Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January

Jeremy Soul (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

More sources added and article is neutral Indiey (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Sources include notable publications, article is neutral, subject is an important name in his field.Yankeefan233 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion sources in the Google cache version of the article appear to be articles under his byline, not about him. I don't see how authoring piecemeal contract articles demonstrate his importance to the field. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

*Comment I'm not sure where the above comes from?Yankeefan233 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Reverse deletion' I can't find any evidence that any of these articles are under his byline. Do you have a screenshot or search string that would give proof of this? The articles look like legit 3rd party articles to me.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The G4'd version is considerably worse than the earlier AfD'd version. The sources listed are quite obviously not about Mr. Bonney, though they do mention him in passing. If new sources have been found which can establish Mr. Bonney's notability, feel free to present them here, but otherwise I see no point in restoring the article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Despite the problems the creator has, this subject independent from that creator has reason to be worthy of inclusion. Once you've got a good article, you've got to overlook these problems with the creator and value the content over the person. If an article on the same subject were to be created by someone else, it would not likely have gone to Afd, and it could be improved through editing. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn For the same reasons as above. Seems people don't like the creator as opposed to notability of the subject. I'm also puzzled by Schmucky's odd assertion that the referenced media articles were written by the subject himself when this clearly seems not to be the case.Oceansummer87 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify Sounds like a case where someone ought to be working on a userspace draft for community appraisal. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by userfy I sure hope you mean WP:INCUBATE. Userfy is where bad proposed articles go to die. Incubator at least mops up afterwards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Overturn With regard to notability, I would like to point out that all the online references except reference 6(I couldnt check 6 because I'm not signed up to The Times) are directly about Jeremy Soul. If needed, I can post individual paragraphs and quotes from all the articles proving this fact. Like Shaliya said, the subject matter is worthy of inclusion into wikipedia, even if it were through compromise/editing of some parts. I do not understand why it needs to be deleted. Indiey (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - keep article Subject is definitely notable in the dating industry, the online references are verifiable, the POV is neutral, the article is factual.Damienp12 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - as pointed out, the latest version doesn't address any of the issues raised in the original AfD; if anything it's even worse in that regard. Many of the "Overturn" arguments here have nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and are about the article's creator or simple assertions that the "subject is definitely notable". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment So do the arguments to delete. The first two arguments to delete were 1) "the articles were originally written by him" of which there is no evidence (and seems especially outlandish to think Jeremy Soul is now a Times of London writer) and 2) the articles barely mention him (which is also not true given a cursory look at the articles). Let's get specific. What SPECIFIC issues with the article do you have? Just saying "doesn't meet criteria" is no better than saying "does meet criteria".Damienp12 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article Objections seem excessively pedantic and vague. I'm surprised this is even up for discussion; these are notable sources, written by third parties, about the subject. As a side note (which should not detract from what I just said), I am familiar with the 'pick up artist' field, which some might object to, and I can say with 100% confidence that the subject is indisputably notable within that field.Bossanueva (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. Since the speedy deleted article is not substantially a copy of the article considered at AfD, criterion G4 is inapplicable. --Bsherr (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I do not see what is different to when this was at AfD. Then the coverage wasn't about this person, but about either the company he worked for or "pick ups". There were problems with the original article and AfD with sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and it seems that a similar thing is going on here, with 4 of those above having accounts registered on the same day. I would suggest an SPI if it wasn't so obvious. Quantpole (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closing admin correctly discounted the meatpuppet votes which (surprize, surprize) have returned to this discussion. Create a draft with the new sources and pay attention to our notability guidelines. When you are satisfied that they are met, come back here. ThemFromSpace 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Vague allegations of sockpuppets should be specific and provable/disprovable. Otherwise any WP:IDONTLIKEIT objections can kill any article by just muttering "sock puppets". Is everyone voting to overturn a sock puppet? That seems highly unlikely. People in the pickup field have fans, even over-aggressive ones, but like Shaliya waya said, the article should stand on it's own merits, issues with the messy creation process aside.Bossanueva (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I didn't intend it to be a vague accusation of sock/meatpuppetry, but a definite one. 4 of the accounts who have voted here were registered on the same date. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Given that there is a history of these sort of games with this article I hardly think it unfair to point it out.

You are right that the article should stand on its own merits, but I don't see what those merits are. When this was at AfD there were sources but there wasn't enough specifically about this person (more being about picking up women in general or love systems). I don't see what has changed since then. Quantpole (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just on the same date; four of the accounts voting to overturn the deletion were created within 20 minutes of each other, and all have made under 50 edits. Note to closing admin - there's obviously some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going here. The original AfD was also plagued with this. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, either you've opened a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, or you haven't. Unsupported ad hominem arguments aren't helpful here. So have you started a sockpuppet investigation? --Bsherr (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I should have to jump through hoops when it's this obvious. I have better things to do with my time than waste any more of it on those playing such games. Quantpole (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had already opened a sockpuppet investigation before you commented. Unsurprisingly, Bossanueva and the four other accounts turned out to be sockpuppets. This was a classic case of WP:DUCK, and there was no need to make people jump through hoops, just because all the sockpuppets happened to agree with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have stricken the votes of the sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bossanueva. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FastCode (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

We were in discussion of the close with Spartaz when he went on vacation. So we are apparently going to skip that step. I will say that the difficulty of getting a page listed has completely surprised me and raised my respect for WP. That said, I thought the delete discussion was going well and pretty much everyone had reversed their delete vote when it was closed. I think this deletion should be reviewed. Blwhite (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, we'll happily review it. The deletion review is a great deal more likely to go in your favour if you will kindly provide a list of the sources you intend to use for this topic, including at least two that are not blogs or any other form of user-submitted content, are fully independent of FastCode and any associated people or corporations, and provide non-trivial coverage of the subject.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The appeal to the closing admin is here. Many of the sources in the article were either self published, not third-party, or only passing mention. The only two that I think really worked toward establishing notability per wp:GNG are below. Unfortunately they are not available online. When I saw them, I withdrew my delete !vote because I felt like this might be enough to satisfy gng. Spartaz apparently missed it before closing, and after getting a chance to read them thought that it still wasn't enough; you can see this on the discussion I linked to above. Here are the sources:
  • Long, Brian & Swart, Bob, "Borland Developer Studio 2006 Reviewed", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 124, December 2005

    This devotes a few paragraphs to explaining what fastcode is and how some of its projects were included in the new version of this product. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • A new release product overview, is naturally going to be summary in nature. But note that even though Delphi 2005 is generally considered the buggiest version since Delphi 4, the FastCode additions got more attention than the more than 1000 bug fixes. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gabrijelcic, Primoz, "To Manage Memory", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 126, February 2006

    There is a half a page talking about what fastcode is and how it works in order to introduce a memory manager that came out of the fastcode project. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be fair, the whole 8 page article is about FastMM and why it is better than the existing allocator from Borland, including how it grew out of the FastCode challenges. For those who are not familiar, FastMM is now the poster child of the FastCode project. But it was not the origin, or initial purpose of FC. FMM came as a natural result. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The GNG wants significant sources in addition to third party sources. Neither "a few paragraphs" nor "a half page" are significant. No other coverage in five years? I'm guessing they also don't show anything about how Fastcode is extraordinary not WP:MILL. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• The rest of the discussion is where is the boundary for being an independent source. All the rest of the sources are familiar with the situation, and are therefore being counted as not independent.

To clarify, it is as if an open source group started a project and wrote an installer intended to replace the MSI installer from MS. This new installer is compatible with existing MSIs and can be used directly. Having blogs and other sources from Borland advocating and recommending FastCode routines is the equivalent of MS engineers coming out and saying, "this new installer is better than anything that we can come up with. We recommend using it." I can't imagine that anyone would say that the MS sources weren't independent, as no one at MS was involved in the project. Yes, they benefit from it. And yes, they are biased, but the other way! It would be only natural to resist admitting that these open source guys can do better. In my mind, that makes it all the more impressive when they come out in favor of it.

So it is in this case. There had been many attempts over the years to suggest improvements to Delphi and even to submit code changes to Delphi itself by the Delphi community. By and large, these were met with stone cold silence. FC itself, at first, received the same reception from Borland. So we see the inclusion of FastCode routines in Delphi as a major win for the project members, and the community as a whole. Conversely, we are confused by the finding that references to FastCode and FastMM from inside Borland are not independent.

So yes, we have several references. But I want to get this question of whether Borland references count as independent resolved first so that we don't flood you with a bunch of useless information. For example, Steve Trefethen worked on incorporating Fastcode stuff into Delphi 2007. That is, he did not work on the FastCode project itself. In my mind, he is like the MS installer engineer excited about replacing the MSI installer.

HTH. Blwhite (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the Trefethen source is a little too self-published to do much wrt GNG, even if it is deemed fully independent. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Sources were added after the Afd started, and from then on, all comments were in favor of keeping. This reflects the more final consensus. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn In addition to the references listed above, FastCode is also explained in Marco Cantu's book, Mastering Delphi 2005, p. 157. The closing admin's comments, both on the AfD page and on his personal user page, consistently misrepresented the discussion. E.g., on AfD he stated that providing sources "doesn't appear to have happened" and on his user page he said that sourcing "wasn't discussed." Clearly, neither one was true. Although I don't think that AfD is the best way to request sourcing for an article, it did have the effect, in this case, of getting verifiable citations, and more were being added throughout the process. Because the close appears to have been based on factually incorrect assumptions and because WP:GNG was being actively addressed, I think this should be reconsidered. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Subject appears notable, citations appear legitimate, what's the problem?Oceansummer87 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The GNG is careful to avoid saying what is meant by "substantial". I consider it to mean anything more than routine identification, rather than a fixed number of words or sentences. Certainly many articles and reviews about computer software & the like, even of clearly notable products, tend to be half a page or so. Merely the fact that something is chosen for such write up is notability, because most are not. Borland refs are not totally independent, but there's no reason not to think they are objective--that a major manufacturer includes something in its product is relevant, and its description is good source. Spartaz usually makes good decisions, but for a few of the most recent ones, he seems to have ignored improvements in sourcing during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I agree with Craig Stuntz's identification of the problems with the close. The reliability of the sources ought to be assessed, though, going forward. I'm not convinced the article is proved yet. --Bsherr (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Greaves (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A couple of weeks ago, this deletion review was closed as changing from Delete to redirect. That is some progress, but still not the desired outcome. But one thing that really bothers me was the decision to protect the namesake page from all editing. This is yet another act of administrator abuse, one of the very issues that was brought up during the previous DELREV. There is no reason this title should be fully protected. There was never any edit warring or anyone going against the consensus and changing this title back to an article following the afd, and there was no consensus or even a single suggestion to protect it prior to this action. There is nothing in Wikipedia's page protection guidelines calling for this page to be protected. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the last DRV reached the right conclusion: protected redirect to the most suitable page for covering the single thing notable about this person. I see no case to be made for "administrator abuse", and it is very bad form to toss the accusation around lightly.

• Endorse redirection.
• Endorse protection of the redirect.
• Allow any interested wikipedian in good standing to develop a userspace draft to be presented at DRV so as to demonstrate that a suitable WP:BLP can be written, but noting that the community has little tolerance for such things lingering in userspace, once you start, do it promptly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, but not before 6 months, per Jclemens, is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, with a six month moratorium on any further discussion of the matter or associated userspace drafting. If, in six months, he's still in the news, or if in the intervening time the community decides to revisit this and vacate it because he's managed to do something different such that BLP1E no longer applies, then and only then would a revisiting of whether or not he needs his own article be in order. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Protecting a redirect is not unusual in cases like this and it's certainly not "administrator abuse". --Mkativerata (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure it is. An administrator is being abused.  ;)—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3. There has to come a point where finality is reached in the deletion chain. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you want it unprotected, Shaliya waya? I mean, I've read your nomination. But what I want to know is, what would you do if it was unprotected? Would you restore the content, despite the previous consensus about it? Would you encourage someone else to restore it?—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe more about this subject will appear in the media soon. It is only a matter of time, as there will be an inevitable trial that will receive publication. By then, all will agree the subject is notable and deserves a standalone article. Even now, I believe most do - the delete decision was made initially against the virtual unanimous consensus to keep. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I believe more about this subject will appear in the media soon". Then why rush this now, to the annoyance of your peers? I do not agree that the subject is notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Trying to see the good faith in someone dredging this up again so soon, but it is rather difficult, as a consensus was reached at the last discussion. And "DRV is not DRV round 3" is MY line, buddy. ;) Tarc (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Does not appear to be administrator abuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan233 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Abuse the administrators more! NW (Talk) 02:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless I'm mistaken, WP:RFPP also does unprotect requests. You might have better luck there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much point in that, without an existing consensus (here) solidily against that. NW (Talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I concur with Lifebaka that the remedy sought, unprotection, is not one that DRV should offer. --Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If it's going to notable "soon" then we don't have long to wait, do we? Sounds like a bit of time will solve this whole issue.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfer hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was to keep. Closing administrator said he didn't check the sources mentioned which almost everyone there stated seemed reasonable, but instead simply agreed with one guy who said delete. Discussed it on his page at User_talk:Spartaz#Surfer_Hair_had_ample_sources_found. Consensus was clearly to keep, based on the WP:GNG being met, as most agreed it was. To totally ignore the entire discussion and just trust the opinions of one dismissive editor seems wrong. Dream Focus 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No word in bold from me yet, because I'm still making up my mind whether it was reasonable to read that debate as a "delete" consensus, but Spartaz is definitely right when he says it's not his job to assess sources. The debate participants are supposed to do that.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for misrepresenting what I said Dreamfocus. It strikes me that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't here. You appear to be asking me to form my own opinion of the sourcing rather then relying on that of the discussion. As the AFD closer I'm supposed to assess the votes and the state of the discussion and not reach my own conclusions. The quality of AFD votes has been declining for some time and this is a perfect example of what can happen when the majority of one side of a discussion fail to use policy based arguments to back up their positions. As closer I'm supposed to assess votes against policy and weigh them to reach a consensus. The case here was that one side, the keep side had multiple invalid or weak arguments that did not address policy. The delete side had a detailed analysis of the sourcing that exposed as inadequate the two specific sources put forward in the only specifically well founded keep vote and showed due diligence in checking the other sources. The remaining votes were either non-policy based, superficial or both - for example you based your keep vote on a page of googlehits and don't appear to have examined any sources in detail to establish how extensive they were and whether they addressed the subject of the article specifically or tangentially. In other words not a compelling refutation of the delete argument. The only other keep vote that wasn't a me too noted the article was encyclopaedic but didn't address the delete argument of notability with any specific policy based rationale. Since you chose not to challenge the demolition of the sources put forward my snottywong I'm perfectly entitled to assume that the keep side accept the argument - especially as you immediately went off to find new sources. The close was well within my discretion and based on analysis of votes against policy and applying appropriate weighting. If there is any weakness in the discussion I submit that the fault lays in lazy keep votes that don't address the deletion arguments but I'm not supposed to guess or assume what the voters mean and need to go directly on what they write. I will put my detailed analysis of the individual votes below. It would be interesting to see your analysis of exactly how you think the votes should be weighted against policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator - declares no reliable sourcing and indicates that a search was made. Nom is an experienced editor but does have occasional lapses with their due diligence. I was aware of that when I closed.

