2016).

Garberding, S. 2009. World Class Manufacturing: Chrysler Group LLC 2010-14 Business Plan; a PowerPoint presentation (Nov. 4). http://www.business-improvement.eu/worldclass/Unilever_World_Class_Manufacturing_Yamashima2.php (accessed 24 June 2016).

Sayay, B.S., Saxena, K.B.C., Ashish, K. 2001. World-class manufacturing and information age competition. Industrial Management, 43/3 (May/June).

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Jones, D. 2005. World class manufacturing: further evidence in the lean production debate. British Journal of Management, 5/s1 (December): S53-S63.

McGroarty, J. Stanton. 2013. How world class manufacturing made one plant safer, greener and more profitable. Plant Services (March 20). http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2013/04-plant-profile-chrysler-belvidere/ (accessed 24 June 2016)

De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., Monfreda, S. 2015. Improving operations performance with world class manufacturing technique: a case in automotive industry. Intech: Chapter 1. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/43383.pdf (accessed 24 June 2016) (Note: This article summarized Schonberger’s 1986 book>)

Linda C. Hendry. 1998. Applying world class manufacturing to make‐to‐order companies: problems and solutions", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 11, pp.1086 - 1100

Jazayeri, Mostafa; Hopper, Trevor. 1999. Management accounting within world class manufacturing: a case study. Management Accounting Research, 10/3 (Sept.): 363-301

Lukman, S., Hafizah, A., Nurlisa Loke, A. 2014. The impact of world class manufacturing practices on company performance: a critical review. Applied Mechanics & Materials, Issue 564 (July): 727.

Institute for world class manufacturing to award 120 certifications. 2010. Quality Magazine (June 24)

Lind, Johnny. 2001. Control in world class manufacturing—a longitudinal case study. Management Accounting Research, 12/1 (March) 41-74.

Andrea Chiarini & Emidia Vagnoni. 2014. World-class Manufacturing by Fiat: Comparison with Toyota Production System from a Strategic Management, Management Accounting, Operations Management and Performance Measurement Dimension. Int’l J. of Production Research, 53/2, 2015

If I am allowed to re-do the article, I would also take a close look at the World-Class Manufacturing article that I found in the French Wikipedia.Known and knowable (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my explanations and numerous additional sources on world-class manufacturing, can the article be restored so that I can get to work making it right? Thanks.Known and knowable (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Known and knowable:, I was going to close this debate, but given how little real discussion has taken place, I'm at a loss how to proceed here. I think you will find that it's easier to engage other wikipedia editors in productive conversation if you write less, rather than more. Looking at the amount of text that's been written here, I don't know where to begin, and it's hard muster up enthusiasm to read it all. So, my request to you is could you please summarize your long comments above in the following ways: First, write one short paragraph explaining why you think this article meets our policies. And second, provide a list of two or three, but no more of the sources which you feel best justify your claim of notability. I think if you do this, you'll find people much more likely to invest the time to give your request a fair evaluation. And, as a note to others looking to close this, I know we don't have a formal relist mechanism like AfD has, but I'd request we keep this open for at least another few days to allow time to respond to my request. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 2 July 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 June 2016

[edit]

22 June 2016

[edit]

21 June 2016

[edit]

20 June 2016

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

Now he is a member of Hanwha Eagles. Baseball figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team. Halfkimoon (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand and respect the rules and guidelines put forth by Wikipedia as they apply to business listings. I do feel, however, that the rules are not being enforced equitably. If Wikipedia is concerned about fairness, the rules and guidelines need to be applied to each and every business listing on the site. There should be no “grandfathering in” of pages created prior to Ace Relocation Systems’ that do not adhere to those rules. If there is no active/functioning link to an article about each of the businesses in a legitimate news source – which seems to be the main reason for deleting the Ace Relocation listing – then those should be deleted, as well. Keep in mind that the "Ace Relocations" article did have links to reputable news sources such as the San Diego Business Journal, the San Jose/ Silicon Valley Business Journal and the Phoenix Business Journal.

Below are some examples of businesses that are no more legitimate or qualified than the "Ace Relocations" article. This is but a very small sample of those. There are, I'm sure, many more since this was an audit conducted over the course of approximately two hours.

An examination of these articles' references will reveal that they are no more, most likely even less, qualified than the recently deleted Ace Relocation article.

A note about news sources writing articles about companies in the moving and storage business: generally they do not spend a lot of time writing about them unless they are the subject of criminal investigation or an outpouring of consumer complaints. “No news is good news” is the rule in the relocation industry. Ogbrewer (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HCR Relocation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpass, afds I just placed yesterday. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC) And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move One Inc . DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ogbrewer. I see nobody's welcomed you to Wikipedia yet, so let me be the first! Welcome to the site! I'm sorry that we aren't consistent. We have various rules, policies and guidelines about inconsistency, such as this one, but what it boils down to is that we consider articles one at a time and we don't seem to have got to those others yet. When we do (eventually) get there, yes, they will be held to the same rules. But it could take a long time. We have more than five million articles and limited amounts of volunteer time. The more you understand Wikipedia the more you'll come to think of it as an unending stream of colossal backlogs. I hope this doesn't make you too unhappy and that you'll decide to stick around. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this was a SNOW close, I am willing to reopen if there is even one additional substantial source. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response- Excellent! I am currently checking for more sources. In the meantime, would this article from bisnow.com or this article from rejournals.com suffice for substantial sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbrewer (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ogbrewer, the first is a mere mention that the bought a building in a list of commerialreal estate transactions; the second is longer, but still just a notice. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have found an additional reference in the Orlando Sentinel.  Here is a link to a brief overview of the article from the sentinel's archives.  I am currently attempting to provide a link to the entire article, but it is difficult to find one online.  I will add a link if I find one.  Please take a look at this and let me know if this would be substantial enough.  Either way, thank you for your consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbrewer (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As mentioned above, the existence of other articles which you might feel to be somehow "worse" than a deleted article is an argument to nominate those other articles for deletion, not to keep/restore articles that don't meet the requirements. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted the fact that we have articles on other subjects which apparently don't satisfy our notability guidelines is a poor reason to restore this one. Maybe there are differences between this company and those companies - the fact that an article doesn't cite references doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, that is determined by whether the references exist to be cited. Or perhaps those companies aren't notable either and their articles should be deleted. Neither means that this article should be restored. If we are going to revisit the issue then I would expect at least one source which is a substantial improvement on those which have been brought up so far. Hut 8.5 23:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2016

[edit]

18 June 2016

[edit]

17 June 2016

[edit]

16 June 2016

[edit]

