Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 2015 Deletion review archives June 2015 >

31 May 2015

[edit]
  • JonTron – No consensus. S Marshall makes a good argument, but the weight of community opinion isn't there to overturn this, especially in the face of three AfDs with delete results. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping anybody from trying again in draft space, if they belive they can find the reliable sources we need (and consensus is that the ones presented in this review are not sufficient). – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
JonTron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted following a discussion closed on 11 April 2014. I feel there is a case for reinstating this article per clause 3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review ("significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page").

I have raised this with the deleting administrator, The Bushranger, but unfortunately he is on hiatus from Wikipedia.

The quoted reason for the deletion was the absence of evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've collected together some sources that I feel met these criteria. I've set these out below for consideration.

  • The Michigan Daily [1]: refers to JonTron as a "YouTube gaming celebrit[y]".
  • Kinja [2]: refers to JonTron's role as a voice actor for the video game "A Hat in Time".
  • Mishka NYC [3]: a lengthy article on JonTron that refers to a number of notable elements, including his involvement with Game Grumps, his founding of the venerable website Normal Boots, and his media partnership with Amazon.com.
  • MAGFest [4]: refers to JonTron's attendance at MAGFest in 2013 and his then-1.3 million YouTube followers.
  • Kotaku [5]: a lengthy article that describes JonTron's involvement in the GAME_JAM reality show, which itself attracted considerable attention [6].
  • Kotaku [7]: a lengthy article on JonTron's departure from Game Grumps, which again received considerable attention.
  • VGFacts [8]: refers to JonTron being referenced in the video game "DLC Quest" - not in itself hugely notable, but it does reinforce his status as a web personality.

Taken together, I believe these sources (which are by no means exhaustive) represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Additionally, I think it's important to note that personalities whose careers have been built around new media will inevitably have garnered less coverage in traditional sources than those working on more conventional mediums, so Wikipedia's typical approach to sourcing may verge on being overly prescriptive when applied inflexibly here. On this basis, I would like to request that the page protection be lifted allowing for the recreation of the article to community standards. McPhail (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation - I'm not 100% convinced by the sources. I'd like to see more like Kotaku (significant coverage) and less like the Michigan Daily (name-check only). I understand the nom's reasons for including the latter, though. One is traditional print media and the other is a niche-market magazine, though my understanding is that Kotaku is considered a reliable source. But I digress - the list provided suggests that the individual in question has been the subject of at least some coverage since the last discussion (note: which wasn't an AFD). The question of whether or not it is enough coverage (taken in combination with whatever was available pre-AFD, like the Kotaku source) is a matter for AFD, not for DRV. So I'd be inclined to allow recreation, with the understanding that it can always be (and will most likely be) nominated for deletion if it isn't up to scratch. St★lwart111 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing here that would overturn three AFDs that all ended in deletion. Brief mentions in not-very-reliable sources, etc. For example, the Kotaku article about "game jam" mentions him twice, and the Wired article on the same subject doesn't mention him even once. Nothing here to build a BLP article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources - Here a few more sources that constitute significant coverage (with varying strength of reliability): TubeFilter interview for 1M subscribers, Kotaku articles and a Destructoid one about individual content produced by JonTron, WatchMojo's Top 10 Youtube Reviewers, Crave's 7 Awesome Youtube Gamers You Should Watch, his involvement with NormalBoots, which produces DYKG. I am an editor and an administrator and I would be more than willing to actively work on the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's standards -- in fact, I was working on recreating it anyways in the near future (in a way that avoids G4 eligibility, of course). IMO JonTron is not significantly less notable than several other similar subjects on who we have established articles, such as Ross O'Donovan or Cosmo Wright. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Established, good faith editors want to work on this article and there are new sources the AfD didn't consider. That used to be enough for us at DRV, and it ought to be enough still ---- there's nothing in WP:DRVPURPOSE about stopping good faith editors from writing content. All we ought to do is make sure this isn't an attempt to do an end-run around the most recent AfD. So I differ from my colleagues above and feel we should allow creation of an article.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have no objection to a well-sourced, solid draft being created by an established, good-faith editor and presented for consideration. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are these actual new sources though? They seem to be mostly quick mentions of stuff that happened before the last AFD, and were part of the available body of sources at the time. I'm definitely not seeing any kind of major leap forward in notability/verifiability between mid-2014 and now that would justify overturning THREE AFD consensuses for yet another round. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair point, and I think this turns on whether you treat the article as a BLP or not. If it's a BLP then I'd have to agree that I've yet to see the kind of sourcing we usually like. But this is really an article about a Youtube account... I can't tell the guy's name or date of birth or anything else about him. So I take the view that it isn't a BLP. Stifle's right to suggest working on it in draft/user space, though; that might be an approach we can all get behind?—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's absurd. Accounts don't create themselves, this article is about a person who is a youtube user, it is not about the account itself. WP:BLP applies here, absolutely. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm baffled by this comment, as I really can't see any way this could not be considered a BLP. Using a pen name of sorts certainly doesn't make it not a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The deleted article was definitely about the person, not just his account. It began "[real name] (born [birthdate]), more prominently known by his internet pseudonym, JonTron, is an American internet personality.", for instance. —Cryptic 05:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would an admin kindly undelete the article and talk page so we can see what we are dealing with here? Valoem talk contrib 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 May 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Stephen Lawrence.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Whether the image belongs to a photo agency might not be our main concern. The original purpose of the photo is. I believe that it had been private family use before the murder case in 1993 happened. I am sure that the author must have been either a studio or one of family members. Also, the commercial use has been subsequent intent, not original. If that's the case, the photo should not have been deleted in the first place. As for the administrator who deleted the image, that person has been semi-inactive at the moment, so I don't think contacting that person is necessary. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at Wikipedia:Files for deletion if necessary.

    Ronhjones (talk · contribs) deleted the image, writing in the deletion log: "F7: Violates non-free use policy - I found the original and it's a Press Agency image"

    F7 says:

    F7. Invalid fair-use claim

    • Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately.
    • Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately.
    • Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:Rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image.
    • Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.
    • {{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfairuse}} (immediate F7 deletions); {{subst:Rfu}} (replaceable with free image); {{subst:Dfu}} (disputed fair use rationale)

Addressing the three bullet points in F7:

  1. I don't think a "clearly invalid fair-use tag" is being claimed based on the deleter's quote in the deletion log about its being a "Press Agency image".
  2. I think a non-free image from a "commercial source" is being claimed. But based on the uploader's link of the image's source, http://www.theguardian.com/global/2011/may/18/stephen-lawrence-case-open-justice, the image's caption says (bolding added for emphasis), "Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in 1993. A new trial is due to start in November. Photograph: Family Handout/PA". Since this image handed out to the media by the family, the family owns the copyright, not PA (Press Agency). Since the family is not a commercial entity, this image is not "media from a commercial source" so this part of F7 cannot apply.
  3. No free image has been identified as being able to replace this image. No free image is in Murder of Stephen Lawrence and no claim about a free image was made in the deletion log.
Therefore, I recommend overturning the deletion since F7 does not apply.

I recommend listing at Wikipedia:Files for deletion so this can be discussed more fully if necessary.

Cunard (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 May 2015

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

I will find sources if undeleted. This Soap Opera was one of the most remembered ones in Puerto Rican TV history. I apologize if this is not the proper page to request it at, however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioMartin (talk • contribs)

The google cache [9] suggests there isn't really much to restore. Why not start a fresh draft on it and bring it up to standards before moving to main space? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to your discussion with Hullaballo Wolfowitz here.

    Regarding "You could have just fixed up the draft and restored it to main article space yourself", I would like to do that but I don't have access to any of the sources about the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might not have access either. As a 1982 telenova, Yo Sé Que Mentía existed in the pre-Internet era, meaning that most contemporary sources about it are likely not available online.

    I think Hullaballo Wolfowitz made "such a fuss about this" because the speedy deletion criterion was invalid. Speedy closing the discussion without restoring the article to mainspace effectively upheld the incorrect speedy deletion by default. In most cases, this would have been the correct call to make but not this case.