• Blofeld then counters with two sources :- [1] and [2] and then points to 14,000 WP:GOGGLEHITS. The validity of the argument depends on the quality of the sourcing provided.
• Col Warden then says Bravo! - that's not a policy based vote and gets discarded. At best its a me too since it add nothing to Blofeld's vote.
• Then an IP keeps with the comment good job, another worthless me to that adds no value to the discussion. Discarded
• Tony the Tiger says that it need encyclopaedic content and that it now has it. That's not a policy based argument and carried very little weight although the opinion that the content is encyclopaedic is noted.
• Snotty weighs in. He responds directly to the two sources provided by Blofeld. He challenges them both arguing that the sources are tangential and not substantially about surfer hair. He points out that the second source has a whole sentence about surfer hair but no more. The further comment was that they had reviewed every source in the article and found them equally lacking - with the exception of a how too article in a source he isn't sure is reliable. The detail of the examination is clear and the reasonable due diligence is also evident from acknowledging the one decentish source - although personally I accord online only sources much less value then published sources especially when they are articles with no byline.. That's a compelling policy based vote in my book.
• Your contribution is that the google summaries sound like something notable. Its quite clear that you haven't looked at the sources in detail and that you have not established that any of the articles are in detail about surfer hair by close examination. Youu link to goodgle but that's pretty much another WP:GOGGLEHITS and very low value. The only source you actually cite from the google search is meridian magazine and that doesn't come up in my google search - understandable since I'm geographically searching from a different part of the world. I did not consider your vote significant in so far as you failed to link specific sources and the tenor of the comment was that the summaries suggested the sources were there. That's pretty close to assertion and not a powerful argument in my book.
  • Snotty then challenges the depth of the sources you provided and then DGG queries on what basis he is interpreting the GNG. I note that DGG did not vote, which is a shame since he is good at sources and generally I find his contributions telling.
• Now in overall terms we have a weak nomination and a number of keep votes that are either me too or discarded for not having a policy background. I am not supposed to make my own mind up on the sources or the article because then I would be accused of supervoting so I'm only left with the valid arguments. I felt that Blofeld had a decent argument but that snotty's analysis more then outweighed it. Your challenge with sources did not produce anything detailed or specific and you did not sway snotty who reviewed the arguments. The clincher for me was the detailed analysis by snotty and the clarity in which he showed by policy grounded arguments why the article lacked adequate sourcing. This analysis was not challenged by any of the keep voters and per WP:SILENCE that means I should give it significant weight. Overall the delete votes were policy based and the few keep votes that were actually based on policy were either refuted or did not demonstrate any significant attention to detail and seems rather superficial to me. Overall I could have gone no consensus or delete and it was well within my discretion as the closing admin to go delete. What I do hope is that this analysis shows you that the close was carefully considered and the individual votes were weighed against policy. As I said source it or lose it. I'm always happy to review my closes and would be receptive to reviewing any specific new sources that you wished to bring forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion is as reasonable and laid-back as surfer hair deserves.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Spartaz has restored the article and struck his close, perhaps we should close this dog and pony and relist.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macacawitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I do disagree with the decision to redirect instead of keep, given the keep arguments there were, I will accept that part of it for now. What I am appealing though was the decision to destroy the edit history. This article should have been merged while preserving the edit history, thereby allowing access to older versions. This way, if someone finds more information at a later date, it can simply be added to an older version. For now, I believe it is best to restore the article with its full edit history, add a {{merge}} tag at the top, and then discuss on the article's talk page a possible merge target or if it should be merged at all. Xyz7890 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer has failed to copy the edit history to the target article's talk page (see WP:R#KEEP) and if the consensus at this DRV is not to restore the history, then this oversight should be corrected.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect don't require attribution since the close was redirect to where there was already material. It was not to merge the material in the article. I'm curious why the close was discussed with me but not the issue of the history when that is the point of the DRV now in front of us. I actually don't case what happens to the article history so this could have been resolved amicably without a DRV but, meh, let process run its course... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to add that the history obviously shouldn't be restored if there's some copyright violation or BLP issue in it that would justify its deletion. Oops.—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 was originally split from United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006, and no substantial content has been added since its creation. Both United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 and George Allen (U.S. politician) mentioned "Macacawitz", but I can't tell if anything was merged to them. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting 1, "potentially useful page history"? None of the possible merge targets could have been renamed from "Macacawitz". Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn deletion, neutral on redirect Because the material was deleted and not just redirected, this is a matter for DrV (otherwise it would just be a matter for the article talk page). The only real delete arguments were "not notable" while the keeps provided sources. I don't see a delete outcome here. Redirect may or may not be just fine, but deletion was not given that discussion. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn deletion There were no really good arguments given favoring deletion. This page apparently met the general notability guideline.Shaliya waya (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). With the full variety of keep, merge (ie keep the history), redirect (without suggestion of content of merit) and delete, the discussion is a square no consensus. The closer should have !voted. I suspect that I would agree with the closer, but it is more important that the community is lead to better arguments than to have a quick decision leaving participants bewildered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Blizzard of 2011 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In no way was the consensus to merge. Only 1 !vote was merge, which was the least. It should have been a no consensus close, and default to keep. CTJF83 chat 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:NuclearWarfare#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Blizzard of 2011. NW (Talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - Perhaps a merge was really the best option, but this is a textbook case of admin super!vote. There was no consensus on every outcome, with all !votes (keep,delete,merge) being really poorly argued. Putting it back in the hands of the community seems the best option now. --Cyclopia^talk 02:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • textbbok case of labelling anything other then nose counting as a supervote without reference to how we generally deal with this kind of article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tsk tsk, straw man alert. Nobody talked about nose counting except you. The discussion was poor in referring to policies/guidelines and it was split on the outcome. Therefore you cannot extract any consensus from the discussion. Relisting seems the only honest option. Closing admins should not "generally deal" in any other way than by either put into practice what the community asks them or relisting if it is unclear what the community asks. --Cyclopia^talk 15:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree that some of the votes were poor quality - only one of the keep votes for example was a clean policy based rationale but labelling a close as supervote without proper cause is well... also an invalid argument. There is no doubt from the dicussion that the opinion was that this was not supported as a standalone article. Anything after that is pretty much paperwork. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Voters referred to the national storm, not specifically to Georgia, so the closer's interpretation made sense. Chick Bowen 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, first choice no consensus, second choice "keep, discuss merging on article's talk page". Purplebackpack89's keep recommendation is compatible with merging ("throughout the country"), but the rest of the comments aren't clear on whether they refer to the "Georgia Blizzard" of January 10 or the overall storm. January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard is consistent with other articles in Category:Blizzards in the United States and Template:United States Blizzards. I think that redirecting and maybe merging is the correct action, but I don't see consensus for it at the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Merge" is well within the admin's discretion to give effect to (a) the consensus that a separate article is inappropriate; but (b) the fact that the less drastic option of merge hadn't been properly considered by delete !voters; and (c) the proposal to merge was quite clear and objectively sensible. I say within discretion because if I thought the keep side was weak, I might have closed it as "delete, happy to userfy" or "redirect, content's in the history if you want to use it elsewhere". Probably could have been explained in the closing statement though as will appear a little counter-intuitive to some. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin close was a supervote, the same thing you blasted me for. Should be a non consensus close, with a discussion on the talk page of merging. Not a merge close when one user said merge. CTJF83 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was a supervote close, I'd blast NW for it too. The lack of a closing statement may give the appearance of a supervote, but the explanation on NW's talk page clearly shows it isn't -- it's perfectly in line with WP:ATD. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure ATD is something you do instead of nominate it for AfD. Not close against consensus. CTJF83 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would you be sure of that? It is part of our deletion policy so it applies to all deletion actions. If a delete !vote doesn't explicitly or implicitly consider and reject a merge, the closing admin should not consider that !vote to be inconsistent with a merge outcome. The best explanation I've seen of it is here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We are still getting over a thousand news results in the last week, and the event was a few weeks ago. CTJF83 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinda endorse or overturn to delete. To my mind the article was relisted incorrectly by an admin who then voted to keep after acknowledging they were personally affected by the storm and where there was actually a consensus at the time of the relist to delete. After the relist I still saw this is a possible delete overall but closing to merge falls within the closer's discretion and fits better within out overall systems for managing data. Of the keep votes, one was a worthless reference to google hits, another delivered specific sources but failed to address the one event arguments, the relisting admin's vote was tainted and the last keep for me actually supported the merge argument by acknowledging the widespread nature of the storm. Certainly the consensus was not for a standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an admin, how about you not attack my keep vote, and AGF. Not sure how you think Google results is worthless, illogical thinking. CTJF83 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Screaming supervote on the back of a vague wave at notability by WP:GOGGLEHITS is assuming good faith how? I'm really astonished you are trying to defend pointing people at google as any kind of quality contribution. How about you stop being lazy and read through the google pages yourself and dig out specific sources to rely on? Typing my name into google gets over 1 million hits and none of them are me me specifically. By your arguments I should have an article on wikipedia because there are so many googlehits For an aspiring admin its deeply worrying that your contributions to deletion debates are classic WP:AADD. Also, if you want to be an admin you need to take criticism (especially the valid kind) without exploding into the kind of emotional and immature responses you displayed here. geta thicker skin and learn how to make contributions that make a difference if you want to have your votes given any weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh boy, more essays. I'd say I have thick skin...just expect better from admins. CTJF83 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's got nothing to do with AGF and everything to do with the weight that should be attached to your contribution. As was pointed out by another editor in the debate, your Ghit was a misfire. It comes up with rafts of articles about the North American snow generally (eg [6]) and articles that have nothing to do with the snow (eg [7]). So your gnews argument didn't adequately explain why the Georgia blizzard was separately notable. Pointing to gnews hits also fails to address the relevant WP:ONEEVENT point, which is that for news events, spikes in news coverage do not generally confer notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One event is for non-adequate coverage. Calling someone's !vote "worthless" is hardly AGF. CTJF83 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I mis-linked, sorry -- the relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, not WP:ONEEVENT, which explains that transient coverage is generally not enough (eg "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance"). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Worthless = of little worth. Please explain the worth of a vote that is essentially a wave at a google number? See WP:GOGGLEHITS and WP:AADD and work out how high your contribution to the debate was on the triangle to the right. If you want to AGF how about AGF that my point may have some validity and actually improve the value of your contributions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: perfectly acceptable close considering the lack of policy-based reasoning displayed in the AfD. The comment by User:Lord Roem is basically arguing for merging the content and the comment by User:Ron Ritzman is compatable with a merge result. The rest of the comments are not backed in policy and were rightfully ignored in the close. By merging, the closing admin was Wikipedia:PRESERVEing information as per policy. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A merge is effectively a keep; as noted above, it preserves the information. Purplebackpack's keep !vote was effectively a recommendation to keep and merge, with the mention of effects in other parts of the country. Merging improved the article overall by consolidating it with effects of the storm from other regions, not just Georgia. If Ctjf83 feels that a separate article for the storm in Georgia is warranted, I think a split discussion at Talk:January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard would be more effective. (Disclaimer: I'm the nominator from the AfD, and yet I agree with the result not being deletion.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per C.Fred (the nominator from the AfD) and above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Well within admin discretion. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to run to DRV. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I think. There are two aspects to this. First, do we need to consider Ron Ritzman's relist? Contrary to Spartaz, I don't personally think so, because Ron didn't close the debate or use any admin tools. For what it's worth, I also think Ron was right in that when he found a debate he thought was unsatisfactory, he decided not to close it but to !vote instead. So setting that aside, was NW correct to interpret the final comment in the debate as the deciding one? Well, there's a RfC open at the moment about how much weight to give to "merge" recommendations, but pending the outcome of that, NW's close doesn't seem unreasonable to me.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz's position does have some weak support at WP:RELIST because it does refer to the "closer". This might suggest that if you take this action, you have to do it as a neutral party and therefore are precluded from !voting just as you can't close a discussion where you have !voted. (However, I once closed one of my own nominations as "keep" by mistake but left it closed because there were no other "delete" !votes). I think it depends on the situation. I don't see any problem in relisting a debate with no !votes and then later !voting or !voting in a discussion you relisted a week ago that has generated no further !votes. It gets tricky though when you relist a discussion that's clearly leaning one way or the other and then !vote the opposite way. This is what Spartaz claims that I did and the fact that the storm in question affected me personally didn't help much. It's definitely not one of my better AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus – there was clearly no consensus for deletion or for merging in that AFD. There was one !vote to merge (albeit unchallenged), but that could have been left to a local talk page consensus to establish the need for a merge as opposed to a closing admin here. –MuZemike 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The actual consensus was to delete the article; the closer made a reasonable decision to upmerge the article. Admins are supposed to be experienced users who can be trusted to make good decisions. The right decision in this case was to save any good content in this article and transfer it to the main article. Merging is a form of deletion. One article gets deleted after its content is merged with another. Can we trust our admins to make good decisions even if the majority of the bolded votes weren't Merge? SnottyWong ^converse 05:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn this was a unique enough event to have a standalone article. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This forum is only to review the close itself, not to re-argue or continue to argue the actual AfD. "I disagree" is not a valid reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. AFD discussions can come to one of two outcomes: delete and not-delete. All the variants on not-delete (keep, merge, redirect, and so on) can be discussed, varied, and changed between by the usual method of establishing consensus on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (merge and redirect). The last !vote "Merge with January 2011 North American blizzard which covers the same storm over a larger geographic area. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)" was direct to the point, convincing, and sat there for two and a half days of silence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No action Agree with Stifle.Bossanueva (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbrier Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request for temporary undeletion to add references was denied on Jan 27, 2011 because the sources were not "substantial" . However, only a few examples were listed and didn't want to linkspam every single source. The mall is even listed in the Official Tourism Website of the Commonwealth of Virginia as serving multiple cities and regions in more than one state in the USA, which makes it notable. Please reconsider temporarily undeleting to allow for references to be added. Thanks.Andy.hyc (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just want this userified, then? Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good. cheers. Andy.hyc (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The article was deleted as an uncontested PROD so it should be restored upon request unless the admin reviewing it has a damn good reason why it should stay deleted such as it being a copyvio (or other CSD criteria) or there being BLP issues. There's been an unfortunate trend at WP:REFUND lately to decline requests to restore articles deleted by PROD with rationales that belong in AFD. I agree that most of these are unlikely to survive an AFD but they still need to go there so that the community can make the call and those advocating keeping the articles can at least have their say. This is not "process wonkery", it's fairness. We shouldn't be telling new users that if their articles are deleted by PROD that they can be restored upon request but then slam the door in their face when they do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as userfied per Andy.hyc's request. I would have just gone ahead and done this myself per Ron Ritzman, but I couldn't find anything in WP:PROD that specifically states that articles deleted under PROD are automatically entitled to be restored upon request (I used to think that was the case, but I couldn't confirm it). Furthermore, the standards of notability for shopping centers are surprisingly high, so I just want to make sure that the page is going to be worked on in userspace before it is moved back into the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The authority for restoring deleted PRODs is WP:DEL#Proposed deletion: "Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking." I agree that WP:PROD could be clearer, though it does say in para 3 at the top "It may be undeleted upon request", with a link to REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The closing admin misread the debate, and counted votes regardless of how the arguments would stand against our non-free content policy. The original deletion concern was that the image failed WP:NFCC#8, since it was apparently being used to set the reader in the right emotional status instead conveying objective information.

In his (overly long) argument for keeping, User:Veriss1 confirmed that the inflicting of emotional feelings was indeed the motivation for using the image in the article. His arguments mentioned "The global emotional investment into the plight and rescue of the miners" and how the image uniquely illustrates "the intense and well deserved pride that the Chilean people felt in accomplishing this near miraculous and difficult rescue operation." [emphasis mine].

User:Diego_Grez's keep vote was just a mee too over the emotional thesis by User:Veriss1.

User:Lihaas's showed a failed understanding of the debate as a whole. Aparently igoring the existence of our non-free content policy, he argued the image should be kept because it "doesnt hinder the article and WP:Wikifairyies it". And continued with "Articles are not worsened but improved by images.". And in a demontration of his imperfect knowledge about how copyrights work, he also went on to say that the image "doesnt appear to be in violation of copyright as a screen capture".

User:Fut.Perf. ☼ agreed the image could not be kept as long as it was non-free, and even tried to educate the voters about our policies and about copyright.

In the end, the admin just decided it was a 3x2, equally pondering the policy concerns with the misinformed replies, and decided that it was an obvious keep. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable. Further, arguments were made that this is likely free. Not sure it is or isn't, but the close was within the admin's purview if he felt those arguing for keep made their case. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There are multiple criteria and it has to meet all of them. Being irreplaceable is just one of them and isn't one of the points being disputed, so the first place of your resposne is irrelevant. If the image is in fact free then it should be listed as such, not with a fair use rationale as it continues to be listed. I can't see the argument that it's free as within a reasonable area of discretion, the argument was "I remember reading somewhere" which is an incredibly weak argument which we wouldn't entertain for anything else, nor is the fact that it was used widely (Getty image, AP etc. are used widely because of general syndication, licensing etc.). Even if the Chilean government did sponser the image for use by worldwide media, that still isn't the necessarily then same as being a free image, in much the same way that advertising images which appear everywhere aren't free. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's surely an iconic moment, but not an iconic image. --Damiens.rf 12:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just on the subject of an iconic image - if I own the rights to an iconic image, I'm one lucky git, I have something which is potentially very valuable, it would not be fair use to utilise the image in the role for which it has become iconic and therefore valuable (NFCC#3 would cover that). If anything if the image is non-free and we are using it in the same way as it's value is being derived then it's actually a very strong case that we can't use it, not a strong case that we can use it --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain what commercial application having a low-res copy of the image here will interfere with? Heck, we can't even figure out who owns the rights to the image (if anyone). Further, this is DrV, not FfD2 and that issue wasn't raised (I don't think) in the original discussion... Hobit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a general comment rather than specific, in response to the rather general comment "If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable" which is presumably meant to lead to a conclusion that we then have the right to use it. Not sure what DRV not FfD2 round2 has to do with responding to your starting comment, indeed no one makes the argument about it being iconic therefore irreplaceable in the FfD, perhaps you should heed your own advice on this being DRV?. As an again general response, if I own rights to something and can sell usage of that to news agencys, encyclopedia publishers etc. to illustrate the event, then it has commercial value in that role, the resolution is an irrelevant detail. As to we can't figure out who own the rights - we can't assume because we can't work it out that it's free to use, no more than we can any of the many images I can find rolling around the internet, copyright is automatic and implicit there is no need for the holder to label it and tell us they own it, its our responsibility to make sure we aren't breeching copyright, no one elses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, closure correctly assesses consensus, even if I'd have preferred perhaps to see more participation (but Ffd is never crowded). No way it was a delete in any case. --Cyclopia^talk 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting votes is not the same as assessing consensus. The later, for instance, must involve the dismissal of uninformed or policy-ignoring arguments. --Damiens.rf 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Closers of FFDs relating to non-free images are obliged to take policy into account, and a case for this passing NFCC#8 has not been made out. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image (as a screenshot) is a static and faithful reproduction (by CNN) of an image that was provided by the Chilean government, who provided it under a free license. It has no copyright at the source, and CNN did not create a new one in their rebroadcast. The current licensing tags are just plain wrong and we don't need to make any case under NFCC8. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What's the evidence that the Chilean government provided the broadcast under a free license? --Damiens.rf 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image use terms at AP/Getty, who will provide it, but won't sell it, but don't directly link back to the Chilean governments usage terms either. Their usage terms are also for a high quality still image, not the video feed. I'm still looking for the definitive answer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Overturn and delete Unlike AFD and notability, there can never be a valid local consensus to ignore the non-free content policy - which is what this amounts to. CIreland (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep Evidence in the discussion pointed out the image was likely free content and no one objected to that interpretation. No other basis to delete it. Suitability to the article in question is an issue for the talk page, not DRV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Someone says the image is "likely free" and this is enough you? Ok. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an image copyright tag "Likely free" ? This again is an issue of burden, the burden is not on the delete commenters to prove it's not free, and likely free != is free --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence in the previous discussion was the media use terms from the Chilean government, which allowed unlimited free use. Those media use terms were noncomfirmed but that is good enough for me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No the "evidence" was seriously lacking, to paraphrase "I think I saw somewhere where it said it was free" - we wouldn't accept that as a free use permission on any other image, we expect a clear release that it is. And indeed if it ever came to a copyright infringement case we certainly wouldn't present such an argument, we'd be laughed at. Even if the chilean government did pay for it and allow new organisations to use it, that still doesn't mean it's be released on a "free" license, we don't know if there were terms on which they permitted use. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much clearer than that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ok the last statement I see is "I am 100% positive that the arrangement I described was in fact the case but I need help finding an accessible English language or translatable Spanish language article to unequivocally assert that my statement is true", which still boils down to some effectively anonymous person on the internet thinks it's ok. As said even if it was released by the government we still have no idea of the terms. If we want to relabel the image as "possibly free, can't find a good reference for that" instead of fair use, I severly doubt it'd survive PUI. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my own research, depending on which branch of the Chilean government was responsible, it was either CC-by-2.0 or public domain. I can verify an educational/media free license from an english language press redistributor. I'm more certain if I can find the actual Chilean source it will be truly free by WP reuse standards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

McMullen-Booth Road (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

McMullen-Booth Road is the more common name for County Road 611 (Pinellas County, Florida). It also known as East Lake Road or 49th street. It is one of two major north-south roads for Pinellas, and was named for a prominent family in the early history of Pinellas County. I'm suggesting that the article on County Road 611 redirect to this deleted article, and that more information be included. Important locations off of it are John Chestnut Park, the Bayside Bridge, the Saint Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, Northside Hospital-Tampa Bay Heart Institute, and the Ruth Eckerd Performing Arts Center. Umma Kynes 11:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

• Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Any objections can be dealt with via the usual channels. DRV certainly won't stop you from recreating a page title deleted via prod. Approve and speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Chará (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request Restore Ricardo Chará already made his professional debut (in although so far he played once) and according to WP:ATHLETE he fit the notability guideline now. Matthew_hk tc 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article quite clearly says he has played for Udinese since the last AfD. One short substitute appearance might not be enough to get the article through AfD again, but it would sure pass G4. However, can the substitute appearance be verified? The source cited says he was in the squad for the match. But the source does not say that he came onto the field. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pasotto, Marco (15 January 2010). "L' Udinese non c' è ancora ma si guadagna il Milan". La Gazzetta dello Sport (in Italian). Retrieved 26 January 2011. Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the admin who speedy deleted it recently has now restored it based on your request on his talk page. You probably should have given him more time to see your request there before starting this deletion review. Regardless, it seems that this deletion review is moot now. Calathan (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Starr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Speedy Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO in receiving AVN Award nominations in multible years. First nomination: 2009 - Best Group Sex Scene Evil Angel nominees, Second Nomination: 2011 - Best Three-Way Sex Scene (G/G/B). She even has a Film called Rachel Starr Is Badass, which was nominated 2011 as Best Gonzo Release. On IMDB she is called Rochell Starr (I don´t know why), but it´s the same person, as you can see on the filmography.