15 June 2016

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

It's a worldwide non-government organization closely affiliated with UN and World Health Organization. They are the hosts of the World Hepatitis Day. It's not some private "foundation" seeking publicity. It's one of the major programs similar to UNAIDS. How in the world could it be even considered for speedy deletion? The deleting admin thinks it's promotion and advertisement. He archived my request to undelete it and his refusal to do so. Therefore, I can't provide the link to it. It's somewhere on his Talk page. I believe this article should be undeleted. If there are any drawbacks to it, they should be flagged in a template and worked on. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A) Going to need a temp undelete. B) Yes, even an NGO can have an overly promotional article. In general, I'd just ask for it to be put in your userspace so you can deal with the promotional issues (assuming the deleting admin was justified in the speedy). If you aren't sure if you've fixed it or would like some help, I'll have some time starting next weekend and can evaluate (after this Thursday) or help edit (starting a week from Saturday). Hobit (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We still need that temporary undelete, all I am seeing is a red link... Carrite (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, do you actually expect someone to do something for you when you talk to them like this and this? —Cryptic 14:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi folks. I deleted it. It was very promotional. The OP does not need this DRV discussion - they're more than welcome to create a new, non-spammy version of this article. After all, as we've heard, this is a super-duper notable organization, so it should be easy to write a proper article from reliable sources, right? Right. -- Y not? 14:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I can confirm that as noted above this page was entirely or almost entirely a copyright violation of various pages on the organisation's website. We do not restore copyright violations under any circumstances unless someone can prove that the content in question is not a copyright violation. Aside from this the article was very promotional to the point where it would have to be gutted in order to render it vaguely neutral and the G11 was entirely reasonable. Hut 8.5 21:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The specific deletion is justifiable, but it illustrates a practice that I've believed for years is far from optimal. In light of all the various outreach activities (GLAM being but one example), there must be far better ways to work with non-profit organizations and institutions that wish to make their activities and missions known on Wikipedia—as opposed to summary deletion, without personalized contact, of articles whose first drafts, by people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, do not initially meet our various rules and requirements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A man patrols the CSD queue and assesses what's there, dispassionately. The many-faced god has lots of policies. A man serves the many-faced god — and servants don't ask questions. The price of deletion has been paid, and a man has been given an article-title! -- Y not? 18:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public service. Good cause advocacy does not get a special run. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close as everyone agrees a non-copyvio article can be put back in this place. NYB's comment about deletion not being the best way forward, especially in a case like this where the Copyvio appears to have been intended to be in the interest of the organization being described, is well taken. We need to remember that even though Wikipedia has been around for over a decade, people still make rookie mistakes like this and should be corrected gently and helped to do the right thing. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, we don't undelete copyvios. Nothing prevents an uninvolved user creating a fresh article. The nominator is counselled to read WP:CIV. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 June 2016

[edit]

13 June 2016

[edit]

12 June 2016

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

(Note: AfD was a bundle that also included Asking 4 It and Rare (Gwen Stefani song).)

Non-admin closure after only 4 editors commented, at least 1 of whom is a significant contributor to the three articles, and 2 of whom reviewed the articles as GAs. The discussion should have been relisted, not closed, so that more uninvolved editors could comment. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment: the "consensus" was to keep 2 of the articles and redirect the third. The discussion, however, indicated preference (among the few commenters) to delete the third article. As deleting is not an action a non-admin can do, that's another reason this closure was inappropriate. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep was the only option on two of them given the !votes and sources. The redirect call is correct per WP:NSONG which asks that songs be redirected. Quite within the closer's discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AFD isn't ArbCom, there's no requirement that commenters be 'uninvolved'. For what it's worth, there's a lot of precedent for keeping singles from major recording artists, so nominating them is pretty pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, there's a lot of precedent for keeping singles from major recording artists Yes. When the singles in questions are notable aside from the standalone album. These aren't individually notable, and even with the "precedent" you claim exists, these aren't singles. Sourcing was noted to be generally poor and unreliable. More importantly, (since my concern is the closure, after all) the discussion attracted comments from very few editors, virtually all of whom were involved in the development of the articles. There was no reason the discussion shouldn't have been relisted for additional comments, particularly from those with no hand in the matter. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Please check out the sources again; I believe I can share my opinion here too, even if I was heavily involved with this discussion? That's not fair of you to say – the only one complaining about the sourcing was you, while the other users involved found it to be fine, including @Ss112: and myself. Carbrera (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from AfD closer – nobody, apart from the AfD nominator, has raised any concerns over the reliability and quantity of the sources for "Asking 4 It" and "Rare". There is near-unanimous consensus among the four discussion participants to keep these two articles and to delete "Truth". Discussion participants being involved with editing the articles just means that they are familiar with these articles, and in no way should their opinions be negated. Both deletion and redirection hides the article content from the article's live version, but redirection is more suitable in this case because it aids navigation and allows non-admins to selectively merge content into the album article. SSTflyer 03:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I thought this was done and dusted already. Not really worth a reexamination. All that's been said about their adequate sourcing has been said. Just noting, I don't see how my one edit to each of the pages makes me a "significant contributor", because I didn't review them as GAs. Ss112 07:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed as delete, for sure. Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all separately as there appears to be differing levels of support for each one. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were differing levels outcome also, so it seems like that was addressed at least to some extent. What are you seeing that makes you think the closer didn't capture those levels correctly? Hobit (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per other comments above. The close reasonably reflected the consensus of those commenting, and I see no supervening policy or BLP type issues that warrant another round of consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above, and recommend the nominator read all of WP:ATD, including the sections on merging and redirection, to better understand why the outcome is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above discussion. I did not find any issues with the discussion being closed as consensus was already reached prior to that decision. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 June 2016

[edit]

10 June 2016

[edit]

9 June 2016

[edit]