    Cunard (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 May 2015

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

A deletion voting was very quickly ended without appropriate number of users participating. The article is about a well-known problem in philosophy, known perhaps since ancient times, described by Hume and called "dilemma of determinism" by him (you can find about it in "Hume's fork"; actually it was Boethius who first described it in Christian times, but he did not use the term). Later a famous separate lecture by James was PRECISELY about this "dilemma of determinism", i.e. the falling of human freedom in the category of either "necessity" or "chance" (the lecture "Dilemma of determinism" was then included as a chapter in his book). So the term was rather "coined" since that time (James was a major 19-th century thinker). Many later philosophers, including J.M. Fischer, C. McGinn, P. Russell, also accept and use this name, as already established after Hume and James. As it concerns an important question mark about the problem of free will and the term itself already exists in professional use and in books, I think it deserves a separate article.

No good reason for deletion except "protection" of children, but the latter worry asserts that the topic is indeed important and, therefore, is a joke in a place with such mission as Wikipedia. Overturn. Piotrniz (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse. This is out of order. The editor disputing the has not tried discussing it with the closing admin. They have not given a valid reason to overturn. Not enough participants? I could easily find a dozen recently closed AfDs with less that have been closed without issue. And that is the only plausible argument: the rest is an argument that might have been made during the discussion but is not a valid reason to overturn. In short: that you disagree with the outcome is not a reason to overturn.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to endorse the appeal John? ----Snowded TALK 06:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse at Deletion Review means that they endorse the original decision (in this case deletion), Overturn would mean they supported restoring the article. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins seem to have ill will in this topic (maybe for cash) so I brought it publicly before the society too. Not only the number of participants in discussion was small (4), but the deletion is essentially hard to understand at all (you can just as well bring 4 friends of an admin who present absurd reasons within 5 minutes and then announce deletion of the page "Russia" or "Google"). If Wikipedia was so small that there was no place for such pages, then it could be understood, but in fact you have pages about music singles, single songs. Even if this article were just about the book by James and his lecture, I see no reason why keep it offline, whereas the problem is actually broader, the name Dilemma of determinism denotes a broader problem than just the famous publication (proof: it appeared in Hume's, before James). It is nice that opponents bring some people here but in light of the fact that you have pages even about CD singles here it is absurd that the dilemma of determinism is unknown to Wikipedia. Piotrniz (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reject. Of course there is a 'dilemma' of determinism, but this is fully discussed elsewhere in the article on Free will. This article was just the usual synthesis of barely connected quotes that we saw in the other deleted articles. Peter Damian (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, there is a publication called the "dilemma of determinism", so why would it have no page on Wikipedia? You have pages on other such publications, such as the "On the Freedom of the Will" essay. I would recreate such article precisely about that publication, if you don't mind. (Besides, the collection of quotes is a noteworthy thing, it shows how the argument passed through the centuries and even millennias. Such historical knowledge is, after all, knowledge, why would you hide knowledge.) Piotrniz (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • reject per Damian, also the "Maybe for Cash" accusation by Piotrniz is surely enough to add to the existing block record? ----Snowded TALK 06:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to nominator. dRV is not a platform for attacking other users. If you continue in this vein I will close this review. 09:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - ran for a week, half a dozen participants who argued for deletion, no other outcome is possible. A new article should be possible (a quick search certainly suggests it's a worthwhile topic, and Free Will is already far too big for my poor grandmother and her 300 baud modem.), if someone wants to do it. WilyD 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2015

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

Hello. I noticed some broken links for Warrior Records which led me to this discussion. I did some research since the article was linked to many other pages, now all red links. In my research I found some interesting coverage here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is only recent coverage, so I am wondering how come the article got deleted? BiH (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's customary to discuss with (not just notify) the deleting administrator before listing here. Can you clarify where this happened, or if it didn't, why you chose not to do so? Stifle (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle:: User:Coffee insists that all undeletion discussions go here instead of his talk page. I have read that notification on his/her talk page's header infobox. --BiH (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, noting deletion doesn't mean for ever and ever. Draft up a properly sourced version in userspace or draft space and move it across if you like. Any well sourced draft would not be deletable by G4. If you want the deleted version userfied, all you have to do is ask. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Kelapstick:: I thought restoring and updating the article would work, but userfied would work as well. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion not a particularly well attended AFD, but the nom's idea of "coverage" and mine are very different. The linked sources are passing mentions (at best) and provide no depth whatsoever (let alone indepth) about warrior records itself. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. I would have probably relisted due to sparse participation, but the closure was not one that no reasonable administrator could have made and I would not interfere with it. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't object to treating it as a Soft Deletion given the low participation, but I'm suggest it's not worthwhile unless actual decent sources can be found. This is the only source I could see counting towards WP:N, and it doesn't nearly get there, not at all. (And on this matter, I'm probably a bit of a softie). WilyD 11:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow restoration to draft. I'm a little surprised the AfD wasn't relisted, but given the clear consensus of the first AfD, and the state of the article itself, I have no real problem with the AfD close. In any case, I agree that the sources presented above are all just passing mentions, and my own (rather cursory) search failed to find anything better. If somebody feels they can find sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, then there's no harm in restoring this and moving it to draft namespace. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Does indeed fail WP:CORP. Sources introduced here at incidental mentions, not close to meeting the required sourcing for a company. Userfying or Draftifying is always an option if there is an experienced Wikipedian who thinks that the problems can be overcome with some work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I've been told by an arbitrator to ask for a review.[11] This SPI concerns an on-going Arbcom case, and since its deletion, its essence concerns one more on-going Arbcom case.[12][13]

The deletion of this SPI was out of process, there was no policy based rationale to delete the SPI since it matched no deletion criteria. I had discussed it with the deleting admin, and he said that he could find similarities between me and suspects, but that had to be posted on SPI instead.