So there´s nothing to debate, like in the case [Kayla Carrera] she passes clearly the criteria and I will expand the old article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for christ's sake, can we please stop wasting DRVs time with this? At the time of the AfD, this person had ZERO notability demonstrated in the article. Now that she has grabbed onto the low-hanging fruit that is the criteria WP:PORNBIO, she seems to satisfy it. Just remake the article with sources to support the new info, it will be sufficiently different from the individual to invalidate a speedy delete claim. If someone decides to challenge it with a 2nd AfD, then defend it there. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No, we can´t. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close-A valid article has already been (correctly) created, so there's really no point in proceeding with this DRV. It is, as Tarc said, simply a waste of time.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intermatic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Advertising This page has been deleted twice by NawlinWiki stating that it is advertising for using adjectives. This page is factual reference from the corporate site and discusses the history of the company, as well as the product lines they manufacture. References were cited, and still this page was deleted. Also, Wikipedia was contacted directly giving copywrite permission to use content from the corporate websites. Socialsitecore (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, and the copyright thing is probably a red herring. The issue here is that Wikipedia needs reliable sources. That means independent, neutral sources that are unconnected with the company. If we were prepared to write articles only on what someone says about themselves, then Wikipedia would have articles on every lemonade stand or dry cleaners', and nobody would be able to find useful content in among all the pages saying "Aunt Emma's corner shop sells the following kinds of pie:" and "Timmy's ice cream stall sells the best ice cream in Back of Beyond, Kansas!"

  The rule we have to stop that sort of thing is called notability and it means that every article needs sources (note the plural: more than one source) that are independent of the subject, and also have editorial controls (so no user-submitted content). Yes, this means that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.

  If such sources exist--so if there's been a newspaper article about the company, or something--then please do post them here and we'll consider them. But without those independent sources, I'm afraid there's no chance that Wikipedia will host a page about Intermatic.

  On behalf of Wikipedia, I'm sorry that you've made it all the way to Deletion Review without anyone explaining this to you. That shouldn't happen, and when it does happen it means our processes have not worked as they should.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a kindergarten, and we're not here to hold hands. Users should be expected to display a basic degree of competence, at the very least reading the links provided in the welcome template. A big and shiny template sitting on his user talk page, before any of the copyvio notifications started appearing. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you're not here to hold hands, Tarc, but please be careful with that "we". When it comes to new editors who seem to be in good faith, I don't mind spending a few minutes of my volunteering time explaining things and trying to be helpful.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And I would warn you to take equal care with your "On behalf of Wikipedia..." apologies as well, as you do not speak for anyone but yourself, either. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Socialsitecore, I'm sorry on behalf of myself and Umbralcorax, but not on behalf of Tarc, who isn't sorry.—S Marshall T/C

• I just wanted to add that helping people along and helping them understand what makes up a good article is not "hand holding", its just common courtesy. We have WP:BITE because, when people come here, they don't know that there are rules they should be following. These people should be guided to the rules, not told "well you should have known better". That said, unless there are some reliable sources out there, I see no reason not to endorse the decision. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The issue here is not notability: it is the verbatim cut-and-paste of marketing material, as the author puts it, "directly from the company's website," that is overtly promotional in character. OTRS release of the copy to Wikipedia doesn't make it any less promotional. It's fine over at Intermatic where it's doing its job of marketing the company: it's emphatically not encyclopedia material. Adjectives are a red flag, as is the use of the first person plural, but it was not "deleted for using adjectives."

  As far as I'm concerned, Intermatic is probably notable as a manufacturer of electromechanical devices. However, I haven't found any reliable sources to back up my hunch. No company can post advertisements on Wikipedia, which is what was going on, not repeated posting of material on a non-notable company. I've reviewed the deleted material and was in the process of deleting it myself the second time it was posted. The promotional issue was explained to the editor by myself and the deleting admin. I've worked successfully with editors with a conflict of interest before, but it's a two-way street. Provide third-party references and a neutrally-written article, and it's fine. Marketing is not fine. Acroterion _(talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion because the previous content of the article looked like advertising for the company. However, allow re-creation if a new article is created that does not look like advertising. I recommend that the editor seeking deletion review rewrite the article, but relying predominantly on independent reliable sources and not on materials published by the company itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Nawlinwiki's deletion as advertising was correct: "Intermatic has a line of hard wearing weatherproof products that provide an exact match to the application, are easy to install and provide reliability and longevity. Our complete offering of weatherproof products..." etc. is not material for an encyclopedia. If the author prepares a new, encyclopedic article s/he would do well to follow User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and should certainly follow WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest i.e. propose the article at WP:AFC, not post it. We are not good at explaining in advance to people like this that Wikipedia is not a notice-board for their manifesto: I have the same conversation so often that I have written an essay User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard. I have pointed this user to it, but I would welcome comments from others. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If OTRS approved of what I am currently seeing in the deleted copy, then I would be concerned about the handing of that OTRS ticket, absent of any other effort by them to inform the requester that, even if released under a free license, said content is still clearly promotional in nature. P.S. If I misunderstood something about the situation above, please let me know. –MuZemike 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When OTRS accepts the release of content with regard to copyright, I don't know that they're expected to address the issue of whether the content is worthwile to include in Wikipedia, because that can be dealt with through other processes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metropolitan90 is correct. In fact, it would be inappropriate for OTRS to judge content beyond copyright issues. Thus, endorse this deletion, because material was promotional and OTRS action is not relevant to the question at hand. Chick Bowen 04:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically, we're "passing the buck" down to someone else to say "no", i.e. someone originally saying "yes" and then that changes to "no" at a future time. It seems very counterintuitive, not to mention could be considered jerking around users, most of which are newcomers who, in situations like this, will likely see what is actually an improper contribution to Wikipedia as proper on technical grounds by OTRS. –MuZemike 04:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD Given that the creator brought it here, it sounds as if the creator may be well-intentioned, and therefore, it would be a good idea to give this a fair discussion.Shaliya waya (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jonestown.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion nomination raided the concern that this non-free image was copied from Brittanica, what makes it a clear violation of WP:NFCC#2. The two voters involved in the discussion failed to realize what the problem was all about and just talked about WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8). The closing admin was led by this mistake and also ignored the original WP:NFCC#2 concern. |When asked about it, he even mentioned the "file resolution", something that had never been a concern in the discussion at all. Damiens.rf —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, January 24, 2011.

• Uphold Keep. Please see User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 27#Fair use in copying decorative image from Brittanica, where the closing administrator explained the rationale behind the closure, and makes very clear that the #2 versus #1 and #8 issue was handled correctly at the deletion discussion. There was nothing wrong with the decision, other than that the nominator didn't get the result that he wanted. Please also take a serious look at Talk:Criticism of religion#Jonestown image, and note that the nominator is edit warring to enforce his personal view of fair-use against consensus. This deletion review is just another attempt at forum shopping to that effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A further comment, hoping to nip in the bud an issue likely to emerge. At Criticism of religion, editors have now found a free image that appears likely to get consensus to replace the image discussed here. However, I want to point out that this image is also in use at Jonestown, where it serves a more specific purpose (illustrating, among other things, the basin that contained the poison), where there is as yet no editorial consensus that alternative images are acceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like we had any justification to rip images from Britannica in order to illustrate "the basin that contained the poison". --Damiens.rf 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like we're here to discuss anything other than the previous closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the one that fail to consider WP:NFCC#2 as serious as it should be? --Damiens.rf 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the discussion pointed to above - User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 27#Fair use in copying decorative image from Brittanica - where the response to NFCC#2 is made shows the closing admin chose to put their own opinion as to if NFCC#2 was passed in preference to any other opinion expressed - i.e. they should have taken part in the discussion not apply their own standard. As it stands NFCC#3 is the primary are where resolution of image etc. is discussed NFCC#2 is addressing a different area. As to if there are valid claims to the image for NFCC I haven't examined, but the close here was faulty. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I see is the administrator weighing the strengths of arguments, not casting anything remotely like a super-vote. And it comes as news to me that the closing administrator is expected to have previously taken a "side" in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they didn't weigh the argument, since no one responded to the argument it failed NFCC#2, they made the argument post fact that it did meet NFCC#2. You are correct they aren't supposed to, but that appears to be exactly what they've done, they've made there own argument that NFCC#2 is covered for what appear to be quite spurious reasons and then closed the debate at least partly on that argument. My point is that if they should have either (that is one or other but not both) contributed to the debate or closed it based on the argument presented unenhanced by their own opinion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is an iconic and historically significant photo. The copyright of this image is likely held by either its creator, David Hume Kennerly, Time Magazine (his employer at the time), or Getty Images (the company that represents Kennerly's work) and Kennerly's website lists the copyright as being "2003 David Hume Kennerly/Kennerly.com". The copyright is definitely not held by Britannica, so there's no competing commercial interest here. The "original market role" as described in NFCC#2 would surely have to do with the photo's publication in Time magazine and I don't see how our publication of the image takes away from Time's financial benefit, since they first published this image years ago. ThemFromSpace 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That publication in Time was apparently in 1978. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no way of telling if Britannica have obtained a license for use from the rights holder, you interpretation of original market role appears to narrow to me, but this is the problem we aren't supposed to reargue the IfD here, the correct place would have been the deletion discussion where no one addressed the argument it failed NFCC#2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. It seems to me that 82.7.40.7 has correctly pointed out a flaw in the deletion process, and I wonder whether NFCC#2 was given sufficient weight in the close. It doesn't seem to me to be relevant who holds the copyright in the image. Whether it's Britannica, the photographer or his employer doesn't matter. What matters is that a commercial entity holds that copyright and we are depriving them of its benefit. And we don't have an article about the image. However, I can't find a "delete" consensus in the discussion and I can't therefore recommend an overturn to delete. On balance, I think we should send it back to FfD so the whole matter can be given more consideration.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment motivated me to look further. Google Web and Google Image searches for "Jonestown massacre David Hume Kennerly" don't reveal more for-profit sites displaying this image. However, The University of Texas Austin reproduces the Time cover here, with a statement here that payment is sought for prints of this image, but not for reproduction on the internet. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's irrelevant, he doesn't have to offer it for sale for any particular media if he doesn't want to, lack of doing so doesn't mean anything about it being freely available. e.g. if he may have sold on the exclusive rights with a proviso he may sell prints, or he may have sold on specific internet rights etc. etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's moot now, but it seems to me that if the image is being distributed freely except in the form of prints (moot because it turns out not to be the case), then our providing a low-resolution version is not what you are describing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point was, looking at a small set of information and reaching a conclusion isn't what we should be doing. The fact that it's on Getty potentially for sale actually reinforces my point. You made a assumption based on no explicit information contrary to your view point, rather than information explicitly confirming your viewpoint, that's not the way copyright works. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That misrepresents my expressed reasoning. I, and others, found positive evidence that the image was last used commercially in a periodical in 1978 and was now freely available, except in the form of high-resolution prints. When I became aware of the Getty site, I immediately changed my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that's your idea of positive evidence, then your standards are well short. Postive evidence would be a release saying "this is free to use", it's not finding an image being used in various places where you have no idea it they are using a fair use claiim, violating copyright or have licensed it in some way. Your positive evidence that the photographer isn't offering a license for web use on his website as him being happy for broad web use is frankly laughable, if that's the defence we had against a copyright infringement case, then we'd have no defence. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I became aware of the Getty site, I immediately changed my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I guess his point is that we don't need a link to a photo agency page selling the specific images to qualify a non-free journalistic photo as a NFCC#2 violation. --Damiens.rf 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Obviously that's the point, made very repeatedly, even after I had said my original objection was moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not to be picky here, but the point, if you had the patience to understand it, is that you should not have need to become aware of the Getty site to change your mind. What you see as "immediately changed my mind" I see as a slow delayed change. But this is all immaterial now (and ever). --Damiens.rf 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Oh, no, don't be picky. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No way Jose. The use of this image is still for sale. The only way we could perhaps justify fair use of this image is if the image itself were notable enough for an article and then only in that article. Otherwise, we can't use it no matter how many people say "keep" in the FFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Ron Ritzman. Not sufficiently distinctive/unique to overcome the presumption that actively marketed nonfree images can't be used as general illustrations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Fails WP:NFCC#2 through and through. — ξ^xplicit 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I'm changing my mind, per Ron Ritzman. He is right about that, and I wasn't aware of the Getty site, which changes everything in my mind. The reason I'm saying relist instead of overturn outright is that no one in this discussion has established that the closing administrator decided the matter incorrectly, only that the examination during the discussion was not adequate. I also want to point out that this fact in no way justifies the disruptive and, frankly, childish, manner in which the nominator has pursued it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it was established that the closer inserted their own refutation of NFCC#2 into the debate as part of the close, that is an improper close. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, honestly, let's just put the admin's head on a spike. No, the nominator's statement at the XfD was simply "WP:NFCC#2: Copyrighted image copied from Brittanica used "to illustrate the events depicted on the image"." The nominator's subsequent argument was simply that they have been able to learn about the subject without seeing the picture, focusing on the dubious claim that the use of the image was purely for "decorative" purposes. Editors made arguments that the image was appropriate for use under Wikipedia's existing fair use policy, and the administrator found those arguments to have been consensus. In hindsight, it would have been better if the nominator had actually explained the commercial interest of the Getty site, but that will not be a problem if this is relisted. When asked at his user talk, the administrator pointed out, correctly, that a low-resolution image was less likely to infringe on commercial use, and it is subsequently being Wikilawyered that this was "inserted" into the close. Wikipedia does not use courtroom rules to close deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you are over dramatising, no one is calling for blood. Admins are human and make mistakes, when those are uncovered they shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging/correcting the mistake, so your casting this in that way is totally unhelpful. We are a free encyclopedia, the NFCC is quite clear the burden of proof lies with those wishing to use the image. The fact that no one argued about the NFCC#2 image makes it hardly suprising no futher debate happened and as above there is no burden on the nominator to find hard evidence that a current commercial interest is being damaged, the burden lies with those wishing to use the image that there is no impact on the commercial interest. The close subsequent comment about NFCC#2 is the only response, so of course if the closer was closing in line with the NFCC which requires all to be met, it has got to be assumed that's why the believed NFCC#2 was met. Franlky it's a crap argument, I'd be interested to see you point out where low res has been considered a general way of passing NFCC#2 in other debates, that is something the closing admin imposed on their own (further reinforced by minmial use is covered by NFCC#2, the two aren't duplicative). That is inserting their own view point. If you want to talk about wikilawyering take a look at your own comments, you are thrashing about trying to avoid the rather obvious that the close was faulty. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You want the image deleted, now. Got it. I think everyone reading this discussion understands that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I'm sure everyone reading the discussion understands yours... However of course you'd be wrong, as I've said repeatedly the close was faulty, that's different to it needs to be deleted now, and indeed as I said in my very first comment, "As to if there are valid claims to the image for NFCC I haven't examined, but the close here was faulty.", perhaps if you stopped trying to put words into other people mouths "Put the admins head on a spike", "you want the image deleted" and tried to understand the issues, we'd move along a lot faster. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Got it! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The closer read the debate correctly, but I fear the debate itself was faulty. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete – Notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Stifle. Even accounting for the fact this image can be bought, there could be a case out there that the image is usable here--it's not plain that having the image here would _hurt_ it's commercial application more than help it in fact. Let's discuss it where the discussion belongs, and DrV isn't that place. Hobit (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a very clear and well established practice of deleting (and even speeding!) photos belonging to news and photo agencies, unless the photo themselves are notable (notable meaning Wikipedia's Notability, not the usual "Wow! What a notable picture you've taken!"). --Damiens.rf 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the "speedy" idea has been discussed and rejected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • At this point in the discussion, I think the issue is increasingly settling down to whether we should delete here and now, or whether we should relist with an expectation that deletion will be the outcome there. (Heck, even I intend to argue for deletion if it is relisted!) But I want to make the point that Deletion Review is for the purpose of determining whether or not the previous deletion discussion was closed correctly—not to provide a new venue in which that deletion discussion can be re-argued in hopes of getting a different outcome. It seems to me that, indeed, the first discussion was seriously flawed and needs to be re-argued, but that the closing administrator was well within policy in the way that consensus there was ascertained. As such, it should be re-listed. Otherwise, DRV would become a place where anyone who wants to forum-shop to change a decision they didn't like could come to game the system. Just because editors, in this discussion, agree with deletion as the eventual correct outcome, they shouldn't assume that there won't be cases where DRV would be used to get results that they would not be happy with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. Though it is true that there has never been a consensus for a CSD covering press agency photos, there is indeed consensus for a very narrow and specific criterion for their use (the photo itself must be historically notable, not just the event covered). That standard is not met here, and thus this is a copyright violation by our standards. By long precedent, we don't allow copyvios to linger in deletion processes for long periods, but delete them when the copyright situation becomes clear. Chick Bowen 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The test isn't whether its presence would significantly increase a viewer's understanding of the topic. The test is whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Usage of non-free content criteria requires at a minimum a reliable source description of the NFCC image. This image is descriped in the article with an original research caption and none of the text in the artcle accompany it. The FfD failed to address this and needs to. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think the test we're most concerned about here is whether the use of the image on Wikipedia interferes with the commercial market for the image (NFCC#2). Stifle (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Hayes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore She won the Urban X Awards ^[1], ^[2], so she passes WP:PORNBIO in winning a notable award. Even if it is the Category Nicest Breasts in Porn. The last delete was 2008, and she won the award in 2009.