8 June 2016

[edit]
  • Death of Prince – Endorse, but... There's really two distinct questions here. One is whether the original AfD was closed properly. There's essentially unanimous agreement here that it was, so that's a clear endorse. The second question is whether circumstances have changed sufficiently in the time since the AfD to warrant recreating the article. That's less clear. Many of the people who participated in this DRV, endorsed the AfD and stopped there, without touching on the second question (which, given the charter of DRV, is perfectly reasonable). Of the people who did address the second question, there's no clear consensus. I think the best I can extract from this, is that DRV isn't the right forum for the second question; if you want to argue for re-creation, Talk:Prince (musician) would be a more appropriate place to have that discussion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Death of Prince (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting relist, this deletion is a bit premature given the fact that it was and still is a current event. The article was in this state when nominated with 25 sources. During the duration of the AfD the article expanded to 64 sources and was improved to this condition. General arguments in favor of deletion believe that a celebrity death is not separate from the celebrity, which is true in some circumstances, but not a valid rationale for deletion or redirecting. Sources and scope of coverage is what makes an event notable. The Death of Prince mirrors the Death of Michael Jackson, the precedence allows stand alone articles for highly covered notable deaths regarding major public figures. Since the closure, numerous sources have been released citing cause of death. USA Today, CBS News and this Rolling Stone article is the type of comprehensiveness we are looking for when it comes to stand alone articles. I believe the closer rationale for WP:TOOSOON no longer applies and recommend a relist for new consensus. Valoem talk contrib 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. My closure at the time was accurate. Since there may be evidence that the topic has lasting notability, allow recreation of the article with no prejudice against speedy renomination for AfD. Note that the history of the article prior to it being redirected is publicly accessible. SSTflyer 00:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close. There was nothing wrong with the close, nothing in the above that changes anything about it. All those arguments were made in the deletion discussion, and hold no weight here. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. Nothing has changed significantly since then. The cause of death is now known, but that requires only a sentence added to Prince (musician), and would not have changed the outcome of the discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The consensus was nearly unanimous -- this article is not needed or warranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close The consensus was clear and it was due to the subject itself, not due to a lack of sources. There has been no significant change in circumstances since the closure. This can be covered in the article. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as many of the major arguments in the AfD now no longer apply ("we don't even know how he died yet"), positively invite the issue to be revisited in the future, or are of questionable validity in the first place (e.g. arguing that we don't need articles about the deaths of famous people - we do for some famous people and it depends on the particular situation). The AfD was over a month ago, which is quite a bit of time for a current event. Hut 8.5 20:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion review is a venue where issues or errors relating to the deletion process are reviewed. It is not a venue to advance new arguments or re-argue old ones that were appropriate to be dealt with at the AFD itself. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Argue for a spinout at Talk:Prince (musician). DRV is not needed for this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both Hut 8.5 and Smokey Joe. DRV should specifically acknowledge it's not unreasonable to have a spinout even in the face of the AfD, but if we should have one should be decided at the talk page of the parent article, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was well-reasoned and appropriate, and specifically acknowledged that a re-spin-out might be appropriate in the future. If that time is here, then DRV is not a necessary step; as others have pointed out, talk page would be a better place to build consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As noted above, discussion of whether there should be a separate article can be renewed once some more time has passed and allows for greater perspective on how much material a separate article might contain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2016

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

The AFD was closed as Keep however I don't believe there was any consensus to Keep, The non-admin closer (User:AKS.9955) has said and I quote "sorry, did I misunderstand that in AfD discussions, votes are not counted and instead arguments are considered? I am sorry if I erred, kindly clarify"[10] yet the AFD looks like it was closed solely on the number of keeps and not the actual discussion, IMHO I believe the AFD should have either been closed as, Redirect, No Consensus or just relisted, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a question and not a statement (big difference). Also, please make sure you don't give wrong facts on TalkPages / discussions. You were telling me that there was one keep vote, however there were four and ZERO delete vote (apart from nomination). Leaving that aside, lets talk about the merit of the article. WP:MUSBIO very clearly says that; "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". Well, guess what, this guy has atleast two singles that I noticed (Siéntelo & Suavemente (song)) that made it to several charts for many years. Whats your point for deleting this article? Please make that point. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was 3 keeps and 3 redirects (mine included) so I see no consensus to Keep, Yes and as I stated in the AFD- singles need to have reliable sources too which as I explained at length on the AFD - these songs don't, I explained all of this at the AFD my friend. –Davey2010Talk 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is one of the sources that clearly states that the song had been on charts of ten different countries (source is already in the article). We can keep on arguing about this but no point. Since the AfD is being discussed here, lets wait for others to review this. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're proving my point more and more which is you've failed to read the arguments and have closed solely on how many keeps there was, I'm not arguing tho ? .... You wanted to come here so I'm discussing it ? .... –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The Keep result was a reasonable reading of consensus. "No consensus" would not have been the right result because there were no !votes for outright deletion, and whether to merge content is generally resolved via talkpage discussion rather than XfD. (Also, absent unusual circumstances, filing a DRV to try to overturn a Keep to "No consensus" is generally not a good use of the community's time since the effect is substantially the same.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not trying to be funny nor argue but I genuinely don't see a keep consensus here tho - I'm not trying to say I'm right etc etc but I discussed why I didn't believe the sources were adequate for the BLP so that should've been taken in to account before closing, The No consensus part would be so that it could atleast be renominated in a few months, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe I absolutely agree there was no clear consensus against deletion however that's my entire point there wasn't any clear consensus in keeping the article either? .... Consensus in the end swayed towards redirecting so surely instead all of this polava it would've made more sense to just redirect ? .... –Davey2010Talk 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The discussion, over a month after opening, over a week after the last comment, was heading towards agreement to merge and redirect, which is against keeping the stand-alone article as-is. However, the merge is non-trivial and is subject to being rejected at the target (not that I think that is likely, as the target is a quiet article). I think any editor should feel free to perform the merge. I agree that the closing statement could have been better, the closer should summarise the discussion, and it is not well summarised as "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It took a few moments to work out that no, you were not trying to speedy delete the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe - I agree it did go on for a very long time and it did need closing, I'll go to the talkpage in the next few weeks once this has all died down a bit, I completely agree - Maybe if the closer expanded abit then yeah maybe I still would've been a bit pissed but I would've accepted it and would've gone straight to the talkpage, Meh what's done's done I guess, Thanks for replying and for your advice - As always it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 06:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Taylor Lianne Chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Taylor Lianne Chandler's page was deleted after vandalism to alter information by sarahj2107. My page has been vandalized and protected repeatedly over the last 18 months. The reason given for deletion were false. History of the page would show valid citations, not Facebook posts. In addition to my relationship with Michael Phelps my whole life and being born intersex was made public. I've written two books and been in an adult film. I have appeared on tv, newspapers and magazines worldwide. I speak on gender and intersex rights. I'm verified on social media with the little blue check mark. I'm one of the highest rated Howard Stern shows with Bradley Cooper. A quick Google search would have provided this information. Articles appear about me to this day. www.facebook.com/TaylorLianneChandler Please restore my page and once again protect it. Add my photo back from my appearance on Howard Stern that was also deleted. Why this editor was given the freedom to do this based on lies and hate is disturbing. 2600:8806:2204:D800:4D28:43EF:E258:8A86 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • One quick note - the way you've written this gives off the impression that Sarahj2107 vandalized the page, but it looks like she was the admin that closed the AfD. Now as far as appearing on the Howard Stern Show goes, that by itself doesn't give notability since his show isn't seen as a reliable, notability giving source per Wikipedia's guidelines, although it can lead to coverage in RS. One of the main concerns about your coverage has been that the coverage has been almost solely based on your relationship with Phelps. Typically we don't retain articles when someone is almost solely known for being related to or in a relationship with someone unless that relationship has been the focus of a lot of coverage over a long period of time in various different sources (like academic texts and the like). Offhand the sourcing does seem to focus predominantly on the past relationship and the coverage for non-Phelps topics is fairly slim. What we need is coverage about things other than your past relationship with Phelps, like coverage of the books and talks where the focus isn't on your past relationship. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically, the question here is can you provide more sourcing than what was already in the article where the coverage is on something other than the relationship? Can you provide reviews for the books and films in places Wikipedia would consider reliable? Tabloid sources like TMZ should be avoided. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I read the above correctly, the nominator (the 2600 IP) is claiming to be the article subject (despite the initial use of the third person in the comment). If this is true, it should be verified via OTRS before discussion here proceeds on that basis. I say this not out of any specific suspicion of or disrespect to the person posting, but because there have been instances of such impersonation before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79 or Newyorkbrad: Requesting temporary undeletion for this review if the content has no problems preventing it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - All of the reliable sources used in the article content in question are about an alleged relationship the subject had with Michael Phelps which leads me to WP:BLP1E concerns (and the AfD nominator expressed other applicable ones clearly). That aside, and more on point to this DRV: The claims that Sarahj2107 engaged in misconduct are baseless, they acted in accordance with the deletion policy. There was no opposition and enough support for deletion to make this close and subsequent deletion unambiguously per consensus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2016