In fact, the provided evidence was strong, contained similarities such as similar userpages, comments, notifications, collections, AfD, etc. Since the deletion of the SPI, I have happened to discover 2 more suspects and nearly 2 times more reasonable evidence. In every sense, restoration is needful and the interactions that were made on the SPI would be further helpful in solving this issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deletion policy that applies to SPIs barring the generic CSD criteria. I regularly delete SPIs with essentially zero evidence like that one, since they're essentially just an advanced form of ad hominem. Attempts to get your "enemies" banned by frivolous SPIs will continue to be removed with prejudice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome to gather a consensus for "zero-evidence SPI" to become a speedy deletion criterion, but until then, we need to apply the criteria as they are. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 100+ different speedy deletion criteria pertaining to every possible little edge case that can result in a page needing deletion. That's just process creep, and unnecessary since we can just delete vexatious SPIs already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion under criteria G10 of speedy deletion policy applies in this case - if necessary, undelete and re-delete with the correct deletion rationale. The page existed almost entirely to harass and intimidate two editors who participated (as 'Other Parties') on OccultZone's Arbitration case workshop page.
If OccultZone didn't have this enormous track record of refusing to listen to what he's being told, I'd say to undelete the page, get a couple of uninvolved checkusers to review the SPI and re-delete the page if it's still complete nonsense (which, realistically, it is - the evidence is as flimsy as wet cardboard). I don't know if OccultZone will accept the result unless checkusers agree with him, regardless of the evidence, so I don't know if undeletion really is in the best interests of the community. Nick (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G10 is not for SPI where evidence with diffs had been added, and nothing was unsourced or disparaging. I would like to inform you that this request is not for continuing your arguments. This request only concerns the deletion that met no deletion criteria. Your overall statement suggests that deletion was indeed improper. Since you agree that checkuser is warranted, I can rest my case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said, if you would accept the outcome, it would be a good idea to get a couple of checkusers to review the SPI. That means, for the avoidance of doubt, finding two or more checkusers, asking them to review the SPI case page (the page you want undeleted) and if they believe it necessary, comparing the technical evidence to determine whether or not the two named accounts are connected. It would be for the checkusers to determine if the evidence you've prepared is sufficient and whether their use of the checkuser tool in the circumstances is acceptable. You've not confirmed whether you would accept the findings of a review into the SPI by other checkusers - so, would you ? Nick (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the admin who deleted the page is also a CU. The evidence provided were very specific and no serious connections was shown. We try to minimise the drama here not increase it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:VOTE and WP:DRV. The aim of this page is not to continue your off topic disagreement that you have already expressed before.[14] DRV is about the deletion, not about the sock puppetry, which would be discussed on SPI instead. Just like the deletion of this SPI was not justified and was out of scope per deletion policy, same way an AfD or MfD couldn't be deleted for a given non-policy based reason either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Reaper Eternal and Nick. Checkusers have - and must have - substantial discretion in controlling behavior at SPI. This is not the first time that a retaliatory SPI has been deleted and it won't be the last.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can have all the 'evidence' you want to submit, but if, in the opinion of the reviewing admin (especially CUs who are almost always very experienced in this area) there isn't enough evidence then there isn't a reason to keep the SPI except as evidence of the submission itself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's fairly standard practice at WP:SPI for SPIs which are not supported by evidence are deleted usually as G6 housekeeping but, after being found to be incorrect (ie not enough evidence to indicate that socking has occurred) G10 also likely applies. Also consider that many userlinks templates will show Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YOURNAME as a blue link when that isn't actually the case as the SPI was rejected/thrown out. Bbb23's point about CUs (and through them the clerks) need to have discretion regarding behaviour and pages at SPI is also a good one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of scope, defer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. —Cryptic 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:IAR if nothing else. The evidence presented included the fact that both editors have participated in humourous deletion discussions, they have used the words "oops" and "loop", that they have both used scripts written by the same editor (not even the same script) and that they both use (different) custom warning templates. It was, in short, not remotely close to the standard where it could possibly be taken at all seriously, and the most charitable explanation is that it was created to further some other dispute. Having an SPI in your name as a blue link could certainly cause harm to someone, no matter how ludicrous the allegations, so deletion is appropriate. Hut 8.5 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per standard procedure for handling of ludicrous SPI cases. The SPI case was devoid of real evidence, and amounted to little more than harassment of two editors opposed to OZ in the ArbCom case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cameron Dallas (Vine) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was originally deleted for being promotional and for the subject failing notability. I recreated the article without it sounding promotional whatsoever and with PLENTY of sources. Everything in the article was cited with a credible source, yet the article was still deleted. I am requesting the article be reviewed and undeleted based on what I have said and based on the content in the article. FYI: The article is at Cameron Dallas (Vine) and not just Cameron Dallas because the "Cameron Dallas" page is locked so only administrators can edit it. Andise1 (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - a plethora of good new sources make the previous discussion inapplicable, and thus G4 deletion invalid. Compounding this, another administrator had already (correctly) declined the request. Terrible, terrible deletion. WilyD 07:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the nominator clarify why he created the article at a new title rather than listing here or another appropriate venue to request the title be unlocked? Creating an article at a new title often comes across as trying to make an end-run around enforcement of a deletion decision. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also having the same question when I had read the details. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who deleted it, I agree that the deletion should be overturned and the article restored. The new article did not strike me as markedly different from the one that was AfD'd a year ago as non-notable and promotional. I did not study the new article's sources in great depth, but they appeared to be mostly unreliable (www.yareah.com, www.bustle.com, www.firstslilce.com, etc.). Now that I look again I do see some reliable sources, so I agree that the article should not have been speeded and I apologize for being hasty. Looking at the article's history I see that Soap removed the G4 tag, but it was literally the same minute I was deleting it, so I did not see that.
    After deleting I salted this title, because the previous title had been created and recreated four times before getting create-protected, and this title was an obvious attempt to circumvent that protection. I've unsalted it based on this DRV. I will restore the article and move it to the proper title Cameron Dallas. Then somebody should replace the unreliable sources currently in the article with the reliable sources cited by Cunard above.
    Note to Andise1: in the future if you want to recreate an article that was AfD'd, it's a good idea to first show your draft to the admin who AfD'd it, and ask if it is sufficiently different to keep this time. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I have restored the article and moved it to Cameron Dallas. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2015

[edit]

25 May 2015

[edit]

24 May 2015

[edit]

23 May 2015

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

Hello. I am forced to turn to you for help, because I am faced with a situation where the article about Andrey Davydov that I created was deleted for unclear reasons, and the Admin, who deleted it (Davewild) does not want to do his job. I asked him to undelete the page and provided arguments supported by facts in favor of this. There were no deviations from Wikipedia policy found, and I wrote about this to the Admin, who deleted the page (Davewild) and provided documents to confirm. However, he refused to perform his duties, as he has not familiarized himself properly with my statements supported by facts, which can be review here - Request for undeletion of the article Andrey Davydov.

The same mistake was made by all those "experts," who nominated and voted to delete the page after they "evaluated" it—that is, they did not familiarize themselves with presented references and documents. The debate can be viewed here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Davydov. There you will find, for example, a point of view that persecution by governmental institutions on Russia (former KGB) is a sign of notability, if there is evidence. Yet Admins Orange Mike and Davewild didn’t bother to view the documents confirming that Andrey Davydov was granted political asylum in the USA (see File:Andrey_Davydov’s_Declaration_In_Support_Of_Asylum_Application.jpg and File:Andrey_Davydov's_Asylum_Approval.jpg).

This shows incompetence of all those, who undertake to act as editors of a topic about which they not only do not have any idea, but also do not even bother to check basic information about the subject matter, which they allow themselves to judge. This also shows incompetence and poor performance of Admins, who nominated the article for deletion and deleted it without checking references, and thus came to the wrong decision. If I'm wrong about something, please provide arguments supported by facts. Otherwise I’m asking you to undelete the article.

When considering my request, please pay special attention to that Andrey Davydov, about whom the article was created, along with his colleagues, is still being persecuted by Russian FSB. Being familiar with his political case (see), which among other things describes the principles of work of this organization on the Internet, I know that a huge number of employees of different security services (intelligence) of the world are present on any Internet resource and disguise themselves as “ordinary editors with respected profiles.” I suppose that you know about it. In this connection, it is suspected that the removal of article about Andrey Davydov is the work of such security services because this has happened regularly in the past and continues to happen today on other sites, and the scheme is the same everywhere. I’m asking you to pay attention to this.

Thank you in advance. KateBazilevsky (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 May 2015

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

Jewish terror in Israel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page is an attempt to translate (without adding any information whatsoever) a well established page which already exists in Hebrew: טרור יהודי בישראל and Russian: Список терактов, осуществлённых израильтянами против палестинцев. Answering the deleting admin reason for marking the page as an Attack page: at no point in the text is any individual named a terrorist (especially not without citations), individuals are only said to have been accused and trialed for terrorism charges by the Israeli justice system, which is well cited in the Hebrew original page. Further, the original page is very lengthy and in depth: individual statements and phrasing/translation may be challenged, but the page contains many un-refuted facts. Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note From Deleting Admin - This article was deleted it because it had been tagged as an attack page and blanked. Upon review, of the blanked content, a list "accused terrorists" in a specific context was provided. The concept seemed to walk a very dangerous WP:BLP line that I felt was better to err on the side of caution. I encouraged the editor to take it to WP:DRV to get some more eyes on the topic as I was uncomfortable undeleting the article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clarifying individuals: in the portion of the text which was translated before deletion, 7 parties are mentioned, only 3 of which are named individuals, the other 4 refer to organizations.
Comment Consistency with other English Wiki pages: 5 of the 7 parties (i.e., 3 of the 4 organizations, and 2 of the 3 individuals) have English wiki pages (which the proposed page linked to) which themselves repeat the facts stated in the proposed page.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it possibly be a good idea to have a page called "Jewish terror in Israel"? I can't imagine why anyone might think it was an appropriate title for an article, unless they were actively trying to create a honeypot for cranks and partisans.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this is the translation of the Hebrew page title: טרור יהודי בישראל (you can verify it in Google Translator). And I wasn't looking to get into any political fight or create any new content, I just wanted to translate. Again, I'm totally receptive to any challenges regarding the quality of translation.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was a list of acts by Jewish paramilitary and underground groups in the late 1940s and early 1950s, some of which most people would describe as terrorism (bombings and assassinations) and some of which are more dubious (scattering glass at sports venues where people played sport on the Sabbath). It wasn't very well referenced - there were only three citations, two of which aren't really specific enough for me to be sure what is being cited (the other is this, which is in Hebrew). I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it an attack page but there were certainly serious BLP concerns with it. It named two people as being connected with one of the attacks, and although it said they were found not guilty when tried it also implied this was on a technicality. An article at this title is likely to become a magnet for partisans on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although there wasn't any trace of that in the deleted version. I would suggest some further work, better sourcing and possibly a different title before recreating this. Hut 8.5 20:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thoughtful response! What title would you propose? help in translation is welcomed! Note that the text you see in the deleted English version is only a small portion of the entire Hebrew text, which is lengthy and stretches from the 40's to 2014. Specific acts may be ignored in the English version (e.g., broken glass). Regarding BLP concerns, as said above, many of the facts mentioned in the proposed page are supported and presented by existing entries of English wiki (e.g., Amos Kenan describes one of the 3 individuals named). And to your question, the Hebrew PDF is an official document from the trial of 1953.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd advise against using any variant of the word terrorism in the title. As you can see from that article the use of that term is very controversial, and the articles about the groups mentioned in the deleted article generally call them something else. Statements made about living people should be cited where they are made, even if they have citations somewhere else, and trial transcripts shouldn't be used when discussing living people. The various language versions of Wikipedia are completely separate and have their own policies and rules, what one considers acceptable another may not. Hut 8.5 22:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a matter of procedure. If there is any viability to the subject matter itself, then an experienced, actual Wikipedia editor is free to work on it as desired. The Israel-Palestine topic area has been rife with abuse & battleground mentalities pretty much since the Wikipedia began; we should not be giving an iota of time or attention to an obvious troll account (it is barely 1 day old, all edits have to do with this article) whose name itself is a random jumble of keyboard-mashing, suggestive of a throwaway sock. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expressing any opinion along the endorse/overturn axis at the moment, but I'm a little concerned about the suggestion that only a experienced, actual Wikipedia editor is free to work on it. I'm not sure what makes somebody an actual editor, other than contributing an edit. And, as for being experienced, I agree that there is value in experience, but we should be judging edits on their own merits, not on the experience level of the editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in a topic area with over a decade of socking and battleground, this sort of editor should be discouraged from participating. If I had a magic wiki-wand I'd make the entire I-P topic area semi-protected permanently. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2015