References

--Hixteilchen (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Come up with something more If a downlevel category on a downlevel awards show is what counts for pornbio then that criteria is too low. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep deleted A "well-known" award is not the same as a "notable" award. Just because a porn award has an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean its a "well-known" for the purpose of pornbio. For porn bios we need to move away from just a snippet citation of an award and move towards more significant coverage. When an actor wins a truly well-known award it is likely that there is more discussion of him/her that we may not be able to find. This award is only mentioned through press releases and blog entries and primary sources. I don't see how the article can be expanded beyond the proposed stub until more and better sources are found. ThemFromSpace 10:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It is sad that the current state of affairs...the Commons as a free dumping ground for images and Wikipedia's WP:PORNBIO threshold being so ridiculously low...pretty much gives the porn industry free advertising space on one of the internet's most-trafficked websites. As written now, the notability guidelines allows this person into article-worthiness. But this needs to be fixed. Soon. Tarc (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes the "nicest breasts in porn" a notable award?—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HOTTIE? -Atmoz (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, oppose recreation. TFS's comments are squarely on target. Even if the claimed award is notable, a dubious proposition, there are quite many notable awards/honors given out in such quantities that they do not contribute to individual notability (most military medals, for example, annual British crown honors outside the top levels, even Rhodes scholarships). Most porn awards, especially ones like this, which seem to exist primarily to stage a profit-making awards ceremony, have no genuine relationship to individual notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.S Marshall, Just look at Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, before asking such questions, there are also categories like Favorite Breasts, Favorite Ass and Hottest Body and all winners are notable for Wikipedia. So it´s no absolutely new Category. This argument is lame as you can see. --Hixteilchen (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not my argument that's lame, it's those awards. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the GNG is passed in this case. And I don't care about PORNBIO--invididual wikiprojects' guidelines don't supersede the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall is mistaken that PORNBIO is an WikiProject's guideline. It's actually a part of the notability guideline for people, and should be considered seriously. --Bsherr (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The award seems obscure. More information on its significance in the industry would be required before it could be used to establish the importance of its recipient. --Bsherr (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Six words - "She won the Urban X Awards" - is not enough text on which to base a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkka_Saari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I made a wikipedia page for Ilkka Saari has IMDb ranking around 100000, so I think it is worth a wikipedia page. About 300000 to 1000000 people see the name Ilkka Saari annually so there might even be traffic into this page. Significant amount of those persons will search wikipedia for Ilkka Saari for reference; and thus give support for wikipedia. For these reasons final acceptance would be advantageous for wikipedia Information of Ilkka Saari is redeemed appropriate/correct by IMDb,Inbaseline

I hope you notice that I am fighting for the rights of 7 million film industry people, and you should have clear guidelines of who can be in wikipedia by filmindustry rankings. So I hope you reassess this case and even factualize by your answer that there is an existing lack of guidelines The list of film industry ranking / notability providers is very short; it is IMDb; which I have around top 100000. Develop clear guidelines of who can be in wikipedia for film industry people and judge me accordingly. This is what I ask of Wikipedia

Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Data for fan following for Ilkka Saari for 2010 Jan : 27430 searchs in IMDb, Feb : 29464 searchs in IMDb, Mar : 32319 searchs in IMDb, April : 30331 searchs in IMDb, May : 27122 searchs in IMDb June : 22110 searchs in IMDb, July : 33227 searchs in IMDb, Aug : 32119 searchs in IMDb, Sep : 31221 searchs in IMDb, Oct: 27995 searchs in IMDb, Nov : 30552 searchs in IMDb, Dec: 79520 searchs in IMDb

= 403,410 searchs in IMDb for 2010, so this would constitute for large fan base

For this reason undelete from Wikipedia is requested by three professional databases, TOP 100,000 notability in the World and fan base of 403,410 verified searches

Billionaires elite Classical Composer of Teosto CAE 428437349 I Tunes UPC:844395000050 Album Id: SG-8020___Interactive Brokers___Diamond Lounge member___aSmallWorld member___ http://www.affluence.org/profile.php?user=IlkkaSaari http://www.elysiants.com/user/22333 http://www.varietymediacareers.com/c/index.cfm?site_id=7307 notice very low number by The Variety, 7307 http://professionalblackbook.com/_________ Decayenne____ World Elite___Billionaires Elite____ ExclusiveRoyalHighSociety_____ QUBE from Quintessentially member____ Ilkka Saari, born 24th of July 1963 from Finland,has IMDb ranking around 100000 in the World of Art, Science and Entertainment American pat. 2010 007 47 24 IMDb Resume Films: The Island Story Writer WGA reg. as Bond#24 / The Visitor Writer Thanks to Barbara Broccoli Ian Fleming Sean Connery Roger Moore Daniel Craig Pierce Brosnan et al. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2838901/ http://www.inbaseline.com/person.aspx?person_id=2473739 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1053539634 http://www.varietymediacareers.com/c/index.cfm?site_id=7307 http://www.myspace.com/ilkka1 http://www.myspace.com/ilkkasaari http://www.apple.com/search/ipoditunes/?q=Ilkka+Saari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semrian (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/ilkka-saari/home/

• Comment: I have temporarily undeleted the article for this DRV. It can be seen in the history behind the "tempundelete" template. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. None of the above indicates notability by Wikipedia's standard; article does not show any coverage by independent reliable sources, nor do searches find any. (Note: News hits and some IMDb data are about another Ilkka Saari who is manager of a Finnish TV channel). JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly amazed !!!! Ilkka Saari is altogether another person !!! Ilkka Saari in question is in IMDb Ilkka Saari II and the person referred is Ilkka Saari III that is btw. IMDb 3,203.719 !!!!

John, I really hope there would be some logical reason on what you say !!!

How many Tom Johnsons there are in film industry ? At least 38-

And each is treated individually

So John, you are clearly proving my fact of no knowledge of film industry which is my point !!!

What you are referring to can happen in music industry- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semrian (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: That is exactly my point. This discussion is about Ilkka Saari II. The question is, can we find any independent comments on him or his work, to show notability? One place to look is a News search, and that does find hits for the name, but they are all about the other one, the TV2 man. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from JohnCD "....and on "Bond#24", which must be some way off as Bond#23 is not yet released." That script has been at least in consideration in Danjaq; but why would there be need blame that something is way off ? unless a mindless hunt is away ??? I don't have anything to hide-

What I would prefer to see is any reference to The Variety

Quote "None of the above indicates notability by Wikipedia's standard" is purely disregarding and absurd

btw. Wikipedia can do millions of articles of TV channel directors. The industry standard is that any producer, agent, director is just one cog in a big machine and therefore very scarsly valuated; which does not say that it would be righteous, but that is just the way. JohnCD has things just the opposite way. But John, we are learning, aren't we. Anybody connected with this case will learn a lot. And the next person will be treated correctly and justly. Which Ilkka Saari II will never deserve, I presume — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semrian (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original idea to the Matrix movie 1985 the name mathematical object of Matrix 1991 After studying philosophies of existence came with the idea that all visual etc sense input is given. Idea that humans are used for warmth ( used in first Matrix ) This is my statement I think , therefore I am - Ilkka Saari 10 June 2010 at 23:57 · Like · Comment Ilkka Tapio Saari Discussions on Avatar with James Cameron; hope he reutilizes leaking Macondo oil well; something I could not achieve- 11 June 2010 at 09:59 · Like Ilkka Tapio Saari Discussions on StarWars with George Lucas after VI Let the Saga continue 11 June 2010 at 10:11 · Like Ilkka Tapio Saari with Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke feeding his dolphins

From inside The Variety CV with the link http://www.varietymediacareers.com/c/index.cfm?site_id=7307

Summary The Island Story____________________Writer WGA reg. as Bond#24 / The Visitor______Writer http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm2838901/

Objective Original idea to the Matrix movie 1985 the name mathematical object of Matrix 1991 After studying philosophies of existence came with the idea that all visual etc sense input is given. Idea that humans are used for warmth ( used in first Matrix ) This is my statement I think , therefore I am -... Ilkka Saari WGA registeration from 2005 for Matrix sequels

From inside The Variety CV with the link http://www.varietymediacareers.com/c/index.cfm?site_id=7307, without personal details of course

And JohnCD, before you ask... This issue with Matrix has been talked with VillageRoadhouse from the year 2005. No. It has not been in court, unlike one female Scifi writer who also claimed copying from a her book. And the claim has been discussed with all Matrix actors, who said that they would not be all that surprised if that would happen as in industry all good ideas are taken in use. And this Matrix claim is so widely publicly reported in Hollywood industry that legal action against Matrix and Wachowski's would not be advantageous to Ilkka Saari II while present state of ability to use as a line in CV is. And Matrix is in CV also in IMDb; and The Variety id=7307

Note that it was not in the article, while the aim here is not to encyclopediaze anything already in CV, while it is far more important to have them in Industry CV's, the aim was merely to give opportunity to those searching for name some kind of short explanation. So Matrix was chosen not to be presented in the article, while it could have been.

Then why is it mentioned here ? Merely to show you that with Ilkka Saari II we are talking about a very imaginative person that has been accordingly rewarded with admiration of Hollywood celebs and with very close relations with wide A-listers, and high IMDb

And Ilkka Saari II would really deserve a Wikipedia page, without a mention of Matrix, if so consensused Semrian (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote : That is exactly my point. This discussion is about Ilkka Saari II. The question is, can we find any independent comments on him or his work, to show notability? One place to look is a News search, and that does find hits for the name, but they are all about the other one, the TV2 man. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, News search does not show Ilkka Saari II, only Ilkka Saari III, but you can do google search and you will find Ilkka Saari II on top.

And you can do yahoo with Ilkka Saari II that would be purely Ilkka Saari II, but you did leave both google and yahoo out, while you were aware of them.

But the fact is that there are no news nor magazine articles. Few, but none to mention And hopefully you have noticed that they have not been tried to be presented, as what is presented can be verified so nothing is " taken out of thin air " even if you suspect that.

JohnCD Almost afraid to ask... but does not being on top of google searches, and exclusivity in yahoo searches tell Wikipedia something, moreso to news search ??Semrian (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish inventors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category has been problematic for years, starting in 2007 when it was speedied for being empty (because a List of Jewish inventors took its place). The list has since been deleted as "non-encyclopedic" by almost unanimous consensus. This would suggest that an identical category would be even easier to delete because of the numerous policies advising against such a creation (WP:OCAT, WP:CATGRS, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, etc..). However, a lack of interest and a lot of a WP:POINT participation made this CfD way less thorough than the equivalent AfD.

I'm putting this up for deletion review because I believe the closing admin set up an unattainable threshold for "deletion." In terms of quantity, we have 6 !delete votes and 5 !keep votes (a tiny majority), however the !delete votes all refer to some sort of policy or guideline used to determine whether a category is encyclopedic-enough for Wikipedia. Since CfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, this should have been taken more seriously. Not a single one of the !keep votes presented policy-driven arguments, and - to be frank - their comments appeared rather disingenuous and sometimes irrelevant to the discussion all together.

I will explain:

The Keeps

-Keep - User:Occuli - Who only stated: "AFAIK there has never been any consensus to delete (or indeed to keep) these Jewish-occupation categories (with which Bulldog123 seems obsessed) as there is generally much sound and fury on both sides."

Other than that, there was no reason given for why this is A) an encyclopedic categorical intersection B) Not WP:OCAT C) Not WP:NOT#DIR of random X and Y pairings. In addition, Occuli actually never seems to give a reason for !keeping other than to say "it was nominated before and it wasn't deleted yet." Here he says "Keep per my previous keep." Unfortunately, his previous !keep rationale was only "If in doubt, don't delete" sounds OK to me." (in reference to the category being deleted and then brought back by an SPA account). Again, no content for why it is an encyclopedic category.

-Keep - User:Alansohn - Who stated: "...an appropriate intersection that has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources using the intersection as a means of categorization."

When asked where these multiple reliable and verifiable sources, no response was given. In fact, charting this user's CfD/AfD history, it appears the above comment is one he regularly copies and pastes to other Jewish-related CfD/AfD discussions, paying no attention to specific rationales and never feeling the need to clarify.

-Keep - User:Peterkingiron - Who stated: "This is an ethnic category, quite as much as a religious one."

Though it needn't be mentioned, this totally misses the point. There was never talk of deleting this category only because of its religious status. In fact, the nomination rationale directly says that the category is un-encyclopedic precisely because it is an irrelevant intersection of an ethnic group and an occupation.

-Keep - User:brewcrewer - Who stated: "Nominators rationale for deletion: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Nominator apparently assumes that Judaism as a religion or being of Jewish ethnicity had no bearing on any of those categorized. That's an assumption that is quite dubious."

Initially, brewcrewer gave no reason for why "that assumption is dubious." When questioned further, he "WP:REFBOMBed" with a google books search for the phrase "Jewish inventors", citing whatever came up as "evidence of a notable intersection." When explained how this was not the case, he no longer responded to comments.

-Keep - User:Epeefleche - Who stated: "...per Peterkingiron"

As explained above, Peterkingiron's reasons weren't relevant or pertinent, and it would appear Epeefleche did not read the rationale either. Note, Epeefleche is notorious for !voting keep on anything with the word "Jewish" in it... very sparingly giving a reason other than "per someone-else".

On the other hand, we have two direct sentences in WP:OCAT that call this category into question. One is: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created... the other being Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.. No evidence exists to suggest this cat adheres to/passes either of those qualifications. In fact, there is no - and has not been since 2007 - criteria for inclusion in this category. Is it only for ethnic Jews? What about religious Jews? What about converts? What qualifies as an inventor? Is a discoverer an inventor? Is a mathematician an inventor? What makes that invention or discovery related to Judaism or Jewishness? User:brewcrewer said it was "dubious" to assume an individual's proclivity for invention is separate from his ethnicity. If so, where is the proof that all these people in this category have been influenced by their Judaism to ... invent? There is none.

All in all, it's pretty obvious that there was no shared consensus among these keeps voters for why the category should be keep. The !keep votes appear like disparate WP:IDONTLIKEIT chime-ins, fueled by the dislike of the recent outpouring of Jewish-themed CfD/AfD nominations. (Occuli even made a comment to that extent here).

tl;dr - With a [slight] delete majority and incomparably stronger !delete arguments, this should have been closed Delete. One cannot expect to have utter unanimity when semi-controversial religious/ethno categories are nominated... it simply will not happen. Also, I think letting this category close as "no consensus" is a bad precedent to set: keep-bomb a CfD with confused, contradictory reasonings and you can achieve a "no consensus" close by default. It's a way to game the system by having something you like kept without explaining its encyclopedic value.

Last Note - Nothing against User:Mike Selinker who closed the debate. I contacted him here and asked him to reconsider, but he suggested DRV. I think Mike just isn't aware of the long history of CfD/AfD debates concerning this topic and that closing yet another one of these as no consensus (when the delete consensus is pretty apparent) just puts us back to square one unnecessarily. Bulldog123 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete for the reasons above. Bulldog123 10:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A perfectly reasonable closure on the basis of that debate.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 26 for DRV's previous views on this category.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please expound upon your rationale for endorsing. 10 words is not proving anything. I have outlined in great detail my point. You have not made the same attempt to prove anything I said incorrect. Bulldog123 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With pleasure.

  Taking first the general rules we have, the most relevant criterion seems to be WP:OC#CATGRS. Interestingly, it gives "Jewish mathematicians" as an example of a category that should be deleted. I question whether this a particularly good example because OC#CATGRS is about ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations and "Jewish" isn't exactly any of the above. One can be a Jewish atheist so it isn't a religion, and it certainly isn't a sexual orientation or an ethnicity. It's arguably an ethnolinguistic group, but personally I think Jewishness might best be described as either a cultural identity or (as our own article on Jews rightly says) a nation.

  Clearly the intent of WP:OC#CATGRS is to rule out the existence of any category called "Jewish (profession)" even if it ought not strictly to apply to Jews, who after all aren't exactly an ethnicity or religion. But equally clearly, as many deletion reviews of Jewish categories have shown in the past, this guideline is disputed. With guidelines, editors are free to use their discretion.

  On this point, your nomination is entirely inaccurate where it says "we have numerous policies" against such categories. We don't. We have several guidelines, all of which say almost exactly the same thing. And none of them provide any reasoning that I find intelligible why we should have such a guideline. In fact, the whole "numerous policies" argument boils down to proof by repeated assertion, and in coming to my opinion I dismissed it entirely.

  Over and above this, there is a red flag about this nomination. It's a pattern we often see at DRV. It goes like this: A disputed XfD is closed as no consensus. One participant has a strong belief that the strength of the arguments is on his side. Said participant replies to almost every single post on the subject with forcefully-expressed sentences in the emphatic declarative. This debate participant apparently believes the matter is black and white, that he is Right and that his interlocutors are Wrong. In fact, said participant is showing that he knows how to win an argument.

  Taking into account the nature of the guideline and the red flag I see in the nomination, I'm of the view that there are no grounds to overturn this decision at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I question whether this a particularly good example because OC#CATGRS is about ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations and "Jewish" isn't exactly any of the above.

• It's fine to question it, but if you do... you admit your "overturn" !vote here is opposite to what policy/guideline recommends. You said that "Jewish mathematicians" is explicitly listed as an example of a category we shouldn't have. I mean... let's be honest... "Jewish inventors" is a no-brainer. I don't necessarily agree with all policy/guideline either but when I'm in a CfD/AfD/DELREV... I adhere to it. Doesn't it seem like you should do the same?