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

No consensus reached. The involvement of the (significant) community of the discussed article's topic disturbed the review process. Which lead ultimately to a heated discussion and a non-neutral perception of newly brought up sources, misinterpreted by the deleting admin. Shaddim (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disregarded the struck out !votes and the keep !vote by Shirepirate, a COI editor who made no policy based arguments. That left only you for keeping it. I felt given the numerous other delete !votes and their views that the sources provided did not prove notability, that the overall consensus was to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if we take out the biased (?) community authors I tried alone to balance the discussion with a "keep" position. But it seems to late, at this stage of the discussion the situation was already so polarized that the independent WP authors had already made up their mind and not really took a look into the brought up argumentation and sources by me (I got also accused more or less openly without reason & proof to be COI, which was a low strike). The discussion went bad with too less appreciation for the involvement of the community who tried to seriously understand the situation and our complex procedures, which sends out a negative signal for WP involvement. And ultimately I seriously believe (and proved) this is an notable article, without good reason for deletion. Shaddim (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be accusing editors who !voted delete of not looking into the sources like they said they did and instead just voting as a reaction to the canvassed and COI editors. That is a serious lack of good faith. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go into details: User:Pmedema didn't showed appropriate carefulness by checking the facts he criticized, he called for instance Der Standard a unknown website ("Derstandard.at an unknown website") despite that I brought up a WP link and explanation before, he failed to find Gamestar.hu source as listed reliable source, yet he was so dare to classify it as non-reliable. He accused me on owning of the article ("Please don't feel that you WP:OWN this article."), without reason, I'm was never a major author of it. User:Jbhunley seems be driven not by a neutral perspective anymore as his argumetnation was 80% again the community involvement, used as counter argument ("Utterly shameful") despite the relist and that this should play not at all a role in the deletion request review. Overall, the perception persists that this was not handled from the objective perspective it should be handled. Shaddim (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that you were offended. It was not my intention to offend or not to be WP:CIVIL. - Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciated. Indeed the discussion there was heated. Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I was pinged... Yes, the behavior that lead to all of the arguments and puppetry was indeed utterly shameful. Guess what, I can have an opinion of the behavior of participants and the notability of the subject. I even put them in seperate paragraphs - you know the things writers use to separate different thoughts out in text...

My opinion of notability remains the same:

  • "Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NGAME. Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient..
My opinion on the behavior I witnessed at the AfD remains the same as well:
  • "The canvassing and meat puppetry by someone saying they are the developer also leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Anyone who thinks they need to canvass for support for keep votes, even worse off-wiki canvassing, rather than simply provide the sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, seems to me to be trying to get free advertising and recognition out of Wikipedia when they can not get coverage in their own industry. Utterly shameful."
See two opinions on two issues - this time with bullet points and lots of text to insure proper comprehension. JbhTalk 16:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you can have such an opinion but you should have kept it to you as it was "relisted" for a fresh start, no need to create heat instantly again. The community, who was primarly confused about what they can & should do, stepped out already to calm the situation. Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is not for a "fresh start", it's to allow more time for further discussion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, this opinion was not at all relevant to the question "notable or not". Neither was it up to date, as the community stepped already back, showing good will (where was assuming good faith here? the community was just confused, as they are NOT WP policy specialists). There was no need to create more harm here, this was not a helpful and NPOV contribution to the discussion. Shaddim (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are NPOV, !votes are not. Now, I suggest you move on to whatever other reason you think justifies this AfD review. You may not have liked my comments but they are not what swayed consensus and no amount of discussing them will get this article undeleted. Some policy based arguement from you may but this will not. JbhTalk 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion: while you !voted for delete, this was notsufficiently backed by an up to date discussion part as you referred to "Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient." which addressed not at all the newly brought in reliable sources and the paper. So, no consensus from my side, as the deleting "polling" authors only vaguely referred to non-relevant and non-discussed sources (Blog + Wikis), while they not brought in specific and individual counter arguments against the good half a dozen sources + paper. Shaddim (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This is not the place to re-argue the whole AfD though. It is to ask for a review of whether the closer misread consensus. My opinion is that they did not. 8 editors - many with long discussions below their !votes - were unconvinced by the arguements made to change their minds. On the keep side was... you and a bunch of Puppets and COI editors who were unable to convince those delete !voters. Based on that there was no other way to read consensus and no basis for overturning the close.