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

The deleted page was not "unambiguous advertising." It was fully sourced to independent sources. The article concerns a leading firm of English attorneys. The WP:Community deserves the right to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will the nominator please clarify whether he has been paid to create/edit this article? Stifle (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll endorse this. I can find a grand total of three sentences in the entire article that would survive unchanged if it were written neutrally; and the majority of it wouldn't belong in a neutral article even with rewording. —Cryptic 13:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this, to my sensibilities, perhaps teeters near the line between needing a massive rewrite and needing a fundamental rewrite; the sources suffer from a lot of dubiousness (in independence, in reliability, in whether they're really about the company) that probably keep it just this side of A7, but making WP:N far from a sure thing. Combining these, I don't see it as having a snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell of making it through an AfD unless someone does a (massive/fundamental) rewrite. I would thus suggest anyone wanting to see an article on the subject ask for userfication to start writing a viable article, rather than perhaps nitpick to no gain. WilyD 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was unambiguously marketing, and it should not appear in our encyclopaedia in that form.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious spam, this is an encyclopedia not a place for spam company marketing. It doesn't need a community review if it's obvious spam like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse that such an apparently experienced editor doesn't recognise how inappropriate that content is, is quite scary. Paid or not that shouldn't be here --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We're not a commercial directory to rent space in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clearly Promotional and unambiguous marketing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the article is fully sourced to independent sources. That makes it fully sourced spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yes, the wording is ostensibly neutral and the referencing is of a good quality. But through and through it is an advertisement and quite unsuitable here. If the present DRV is showing a hardening attitude against this sort of thing, I very much welcome it. Perhaps the wording of WP:PROMOTION will need to be changed to reflect a changing climate. Thincat (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Spam article. The declaration of COI was added about a week after the article was created, and it's very poor form for BeenAroundAWhile to have not declared their COI when starting this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a replacement for an ad in your local newspaper. Esquivalience t 19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Content like "<member of organization>, 60, completed a July 2014 charity cycling challenge of 700 miles..." adequately summarizes half of the content in the article, and the other half is a list of accomplishments that the organization achieved written in a way to promote the organization. I would have deleted this as G11 if I came across it as CST:CSD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very confusing discussion. This discussion should be about whether or not the article is or is not unambiguous advertising, not about its defects as an article.
(1) Nobody has bothered to talk about the fact that Fletchers handles 10% of the medical-negligence and serious-injury law cases in the UK (which includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, where I don't think it practices) nor that it won a "National Personal Injury Award" in 2012 nor that it won a Gold Award of Investors in People award (undated) nor that the Sunday Times cited it as one of the "Best Companies to Work for" in 2014 nor that it was recognized by the London Stock Exchange in 2014. Therefore, the claim that the article is "advertising," let alone "unambiguous advertising" cannot be sustained. The data comes from news stories by WP: Reliable sources, and the stories or articles in the sources were not advertising and they were not paid for.
(2) In addition, the relevant guideline at WP:Company states that consideration should be given to whether the company has had "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science or education." Based on the amount of coverage given in the media to some of the seminal cases handled by Fletchers, there is certainly an ambiguity in the claim that this proposed WP article is unambiguously advertising. I refer particularly to the lane filtering case, but the other cases could certainly be considered at WP:Articles for Deletion, where it belongs.
(3) It can be argued that Fletchers is Notable because "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Nevertheless, this argument should be brought forwarded on Articles for Deletion and not here, which is a discussion about whether a particular criterion for WP:Speedy deletion has been fulfilled. I look forward to such a discussion over there, and I'll certainly be glad to help other editors work with the article if if is survives such a discussion.
(4) Finally, and most important, the steps at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion have not been followed. They state:
  1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV
  2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article
  3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.
Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your contention is that you were paid to write it, did a poor job which comes across to everyone here, but you, as unambiguous advertising, so the unpaid should have spent there time sorting it out for you? I really think the paid editing guidelines need updating to bar anyone with such poor judgement as this from participating in a paid capacity. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW re your point 4, I think the argument is that getting to point 3 then it was tagged (and deleted), so yes it was followed. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Katja Glieson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

As per talk page, article has been created solely by someone with a close professional relationship, with no other contributors, and is of limited value to Wikipedia. Subject is also of questionable notability, appearing in only one project of note the focus of which was not the subject. Jslix201 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take no action - this appears to be a complaint about PRODs being removed here and here. Article was previously kept at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katja Glieson, and literally anyone can remove a PROD tag for literally any reason whatsoever, so we can't really review that. One could consider a second AfD - but given the recentness of the last one, I'm sceptical the result would be any different. WilyD 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue. Use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to nominate an article for deletion. This discussion will probably be closed shortly. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - I stated here[16] he should renominate it so why it's now here I'll never know, Anyway If it is renominated again I won't be surprised if the article is kept anyway. –Davey2010Talk 14:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse prior AfD. Jslix201 has failed to show any flaw with the process in the prior deletion discussion. As WilyD noted, a new AfD discussion can be started to look at the situation fresh and see if there is new consensus. However, I think the prior AfD was closed indicative of consensus five months ago, when the discussion closed—and that's all DRV is set up to do, to review the prior deletion actions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't sure how to show a flaw with the previous deletion discussion as it said not to edit that page. The flaw is that there was no recognition in the previous discussion that this page has only been written by her manager, with no other contributors, and seems to only exist as a promotional tool. In addition, there seemed to be some consensus that the subject is somehow notable but I have failed to see any evidence of notability. Having a bunch of articles written about a video that the subject appeared in doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements on wikipedia and I have seen no discussion proving otherwise. Also, upon reviewing the previous AfD process, it almost seems like there was more a discussion about the reason it was proposed for deletion in the first place - ie. a bad faith nomination by an editor who was angry that their page was deleted (because their subject wasn't notable) and simply wanted to come on and find another page which also seemed un-notable and nominate it for deletion to prove a point. I can understand this isn't desirable behavior but I wonder if the desire to reject this sort of behavior played into the reasoning and final decision to keep (although I assure you I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering a possible reason for the discussion not having explored all the issues). I have no ulterior motive, from an objective standpoint I don't see the benefit of this page on Wikipedia, especially as it is entirely written by an editor with a close professional relationship. If subject was that notable, wouldn't she have gained enough recognition in the media for a completely partial and non-connected editor to create the article? For instance, I look back at the history of the article on Meghan Trainor. It was only created once "All About That Bass" became a hit song. The article was very simple just to acknowledge the fact that now people may want to know facts about Trainor, and to begin the process of collaboration to improve and grow the article with more sources and information - ie. the way Wikipedia works best and is designed to work. That doesn't seem to be the case here, again, the only content being written by someone unlikely to be objective and neutral. The question is, would the article even exist if the subject's 'manager' hadn't written it? Also, if this isn't the proper place for this discussion, I understand, please help me to move the discussion to the proper place. However, every time I tried to nominate the page for deletion and to go to a normal AfD space for discussion, within a few hours someone would remove the nomination saying I had to raise the issue in DRV - which is why I did so. Jslix201 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue I have opened a second AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katja Glieson (2nd nomination). I will also notify User:Jslix201 on his talk page so he can make a proper nomination argument in the proper venue. Safiel (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2015