• It's arguably an ethnolinguistic group

• Not that it's relevant, but I've never heard "Jewish" be described in this way. It seems like of all things, a single language is one thing all Jews never shared in common. Bulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• even if it ought not strictly to apply to Jews, who after all aren't exactly an ethnicity or religion.

• It's really not up to any of us to determine what Jews are. External sources describe it as both an ethnicity and a religion, so we have to treat it as both unless we had Category:ethnic Jewish inventor Bulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking into account... and the red flag I see in the nomination..."

• Maybe I'm not understanding, because I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "red flag," but I'm going to have to assume the "red flag" you're talking about is me being forceful and bringing this to DRV with a very thorough explanation of why the !keep votes were mostly disingenous drive-by attempts (that ultimately succeeded in their intentions). To that, I'd have to say: I don't think it's appropriate to determine your !vote here because you don't like me or my approach. Can't we just stick to content, please? If I misinterpreted what you meant by "red flag," please clarify. Bulldog123 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Most importantly, I'm not seeing a real reason why you believe this was a fair close. Just a lot of talk about your opinions on what Jewishness is, personal disillusionment with policy, over-emphasis on semantics, and wiki-politics. Would you at least admit that something needs to be done about this category already. If not deletion, then a complete change-around. Albert Einstein is listed for god's sake. Bulldog123 13:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) There are a whole platoon of responses to that, and I'll try to be as brief as possible for the sake of the closer's sanity. In no particular order: (1) It's not necessary for me to say why I think it was a fair close; at a deletion review the default is "endorse". It's for you to say why it was unfair, and I don't agree that this has been done. (2) The difference between "policy" and "guideline" is definitely not semantics at a deletion review. If it's a guideline (as it is in this case), then editors are free to disregard it at their own discretion, and their !votes should still receive weight if otherwise valid. If it had been a policy then the closer should have enforced it, but it is not. (3) I don't know what you mean by "wikipolitics". (4) The "red flag" is the frequency and intensity of responses by one participant. It indicates a danger that one side of a dispute might "win" by simply exhausting the others--an outcome of which I do not approve. That is not to say that I don't like you. I don't even know you, and I have no opinion on that. Nor is it to say that I disapprove of your approach. It is to say exactly what I've said, and no more. (5) Whether "Jewish" is a nation or an ethnicity or a religion or whatever is a central part of this dispute, if you believe that the existence of the guideline is relevant to the weight each !vote should receive. It's certainly not a red herring. The "overturn to delete" side believes this guideline should be enforced over the obvious lack of consensus between good faith editors. In order to assess that, it's necessary for DRV to interrogate whether the guideline applies. If "Jewish" is a religion or an ethnicity, then it does. If "Jewish" is a nation, then really, it doesn't, because inventors by nationality would be an acceptable category. See?

  Basically, my position is that it's not for me to convince you. It's for you to convince DRV.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. I'm always surprised when a no consensus close winds up at drv. I guess I shouldn't be, since Cat:Jewish Foo almost always ends up here, unless it's a straight up keep. It would probably be good to deal with all of the Jewish cats as one, and get a wider consensus to end the debate once and for all, but since WP doesn't seem to want to go down that road, we wind up dealing with the categories on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Bulldog has explained in good detail above why the keep arguments should have been given much less weight, both for the argument themselves, and for the "drive-by" method of participation at cfd. Xfd is a discussion, not a vote. --Kbdank71 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This DRV seems to consist entirely of taking an evenly balanced discussion, treating all of the delete votes as being unassailably probative, while misinterpreting, misrepresenting and resorting to personal attacks as an argument to discard each and every one of the keep votes, all to justify the nominator's preference for a result. In the CfD that took place, the arguments for retention addressed policy by showing that this is an encyclopedic and defining characteristic backed by reliable and verifiable sources while those arguing for deletion insisted that it is not. Far too often, administrators put themselves in the position of dictating consensus in cases where the actual decision had none, and credit is due to User:Mike Selinker for closing this as "no consensus", when there was no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• the arguments for retention addressed policy by showing that this is an encyclopedic and defining characteristic backed by reliable and verifiable sources while those arguing for deletion insisted that it is not.

Show me one place in the CfD where a !keep voter made a legitimate attempt to disprove the !delete rationales. Also, show me a single policy or guideline that a !keep voter linked to. In fact, when I directly asked you to provide those sources you claimed exist (Note: linking to a google books search result page for "Jewish inventor" is not doing that), you neglected to respond. Perhaps because you know very well there are none? It's pretty easy to type "backed by verifiable sources" and then not show where that's true. It's pretty much what you've been doing in every single Jewish AfD you've participated in recently. (as shown above) I think you need to stop treating these CfD/AfD nominations so personally, and start looking at the bigger picture. WP:OCAT doesn't cease to exist just because you don't like the nomination. Bulldog123 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also... I'd like a direct citation of each place I "misinterpreted," "misrepresented," and "resorted to personal attacks" in the above rationale. I find it baffling that typing out the exact words that were said by each !keep voter is "misrepresenting" their point. Bulldog123 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that you want a different result and are dissatisfied with the close. Your arguments were responded to at the CfD in question and your insistence that there is a standard that participants must "disprove" the arguments of those with differing opinions at XfD is nonexistent. The closing administrator weighed the arguments for and against retention and concluded that there was no consensus for deletion, as there was none. You argue here that a different closing administrator, perhaps one with preconceived opinions on the subject matching yours, might possibly have closed this in your favor by summarily discarding all keep votes. However you provide no evidence that the close was improper or violated policy, which is the relevant question here. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and definitely not a poll. It's a discussion and arguably a debate. In a debate, you discuss with one another why your point is valid and the other's is invalid. I'd like to be shown where the !keep voters attempted to disprove the !delete voters rationales. Again, I'd also like a direct citation where I "misinterpreted," "misrepresented," and "resorted to personal attacks" in the above rationale. Thanks. Bulldog123 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and nowhere in WP:DR does it say one can only bring something to Deletion Review if an admin violates "policy." Not sure where you're gleaming that from. I think the closer simply focused way too much on "quantity" instead of "quality," which could be considered an "improper" close. Bulldog123 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closing admin read consensus accurately. I've just read the last AFD myself and come to the same conclusion. Its a no consensus that leans but not conclusively to delete. The previous DRV was overturn to no consensus, nothing changed. Szzuk (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the problem with overturning this is a "quantity"-related one, I'd ask the closer of this deletion review to consider relisting the CfD so individuals (other than the ones who have already !voted) be allowed to put in their 2 cents. Bulldog123 22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete as the intersection is not notable (this has been established in the list's AfD). Most of the "inventors" in this category are just scientists who made significant breakthroughs. They did not "invent" things. You can discover electricity (superfluidity, etc.), but you cannot invent it. I guess the usual suspects will attempt to influence this vote too. We shall see.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't anything in the discussion that would argue against a purge of inappropriate content. So if there are non-Jews or non-inventors in the category, I think everyone would agree that they should be removed from the category, assuming the category continues to exist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While I supported deletion in the debate, I defer to this closing admin's judgment in this particular closure. This debate was open for a very long time, and I think that's because a lot of people were scared to close such a contentious category debate either way. To overturn this is proving those admins were right to steer clear of this, and I think admins who step in for such a closure should be given somewhat generous leeway in whatever they decide, else we foster an environment where more and more steer clear of anything contentious and debates such as these are held open far longer than they should be. VegaDark (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's really arguable to say this is such a "contentious" category. I think it was just left open so long because people forgot about it. In fact, if it was relisted the CfD again and just have new people come in and !vote (not the regulars), I'm pretty positive community opinion would be clear. Nearly all the old CfDs were just overrun by the so-called "regulars." (many of whom are indefed, by the way) This category has long been used as a pawn piece because some people took offense at recent Jewish-related and ethnicity-related deletions. (In fact, the last DRV, was instigated by User:Badagnani who only brought it back several months later for WP:POINT reasons. Check the history if you don't believe me. He has since been indefed for related reasons). Bulldog123 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the last DRV regarding this category was unanimously overturned to no consensus, the motive of the editor who initiated it is rather beside the point. Further, that overturned CFD was closed as listify. As the list no longer exists, the result of that prior CFD would be irrelevant even if it hadn't been overturned at DRV. postdlf (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but if there's no consensus, the category can be freely renominated for deletion. I regret that OVERCAT wasn't clear enough to make the outcome apparent. I'm concerned that enforcing OVERCAT becomes a popularity contest. --Bsherr (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clearly no consensus was expressed in the discussion, and none of the arguments for deletion were strong enough to override the divided community sentiment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was no consensus was expressed in the discussion. Even the DRV nom agrees that "there was no shared consensus". Also, "a way to game the system" is to (1) list a discussion[8] and then (2) !vote in that same discussion.[9] Nice example you set for the kids. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should read up on how DRVs are supposed to be made before making a ridiculous comment like that. Bulldog123 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the no consensus close. Anyone who pretends there is actually consensus here on these categories (and the similar lists) is deluding themselves. I wish there were--I wish there were a basis for saying overturn to keep, and reverse the deletions of all similar categories & lists, but I don't think enough people understand yet that fuzziness is inevitable in anything dealing with human affairs to counter the ones who think that ethnicity is a taboo subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or renominate overturn to delete- I think it's safe to say that this CfD would have ended up at DRV no matter how it had been closed (no consensus, delete or Ni!), so I don't think it's possible to fault Mike for stepping forward to close a long, complicated and month-old discussion. On the merits of the discussion, I think that Bulldog's assessment of the balance of arguments is accurate. The main "keep" arguments were offered by Alansohn and Brewcrewer, yet both relied on unsubstantiated assertions or assumptions (namely, that the intersection "has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources" and "their ethnicity/religion has a significant effect of their career"). In light of the absence of other {Religion} inventors or {Ethnicity} inventors categories, as well as the dubiousness of Jewish invention as a head article, I think that the burden of proof should be substantially on those who think the category should be an exception to the rule. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to find sources but the trouble with categories is that there's nowhere to put them. The list should be brought back so that footnotes can be added to substantiate the entries. And guess who invented the footnote? See Lisa Alcalay Klug (2008), "Jewish Inventions", Cool Jew, p. 15. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My favorite part of DRV is when people bring sources they don't even look at. Your source there is less than a handful of sentences presenting no content whatsoever and is right above a section entitled "Jew York Landmarks" with comments like "The Empire State Building was Jewish when King Kong was up there. When King Kong fell down, it was no longer Jewish." If you want this discussion to be taken seriously, at least put some effort into finding sources that actually comply with some kind of notability standard. Bulldog123 14:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is easy to find sources which identify certain inventors as Jews or certain Jews as inventors, but it is not so easy to find sources which give validity to the intersection of the two: i.e., to the topic of "Jewish invention" or "Judaism and invention". By the way, I can't view the text of the page but the information might make a nice addition to Note (typography)—if only there was a good place to put it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're having trouble with that one, here's another source: Laurie Rozakis (2007), "Jewish Inventors", The Portable Jewish Mother, pp. 34–35. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This one I can view, thank you. However, the source is of the type I mentioned: it identifies certain inventors who happen to be Jewish (or, certain Jews who happen to be inventors), but it does not discuss the topic of "Jews and invention" beyond making the marginally related, tongue-in-cheek statement that "Jews are especially well represented in the sciences, no doubt because their doting Jewish mothers encourage education". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth, if presented a choice between a list and a category, I would choose the list in this case. A list of Jewish inventors still may have a problem of scope, but at least the issue affects only one page and such a list is not without precedent (e.g., the lists of Jewish inventors in the sources that you cited). A category, on the other hand, affects many pages. In addition, a list can (unlike a category) offer additional value in the form of supplemental information (e.g., compare List of Italian inventors, which is currently inferior to the category, with List of Russian inventors). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, a reasonable close given the discussion. The more we overturn closes in tough cases, the less likely anyone will want to close a tough case. This is well within the closer's discretion. I believe that those in favour of keeping are wrong, of course. Any category can be renominated for deletion after a "no consensus" close, so the best solution may be to just renominate and hope that those in favour of keeping will see the weakness of their position. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comments. Sorry, I wasn't aware this discussion was going on. Let me see if I can clarify my close. The Jewish categories are always challenging because there's both an ethnicity and a religious component to Judaism. We unanimously support categorization by nationality, but it isn't quite a nationality, and we have a much higher bar for religious-specific categories. So to oversimplify this case, we have a lot of keep votes arguing for the nationality standard, and a lot of delete votes arguing for the religion standard. The latter says no because there is no Jewish way of invention, as there is no Hindu or Christian way of invention. Nationality/ethnicity is a matter of location, but religion is judged by the standard of ideas, and the ideas of invention are perceived as universal. Based on previous closes such as this, the latter group is gaining steam, and I wouldn't be surprised if it drowns out the former group soon. But it was not preeminent in this discussion, and that's the only thing I was closing. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side comment on the nominator's last note: I appreciate that, but I am indeed aware of those previous nominations. A DRV discussion is better than me taking one side's request without hearing from the other. Not that I would have changed my closing argument regardless, but I'd prefer to hear multiple sides first, and have someone else make the call if I did it right. I appreciate that everyone seems to be willing to lay off the invective in such a potentially contentious discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree that this was a reasonable close had more than two of the !keep arguments had even a shred of sensible argumentation in them. I think there's a point - and especially in this case - where closing something as "no consensus" is the equivalent of "accepting that people can troll their way into keeping a category solely if it doesn't suit them." I'd love for anyone to explain how User:Peterkingiron's, User:Occuli's, and User:Epeefleche's !keep votes had any relevance whatsoever to the discussion... or any relevant content in them other than the words "keep." In any other CfD closure, a !vote like "Keep - Potatoes. User:Blahblah" would be outright dismissed, but because this is a - god forbid - Jewish occupation category, it gets extra special treatment? This whole argument about the category being "contentious" is utterly misleading anyway. There has always been - outside of the "regulars" as Therexbanner accurately points out - a consensus to delete such categories. User:IZAK maintains a long list of equivalent Jewish occupation categories that have been deleted for the same reason. What's the point of waiting a year to re-nominate? Just to give it a longer time to rot and spread to wikipedia mirrors? Really now. Everyone knows nobody is going to make an attempt to clean up this category. All though, given the sources User:Colonel Warden presented earlier, I suppose it would be reasonable to have every entry removed except for the handful in his source. Bulldog123 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulldog, I think it's quite clear that you disagree with me, and I doubt I'm going to be able to change your mind. I've explained my rationale, and others can judge as they feel fit.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly I'm not trying to convince anyone to overturn anymore, but I'd like it to be known that this drive-by keep-bomb method that many users are engaging in (as KbDank mentioned above) is not going unnoticed... and hopefully will be taken less seriously in the future. Bulldog123 18:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In case it matters, I personally believe that the keep-side argument is weaker, and am not in favor of Jewish-only occupation categories. But I have a hard time with the logic "other than the people who always disagree with me, there is consensus in favor of my position." Labeling them "the regulars" doesn't change the fact that they're entitled to their opinions, and those opinions deserve to be taken into account. My unsolicited advice is that you try to build a larger community around a consistent change, and maybe the change will happen. Take a look at the brilliant job by User:BrownHairedGirl at managing a complicated consensus-building project around cities, towns, and villages, which had the side effect of galvanizing a whole lot of people who supported those changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Druce + Quigg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the AFD page it was suggested the firm was not notable and did not have independent reliable sources. On the administrator's page User talk: Courcelles/Archive 41 several independent reliable sources were given demonstrating notability and extensive third party coverage of the firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.148.121 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No word in bold from me yet because I'm still considering the matter, but I just wanted to say that I have notified the closer for you. The "independent reliable sources" provided were as follows: Fish, Novak Druce Pick Up Darby & Darby Attys-Law 360, Emcore Infringes Avago Fiber Optics Patent: ITC, Ahead of the Herd-Sarah Barrell Talks to Alumnus Greg Novak, CEO of Novak Druce + Quigg, About Patent Prosecution and his Passion for Water Buffalo. Page 6., ITC Bars Emcore From Selling Infringing Optoelectronics, Five Join Novak Druce After Stevens Davis Breakup, Novak Druce Opens New IP Office with Akerman Attys- Law 360, IP Today Top Patent Firms, IP Today Top Trademark Firms, WORLDleaders 2007, WORLDleaders 2008

  I must say that at first glance, it seems highly unlikely that a deletion review will give you the outcome you seek because the sources are all hosted on the page subject's website, which would seem to preclude the idea that they are independent. At first glance, I would think the best outcome for this DRV would be if you went away understanding why this article is unsatisfactory and in what circumstances it could reasonably be recreated. But I'll look into it in more detail and see what Courcelles says.—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not !voting yet either; I am trying to learn DRV and would rather go slowly) Though they are all hosted by the subject, they do appear to be copies of material taken from independent sources - I've found copies of at least some of them hosted independently (e.g. here). However:

• "Law360" is a newswire site, so I doubt the material from there could be considered coverage in reliable sources.
• The two "IP Today" references are simply league tables mentioning the subject firm, which doesn't appear to amount to substantial coverage.
• Business at Oxford is the institutional magazine of the Oxford University Business School. The piece in there is relatively substantial, but it's also a profile of one of the partners as an alumnus of the business school. It may not therefore qualify as a publication independent of the subject.
• The "WORLDLeaders" pieces are taken from what appears to be an annual publication by IP World magazine, which seems itself to be the organizer of the awards (see here - the subject of the deleted article now actually sponsors one of these awards). Again, I don't think there's clearcut evidence of the independence of these sources.