There is nothing stopping the article from being recreated if there are significant, new, reliable sources to base it on. If the game is indeed notable there will be additional coverage in the future. If there is no additional coverage then, well... the game is not notable. QED. JbhTalk 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, there was no consensus as the brought up sources were not properly addressed by the deletion !voting authors Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a temp. undelete here? Hobit (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you wade through all the long comments and canvassed SPAs, its easy to see there was a clear consensus that the sourcing was too weak to meet the significant coverage aspect of the AFD. Shaddim's main DRV argument seems to be that people didn't re-evaluate the sourcing after he brought it up, but I repeatedly noted that I looked over his sources, and still disagreed, and multiple editors continued to !vote delete after the bulk of his argument has been made. This is merely someone who doesn't agree with the outcome and wants to do a second AFD. He's free to disagree with the stances of the editors, but the reality is that there is no other way this could have been closed in the realm of reading the actual stances left by the participants. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I very well was like that the at least several of the participatians did not infact reviewed the current source situation accurate enough and discussed them individuallay and specific. In detail: after the relist SSTflyer !voted delete with just a generic mentioning of the poliy, no discussion. JBHunley responded even worse by 2/3 ranting again the community and unspecific policy dropping. The thing which was most near to an ontopic contribution was "Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient." which is in its generality also useless as no one discussed blogs & wikis, the question was if the found and existing many reliable secondary sources constitute notability. Kind of on topic by also unspecific User:Sergecross73 responded "The sourcing is just way too weak.". (without going into details) Pmedema mis-characterized clearly several reliable sources (which indicates a not to deep analysis of the situation and situation), no specific debate on individual sources happend here too. Frankly, I don't see a valuble discussion of the several reliable sources I introduced into the article and presented on the top of the deletion discussion. So, I see no base for an consensus, which was seen by the deleting admin. Shaddim (talk)
      • You have been told that continuing to question !votes is not productive and is a violation of AGF. Now you have simply crossed into the realm of rude. Drop it. JbhTalk 11:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Struck. Beating my head against a wall is just not worth it. JbhTalk 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • To say that was the extent of my response is very misleading. I gave a very detailed account of why your arguments were invalid and unconvincing. But again, as everyone keeps telling you, DRV is not a second AFD, it's to discuss the closing decision itself. Your opposers relied on policy and precedent based arguments, so you cannot just discount them like that at DRV just because you don't agree. It's not enough just to disagree on policy interpretation here, you need to show there was a fundamental mistake in reading the consensus (which there wasn't.) You need to look at this from the viewpoint of the closer, while your comments here show that you can't seem distance yourself as a participant of the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I opened this request specifically from the perspective of the closer, who saw a consensus when there was no-consensus. Consensus is not equal majority vote, !voting does not substitute a discussion, and I don't see the brought up content debated, so no consensus. Solution proposal: relist the deletion request, debate the brought up sources individually & specifically, and I'm very willing to give into a consensus of whatever kind. Shaddim (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not just count the !votes. I spent about 30 minutes carefully reading through the discussion before deciding that there was consensus to delete. As other editors have told you above, the sources were looked at and talked about. A don't see how relisting is going to result in anything other than editors stating that the sources are not reliable and you then bludgeoning them. It will just end up being a rehash of the original AfD and what this discussion has become. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no need for a compromise proposal. You convinced no one at the AFD, and have now moved on to DRV where you've garnered zero support. This is veering off into WP:IDHT territory. There was clear consensus to delete at AFD, and clear consensus there was no wrong-doing here at DRV. If you can't see that, then I seriously question your ability to identify a consensus at all. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did continue following the AfD discussion after I voted and continue to stand by my vote (I would have changed it otherwise), I disagree with the notion that the initial COI involvement affected the rest of the AfD discussion. There were several days of discussion after the initial COI incident that focused on sourcing and notability, and no one voted to delete the article on the sole basis of COI and canvassing (of the two people that mentioned it when deleting, DarthBotto's subsequent comments make it clear that the delete vote was because of notability and sourcing, and Jbhunley provided clarification on it in this discussion.) I'd like to assume good faith in both trusting that no one wants to delete an article just because of canvassing and COI, and in trusting the closing admin would have discounted any votes that seemed to imply such an action. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good point, DarthBotto was another person who, like myself, made it clear that they had revisited the sourcing after it was presented, and still stood by his delete stance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I reviewed all of the sources I saw in the article and what I could find in the AfD. I may have missed something in the walls of text but I did my own BEFORE as well and found nothing I considered meeting our notability requirements. If the OP wants to insure no source they present is missed I strongly suggest that they a) make short, clear statements when the present a new source at AfD and b) not WP:BLUDGEON the delete votes. Continuing to question other editors' votes after the discussion closed is neither proper not productive behavior. JbhTalk 16:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did indeed find the canvassing and meat puppets to be compromising the AfD discussion, I was by no means an opinionated editor beforehand, (I hadn't even heard of the game), and I did consider the sourcing to be inadequate, as it was based around minor mentions, rather than something substantive. By my own reckoning, the only argument I actually engaged in was when Shaddim tried to discredit me by saying that I tried to sound knowledgeable by clinging to buzz words that I didn't actually understand the meaning of. He further tried to argue that Wikipedia does not follow similar notability guidelines as an encyclopedia by linking up a Wikimedia essay that was about formatting, but not content. All in all, I believe consensus has been affirmatively reached and simply saying that our opinions are incorrect does no good. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per my statements above. (Just to get the formalities out of the way) JbhTalk 00:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is Shaddim's first AfD [11] so we should give them a bit of slack. @Shaddim, that bit of slack is now at an end. Let me be perfectly clear - your accusations that other editors' opinions are somehow invalid because they did not directly address what you wanted them to is firstly an assumption of bad faith and that you continue after several editors here have said they carefully considered the sources is, in my firm opinion, veering into the realm of personal attacks. You are questioning these editors honesty and integrity. It rude, uncalled for, quite inappropriate and now needs to stop. You have presented your arguments over and over - they have been rejected. Drop the stick and move on.

    I also suggest you go read through several AfD discussions to see how they go. Seldom do you see point by point refutation of sources. You see editors expressing opinions based on their knowledge of and experience in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Often there is disagreement but verbose repetition of discounted arguments and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior (read it) is never recieved well and often is counterproductive because people may simply start to ignore you.

    Please take this as a learning experience and an example of how not to behave in deletion discussions. You can, of course, follow this advice or ignore it. If you choose to ignore it and continue this type of behavior beyond this Deletion Review discussion I can pretty much guarentee you will end up at ANI for disruption.

    Have a good rest of the weekend and try to remember it is only Wikipedia. JbhTalk 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: please don't focus on me as editor (if or if not I'm experienced here doesn't matter, I can read polcies), please focus on Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. Also, contrary to the claim it was totally obviously and non ignorable that the sources were NOT properly reviewed by several editors, seeing the glaring mistakes made. Sorry, this has nothing to do with personal attacks but stating the obvious. So, I kept my "keep" position for a good reason and no consensus was reached. (I you would argue there was a majority vote, that would be something else). About "Seldom do you see point by point refutation of sources." which is clearly a problem, obviously we should! Refuting sources point by point might be more work (maybe an similar amount of work the same amount it takes to bring them up) but ultimately is required for an serious discussion instead of "guessing" and "stomach feelings" Shaddim (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse I'd have !voted to keep based on the sources, the Indygamer one in particular is great, but the discussion result was to delete and the closer closed within discretion even if I disagree with the outcome (this is not AfD2, etc. etc.). Hobit (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we would have an democracy with majority vote, it would be fine. But we try to apply policies, fitted by discussion and reaching a consensus, a painstaking process (a majority vote system would be faster and more productive, indeed). There was no consensus, but a pretty bad discussion ignoring facts and focusing negatively on the community involvement. (Side note, I totally hate that again we bite the newcomers, they tried to be constructive but faced only bureaucratic resistance and blame instead of guiding help) Shaddim (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My belief is that none of the sources but one were strong enough to be an open-and-shut case of meeting the requirements of WP:N. At that point, there is a lot of community discretion in interpreting our guidelines and how the sources relate. So as I said, it's not the outcome I think we should have, but the closer closed it correctly. And IMO, the discussion wasn't so flawed (though I disagree with it) to require a relisting. I agree with you on WP:BITE btw. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 June 2016