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

This article was apparently deleted (twice) because it was written by an undisclosed paid editor (or maybe two of them). I am a newly contracted editor (paid) who wants to write and submit an acceptable article for this person, whom I consider to be Notable (or I wouldn't have taken the contract), and I am disclosing the information here. To my knowledge the previous deletions did not rely on any conclusion that the subject was not Notable but only that they were written by undisclosed paid editors. The deleting Administrator did not reply favorably to my request for unsalting this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mean "undeleting." Sorry. And I don't really need to look at the old article because I will be starting from scratch. I can do my new piece in a Sandbox so that other editors can keep watch. Although I've been around a while, this is one of my first attempts at making this kind of administrative appeal. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed deletion rationale in 2009 was "No secondary sources. Tags requesting sources have been around for 2 years. Does not meet WP:BIO", so someone thought he wasn't notable, and nobody objected. But with no discussion to evaluate, and no deletion to overturn, and no draft to evaluate, there's very little to say at a DRV. WilyD 10:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing the request. I was provided with a copy of the article, and, upon reviewing the sources, I decided there was not enough WP:Notability for Wikipedia. Sorry to take everybody's time, but I wanted to decide for myself and not take anybody else's word for it. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2015

[edit]

18 May 2015

[edit]

17 May 2015

[edit]
  • Array Networks – Clearly endorsed. There is never any objection to any good faith user trying their hand at a new version but there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus here that the sourced offered guarantee a new version would pass another AFD they would be doing this at risk of further afd. – Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC) amended Spartaz Humbug! 12:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Array Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of sources at the AfD:

Extended content
  1. Buley, Taylor (2009-05-19). "Shunning NASDAQ". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    An old Wall Street joke posits that the New York Stock Exchange is saving the tickers “I” and “M”–two of the seven unused single-letter slugs–just in case Intel and Microsoft want to jump ship from the NASDAQ.

    Judging by the experience of Array Networks, one of the few technology companies to go public recently, the NYSE might be holding them for a long time: Today’s market defectors could be heading to China, or at least as close to the country as possible.

    Array Networks is a Silicon Valley hardware company that sells devices that encrypt network traffic. When Chief Executive Michael Zhao thought the security vendor was ready for an initial public offering, his research didn’t point to New York, but to Taipei. Last Wednesday, the company became the first U.S. company to debut on the Taiwan Stock Exchange.

    “We did our research and the three finalists were Taiwan, mainland China and NASDAQ,” Zhao says.

    The IPO was modest in size, according to the Gre Tai Securities Market, which provides information about the Taiwan exchange. Milpitas, Calif.-based Array issued about 54 million shares valued at around $79 million. On its first day of trading, the stock opened at NT$15, about 46 cents, and closed at NT$40, or $1.22. Array is now trading at NT$39, or $1.19 a share, with a volume of 16,000 shares traded.

    Array has 200 employees in China, and, according to consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, the company had 43% market share there in 2007 for its principal product category, SSL VPN devices. That would make mainland China “a natural choice” for an IPO, says Zhao. “However, China does not allow foreign companies to be listed.”

  2. Harris, Scott Duke (2009-05-13). "Harris: Milpitas company offshores its IPO". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Finally, the Great Silicon Valley IPO Drought is coming to an end — sort of. This week, more than a year after the last valley tech company made an initial public offering, a venture-capital-backed firm called Array Networks in Milpitas is going public — yet it's not exactly the talk of the town.

    That's because Array, a maker of enterprise networking software, is offshoring its IPO. Today, it will become the first foreign-based startup to debut on the Taiwan Emerging Stock Market, said Array CEO Michael Zhao.

    Array's move is an example of the creative approaches companies are pondering to cope with the globally frigid economic conditions.

    ...

    Array, founded in 2000, is backed by U.S. Venture Partners and H&Q Asia Pacific, a private equity firm founded in 1985 as a joint venture with the now defunct boutique investment bank Hambrecht & Quist. Robert Shen, H&QAP's managing director, is Array's chairman. Another board member is William P. Fuller, president emeritus of the Asia Foundation and a board member of the Bank of the Orient in San Francisco and Orient First in Hong Kong.

    Array's success in landing "marquee customers" in the U.S. — including Oracle, Morgan Stanley and Humana Health Insurance— helped it make early inroads in Japan, Zhao said. In 2004, Array opened a Beijing operation to focus on the explosive Chinese economy. Array now has 200 employees in Beijing, compared with 70 in Silicon Valley.

  3. Berndtson, Chad. (2011-03-24). "Array Networks Looks To Build U.S. Presence Behind New Channel Program" (pages 1 and 2). CRN Magazine. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks this week launched a new partner program, in hopes of not only increasing channel revenue behind its application delivery, acceleration, access and SSL VPN products, but also dramatically upping its stake in the U.S. and Canada, where its presence has been limited.

    Founded in 2000 and with headquarters in Milpitas, Calif., the majority of Array's sales come from Asia. The company is particularly strong in China, Japan and India, and had a $79 million initial public offering (IPO) on Taiwan's GreTai Securities Market in 2009.

  4. Delevett, Peter (2001-11-27). "San Jose Mercury News, Calif., Wiretap Column". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30 – via HighBeam Research.

    The article notes:

    Now Massaro's taken the helm of a new vessel, Campbell start-up ClickArray Networks, which helps clients manage their Web traffic. On Monday, the firm named Massaro chief executive officer and shortened its name to Array Networks.

    The old name sounded too dot-commy, says Massaro, who worked for Al Shugart at IBM and Memorex before helping found Shugart Associates in 1973. A year later, the firm's board ousted Shugart and named Massaro president.

  5. Cheung, Maxine (2011-03-22). "Application delivery networking vendor wants to build channel in Canada". Computer Dealer News. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks has a new partner program to support and attract new partners

    With a new channel program in place, application delivery networking vendor Array Networks is seeking partners in Canada to help deliver its solutions to enterprise customers.

  6. Selvaratnam, Subashini (2002-08-26). "All-in-one Web traffic management appliance". New Straits Times.

    The article notes:

    Installing a variety of different devices is not only costly but can be a fairly complicated process. To solve this, Silicon Communications Sdn Bhd had introduced Array Networks, an all-in-one Web traffic management appliance.

    Array Networks offers seven essential networking features - server load balancing, clustering, Webwall (firewall), caching, content rewrite, secure sockets layer (SSL) acceleration and global load balancing, available in a single appliance.

  7. "Array Networks, a server load balancing co., raises $6.9M". VentureBeat. 2007-03-12. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks, a Milpitas, Calif. provider of SSL VPN and server load balancing solutions, has raised $6.95 million in a third round of funding, according to a regulatory filing cited by PEHub. Investors included H&Q Asia Pacific and Vision Venture Capital.

  8. Rashid, Fahmida Y. (2011-02-10). "Array Networks Rolls Out Application Delivery Controllers for Cloud Systems". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks' APV9650 appliance can support over 20 million concurrent connections, and is designed for cloud systems and high-demand data centers. Array Networks announced a 60G bps application-delivery controller that will be capable of meeting increased bandwidth demand in the data center.

    The APV9650 ADC (application delivery controller) appliance has more Layers 4 and 7 throughput and an unbeatable price-performance, compared with that of competitors, Array Networks said Feb. 8. Designed for both private- and public-cloud computing environments, the company's flagship appliance is designed to be both scalable and powerful, Neville Nandkeshwar, director of product marketing at Array Networks, told eWEEK.

  9. Hicks, Matthew (2002-05-18). "Array Enhances All-in-One Networking Device". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    The networking startup is beefing up the performance of its caching abilities and adding new security features in its latest release of its network device.

    Array Networks Inc., a networking startup combining multiple IP services into a single network device, is beefing up the performance of its caching abilities and adding new security features in its latest release. Array, of Campbell, Calif., on Monday is announcing Version 3.1 of its operating system for its Array Web Traffic Manager platforms. Available next week, the new version includes Arrays SpeedCache technology for its caching services that company officials say will increase cache utilization by as much as 50 percent and reduce loads on back-end servers. It also incorporates greater SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) features, what Array is calling "SSL on the inside," by adding encryption on traffic flowing from the Array device to the origin server and not just to outside connections, said Steve Shah, director of product management for Array.

    Array first launched its devices in September of 2001. ...