So - like I say, I am new to DRV and apologise if an analysis like this wasn't appropriate for this forum. If the question is whether there is enough new evidence from reliable sources to merit relisting at AfD, I think the sources that have been supplied don't look like a smoking gun. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• History temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The history is here.—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I don't see anything wrong with the close of the AfD. Deletion review is unnecessary when a user seeks to recreate an article with new sources. The anonymous editor who brought this review should read WP:RECREATE, ask for the article to be userfied, improve the article with sources, and then submit the article through WP:AFC. If the article is still inadequate, it can be brought to AfD again, the proper forum for duscussing whether new sources are adequate. --Bsherr (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is that really simpler than just resotre & have the sources added? DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler in the short run, no. Simpler in the longer run if we don't skip steps, yes. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's simpler for users to create well-sourced articles to begin with, simpler to bring up new sources at AfD, and simpler to ask for userfication and recreate the article instead of coming to DRV. Regrettably, simple options were not selected. DRV is about reviewing AfDs, and there's nothing wrong with the AfD of this article. Unlike DRV, determining whether an article is fit for recreation is one of the purposes of AfC, and I don't see why it shouldn't be so used. --Bsherr (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion AfD close; do not allow recreation (yet) - The AfD closer was correct. The standard the DRV nominator needs to focus on is showing that (i) "significant new information has come to light since a deletion" that justifies allowing recreation of an article (ii) that will overcome the problems listed at the AfD discussion. The first portion (i) relates to the amount of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). Also, a problem noted the AfD was the use of non-Independent Reliable Sources. (The article looks as though Gregory Novak told one of his flunkies to "get me an article on Wikipedia.") This DRV: The new information presented in this discussion is difficult to evaluate as to whether it is coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Novak Druce + Quigg. Also, while new information has come to light in this DRV not considered at the AfD, that is being intermixed with non-Independent Reliable Sources. That makes it unlikely that allowing recreation would result in the problems listed at the AfD discussion being overcome. A best approach here is to create a draft article in user space, then present that draft article to DRV for review as to whether DRV should allow recreation of the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does. If there is a concern about a recreated article, there's AfD. There is no speedy deletion criterion to delete a recreated article that is not a copy of a previously discussed article. --Bsherr (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, by a very longstanding custom and practice, DRV clearly does review articles for recreation. This only happens where there's been a previous deletion and a user wishes to recreate: a common outcome is a request for a draft for review.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's done, it's purposeless and bureaucratic, insofar as no policy prohibits recreation of an article. --Bsherr (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's more complicated than that. Recreation of an article can be pointy and disruptive, when there's a consensus that the article should not exist (for example, at AfD). DRV controls the re-creation of certain contentious material that's been deleted in the past. I think that's reasonable and proportional.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that AfD is perfectly capable of deciding that. Bringing a recreated article to AfD is the same thing as bringing a proposed article to DRV, except the former is consistent with policy, while the latter is not. Either can be just as "pointy". --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again as above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Da Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Due to editor's claims that the artist did not fully meet the criteria, the previous deletion reviews were turned down. The page is being placed under 'speedy removal' without any consideration to policy. The following statement is taken directly from a Wikipedia criteria and a Wikipedia editor, from an earlier deletion:

• "The kind of independent reliable sources we'd need to justify the claims in this article would be things such as articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like."

The following is a TV news segment from Fox News, in which Mikie Da Poet performs a song and closes the show (4:32 mark of video) for platinum-selling hip hop group, Do or Die, who are also found to be notable by Wikipedia. [10]

• News anchor David Navarro calls Mikie Da Poet a "hot new star" (0:09 mark of video) and Fox also reports him to be "the new Eminem" according to fans and music critics. (4:32 mark of video)

Wikipedia, among others find Fox News to be notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable.

• Mikie's song "Exploitation" is under license by 20/20 Media and has been used as the featured song in the upcoming film/documentary "Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop", starring Mekhi Phifer, Kanye West, Dr. Cornell West, Bobby Brown, and many more Wikipedia notables. [11] (Video at bottom of official site)
• [12] His name is mentioned in the credits at the conclusion of the trailer.
• IMDb page for the film, credits shown for Mikie Da Poet's composition and writing of the featured soundtrack. [13]

To sum up, based on Wikipedia criteria, the sources provided above should be more than enough to restore this page. Thank you for your time.

• Note: The history is here.--PureSnipe T/C 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, looking at the numerous previous WP:DRV discussions, there does not appear to be anything new. The previous rationales appear to include the same video, which appears to be from a local FOX affiliate's morning show, not "the" FOX News... that notwithstanding, "Fox News [is] notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable" holds no water. Nothing provided here seems to suggest undeletion of the deleted version of the article is warranted. A mention on the credits of an alleged documentary that "has an anticipated release date of Fall 2009" and is only sourceable to its own website and IMDb doesn't sway me. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as this is DRV #6 and User:PureSnipe is a new account whose only edits are creating this DRV, this might be a disruptive DRV and a speedy close might be warranted. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2006 review, Wikipedia Editor advised that a restore would need "articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like. TV news segment doesnt say anything about "the" Fox News, Mikie Da Poet performed live and was given huge praise by Fox News, the news segment that covered that story covers the 3rd largest morning news area in America, so to call it local is to say that Fox is not notable, or the Million Chicago and Illinois viewers watching every morning are only getting local news? Are you saying that Fox anchor David Navarro and Tamron Hall only cover local news? Are you aware of the importance of that news segment and what it meant to the city of Chicago and the people? To say bringing cultures together and showing the world that whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all people can hold the same stage and cross genre dont hold water, them shame on you! Kinu, your editor in 2006 asked for a tv news segment, you guys got the longest live hip hop segment in the history of the news, broadcasted by Fox, this is an outrage and needs to be restored based the advise and information given in past reviews "2006" by your editors, and to ask for a speedy deletion or whatever you asked for, are just disrespectful bitter words, you guys made a mistake, now give Mikie his page, and allow the people to enjoy their heroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover312 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another newly registered user who has managed to find DRV. Reported to WP:AN/I. And, to be succinct, there is no information provided that wasn't already in the article when it was deleted or that wasn't already considered in a previous deletion review discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 ANZAC Test (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Early (by more than 60 hours) non-admin closure. I was just visiting to check if my earlier comments had been responded to with the intention of registering my !vote when I was scuppered by this out-of-process close. _wjemather^bigissue 10:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) _wjemather^bigissue 10:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom. Unnecessary early close that shut down a discussion while valid delete arguments were being made. I'd be happy to try to respond to the nom's questions (should have done so earlier) when the AfD is re-opened. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan A. Conklin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improperly closed by a non-admin: the discussion had not run for a full seven days, and consensus was not clearly a keep (with four keeps, one delete, and three redirects). The closing editor seems to have jumped on a few AfDs today possibly due to an active RfA. While re-opening the AfD may or may not be worth it for one more day (my preference would be to reopen and relist for an actual consensus), it should at the very least be changed to "no consensus" in order to avoid prejudicing any potential future revisits. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I'd exercise my prerogative as an admin to revert this close unilaterally but my involvement in the closer's current RfA means that would not be a good idea. It is a 15-hour-early supervote close of an evenly-balanced discussion. The GNG was contested by the participants: the job of the closer is to weigh the arguments not to say "it meets the GNG". The redirect !voters raised other reasons to delete, such as WP:ONEEVENT, which were apparently completely overlooked by the closer. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'm surprised at Mkativerata's response, which appears to confuse "redirect" with "delete". In fact, what we have there is, apart from the nominator, a unanimous consensus not to delete the article. But a close 15 hours early is inexcusable from a candidate who's going through RFA at the moment, so I will also recommend overturn and relist.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not confused: here they're essentially synonymous. The "redirect" voters didn't think there should be an article under the title, but that it could be a useful search facility. If it helps I could change "delete" to "remove the content". Same thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you're saying, Mkativerata, but a "keep" outcome doesn't preclude redirection based on a subsequent talk page discussion. For DRV purposes "keep" and "redirect" are virtually synonymous, given a correct closing statement (e.g. "The consensus is that this title should not be a redlink"). If that had been the closing statement and it had been made 15 hours later, nobody would have batted an eyelid.—S Marshall T/C 02:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, meh 15 hours, meh keep. Fine by me. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Being the closure I don't know how to weigh in on these, being this is my first DRV, but clearly all the sources note he passes GNG. ONEEVENT clearly doesn't apply, as pointed out in the AfD he was in 2 shows, including "a 2009 documentary that focuses on him" How much more do you need for GNG that a tv documentary focused on you?! CTJF83 chat 03:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reopened the AFD as the closer seems to be subsuming their own opinion of the sources into a supervote igboring the ONEEVENT argument that wasn't countered and the reasonable redirect arguments. Someone can close this now I guess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I originally closed this AFD as delete based on the analysis of the sources but was subsequently contacted on my talk page and offered a decent set of additional sourcing that I felt was compelling enough to void the AFD and undelete the article. Some of the delete proponenets remain unhappy with the sources. I am therefore raising a DRV to review my actions. Further discussion can be found here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Spartaz, I support and endorse your voiding of the AFD. The present brief is to “review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”. The offered sourcing under discussion is that of today’s date, 15 January.

• Why the offered sourcing is compelling
  
  The sourcing includes the then Poet Laureate and Chairman of the Poetry Society, and nine references cite notable writers (nos. 10, 12, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30). Sourcing includes reference to other encyclopaedias and British national broadsheet newspapers (nos. 3-6, 8). Also books, trade magazines and radio/TV.
  
  Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling
  
  Delicious Carbuncle (from now on DC) claims that “there is a fringe aspect to Hagger's writings”. The writings are outside the sourcing, but as this comment may impact on this review of the sourcing it should be pointed out that DC is here merely expressing an opinion. The facts speak for themselves. Hagger’s books include many mainstream primary themes, e.g. the Second World War, the War on Terror, a study of 25 civilisations, the founding of America, the US’s seven expansions, the attempt to create a world government, a view of the up-to-date scientific knowledge about the universe. Hagger is attempting to reflect the Age, mainstream, fringes, the lot. The sourcing is not made uncompelling because Hagger’s writings are untruly alleged to be fringe rather than mainstream.
  
  DC suggests that Nexus sometimes covers fringe topics. The main features of the Nexus issue for August-September 2006, vol. 13, no. 5, which is to hand, are: global news, obesity, Tibetan Buddhism, a massacre in Tasmania and African gold in Illinois. This is a very wide range of subjects. Because a review of a book by Hagger appears in the same issue as a topic that DC finds unacceptable does not detract from the quality of the review. Nexus is a trade magazine which is on sale in shops in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Japan, Romania, Serbia and Russia. The sourcing involving Nexus is compelling because of the breadth of its global topics, as evidenced above.
  
  More generally
  
  Although this DRV is confined to the offered sourcing and why it is/isn’t compelling, I should nevertheless point out that I have to hand an itinerary of 13 live broadcasts Hagger made to the US in May and June 2007, but did not include these in the offered sources as it would make the references too bulky. These can be sent if required. There will be more material in the 80 boxes of Hagger’s catalogued archives, but I have tried to reduce the article rather than increase it with further reference material.
  
  I am concerned at the tag/reference on DC’s profile “This user may be under the control of a ‘Chinese secret service agent’ named Xing.” Is this a joke, or does it cast doubt on DC’s reliability?
  
  With thanks, Sanrac1959 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This was a somewhat iffy AfD to start with. The main proponent for keeping the article, User:Sanrac1959, has self-identified as Nicholas Hagger's personal assistant. Note also that one of the keep votes was from User:Pink dog with cigar whose first edit was to comment on the article's talk page and second edit was to vote in the AfD. As I commented when nominating the article for deletion, there is a history of single-purpose accounts associated with Hagger's BLP and related articles on his poems (User:GardinerNeDay, User:Livindabedaloca, & User:George199329). While this in itself isn't cause for deleting an article, it suggests an agenda and that we should look closely at sources offered.
• It bears noting that Hagger's writing contains some fringe theory aspects which make it appealing to some.^[who?] One newly added source identified as a "trade magazine" by Sanrac1959 contains a review of one of Hagger's poems. Included in the same issue is an article on ""An information-processing technique developed by US clinical psychologist Dr Allan Botkin allows people to overcome grief while communicating with a deceased loved one". Entries in Who's Who and related guides are generally paid for and as such not evidence of notability. An article about the subject's home does not make the subject notable. A personal letter praising the subject's poem does not make the author notable. Nothing has been added that should change the original close of the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedurally, I don't think there's anything for DRV to do here. Spartaz comes out of it looking very good indeed. The discussion led to a consensus to delete, and Spartaz correctly deleted it. Then a huge weight of fresh sources arrived on his talk page, and Spartaz correctly assessed this as sufficient sourcing to invalidate the AfD completely. Spartaz' willingness to change his mind in the face of the evidence here means he has gone up even further in my esteem!

  The accusations of WP:COI against Sanrac1959 need to be understood for what they are: true, but also ad hominem. The fact that he has a conflict of interest does not make him wrong.

  Delicious Carbuncle's remarks deserve serious consideration, but they're about notability and sources. If we allow these remarks here, then we will be turning DRV into AfD round 2. We need to decide whether to relist at AfD to allow assessment of the new sources, or whether to WP:IAR and consider what Delicious Carbuncle says here. I prefer the former—there's no pressing need to ignore any rules here—so I suggest a relist. Ideally this would be a speedy relist, because there's no sense in dragging out the process any longer than necessary.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Most of the references are thoroughly unreliable. Private comments by even noted authors are not RSs for notability--the praise they give in a letter or on a book jacket is essentially indiscriminate, and is a matter of politeness rather than judgment--only what they sign in published reviews is reliable. Some of the sources speak towards the notability of the building, not the person, & some perhaps to the school. . But as an author he might be notable--one of his books at least is in several hundred libraries (The secret founding of America : the real story of freemasons, puritans and the battle for the new world.) But afd is the place to discuss this all. Actually, there is an alternative: delete the existing article as G11 speedy , entirely promotional, and start over. If kept, it will need some very drastic editing. The best way to get an article established on some subject of borderline notability, is to be reasonably modest about it--an article likethe present version gives an exceedingly bad impression , to the extent that it is hard to judge. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as no consensus - The AfD was closed 12:50, 12 January 2011 and the new sources proferred 11:44, 13 January 2011 -- within 24 hours of the close. Normally, DRV is the place to address "significant new information has come to light since a deletion," but if the closer changes their mind immediately after the close (or even during a DRV discussion), there's no trouble in the AfD closer taking unilateral action. In fact, it save on creating more or extending process. Comment - Closers don't have the power to void a properly held discussion merely because they change their close position. Closing a properly held discussion disenfranchises the AfD participants. Also, the closer didn't strick out "delete" from the close and merely "voiding this AFD close" but failed to remove the top and bottom close templates to allow another admin to cloase and failed to indicate keep or no consensus. That leave the results of that discussion in confusion. Please correct. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as is, no relisting - the article can be worked on where it is, there are enough sources to make an article, even if it is shorter than current. No indication that deletion is the way to go. DC has, by admission, pursued this "issue" all the way from Commons, crying 'COI!" all the way - but as been pointed out, there is a place to report potential conflicts of interest, and discussing the content provider is no substitute for discussing the content. Weakopedia (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content is extremely poor, or I would not have bothered with any of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close deletion review as moot. I think it is best to consider the present article a recreation. Since it's improved from the one subject to the AfD, it's not eligible for speedy deletion under G4. However, it can be renominated for AfD. Any objections to this? --Bsherr (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to answer some of the points that have been made regarding the brief, “to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”.

Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling

DC’s points.

(1) DC lists three websites together and says that they suggest an agenda. This point is outside the brief, but at least two of the three users were actually associated with vandalism, as WP know, and their vandalism led to Hagger’s being unjustifiably tagged as a vandal, according to a WP administrator. Citing outside vandal activity outside the brief and wrongly suggesting an agenda does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(2) DC’s point about the Nexus sourcing I dealt with on 15 January. DC now claims that Nexus “contains a review of one of Hagger’s poems”. In fact the two Nexus reviews are on The Light of Civilization and The Syndicate, both prose works and full-length books, as he would know if he had read the article. Wrongly suggesting that the Nexus reviews are “of one of Hagger’s poems” gives a misleading impression on this page and diminishes the calibre of the source, but does not make the sourcing uncompelling

(3) DC claims that “entries in Who’s Who and related guides are generally paid for”. Hagger’s entries in the encyclopaedias listed in reference 1 are not and never have been paid for. The initial approach was from the encyclopaedias, some nearly 20 years ago, and entries are updated each year by the encyclopaedias. DC wrongly gives a misleading impression and it does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(4) DC says that “an article about the subject’s home does not make the subject notable.” The Independent article cited in reference 8 describes the working of a historic house open to the public and substantiates the four visits by Globe Theatre casts. The Tudor historic house in question was open to the public with staff and guides, and four groups of about 50 Globe actors came to be stay and rehearse there for three days at a time in four successive years. One of the reasons the Globe came was because Hagger was known at the Globe as a verse dramatist, which is actually an argument for notability. As there has been confusion about this historic house – for example, DGG, taking up DC’s misleading impression that there was not a public dimension to the running of the historic house, refers to the notability of the building and not the person – I have added ten more articles to reference 8 (one from the Daily Telegraph, two from the Sunday Telegraph and the other seven from the daily East Anglian Daily Times, most of which are two-page spreads focusing on Hagger and his books). I was holding these back but in view of misunderstandings feel these should now be added to the sources as they are about the person as much as, and in some cases more than, the building. One of them, entitled Overlord of the Manor has three columns about Hagger’s first epic poem Overlord, and one of the others covers his stories and one of his verse plays. DC wrongly says that the press interest was about a home rather than a historic hall open to the public and that it was not about Hagger, but he does not make the sourcing uncompelling, especially now that new sources have been added.

an article about the house would be possible if there were enough sources.

(5) DC states that “a personal letter praising the subject’s poem does not make the author notable”. The Barker 20-page review of six of Hagger’s books, not “a poem”, was sent to Acumen. It was not a letter but a review, a signed copy of which was supplied to the publisher for comments to be extracted. The Poet Laureate Ted Hughes chose his correspondents very carefully and initiated the correspondence, and his six-page letter about five of Hagger’s books was later published as he knew it would be one day. By suggesting that the sourcing covered by Barker and Hughes relates to “a poem” and not several books is wrong and misleading, and does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

a referee's report is not a RS, unless someone writes an article including information about it. There is no way of verifying such material, and no way of quoting it that preserves context.

(6) DC says that the content of the article is “poor”. This is outside the brief, which is focusing on sourcing, but it is an opinion and in view of the above may be misleading. DC’s first five comments are all factually wrong and have the effect of diminishing the sourcing.

They show a huge lack of understanding of Hagger’s work and give a misleading impression. This is disappointing as editors are supposed to be factually accurate, objective and fair-minded and not to give the impression that they are conducting an “edit war”.

DGG’s points. I would like to thank DGG for taking the trouble to research library use (hundreds of copies of Hagger’s The Secret Founding of America in libraries) – that is a very good point. However, he has been misled by DC’s reference to “a personal letter”.