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Louis Jones, Jr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I have discovered additional information which would bring notability to this case:

  • 1. There was some notoriety as Jones claimed to have suffered from "Gulf War syndrome", meaning any of a variety of ailments soldiers in the Gulf War acquired. It lead to Newsweek publishing an op/ed: Miller, Mark. "Should Louis Jones Die?" (Archive). Newsweek. March 12, 2003.
  • 2. At least two major U.S. politicians, citing the Gulf War issue, asked for Jones to be commuted and/or for the execution to be delayed. "Gulf War veteran is executed." - It's a 2003 article, but...
    • "Jones had powerful people working to spare his life. Former presidential candidate Ross Perot, who has helped fund research into the illnesses plaguing many Gulf War veterans, tried to get Jones' sentence commuted to life without parole. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Texas Republican, said last month the execution should be delayed while experts determine whether Jones suffers from Gulf War syndrome, a term used to describe a variety of illnesses suffered by Gulf War veterans."
  • 3. Even though it's one event, it's a "one event" (or rather a series of inter-related events, from Tracie McBride's murder down to Louis Jones's execution) that received significant coverage in a span of years, from 1995-2003. Death penalty cases get significant coverage due to the drama they stir up, especially nowadays with the European and Latin American press giving attention (AFAIK such attention didn't exist until the late 90s).
  • 4. p70 of Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Macro, National, and International Perspective (2009) discussed the Louis Jones case in relation to Gulf War Syndrome, arguing that it could be an example of a genuine syndrome case, citing surveys of veterans. I don't know how "significant" this mention should be, though.
  • 5. Since it was an execution by the federal government (with George W. Bush declining to provide a pardon), in Indiana, of a person convicted in Texas, with a victim from Minnesota, the case would get more domestic coverage compared to a typical state death penalty case, where the victim and perpetrator are from the same city and/or the coverage is largely restricted to a single state (although nationalregional newspapers do carry state death penalty cases too)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not even sure this is eligible for DRV, but Jones was, and still is, a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Jones got normal news attention during the crime and trial and that was it. Since his execution, there has been no significant on-going coverage. A mere mention in a text book 7 years ago doesn't really change that. Nor does an op-ed piece at the time of the execution. Nor did a pair of politicians who had opinions during the event but forgot it like everyone else after that. Everything with Jones comes back to a single event. The first close was proper, so I don't really even know why we're at DRV 6.5 years later. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If new info is uncovered that may provide evidence of notability, DRV is a place where that may be discussed. Anyway if we consider WP:Oneeevent that means a more appropriate title for this article could be "Murder of Tracie McBride" which I am okay with. AFAIK in regards to a federal execution with national news coverage there is no such thing as "normal" as "normal" crimes are state-operated executions. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would that be more appropriate? In the end, tragic as it may be, it's really not that much different than many murders that get some coverage right after they happen, a bit at the trail and then the execution. In other words, just normal news coverage. As NOTNEWS reminds us, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Why wouldn't federal executions be normal? What I'm seeing is that you appear to find it interesting and are just looking for a way around the lack of notability by trying to title it about the crime. And no, I really don't think this belongs in DRV. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage adds to notability unless it's WP:ROUTINE news coverage. If a murder gets only some coverage in a local paper and then the guy is given a life sentence, it's probably not notable. If a murder is covered by multiple national news outlets and/or those in Latin America in Europe, covering the various failed appeals up until the execution, it's more likely to be notable (also previous executions are generally less likely to be notable because Europeans weren't so anti-death penalty back then). WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is routine. There's not much beyond it. And getting coverage in other countries isn't really that important any longer. By 2003, the internet was in full swing. We had a case recently where a girl allegedly had sex in a high school bathroom with 25 boys. Papers in the UK had it on their website before the local one got it on theirs. First you felt that Jones should be notable, then you decided it should be the murder of....., but you keep arguing about coverage of Jones himself. The sources you are showing say very little about the murder. I think you're taking two weak things (Jones and the murder) and trying to force them together to be 1 notable thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"ROUTINE" is defined as "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as well as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it" and "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions" - The story about the 25 boys would be safely "tabloid journalism" while coverage of one of three federal executions to occur since Furman would not be routine. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I refer to a policy/guideline etc, I normally type them in caps (ie NOTNEWS or RS). When I just use a common word in the English language, I just type it like a word. When I said "routine", I was using the word, "routine", as in this is really just routine news coverage. Second, you're actually pretty wrong about the 25 boys story. It has lead to criminal charges, pending charges and a bigger discussion about human trafficking when more was discovered about the victim. So no, it isn't "safely" tabloid journalism. And no, every federal execution doesn't become extra notable. Regardless, the closure is going to be endorsed (which is the real purpose of DRV) and I can save the rest for any possible AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I don't remember this at all. The original deletion was certainly appropriate as per the AfD; I would suggest that if you wish to rewrite at the new location, with more and better sourcing, that wouldn't be a problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no issue with it I'll be happy to just write a new article from scratch :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree. Endorse the original close which was in accordance with the consensus at that time, and allow creation of Murder of Tracie McBride because there are new sources that make that an appropriate decision.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Whether an article on the murder will hold up would have to be seen by trying--I'm rather skeptical , but nobody can predict an AfD. ~~
  • Endorse The result of the AFD. Someone can make another attempt at an article. Whether it will survive AFD, who knows. I'm neutral one way or another. Side note- I played a correspondence chess game against Jones while he awaited execution....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Having looked through some sources, I find the underlying story is not based on reliable sources, and the facts of the matter fail WP:CRIME. The associated stories/speculation is more like internet sourced fandom, and is far from scholarly secondary source coverage from a reputable source. It is not that it is not a serious topic, but that it is not a topic for an encylopedia. The consensus as decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Jones, Jr. remains sound. WP:Alternative outlets applies, in this case http://murderpedia.org/male.J/j1/jones-louis.htm --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but I'm fine with something writing an article on the crime itself though. Though such an article may not make it at AfD, I think the broad-and-long-lasting coverage of the details of this crime give it a chance. Hobit (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 June 2016