  10. Eddy, Nathan (2009-08-07). "Array Networks Launches Remote Access Solution". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array launches the SPX800 Universal Access Controller (UAC), a remote access solution aimed at cost-conscious businesses.

    Secure application delivery specialist Array Networks Inc., announced the launch of the Array SPX800 Universal Access Controller (UAC), a remote access solution aimed at small to medium-size businesses (SMBs). Array said with the SPX800 appliance, SMBs and their employees, road warrior and office worker alike, can benefit from a range of SSL VPN and remote desktop access functionality without making sacrifices in time, effort, budget, or security.

    The SPX800 appliance enables any user to securely connect to internal resources from remote locations, in a user-friendly appliance. For road warriors, the SPX 800 delivers SSL VPN access to the network and all applications from any PC from any location. For users that typically work in an office, the SPX800 provides remote access to the worker's desktop with complete access to his applications. Array claims this enables SMBs to have a single solution for remote access and helps reduce the number of laptop computers businesses need to purchase.

  11. Hicks, Matthew (2002-08-12). "Array Security Appliance Scrutinizes Web Traffic". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks Inc. will make available next quarter a network appliance for surveillance of Web traffic.

    Array Networks Inc. will make available next quarter a network appliance for surveillance of Web traffic. The Array Security Reconnaissance Secure Web Traffic Analyzer can scan, analyze and record incoming and outgoing Web traffic, including SSL-encrypted sessions, officials said.

    Array, of Campbell, Calif., is targeting the new device at large enterprises that want to prevent the sharing of confidential information or network abuse, as well as government agencies that need to bolster homeland security while meeting the terms of electronic surveillance laws.

    The stand-alone network device selectively captures and analyzes network traffic by monitoring thousands of traffic flows and recording them based on set triggers. For example, an enterprise could set a specific SMTP e-mail user as a trigger and watch the SMTP traffic in e-mail messages being transmitted by that user.

  12. Eddy, Nathan (2011-08-18). "Array, SentryBay Partner on Anti-Spyware for Remote Desktop Access". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    With EntryProtect, Array's solution can now prevent key logging and screen capture on remote devices.

    Array Networks, a specialist in application, desktop and cloud service delivery, announced a partnership with SentryBay to provide SentryBay's EntryProtect anti-spyware capability for Array's DesktopDirect appliance-based remote desktop access solution. DesktopDirect enables secure access to office PCs or virtual desktops from any device and allows employees to work from any location. With EntryProtect, Array's solution can now prevent key logging and screen capture on remote devices for greater security.

    EntryProtect is a multi-layer approach to spyware that is designed to provide end-to-end protection for all users. With EntryProtect running on DesktopDirect, anti-spyware is controlled and maintained by corporate IT in the network and not on end user devices, making sensitive data such as user names and passwords safe from unauthorized capture when entered into Web applications.

  13. Claburn, Thomas (2011-08-02). "Array Networks Opens Windows To Android". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2015-04-30.

    The article notes:

    Array Networks aims to enable remote desktop access to corporate computers through its DesktopDirect software and appliance. The company has released DesktopDirect for Android, a free client app that allows Android tablets or smartphones to access Windows applications and data on physical or virtualized desktops through its Array SPX hardware. Pricing starts at $3,995 for a DesktopDirect bundle with 25 concurrent users; the advanced client license, which includes iPhone, iPad, and Android client support, starts at $495./blockquote>

  14. Austin, Scott (2009-07-23). "The Daily Start-Up: Sorting Through The Zappos Chatter". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.

    The article notes:

    Taiwan's two stock exchanges hosted a seminar for executives that also included a talk from Array Networks, which in May became the first foreign company to list in Taiwan.

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

Hi Samwalton9. Please add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks. I do not see a consensus to delete. The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard. My rationale is that there was a consensus to delete the article; imposing my own views on whether the sources were up to scratch would be a supervote, I merely assessed the consensus, which was to delete. Sorry, Sam Walton (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The company has received substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. It received a detailed article in the financial magazine Forbes. It received a detailed article from the San Jose Mercury News, which has a circulation of over 500,000. It received a detailed article in the technology magazine InformationWeek, which has a circulation of 200,000. Regarding Taiwan's stock exchanges, Array Networks was "first foreign company to list in Taiwan", according to The Wall Street Journal.

The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

Admins routinely close AfDs as delete even when when there is a lopsided vote count in favor of retention by discounting non-policy-based "keep" votes. They should do likewise for non-policy-based "delete" votes. See for example the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie (6–2 in support of retention), which was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1#Phoenix Marie.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, I was actually going to DRV this myself, thanks for doing it. It's very simple here sources pass GNG, but more importantly this subject passes WP:LISTED on the TSE (not OTC). TSE is the 19th largest international exchange and is subject to similar regulations as the NASDAQ. Valoem talk contrib 02:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus to delete found, straightforward close. The Great Wall of China-esque Text by one editor has no bearing. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability., such as being promotional. We are not limited at afd as we are at speedy to those articles to promotional to fix; we can, and do, and should, delete articles substantially contaminated with promotionalism. Even if they were to be rewritten, the prior material should be removed altogether. Normally, we do not do this for those subjects that are clearly and unquestionably notable, for there are often good uncontaminated edits in the article history, and the good work should not be lost. This however is an instance where there is marginal notability, and clear promotionalism. Whether to remove in such a case is up to the community, and afd is the place to decide it. Restoring articles like this would send a clear message to the sub-community of promotional editors: that they are very likely to get away with it even if detected. NASDAQ is not necessarily notable--some of the companies in it are, but not most of them. There's a long string of decisions to that effect.Or read the WSJ article or Forbes, both of which in essence said that knowing it couldn't meet the standards of NYSE, they needed an alternative. Ad Valorem said at the AfD: "I believe regulation is what gives the company notability ". I think that makes no sense whatsoever. (Just as in the other AfD mentioned here, where essentially the community had to decide if an award was sufficient to imply notability, and correctly decided it was not.)
I agree completely that article content does not determine notability--but it can determine whether we should have a particular article. Other factors are even more important: although I normally argue for a broad interpretation of notability , I must admit that neither a broader or stricter notability standard --both within reasons -- does not essentially harm WP. Promotionalism destroys it, by making us an advertising medium & in essence no more than a web directory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse, could not logically have been closed any other way. The size of a comment does not necessarily bear proportion to quality or weight — I advise User:Cunard to be more concise, whether or not placing arguments in collapse boxes. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was overwhelming consensus at the AfD to delete. Several people presented what they felt were good sources to establish notability, but cogent arguments were made by multiple people on the other side why those sources were not up to snuff. I echo the sentiments of others above that writing pages and pages of comments is not useful, and is probably counter-productive. Nobody is going to wade through all that. The argument in this DRV is essentially, The AfD didn't go my way, so I'm going to reiterate my original arguments in another forum and hope I get the result I want this time. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And the people who are arguing to overturn have been around long enough to know that it doesn't work that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (but allow new version) There's no doubt that the original AfD close should be endorsed, in the sense that, given the material that existed, no other close made sense. The next question is whether the version presented here should be allowed to stand. That's really a question for AfD, but let's not stand on process too much. Certainly, some of the publications cited (Forbes, WSJ, SJ Merc News) rank as reliable sources. The problem is, I'm not convinced that coverage in those articles is anything more than routine coverage of financial news by industry publications which cover all such announcements. Still, I think this version would have a reasonable chance of surviving another AfD, so letting it stand seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The consensus was clear and multiple editors commented after the sources were provided and did not regard them as establishing notability. As such there is no other way the closing admin could have closed the AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse even supposing that the majority was wrong. Rather than argue here, far better create a worthwhile article with good references. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thincat (talk · contribs), I have followed your advice and created a neutral, reliably sourced article about the subject. What are your thoughts about how I can improve the article?

    {{db-repost}} applies to:

    A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).

    Based on the wording of {{db-repost}} it is clear that the new article is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy".

    Cunard (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cunard:. I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. I think this happens a lot. You know this, I know this and a lot of other people here do as well. However, pretending it doesn't happen is part of the game we play. I'm too old to be shocked. As it happens, in this case the "promotional" aspect has muddied the water. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. – yes, I've seen this happen many times before.

    I expected the AfD participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks to review the sources I posted. Instead, several editors called these newspaper article press releases (diffs 1, 2, and 3) without substantiating their implausible claims. Two editors explicitly ignored the sources I posted and focused on the poorly written article, saying the article did not demonstrate notability or that it was spam (diffs 1 and 2).