(1) DGG says that private letters and book jacket comments may be matters of politeness. But see DC (5) above, these were not private comments, they were public comments, made knowing that they would be published with the notable authors’ names attached. Men of letters are just as particular about their letters and comments as their reviews when they know they will one day be published, and they are reluctant to put their good names to anything they do not agree with. As to these references, the six-page Hughes letter is full of questions and sets out his own point of view very honestly, and is self-evidently not governed by politeness. I have said that Barker’s 20-page review was copied to the publisher for comments. The others had been asked for public comments and knew what they were putting their names to. The public, as opposed to private, nature of these particular comments makes this sourcing compelling rather than uncompelling.

(2) DGG suggests that the article is promotional. The brief is to focus on sourcing, but the article was not intended to be promotional. It is about the books and anything else is a sub-theme. It does not promote the historical hall, which Hagger sold in 2004, and merely mentions the schools. Should I have ignored the fact that he founded a school? I’ve cut out that it’s one of the most prominent in the area in case that could be considered promotional. Hagger’s founding of a school while he was writing his study of 25 civilisations, The Fire and the Stones, surely has a place in an article about his books. His work as an educationalist is mentioned fleetingly but should surely be included, just as Matthew Arnold’s work as an Inspector of Schools should be included in an article about his books. The article is not promotional, and this point does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

(3) DGG suggests that the article should be more modest. I take this to refer to Hagger’s prolific output and the comments of the notable sources. Hagger’s cross-disciplinary prolific output is one of the things that should be covered in an article. His writings are outside the brief, but what am I supposed to say? Should I have ignored his two poetic epics, thousand stories, and challenge to modern philosophy on modesty grounds? And should I have ignored the comments of the notable sources, not provided evidence for notability in the interests of modesty? In the article I have stuck with the facts and have cut out anything not factual to make a tighter piece, and any appearance of immodesty is an accidental and unintended consequence of this process. I would point out that no mention was made of the notable sources until I was pressed for evidence of notability. The same applies to the expansion of reference 8. This point does not make the sourcing uncompelling.

I would like to thank S Marshall, Uzma Gamal, Weakopedia and Bsherr for the balance in their thoughtful, judicious contributions.

Strengthening two references

Besides strengthening reference 8 with nine new broadsheet newspaper sources, I have strengthened reference 20 by adding new material which I have to hand: 25 US radio sources. I have held these back but feel it is now right they should be included in view of comments. These two references now read:

8. The Independent, ‘A House with a Dramatic History’, Wednesday 27 August 2003, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/a-house-with-a-dramatic-history-537264.html refers to the four visits by the Globe. For references to Hagger and his books also see The Daily Telegraph, 21 June 1997 (‘Alas poor Gosnolds’, references to Overlord and The Fire and the Stones, picture of Hagger sitting in garden); The Sunday Telegraph, 10 May 1998 (‘Licence to Snoop in Suffolk’, which includes interview with Hagger about his creation of a knot garden) and 14 September 2002 (‘A Very Special Relationship’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=massingberd+otley+hall&Search= , with reference by Hugh Massingberd to The Fire and the Stones and its seven-foot long chart of 25 civilisations); and the East Anglian Daily Times of 20 March 1997 (‘Overlord of the Manor’, two-page spread, interview with Hagger and three columns on his epic poem Overlord), 1 October 1997 (‘Bridging the Cultural Divide’, interview with Hagger about a revolution in thought and culture), 13 May 1998 (interview with Hagger on Shakespeare), 24 April 1999 (‘Otley’s Owner Set on a Tudor Flourish’, interview with Hagger covering volumes of his stories and one of his verse plays, The Tragedy of Prince Tudor), 22 April 2000 (‘Dates with Destiny’, interview with Hagger on Bartholomew Gosnold), 13 October 2000 (‘Re-Writing History’, interview with Hagger on the founding of America) and 3 May 2001 (‘Raising the Star-Spangled Banner for a Suffolk hero’, interview with Hagger on Gosnold, pictures of Hagger with Jamestown discoverer and archaeologist William Kelso and Virginia’s First Lady Roxanne Gilmore).

20. Jay Weidner (daily trade US radio interviewer) conducted four radio interviews with Hagger in depth on The Secret Founding of America and other works of his on 18 November 2009, in 4 parts, http://jayweidner.com/blog/2010/04/the-secret-founding-of-america-part-1/ (leads to other 3 parts). There were 25 live interviews with Hagger regarding The Secret Founding of America on US radio in 2007, by: Reid Howell of KYMO-AM/FM East, 10 mins (7 May); Jack Roberts of Cable Radio Network – CRN National National, 10 mins (8 May); Jan Mickelson of WHO-AM Des Moines, 25 mins (8 May); Greg Berg of WGTD-FM Milwaukee WI, 30 mins (8 May); Brad Davis of Talk of Connecticut Hartford Regionally Syndicated CT, 10 mins (9 May); Jeff Schectman of KVON AM San Francisco, 30 mins (9 May); Pat McMahon of KTAR-AM Phoenix AZ, 30 mins (9 May); Brian Thomas/John of WKRC-AM Cincinnati, 15 mins (10 May); Mike “Silk” Casper of WMDC Mayville WI, 10 mins (10 May); Bill Meyer of KMED-AM Medford OR, 20 mins (10 May); Eric Von Wade of KEYS-AM Corpus Christi, 30 mins (10 May); Paul Miller of WPHM-AM, Detroit MI, 10 mins (11 May); Charles Goyette of KFNX-AM Phoenix AR, 25 mins (11 May); Jean Dean of WRVC-AM, Huntington, 30 mins (11 May); Peter Solomon of WIP-AM Philadelphia PA, 30 mins (13 May); Thom Hartmann of Eastern Air America Radio, The Thom Hartmann Show, National Syndicated, 15 mins (16 May); Quinn of WHJY-WWDG-WHEP-WGIR-FM Providence, 15 mins (17 May); Tommy B of KBUL-AM Billings MT, 30 mins (21 May); Mancow of Fox Radio News Network, 20 mins (22 May); Tron Simpson of KCMN-AM Colorado, 10 mins (24 May); Mike & Amanda of WKWS-FM, Charleston WV, 10 mins (24 May); John Cook of KMBH-FM Brownsville, 30 mins (29 May); Sonja Harju & Fred Bremner of Lifeline Universal Media Statewide Oregon, 60 mins (4 June); Don Lancer of KYW-AM Philadelphia PA, 10 mins (8 June); and Sharmai & Keith Amber of Hawaii Radio, 60 mins (15 July).

More generally

This sourcing more than fulfils Spartaz’s criteria of two reliable sources and WP’s BLP of at least one. Can the following tags now be removed in view of all the changes and the discussion (including S Marshall’s second paragraph)?

• This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011.

• It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since January 2011.

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since January 2011.

Regarding the procedural debate as to the way forward, if a broad consensus has emerged that the sourcing is not uncompelling and that the debate on sourcing has run its course, and that no useful purpose is served by prolonging it any further, it would be good if a way can be found to avoid another week of going over the same ground and repeating all the same arguments in a different forum, even though they have now all been dealt with in this forum, and perhaps wasting time. With thanks, Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrac1959, your first point has absolutely no relation to anything I wrote, so I stopped reading there. I suspect your posting is some long-winded argument about the sources, which is not what DRV is for. (I only raised the sources directly since Spartaz based their re-closure on them without first having them added to the article.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DC makes three points.

(1) DC says that my first point has “no relation to anything I wrote”. He wrote on 15 January that single-purpose accounts (User:GardinerNeDay, User:Livindabedaloca, & User:George199329) “suggest an agenda and that we should look closely at sources offered”. My first point about single-purpose vandals does relate to what he wrote, and he is being misleading. The underlying issue before he came on the scene was that a vandalism tag had been attached to the name Hagger and that my user name had an unjustified vandalism tag attached to it, which blocked me, as WP will confirm.

(2) DC says (on 17 January) that “argument about the sources” is “not what DRV is for”. Oh, really? This DRV is exclusively about sources. On 13 January DC had written, “The sources haven’t swayed me.” On 14 January he wrote, “The sources added are hardly compelling.” Spartaz wrote on this page on 15 January, “Some of the delete proponents remain unhappy with the sources. I’m therefore raising a DRV to review my actions.” On his User Talk page on 15 January Spartaz wrote, “What would be most compelling in the discussion is for proponents of either side to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why they think it is/isn't compelling.” To which DC replied, “Thanks. I'll work with that.“ The brief was very clearly “to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling.” On 17 January I refuted DC’s arguments very fully and expanded two sources. Now he says that the DRV is not about argument regarding the sources. This is misleading and does not carry forward the brief as to whether the sourcing is/isn’t compelling.

(3) DC says (on 17 January), “I only raised the sources directly since Spartaz based their re-closure on them without first having them added to the article.” But this is untrue, as his statements on 13 and 14 January (above) indicate.

DC’s inability to address the points in my posting of 17 January means that he has in effect conceded that the sourcing is compelling and effectively brings this DRV to a close. Please can we not waste any more time on this analysis, as one side is analysing the proffered sourcing and providing analysis of why they think it is/isn’t compelling, and the other side, although promising to “work with that”, isn’t.

With thanks Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagger? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that threw up red flags all over the place when he posted on ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD. New sources are enough to make this worth a second look, and not an outright delete. Sanrac and DC can take up their arguments there. DRV isn't the place for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrac's comments strengthen my [previous views about the unsatisfactory promotional nature of the article. and the lack of firm notability in any one field. The manner of his commenting reinforces my view that he is intent on exerting ownership of the article. If it survives, it will certainly need further editing. If the choice is between having an article in the present form, or none, my !vote would be for none: this is a frequent problem here, we can deal effectively with an article that is entirely promotional, but if the author is stubborn, it is very hard to deal with an article that is mostly promotionalism, unless the prior editor is cooperative. I very much dislike the argument that we should not have an article on something because it will be hard to keep the content NPOV, but the only alternative might be an article ban for an editor. I mentioned the one book as being found in a moderately high number of libraries--because it is the only work by him that is. For the worthlessness of book jacket comments, browse amazon a little: the comments are there because they are intended to be promotional. What makes sources reliable is not their public nature, but their resonsible editorial control. Book jacket copy is the responsibility of publicity departments, not the literary editors. As for the letters, when someone publishes in a reliable source an article about him using them, then they'll be acceptable sources. Re-reading the article, the emphasis on the numbers of works, the numbers of characters in a play, and so on, indicate promotionalism. The emphasis on material describing his non-notable contributions to philosophy and myriad other fields , & the house he lives in, are the hallmark of an article about a dilettante. Earnestly defending such content is the mark of COI. I do notice one minor point: tutor to Prince Hitachi might make a little for notability, if there is 3rd party evidence for its substantial nature. I suppose I shall have to explain it again at a second AfD. I continue to advise the author that the only way he can show he does not have such a large COI as to make his objective editing of the article impossible, and for us to view his comments with a certain amount of skepticism. would be to rewrite it in 1/4 the length before the AfD starts. I'v e given similar advice many times before: most people follow it, & the article is often kept. Some do not, and the inevitable happens. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what DGG means now and thank him for taking the trouble to explain so fully. I have taken his advice. I do want to be reasonable, flexible and constructive. I have reduced the article and have toned everything down as much as possible, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have taken his point about numbers. I have no intention to be promotional. The article says that Hagger has not been at the historical hall since 2004, it’s nothing to do with him now. The newspaper articles about it are in the references because they refer to his books. Please let me know if the new piece is an improvement. Hagger may seem to be a dilettante but he is cross-disciplinary and introducing one perspective into different disciplines. He is trying to escape being confined to one discipline, where so many academics are imprisoned. As to Prince Hitachi, I don’t know if there is third-party evidence and will research this. I know that a photo exists of the young Hagger with him in the Prince’s palace grounds, but I don’t know if it is appropriate to use this. I believe that Hagger co-planned a state visit he made to England in the mid-1960s. I thank DGG again for being so constructive and giving me the benefit of some wise advice. Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been re-edited and reduced, references have been reformatted to conform to WP house style. Can multiple issues box now be removed? Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. I have read this article carefully, and I have looked at as many cited sources as are available (the great majority are either unavailable or citations to Hagger's own work; particularly unconscionable are the various quotations from other academics in the footnotes that are not cited at all--a footnote without a citation in it is not a citation). I consider it to be puffery, top to bottom. Hagger is an amateur writer and scholar who has continually insisted, along with a tiny number of admirers, that his work is not only legitimate but incredibly important. But there is clearly no consensus for that view; in each of the many fields he has written about, he is a fringe figure. I find this DRV disturbing--an attempt to hijack the process by overwhelming it through sheer persistence. I do not think we should send this back to AfD and continue the charade; I think we should delete it. It would be inappropriate for this encyclopedia to further these self-promotional efforts. Chick Bowen 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some cited newspaper sources from the 20th century have not been put on the internet. Copies of the articles can be supplied. Many sources can be found. The academics were invited to make public comments by publishers’ editorial (not publicity) staff, and the comments were used on book jackets with their full knowledge, co-operation and consent. Copies can be supplied. They need not have lent their names to these comments but chose to do so. Chick Bowen is entitled to his opinion, but as it borders on WP:PERSONAL (No personal attacks) I decline to make any further response in accordance with its guidelines, except to point out that Hagger has written more than 30 books and can hardly be described as an amateur. Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete per Delicious carbuncle. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as the issue of the new sources should be addressed at AfD, not DrV. Many of the sources actually are quite reliable, but the mentions small and some are significant but not clearly reliable. So there is a need for a discussion given the new sources. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interests of being reasonable and flexible, the poetry and drama books are now presented in a more compact form and the public comments made by notable people have been reduced and compacted. There are at least two decent sources in fulfilment of Spartaz’s criteria and the article and sources have been toned down in relation to what they were. Hagger’s subjects are mainstream, not fringe (see 15 January, para 2, Second World War, War on Terror etc. above) and his two most recent books are on globalism, a theme surely of interest to WP readers. A balancing process has been at work. Have we now achieved the right balance of neutrality and decent sources? Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to misunderstand the purpose of the discussion here, but speaking of Hagger's books, I have a question. I assume that his books published by "Oak-Tree Publishing" are self-published. "O Books" appears to be a step above vanity publishing, but I am unable to find information on "Element Books" since there are several companies using variations of that name. Can you provide some information on this publisher? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oak-Tree Books was defunct by 1986. The only Hagger book it did was the one on Scargill, which was too controversial to be done speedily by other publishers. Element Books published Hagger from 1991 but ceased trading in 1999, I believe, with the loss of many jobs, and some of it passed within HarperCollins. Sterling, the US publisher, republished some of Hagger’s earlier titles in the early 2000s. O Books (nothing to do with Oak-Tree) published Hagger from 2004, aiming mainly at the US. Watkins/Sterling published Hagger’s The Secret Founding of America in 2007 and requested a sequel, The Secret American Dream, which they are publishing this coming April. It sells books through the Barnes & Noble chain, which, I believe, also take Hagger’s O Books (nothing to do with Oak-Tree) titles. Sanrac1959 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spartaz’s brief (Jan 15) was to “review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”. The sources have been strengthened and criticisms have been listened to and addressed, and the sources, article and book list have been compacted. Some users have raised points outside the brief and these have also been addressed, for example the misunderstanding regarding Hagger’s publishers. There is no evidence that the sources are uncompelling. Of the 51 offered sources at least two comply with Spartaz’s criteria, and these are strengthened by the other 49. Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cycle Corporation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn Courcelles' decision to delete. I would like to further substantiate the article with newly researched sources and the sources I mentioned in the AfD discussion, replace any insignificant sources, and further explore notability if need be. I do not think my arguments in favor of the subject's notability were adequately answered. Specifically, Alan Liefting's statement that ' "non-famous and/or small organizations" are by definition non-notable' directly contradicts WP:CORP in that ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" ' and "smaller organizations can be notable [...] arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." For these reasons, I request that the deletion be overturned. Thanks very much. -- Synthality (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What if the article were userfied to you to work on? You could make improvements and, when ready, move it back to the mainspace. (Know that, to meet inclusion criteria, the article must cite reliable independent media sources, and notability of the business must be independent from its products.) Would you withdraw the deletion review in favor of that solution? --Bsherr (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify, and add the sources, and relist if desired. I continue to have my doubts, but let's see how it looks. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please fix User:Synthality/Air Cycle Corporation per your nomination. Get rid of the website blogs and press release material and add material from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Feel free to use local, state, and federal government writings about Air Cycle Corporation in the article. It is a waste management company based in Chicago, so you may find material in civil and criminal databases. Once fixed, post a note in this thread or a new DRV thread for others to look at the improvements. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all for the feedback. Sounds like userfication is the best route. Will do on getting rid of any insignificant sources and bolstering the citations. Is it possible to restore the deleted article to my userspace? The version I currently have was an earlier draft than the one that was deleted. Thank you. Synthality (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, to keep the two histories seperate, I've stuck the deleted version at User:Synthality/Air Cycle Corporation 2. Courcelles 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MotionX (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I posted a new version of the MotionX page for consideration at User:Arthbkins/sandbox. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RHaworth who deleted the page. Please let me know if more information would be useful. Arthbkins (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are not seeking to restore a deleted article, deletion review is the wrong process. If the article in your sandbox is a substantial improvement form the deleted article, it cannot be speedily deleted as a recreation. I'll list it for moving to the mainspace. --Bsherr (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somastate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

All sources have been stated. Last creation was 2008. Band was not nearly as relevant as they are now and all independent references are valid. Darkrider11 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Does the subject meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, and if so, how, please? --Bsherr (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, article meets criteria for sections #1 (distribution via iTunes, HMV, Chapters and online distro, etc.), #2 (songs were in regular rotation across mainstream radio as well as college and internet radio -- CJSW, x929, The Bear, ect.), #4 (performed both Vans Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos. Media coverage documented), #7 (band was well known and is cited by many local musicians as an influence), #8 (awarded Hard Rock album of the year via Just Plain Folks Awards/Organization in Nashville), #9 (Vans Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos), #11 (songs "Juniper" and "Wrapped Around a Bullet" received national rotation in Canada) of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Darkrider11(talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with your aplication of the criteria. #1 concerns published works about the band, not the band's own musical works and their distribution. #2 concerns presence on a national chart (like Billboard, for example), not merely radio play. For #9, you've given names of events, but you haven't said whether the events were competitions, and, if so, whether this band won or placed in them. Lastly, for #4, #7, #8, and #11, you'll have to verify those assertions.