[edit]

3 June 2016

[edit]
  • Andy Zipf – no consensus to overturn, default to endorse. The two views here are (a) that as the only voices were for delete, that should have been the close, and (b) that given two relists and only one, rather weak, delete !vote beside the nominator, a no consensus close citing WP:NPASR was within the closer's discretion in terms of WP:Deletion process#No quorum. Both views are arguable, and were well argued; there is a small numerical majority for endorse but no overall consensus. – JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andy Zipf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Including the nominator, two editors stated that the article should be deleted. No editors contested. Not sure why Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) decided that the debate needed to be closed as no consensus is beyond me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: The rationale for the no consensus closure is stated atop the AfD discussion page, where I stated that the !vote following your nomination appears to have been based only upon sourcing in the article, "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" (bold emphasis mine) "As nothing here" implies that the user's assessment of notability was only based upon sources in the article. See also WP:NEXIST, an important part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. AfD discussions are closed based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and are not closed based upon an !vote count. Also note that I closed the discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination. North America1000 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated, I searched for sources and found only one to support notability. I said nothing about nothing here. I'm sorry that I did not make that more clear. I am not being disingenuous as I searched and found nothing. @SmokeyJoe: offer some of the sources that you have found. I have no clue why so many editors assume I stated that there were no sources in the article because I have re-read what I wrote, and I did not write that. I wrote that I could only find one source. So, I'm sorry that I didn't explain it more clearly, but there are no sources which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I said nothing about nothing here." - that's not what is said. "!vote following your nomination..." meaning the other opinion expressed in the discussion is the "nothing here" based purely on the existing article content and hence seem to carry little or no weight. Since it had already been relisted twice they elected to close it using their own discretion as no consensus. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz, the point is that you, nor anyone else in the discussion had made a minimum case for deletion. I have just read through the first thirty ghits of ""Andy Zipf" -wikipedia". Of the first thirty, all are promotional and/or non-independent. So, I now agree to "delete". However, your nomination implies that you looked at one and decided it should be deleted. Swister's implies that he made a cursory review of the nomination and agreed, but that !vote is severely weakened if you not that he posts near identical poor English no-details !votes on very many AfDs. The closing admin did very well to note that the arguments made were insufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely a lie @SmokeyJoe:. I a compelling case. I showed which guideline the subject should meet and he did not. I also did WP:BEFORE and found only one source that meets WP:RS and I offered it. You on the other hand did absolutely nothing in the discussion and instead come to the aide of a useless admin who didn't look at the evidence and then call me out for not making a case. What sort of logic is that? I have seen articles that meet WP:N be deleted because empty heads like yours come along and see "there are not sources in the article" and then nominate, and then similar empty heads agree that there are no sources in the article and "agree with nom". In generaly, the music AfDs see very little traffic, save SisterTwister and me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lie? A compelling case? Are we talking about this, "Fails WP:MUSICBIO and definitely WP:GNG. I found ttps://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/av/2011/07/album-stream-andy-zipf---jealous-hands.html but that's not particularly significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)" as the entirety of your case? I see two assertions and one poor source that you criticise. If you did anything per WP:BEFORE, you didn't say so, and so it must be assumed that you did not. You found one poor source, but how hard did you look? Please say when you nominate. I do not back down from saying that your cursory nomination was inadequate. This is not to say that the article should be kept. Similarly, SisterTwister, he is usually right, but gives inadequate explanation. If you don't want AfD to be run and decided by empty heads, don't make empty head sounding nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator disingenuously implies a lack of sources findable when there are an abundance of ghits to review. The only support was our notoriously shallow delete !voter, whose !votes imply zero investigation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per the consensus (shallow though it was). Nobody turning up in over three weeks to argue for the article speaks a lot. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but wrong forum. I might have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but the actual close was reasonable too. And, given that there's WP:NPASR, the right thing to do here would be to just re-nominate it, rather than spend a week arguing about it here, so I suggest speedy-closing this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. This is the right forum as it was closed and there is no other forum to discuss AfDs that are closed as "no consensus" against evidence that it should be deleted. If there is, show me where. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion. I can't see the AfD "discussion" as having much value. The delete !vote words look to be in a random order but perhaps there's a bug in my browser. "No quorum" applies, as Roy helpfully suggests, and closing as "no consensus" is one of the options available to the closer in this situation. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and softdelete. There was shallow consensus to delete here. More importantly the closer's rationale was invalid on its face. The state of the article isn't the issue. The question is whether adequate sources to prove notability of the subject actually exist. In AfDs the burden of proof in establishing that such sources exist rests on the editors making the "keep" argument. Nobody in the AfD actually attempted to make that argument. The closing admin's rationale is based purely on a speculation that sources establishing notability might exist. That's not a good enough reason for "no consensus" close in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The !vote following the nomination went against the grain of WP:NEXIST, coming across as an incomplete analysis that assessed notability upon sources in the article alone. Nowhere in my close did I base anything upon "speculation that sources establishing notability might exist". It's unclear how you came to this conclusion. Ultimately, the nomination rationale was fine, but the delete !vote following it did not carry much weight relative to this aspect of WP:N, because topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article. If the user simply stated that they performed source searches to better qualify the deletion rationale, I would have been fine with deleting the article. Again, I added a WP:NPASR clause to the close, so the article can be renominated at any time. North America1000 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument of the nominator and of the other AfD participant, User:SwisterTwister, was that the article did not present sufficient evidence of the subject's notability. In the absence of positive evidence to the country, this argument alone is sufficient to have the article deleted. (That is basically how PROD works). There is no formal obligation on the "delete" proponents to perform searches to see if sources establishing the subject's notability exist. The default presumption is that the subject is not notable, and it is up to the "keep" proponents to present positive evidence overcoming this presumption. So the "delete" proponents did do the minimum that was required from them here, while no "keep" arguments or evidence were presented. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92: not the argument was not that the article did not present sufficient evidence, it was that there is an insufficient number of RSes. I provided the only RS that discusses the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry. After a discussion relisted several times, with a unanimous "delete" consensus, I simply cannot endorse this. What we have here is a close that should have been a !vote.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion closures are not based upon an !vote count, they're based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. North America1000 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the headcount is 2-0, the 0 part does indeed make it unanimous, but it's hard to call the 2 part a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whose arguments did you take into account?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:S Marshall, I would like to applaud the closing admin upholding the principle of NOTAVOTE in this extreme case of a unanimous agreement on extremely weak arguments to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have is that the close had no basis in the debate. As far as I can see the closer looked at the debate, rejected its conclusions and substituted his own opinion about what should be done. We've always taken a dim view of that.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOQUORUM seems to suggest the closer may base the close on the state of the article as well as that of the discussion. The specific close no consensus seems unobjectionable to me (can there really be said to have been a consensus to delete?) though I agree the rest of the closing rationale looks more like a !vote than advice on our guidelines and policies. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I didn't notice this when it was open. If I had, I would have !voted "keep" based on substantial coverage in The Washington Post [12] (which goes into some detail about Zipf's odd business model) and No Depression [13], plus the somewhat less thorough coverage in the Telegraph Herald [14], WAMU [15], Culture Collide [16],and Paste [17]. The "no consensus" close was reasonable under the circumstances (and a soft delete would have also been reasonable), but since there have now been objections I think the most efficient response would be to reopen the existing AfD, at which point I would add my keep !vote and other interested participants could contribute as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this has come here. The close was no-consensus. Anyone who thinks it should be deleted can simply start another AfD; anyone who thinks it should be kept can await such an AfD and !vote accordingly--or, much more effectively, add additional sourcing now. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a WP:NOQUORUM situation, there being few comments (and I agree the second one is poor), and closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR) is within the closer's discretion. Simply start new AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to nominate for speedy but some other bureaucrat said it did not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Where the nomination statement is weak and suggests a lack of BEFORE and the only delete vote is a boilerplate, uninformed statement that admits to being based on the article's current sourcing rather than available sourcing, there is no quorum, and the closer deserves praise for remembering that consensus is not a vote. Rebbing 03:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I usually close these as soft delete (as the equivalent of an expired WP:PROD), but no consensus is a fair reading as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Soft-deleting at this point would be pointless. The "no consensus" close was explicitly done without prejudice; it can be renominated and cruise to a speedy keep to placate those who need procedure-for-the-sake-of-procedure. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think softdelete would have been a better outcome, but NC was also reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. There was an unanimous consensus based on valid arguments. The closer's view should have been added as an opinion, but it does not match the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  05:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete – unanimous consensus to delete. SSTflyer at 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and allow speedy relist. NA1000 is correct, nominators need to state that they followed BEFORE if they want to be presumed to have done so. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in the same boat as S Marshall. If NA1000 had !voted, there would have been no consensus. Softdelete or speedy won't work now, because there are enough eyes for it to be contested, and I suspect a fresh XfD at this point will simply produce a higher participation lack of consensus. I cannot endorse this close, as admins should not be casting supervotes by furthering arguments that were not raised in the discussion – participating in the discussion to ensure those points were raised would have been a better course of action. But in practise it's "endorse" or "do nothing", which amounts to the same thing. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per unanimous consensus to do so. If the closer felt the !votes were weak, then they should have left a !vote explaining that and the next closer to come by wouldn't almost certainly closed it as no consensus. Closing something against unanimous consensus otherwise is a WP:SUPERVOTE. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short discussion was unanimous, but per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is not based upon unanimity. See the quote below from WP:CONSENSUS, and also see my comment below. Essentially, the overall strengths of the overall discussion relative to guidelines and policies were not quite convincing enough for me to delete the article, and the discussion had been through two full relistings with very minimal input, with only two total users opining. I will keep in mind the notion of leaving a comment in cases such as this, rather than closing, on a case-by-case basis relative to each unique AfD discussion. To be specific, this would be a comment, rather than an !vote as stated above. Thanks, North America1000 18:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Also, "unanimous consensus" is literally correct but at the same time sounds a bit excessive, when I read "unanimous consensus" I would expect half a dozen votes, here there was only one (poor) comment beyond the nominator. Cavarrone 15:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – My close was not an !vote at all. If I had !voted, I would have stated something about the notability of the topic or lack thereof, with qualification relative to guidelines and policies. This is my standard modus operandi at AfD when !voting. I apologize if my close has been interpreted as some sort of !vote, but it was not. Simply put, the overall strengths of the arguments in the quite short discussion were not quite strong enough to convince me to delete the article, and AfD is not based upon a vote count. Rationale in the nomination was fine and adequate, but the !vote following it was not persuasive enough relative to WP:N and WP:NEXIST. Again, the !vote stating "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" came across as having a reasonable likelihood of only basing notability upon the state of sourcing in the article, particularly the "nothing here" and "as an article" parts. North America1000 18:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, NPASR close was enterely reasonable given the lack of participation. And I don't see how an argument such as "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" could carry any weight, I would be worried otherwise. Cavarrone 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2016