    I expected the closing admin to discount these very weak "delete" votes and close as "no consensus" or "keep". I believed this despite the lopsided vote count because the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie discounted very weak "keep" votes and closed as "delete" despite the 6–2 vote in support of retention. I was wrong. I expected the DRV community to correct the admin's mistake. I was wrong again.

    Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thincat (talk · contribs), as an editor uninvolved in the AfD, would you review the new article and determine whether the article "establishes notability and appears neutral" (quoting from Valoem below) in your opinion? Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have put it on my watchlist so if it is sent to AFD again I'll see if I have an opinion worth giving. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a point at which you need to realize, Cunard, that it's not everyone else who's wrong. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an admin please restore the full history so we can compare the current version written by Cunard to the older versions? Cunard's version establishes notability and appears neutral. Valoem talk contrib 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Allow recreation if the sources are sufficient, but I'm generally unconvinced by run-of-the-mill promotional churn. And please, please, please stop with the ginormous filibustering walls of text. You complain that people aren't giving your opinions the consideration you think they deserve. It's because you just don't express yourself succinctly. People see one of your many weirdly indented multi-page comments and just scroll to the bottom because they've learned from experience that reading them is a repetitive, mind-numbing ordeal. You have become white noise in these debates. Sorry if you think I'm being harsh, but people have told you they find your walls of text annoying many times in the past and you've taken no notice. Reyk YO! 08:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow draft. I didn't look at the old article, but the new one seems to meet WP:N, though it's mostly about how the company and its relationship to the stock exchanges(s) and certainly isn't a great article (no offence, it's where the sources seem to go AFAICT).
  • Endorse - Clear consensus to delete. The additional sources were presented in the AfD early on, and many of the delete opinions came afterwards, often describing the new sources as consisting of nothing more than press releases. Nothing that would qualify as 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'. Also Cunard, can you please stop using <p> and <blockquote> so heavily in discussions? ― Padenton|✉   21:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John H. Arnold (historian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor at University of London; 6 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press.
Saying someone is a professor in a major university and ghas published books with reputable publishers are at the very least an indication of plausible importance, and should not have been deleted as A7. The admin who deleted it d--and deleted it single0handedly without a prior nomination-- has said he does not consider this a claim of notability..See [17] First, that is not the requirement for passing speedy, and any experienced admin should know that. According to [[WP:CSD, it is "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant,... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. ... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (Furthermore not only is it a credible claim to importance, it almost certainly actually does meet the notability standard WP:PROF, under the basic criterion there of showing the individual is an authority in their subject, because the books together with the position show her an authority in her subject, as in fact proven by the fact that not one article on someone with equivalent credentials and publications has ever been deleted in AfD in the last 5 years at least. The place to discuss that if anyone disagrees will be AfD. And of course this shows the danger of single-handed deletions. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we bundle these? I hope it won't be necessary to have five separate discussions consisting mostly of copy/pasted votes. I also note that DGG and others have already put a great deal more effort into this than the original article creator ever did, and I wonder if it's really necessary to have a seven-day discussion ending in a restore and/or history undeletion. My preferred outcome would be speedy allow re-creation per WP:SNOW for all five, with a note of thanks to JzG for dealing promptly and decisively with the original problem.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a bit wonky of me, but I don't see where the deleting admin was asked to reconsider first, which would have saved all this faff. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- At the WP:ANI discussion, the closing admin explained that they did not recognize WP:PROF because "notability is not inherited". They acknowledged that while there were high profile academic institutions that were supremely notable, but merely being employed there did not make an individual notable.

    Several of our specific notability guidelines, that supplement and over-ride GNG, recognize peer recognition as one of the criteria that makes an individual notability. Professors who receive high-profile fellowships, who are appointed to named professorships, or who become full professors at well-respected research Universities, are receiving these positions because they are highly regarded by other researchers in their field. It is another way we can recognize they are highly regarded in their field -- ie notable. This is very different than the deleting administrator's defense that they are merely individuals employed at the notable institution. Universities employ thousands of support workers: thousands of secretaries, janitors, maintenance workers, HR people, IT people; and, in the academic sphere, thousands of teaching assistants, research assistants, and junior lecturers. Anyone who has worked as a teaching assistant or research assistant knows the vast gulf between them and the holder of a named chair.

    I agree that, not only should these half dozen deletions be overturned, but the closing admin should be encouraged to recognize that the explicit or implied claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:CSD#A7 is different than, and lower than, the notability required to pass an AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the discussion at ANI, [18] my view is mostly aligned with the post of S Marshall above (hence I will not enter a copy-paste !vote on all of these entries, and trust the closing admin can do the math). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should they be restored, I hope somebody is going to flesh them out a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It will be done. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The speedies were a disgrace. I had stopped following the ANI thread before it had turned into a constructive discussion. When a short article is created it is the ideal time to add a paragraph of substance, even if policy and guidelines do not require it. I find myself defending such stubs but never creating them. (In other words I have nothing to add to what others have said). Thincat (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David Feldman (historian) ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor at University of London; 7 published academic books, including one from Oxford University Press, one from Cambridge University Press, one from University of California Press, and one from Yale University Press. Director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. .
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vanessa Harding (historian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Professor of history at University of London; 3 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press]
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frank Trentmann ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of professor of history classics, and archeology at University of London; 17 published academic books, including two from Oxford University Press & one from Cambridge University Press.
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dominic Rathbone ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, including one from Cambridge University Press. President of Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Catharine Edwards (historian) ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Professor of professor of classics and ancient history at University of London; 2 published academic books, one from Oxford University Press, one from Yale University Press.
Deleted as A7, despite actual deletion policy, for it does have a very obvious claim to significance at the very least. For details, see above. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion for the reasons DGG articulates clearly above (and the same reasons I've already given on the discussion of this issue at WP:ANI). It was not obvious from the deleted versions that these people passed WP:PROF, but I believe they do. Moreover that should not be the standard: A7 deletion requires an article to be much weaker than a borderline case for an AfD. Someone is not hired as a professor at a good university unless that university believes them to have significant accomplishments in their expertise, and in these cases the book publications already listed in the articles are such accomplishments, and both the professorships and the book publications should have been enough of an assertion of notability to save these stubs from A7 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Being a professor in the UK is a credible claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. Speedy deletion is only for "pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." For an admin to both nominate and delete pages unilaterally outside such guidelines seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the reasons given above. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as DGG, David Eppstein and Andrew Davidson say the articles (all five of them) had enough in them to stand as an assertion of significance so were not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. They should be restored and then they can be improved. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- As I said, above, the deleting administrator, at WP:ANI defended ignoring WP:PROF under the authority of "notability is not inherited", so merely working at a notable institution did not make on notable. But highly respected professors are not mere workers at their notable institutions. Their appointments to senior academic positions are a form of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2015

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

First of all, I like to ask whoever nominated this, what does he know about this "little field" and challenge him to elaborate on this? Does he think its all about running his RTR Traxxas up and down the road over some home made ramp? Speaking of notability, after googling "HPI Racing" on the book section and news section, thats where the notability comes in, also [19] [20] nd it does have a listing on Bloomberg. If all else its not notable, it win major R/C racing championships but under the Hot Bodies brand, [21] and I could find more if I have the time

  • Endorse. No one spoke up at the AFD for saving this article and I don't think a relist was necessary. Looking at its latest version I wonder if better referencing and very severe pruning might have created a viable article but someone can work on this if they want to (and if they have time). Thincat (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with 3 opinions to delete the close couldn't have been anything else. That isn't a block to having an article in the future, but it does mean that someone needs to do the work to build a suitable article which demonstrates why we should include it. For the nominator's benefit WP:GNG is likely going to be the standard to meet, that is the subject is covered directly and in detail by multiple independent reliable sources. Passing mentions about products the company produced aren't talking about the company directly and in detail. A listing on bloomberg is no indication, bloomberg are in the business of producing reports on market data, they aren't doing so because there is something "notable" about this particular topic. The speedhunters stuff is interesting, but it'd be one source and it doesn't actually seem to cover them in much detail - though it does suggest there might be good sources out there. Generally waving people towards pages and pages of search results is not that productive, particularly when the highest ranked results are not what is expected. WP:USERFY if the nominator is willing to try and find some significant sources. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It would not have been unreasonable to extend this another week because of the small number of people commenting, but given the unanimity of the comments, the close was perfectly fine. The consensus at AfD was mostly that the given article was unacceptable, not that the subject was inherently unsuitable. If somebody wanted to try again, just write a new version in draft space (the existing version could be restored and moved to draft to use as a starting point), and see how people react to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was primarily a catalog listing. I'm willing to restore to draft space if someone would like to try again. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2015

[edit]
  • Seth Goldman (businessman) – Relist, this is the only possible close. There is a lack of strong consensus, but generally appears to favor restoring the article, with editors believing Cunard version passes required guidelines. In cases where there is not a strong consensus, relisting appears to be the most appropriate measure further discussion always leads to better conclusions, such conclusion is best determined at AfD. (non admin closure) – Valoem talk contrib 20:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Seth Goldman (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, I understand you deleted the page for Honest Tea's co-founder & TeaEO Seth Goldman. While the rationale for deleting the page of a CEO that has no accolades beyond the company seem reasonable, Mr. Goldman built a $130M+ business, is a NY Times best-selling author [22], on the board of the American Beverage Association [23], and was named the #1 "Disruptor" in the Beverage industry by Beverage World Magazine [24]. Additionally his parents were prominent professors at Harvard University.