So you've got some work to do. My suggestion is that you ask for the article to be userfied to you, that you work on it, and when it's ready, submit it through the Articles for Creation process. Would you accept that solution? --Bsherr (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy as G4 - WP:A7 doesn't apply (importance = "In 2009, Somastate was awarded Hard Rock album of the year for their sophomore release Reversals"). However, WP:G4 seems to apply in view of the cache'd article and the AfD. I'm not sure what the DRV nominator statment "All sources have been stated" means. I found few sources only consisting of "Somastate will be playing at" type info. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4 would only apply if the 2011 article is substantially the same in content as the one that was the subject of the AfD. Do you know this to be? --Bsherr (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:G4, not G4. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to criterion for speedy deletion number G4, so am I. Incidentally, what's the difference between the two? --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3,000 hit club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Category:3000 hit club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this category without knowing that it previously existed after I saw Category:500 home run club. The consensus to delete this was pretty weak four years ago and it doesn't seem compelling to me now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Given the FL status of 3,000 hit club and the discussion of this group in reliable sources, I don't think the criteria is arbitrary. ThemFromSpace 05:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion The 3,000 hit club is a rather well-defined and broadly accepted criteria for baseball players. To add to matters, the CfD from March 2007 that's being used as a basis for speedy deletion is rather questionable. The consensus among the participants four years ago was rather clear for retention of the category and the closer's rationale that this information is better served by a list and therefore had to be deleted is not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - after looking at the CfD discussion, I would definitely agree there was no consensus to delete this category in the first place. The case put forward by the keep !voters seemed particularly strong. Bettia (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's completely pointless to "overturn" a CFD from nearly four years ago. Our rules and standards were very different then. I would permit creation of this category, but I don't see any value in reviewing such a long-dead discussion.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit creation per all above. Reyk _YO! 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• allow creation- the original delete rationale was extremely weak. That anyone managed to find reason to agree with it surprises me. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a category for this. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Permiot creation. No real need of another discussion right now. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - There was no consensus to delete this category. Also, Wikipedia makes much use of multiple navigation techniques for a given topic and even if an article covers material far better and more comprehensively that as category is not a basis to delete a category. Little thought went into WP:G4 speedy deletion, so trout wack to the speedy deleting admin. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per DGG and S Marshall. There is not point in overturning a delete result from over 4 years ago, especially in a set of different circumstances. –MuZemike 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. A milestone accomplishment worthy of a category, which was somehow discounted in the CfD closure. Notwithstanding, it should have closed as no consensus, but there's no sense in overturning it years later. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation but only if the category is renamed with a more descriptive name, so that readers who are unfamiliar with the concept of the "3000 hit club" will have a chance of understanding what it means. Is it for web pages that get more than 3000 hits? Is it for musical artists with 3000 hit songs? No, it's for baseball players with more than 3000 hits. So call it Category:Baseball players in the 3000 hit club or Category:Baseball players with over 3000 career hits or just Category:Baseball players with 3000 career hits. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is arguable that this DRV is unnecessary because I can create a fresh article that overcomes the reason for deletion, but since the article has been deleted several times and a very recent DRV has confirmed the deletion, and I do not want to be accused of an end-run around process, I thought it would be wiser to gain the community's view first. —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close, trout-slap for excess process-wankery - So not only do we have the tried-and-true "DRV is not XfD Round 2" cautions for DRV abuse, now we have to start using "DRV is not DRV Round 3" ? This sort of thing is making a mockery of the entire deletion/creation process. Seriously, go slap the big red button on my user page and find something better to do. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been done before. A bad close is worth reviewing even if at DrV. That said, I think Guy got the close right. However, his comments on his talk page are darn troubling. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Where's your sourced, neutral, completely different from the deleted version, userspace draft? I remain unconvinced that anyone but the inventor is persuaded of the importance of his constructed language, and he has been most assiduous in promoting it, not least on Wikipedia. We will need something weighty to overcome the reflex FOAD response which his previous request quite rightly provoked. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it should be necessary to provide a sourced userspace draft when I can provide a sourced draft from a foreign-language Wikipedia, as I have done. An automatic translation tool will turn it into English annoying semi-literate Yoda-speak for you if you don't read German (and here is a direct link). However, if there is a consensus here that I should translate it properly into userspace first, with inline citations, then I will.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, I favor giving good faith contributors with a history of writing articles a lot of leeway on things like this. I suggest this DrV be closed as nothing prohibits the creation of a good a valid article by someone with a COI. I have to say Guy closed the DrV in a reasonable way so endorse. But I also can't imagine why we wouldn't allow the recreation of the article if quality sources exist, so allow recreation and unprotect. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC) !vote updated as I missed the fact this was protected... Hobit (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, DRV is not DRV round 3, but unprotect to allow recreation by a good-faith user. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Except for the reasons I mentioned in the previous DRV, there is one more thing: Hucko is gradually turning slovio.com into a hate site against myself and my project, Slovianski (it contains not only information that is deliberately false, but also private things like my home address). It is clear that Hucko has chosen Wikipedia as a target for promoting Slovio. Recent edits made from his IP make me very suspicious - even afraid. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (but allow recreation by a good-faith user) - I don't know why there was so much admin tolerance for the vile that was in the original DRV post[14] and hurtful statements added back into the nom.[15] The nominator was blinded by a single purpose and was using that DRV as a soapbox to trample on Wikipedia's civil, etc. policies. The DRV page even was blanked as a courtesy after the close. The targets of the animosity rightly felt a FOAD was appropriate, but restrained themselves as well. Allow recreation by a good-faith user. However, there's plenty of things to do on Wikipedia, why spend that energy creating another potential Wikipedia soapbox to mirror the slovio.com hate site targeting long term Wikipedia contributors? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I'd even agree. But there's one issue: there are sources, alright, but sources do not only have to prove notability, they also need to provide some actual information. And the sad thing is, the people who wrote these articles apparently found Slovio notable enough to write about, but not notable enough to do some actual research. Thus, they notice for example that Slovio has a newssite, but nobody bothers to actually read it (otherwise they'd have noticed its strongly nationalist and antisemitic tendencies). Instead, they merely reproduce information from slovio.com and/or wikipedia. None of the 26 language versions of the Slovio article contains any inline quotations: it looks like most of them were translations from the (now deleted) English version, on other words: one big pile of OR. The only primary source is slovio.com, which has now pretty much devolved into a hate site (which in its current state ought to be blacklisted, if you ask me). Even if the notability issue is solved, the verifiability and NPOV issues remain. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV close, encourage attempt to build an article compliant with Wikipedia's mission and policies. Given the issues on COI, personal attacks, and some concern about the degree of verifiable and meaningful information vs OR etc., it is pragmatically probably better to keep out of article space now (i.e., keep protected for now) to avoid unnecessary drama. Suggestion: S Marshall should be encouraged and aided by interested, well-established and Wikipedia-conversant editors to incubate a version in user space. People with a vested interest or strong point of view should not edit the article being incubated directly, but only comment on the talk page. Once S Marshall and/or other impartial editors feel they have an article that stands up to scrutiny, they could either bring it back to DRV if they feel there is likely to be debate about whether it meets the bar, or with the help of an admin move it to article space if there seems to be consensus even from the doubters that the necessary bar has been met. (By the latter I mean - if it becomes pretty clear that we have a good new Wikipedia article that addresses previous concerns, there is no need for further process wonkery. If it's going to go straight to AFD/DRV anyway, might as well have the discussion right here right away. If you judge wrong, a trout slap for wasting the community's time but no harm done.) Martinp (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deaths in April 1996 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User request --75.47.137.179 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per result of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_9#Deaths_in_April_1996. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Joe Reid (aviator) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User request --75.47.137.179 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming moderately reasonable deleted content, Undelete Joe Reid (aviator) & Talk:Joe Reid (aviator) as a contested WP:CSD#A7 and list at AfD if not immediately improved. Probably, 75.47.137.179 should first be more verbose with his request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I don't believe this qualifies as an A7 as this wasn't even an article, just a redirect to Jessica Dubroff, and this is a plausible redirect given the connection between the two. I also notice we have Joe Reid (pilot) redirecting to the same article which again seems plausible. Bettia (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this is also being debated in an earlier discussion and the deleting admin has stated this could be restored. Therefore I'm closing this one. Bettia (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Sami Bolak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

First of all sorry for not being good enough at my English. In Turkey like rest of the world there are main two sides in politics. Mr. Hasan Sami Bolak who has been a well known writer, journalist, politician and movement leader for the pat few decades has lots of enemies who dislike his thoughts and politics and also his books etc. In Turkish wikipedia the admins have mainly have Kurdish ethnic identity and are mainly on the opposite side of him. They had a lynch campaign for him in the Turkish wikipedia and in the past and they have deleted his article. Also i believe daily they surf all the blogs, articles about him in the internet community and they dont hasitate to attack him. They are an anti Hasan Sami Bolak Team and they have tried to make his article be deleted in the wikipedia in the past. Now it shows that the had more votes and they have had the article be deleted. Also the two people (yabancı and kibele) are the same people and yabancı is a puppet of kibele and everyone knows it in the Turkish wikipedia. But they always close the case if someone opens a puppet file. And all i want to tell you is that they have just used an adminstrator to achieve their goal. Best regards and have a good day. -- MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The standard you need to address is whether there is sufficient reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on Hasan Sami Bolak. There doesn't seem to be enough English source material, so that leaves Turkish language sources. The article itself on its face would seem to meet the minimum WP:GNG threshold. The problem you have is that few Wikipedians are able to evaluate Turkish language sources and must rely on experience Wikipedians who can. Pinar, who has been with English Wikipedia since 18 October 2004, gave a very detailed review of the sources cited in the deleted article. That review alone carried the AfD discussion and move the topic well below the minimum WP:GNG threshold. Your DRV request doesn't disagree with Pinar's review, so even you would seem to agree that there is not sufficient reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on Hasan Sami Bolak within English Wikipedia. Even if Turkish wikipedia had bias as you note, they would end up drawing the same delete conclusion as English Wikipedia based on lack of sufficient reliable source material. If you have additional reliable source material not evaluated at AfD, please post in this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pınar, Kibele, Yabancı (puppet of kibele) have all opposite political view with Mr. Bolak and these three also are known in the Turkish Wikipedia as the elite admins. They have all kurdish origin and are in the very leftist side of the political spectrum. And again i tell you that they have a lynch campaign for Mr. Bolak who once was also cracking their absolute monarch like administration in the Turkish Wikipedia. Look at the Turkish Wikipedia now. They dont care that the articles are full of wandalism but they just run a hunt season for rightist and nationalist people. And a simple google search for Hasan Sami Bolak should give you an answer about if he is a notable person or not. Pls dont let people achieve their politic goals via wikipedia. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - "Pls dont let people achieve their politic goals via wikipedia." Yes, you are misusing this discussion thread to wrongfully try to achieve your political goal by making sensational allegations against living people in violation of WP:BLP and not addressing Wikipedia's content inclusion standards. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, even if you are completely right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm unconvinced by the nominator here that the AfD wasn't properly decided. It seems a fair discussion occurred at the AfD. --Bsherr (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The cogent arguments advanced by nominator, including a source-by-source analysis, as well as the preponderance of policy-based deletion arguments, make this a correct close. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 15 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It's 2011 now, and there should be more info on Microsoft Office 15 than there was in 2010. Georgia guy (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There should be, and indeed there is, thanks to the fact that softpedia leaked some screenshots. Here and here are examples of the coverage they've generated. Unfortunately it seems entirely speculative to me, and I don't know whether there's enough that we can say about it to create an independent article. Personally, I think we ought to redirect this to Microsoft Office where we can have a one-paragraph summary about "future releases" (although I suggest proposing it on that article's talk page first).

  I don't see why it's necessary to conduct a deletion review of a 10-month-old deletion, though?—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "I don't see why it's necessary" statement, what do you think the minimum amount of time should be?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think if (a) the deletion was more than six months ago, and (b) you have new sources or some other genuine reason to re-create the article, then you probably don't need a DRV.—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This was discussed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 25, which indicates that recreation is allowed. I don't see anything in the log besides the original deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, DRV not needed to recreate an article whose title is not protected, assuming one plans on overcoming the deletion reason. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete the history if anything thinks it would be useful for an ongoing article. Probably easiest to userfy for User:Georgia guy. AT another venue, this could be automatically granted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why userfy?? It's not something from my imagination; it's real info. Georgia guy (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A big reason I think "Userfy" is because your original rationale is written as a hypothetical "there should be more info". If you don't have immediately everything required to make an article that overcomes the previous reasons for deletion, then it is better to create it in you userspace. When ready, just move it to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore It would have made more sense to check for sources before asking, but rather than speculate, I looked, & find there is enough to start an article: ^[1], ^[2] DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref tags don't work very well outside articles. Would you mind editing your comment, or agreeing someone else can edit it? Stifle (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • below is posted {{reflist}}

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify and allow recreation - DGG above provided "significant new information has come to light since a deletion." However, no one, even the DRV nominator, is interested in developing the article and it would seem unjustified to restore an article just to overcome an AfD delete close without any interest beyond that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Start with a section at Microsoft Office and then split it out to its own article when enough information from reliable sources is available. If an editor wants to create a separate article, a userspace draft should be created and reviewed first. SnottyWong ^talk 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Snottywong above. With speculative new products, much better to begin with a section than a separate article. --Bsherr (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, given the above, since I don't find anything wrong with the close of the AfD. --Bsherr (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is enough to support an article, that's enough of a reason. Nobody is denying that the present sources would have been enough to prevent deletion, & people will come. . The purpose of having a DRV is to prevent from using G4 to delete. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and Userfy, as there is a big difference between suggesting there is enough for an article and actually writing one. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)

Freakum Dress (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unjustified deletion. Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented me that this is the correct venue, even though I took it at ANI as well.

Kww deleted the page Freakum Dress with the justification of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). G4 states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy," I cannot see the article, and I really bet that it is "sufficienty identical". It was deleted twice in 2007 because it was a nonsense "Freekum Dress is the rumored fifth single from her CD B'Day" and in a more serious AFD. I'm coming here because this deletion is not justified, in any way, and should be deleted, if it deserves it, per community decision, not for his POV. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand behind my G4. This article was deleted three times before. The second AFD specifically calls out the reasons for deletion as the fact that it hasn't charted or even been released as a single. Those facts have not changed. Nothing in the information added by Jivesh addresses either of those issues, and nothing in the relevant guideline (WP:NSONGS) makes those issues unimportant.

I do fully understand what WP:IAR is about. Unlike Jivesh, I wouldn't consider a Wikipedia that had articles about every song ever released by every artist and improvement. WP:NSONGS reflects current consensus about what songs received articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2) clearly indicates that this topic doesn't contain anything to make it an exception.

There's a legitimate question as to what "substantially identical" means. I have always interpreted it to mean that none of the changes made to the article addressed the reason for deletion. That's the case here. Nothing has shifted in the real world to make the earlier AFD irrelevant. Nothing has shifted in Wikipedia guidelines to make the earlier AFD irrelevant. Thus, none of the changes address the reason for deletion, and the new article is "substantially identical" to the original.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you will "stand behind [your] G4" learn the rule. G4, as I told many times, states that the article should be "sufficiently identical" to the article which was nominated in 2007 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2). You argue that the article still being the same because "still failing NSONGS", which is not true and is give your POV to the rule. The song may fails NSONGS, and I say may because "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notables", which does not states that they are automatically notables. Also WP:GNG states that it must pass it's five points, which is true (not the sandbox, the mainspace article), and WP:IAR states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining (irrelevant here) Wikipedia, ignore it, which is something you are not doing, nor interested in put attention. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that I am arguing in good faith, Tbhotch, even though I disagree with you. I think your use of English as a second language is causing some confusion. You keep quoting that "probably" like it strengthens your case. In fact, it weakens it. The guideline indicates that a song may have charted, won awards, and been covered by multiple artists, and may not not get an article. It doesn't say that things that don't chart, win awards, or been covered by multiple articles may get one. And yes, I don't think that having an article about songs that fail WP:NSONGS improves Wikipedia.

As for the "substantially identical" issue, I gave my interpretation above. The changes made did not address the reasons for deletion, which means the changes are not substantial for the purposes of deletion review. That's really the issue that is relevant: did I interpret G4 properly with respect to this article?—Kww(talk) 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Michig (below), who can see both articles, you are misunderstanding G4. Tbhotch^™ and © 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is a completely different article to the versions previously deleted and as such G4 does not apply.--Michig (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the deleted edit history, this appears to be use of the deletion tool when Kww's use of the edit tool to enact a redirect was disputed by two other people. That's not good. We aren't supposed to "win" edit disputes that way. And the previously deleted article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2), is vastly different to the one that was speedily deleted as a re-creation of it. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've explained, I was in the midst of creating a new AFD when I discovered the article was eligible for G4. Note that none of the differences address the reason for the original deletion, so I will maintain that it is substantially identical to the original. If I had known that there were two previous AFDs, I would have G4ed it in the first place.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial overturn without prejudice It seems to me like the simplest, most logical, and most supportable action according to our policies would be to restore it as a redirect. If the creator wants the article userfied so they can merge some of it into the album's article that's fine too. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I feel that this article is different enough that it should have never been deleted under G4. Also, while we usually only have articles on songs that have charted, there are exceptions and this article is one that I feel IAR should come into play, as it is a very well done and fairly comprehensive article that would lose most, if not all, of its information if it was merged into the album article. Silverseren^C 02:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Without being able to see any versions of this, I'm going to have to say that A) at the least a redirect seems to be appropriate per WP:SONGS and B) that admins in good faith disagree about G4 indicates we should probably send it to AfD. I don't fault Kww on this, knowing his record on music stuff I strongly suspect this won't make it at AfD. But there is an honest disagreement here between editors in good faith so the speedy process probably isn't the way to go. In addition, I personally take a rather narrow view of what is "sufficiently identical and unimproved" article, so I'm guessing if I could see it I ask for an AfD based upon the discussion above. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - As a non-admin I cannot see the deleted articles to judge similarity, but since speedy deletion is intended for non-controversial deletions, and there is sufficient opinion expressed here to indicate that there is some controversy about whether the article qualified for deletion under G4, I believe the speedy deletion should be overturned and the article taken to AfD for discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - More than enough information to pass notability. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 06:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]