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

I'm writing because I think these articles were deleted unfairly, due to fact that the league the National Professional Soccer League isn't listed as a fully or non-fully professional league at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues making it's status unclear. So when I posted evidence to support that the league was fully professional at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues all the users who voted to delete the articles failed to challenge or even discuss the evidence presented. There only point was that it didn't appear in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which is only a aide to help to determine which leagues are generally to be regarded as notable. I think to be fair and honest the articles discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neil Brown should be restored until the status of the NPSL be determined whether it was a pro or semi-pro league. Thank you for your time. -Shotgun pete (talk) 1:56, 02 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse - editor has started discussion as noted above but no conclusion has been reached. The long term stance with WP:NFOOTBALL is that where consensus has not been reached that a given league is fully professional it is considered not to be by default and players from it who are not senior internationals must satisfy GNG. There is no evidence any of the players in this AfD do so there is no need for any further action. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Fenix down. I may have missed this, but would you be so kind and show me where at WP:NFOOTBALL does it state that when a consensus has not been reached that a given league is fully professional it is considered not to be by default. Thanks Shotgun pete (talk) 12:54, 03 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Pete, it's simple logic. WP:FPL is a list of leagues where consensus has been reached that the sources provided indicate full professionalism. Where a league is absent it is considered non fully-pro by default for the purpose of this subject specific guideline until such consensus is reached. WP:FPL is incomplete by default but where leagues are absent players must satisfy GNG or be full senior international players. Discussion such as the one you have started is always welcome and may lead to the addition of further competitions. However until that point for the competitions concerned here there is no consensus that they are fully pro and therefore you must rely on GNG. You should also note as has been mentioned below that deletion review is not the correct place for such a discussion, WT:FPL is. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to resolve failures to follow deletion process correctly. It is not a de novo appeal, that is to say it is not a place to advance new arguments (nor repeat old ones) that could have been made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- the way to go about this is to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and if necessary follow the additional procedures of WP:DR with respect to the classification of the league. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi DGG. Thanks for the advice I really appreciate that your trying to find a solution to the problem of the ignored status of the league. I'm glad to see your fair and honest in your response in trying to help me out. Thanks (talk) 1:00, 03 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse for now. This can be revisited later based on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 June 2016

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_June&oldid=722929997"