I have corresponded with who I believe is the deleting admin and he recommended I take this step next.

ReviewingEditor (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question it looks like the original article was deleted at least in part because it seemed to be one of a group of problematic paid-editing articles. Do you have anything that might even broadly be considered a conflict of interest regarding this article sublect? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow restoration, with optional relist - beverageworld has a decent editorial staff, and the story there is sufficient to make WP:CSD#G4 inapplicable. The old sources [25] [26] were more about the company than the dude, that's not true of the beverageworld bit. WilyD 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't be too convinced by the beverage world piece. A large chunk of the stuff about the subject here (and it's pretty light to be honest), is a quote from James Tonkin, whoever that may be. It could be this guy who as far as I can see is a marketer, in which case it would seem to be much more a promotional piece. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my del nomination. Clearly promotional paid editing. The lack of knowledge of WP is shown by the part of the restoration "Additionally his parents were prominent professors at Harvard University." Even otherwise good trade magazine carry articles based on PR, so they can not be trusted to support notability all by themselves. As for notable authorship, it's unclear if the author of a single books usually gets an article, even if it is a NYT business best seller (which is not as significant as their general fiction or nonfiction listings) --I don't think we should salt, because there is a possibility of a properly written article by a NPOV editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rewrite was reverted by Spartaz (talk · contribs), who wrote "restore temp delete. Article hadn't been restored has it?" It is true that the deletion review has not been closed. But {{db-repost}} clearly no longer applies based on my rewrite. DRV closers will close as "keep deleted" if no one steps forward to do a rewrite, which is why I did one here. I ask the DRV closer to restore my rewrite after closing the DRV since I do not want to edit war with Spartaz.

    Cunard (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is long standing practice that we leave deleted articles under a temp undeletion template during the whole discussion. You should know this by, now given how much time you have spent at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted articles should be left blank when no improvements have been made. Undeleted articles should not be blanked when improvements have been made that render {{db-repost}} inapplicable.

There is no policy-based reason at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion or elsewhere to support the stance that an article undeleted at DRV must remain blanked until the DRV is closed.

I have asked the community to review this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV.

Cunard (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: "Check the article's history", says {{TempUndelete}}. I did that and I found your rewrite. Good work. It doesn't matter if it is visible or temporarily hidden under the template if anyone can easily find the improved revisions. Another option is to create a draft in your user space and present it here more openly but it is IMO unnecessary to open discussions at multiple forums regarding such a small issue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz: You told to Cunard "you are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way" which is a bit tactless. It was Cunard who actually did the encyclopedic work with exemplary competence (s/he has found the sources and rewritten the article in accordance with the Wikipedia's standards). The improvements were reverted and Cunard asks why, which is his/her right, and it is also quite logical. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vejvančický (talk · contribs), for reviewing my rewrite. I responded to the comments at WT:CSD. I will follow WilyD (talk · contribs)'s advice to minimize confrontation using Oiyarbepsy (talk · contribs)'s sound idea. I will do the following if I rewrite an article with a {{TempUndelete}} template on it in the future. I will either save the rewrite in mainspace and then immediately blank it myself, or I will recreate it in the draft namespace. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV closer will review the discussion after seven days have passed (so after 22 May 2015). Cunard (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quickest way is probably that the nominator simply withdraws his review request and this can be closed now (rather than in a couple of days time), Cunard's version put in place and then if someone still thinks it's not up to snuff can nominate at AFD. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2015

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

Deleted as non-notable, individual is being talked about on BBC news and other news sources, deleting admin not-available Lacunae (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's a Daily Fail article here but I think there's a fairly clear consensus never to use that rag as a source for a biography. More usefully the BBC have this and there's a mention in the New Statesman for corroboration. He also writes for the Huffington Post. We've got sources that post-date the last AfD, and I could make an excellent case for "allow recreation". However, Mr Kassam's hypothetical article is quite likely to raise BLP issues and I think it should only be allowed if pre-emptively semi-protected. Yeah, I know, we don't usually do pre-emptive semi-protection, but we do have scope to use a little judgment at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments the latest AfD2 is here; I have temporarily restored the article history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was notable for a few days, but now it has passed. I don't think he meets the notability category at all, especially as the original article deleted was likely self-written and would contain other issues too. Londonstudent13 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a tightly-focused draft be created for consideration. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bruce Frisko (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted claiming he was 'little known'. He is one of the main anchors for CTV Atlantic and thus is broadcast to 4 Canadian provinces daily as well as across Canada online and with digital cable/satellite. He is also a producer for "Live At 5". And is involved in several charities. He is an anchor on the weekend evening & late night news, as well as the weekdays from 5-7PM & late night. I suggest that the page be undeleted so it can be reworked.  I have not contacted the original deleter as from the discussion they seem biased to considering this frivolous. Lady Noremon (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not fair to Joe Decker at all. I've sent him a note.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologises. But it did not seem fair to consider someone who has been one of the main news anchors for 1/4 of Canada for 20 years unknown. Steve Murphy the other main anchor for CTV Atlantic's page is still intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Noremon (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - relisted twice, minimal discussion. I don't think it'd be wrong to endorse-ish, but allow it to be treated as a WP:SOFTDELETE if Lady Norman wants to make an argument at AfD. There are some (seemingly minour, but plausible) claims to significance here. WilyD 09:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer No strong opinion here, it was borderline as WilyD indicates, and I'm happy to leave it to the discretion of the DRV regulars. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that someone not from the area would never had heard of him, and also not knowing where to look for information (like regional newspapers whose results are often not found on Google first page results). But CTV Atlantic airs in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland & Labrador. My opinion is a clean-up or rewrite notice or additional information request would have been a better course. What was there for the article really could have stood rewriting and more information such as his production work, the IWK Telethon, Big Brothers & Big Sisters for the region, et cetera. But unknown could apply to many of the food or location or novel/television articles here.Lady Noremon (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, discussion couldn't have got any other way, but probably should have been a WP:SOFTDELETE given the minimal participation. A bit unhappy with some of the comments being made about the closing admin; assumptions of good faith are mandatory here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Out of scope. From the introduction to this page:
    Deletion Review should not be used:
    1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
    2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination
    8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)
    Stifle (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is perfectly in scope. It's not being used merely to attack the closer, though there was a complaint about him included. DRVs usually do include that. Considering they're supposed to say the closer made an error, it takes some considerable skill to avoid it. Second a reason was given for not asking him, tho that reason was a misjudgment of him. (personally, I thin the only reason for saying to consult the closer first is that it often makes the review unnecessary), that's a very good reason, but we're BOT BURO and I would never reject a review merely for this reason. Third, Any disagreement with the outcome usually does involve the closers judgment. Here, I gather it's saying some factors weren't considered. Actually, I think we should be encouraging reviews -- it's the only way to get some approach to uniform standards. To draw an analogy, the function of appeal courts is not just to correct errors, but to settle the law. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said to you on any number of occasions, if you feel the DRV rules and policies should be changed, you're welcome to gather a consensus on WT:DRV. I ask you not to snipe at me for correctly applying what we have asked people to adhere to — and "BOT BURO" [sic] can equally be applied to pointing out that simply asking an admin to change his mind can be more effective than a bureaucratic week-long process. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I should have contacted the original deleting administrator. I was wrong in not doing so. From the deletion discussion-which was minimal-I took that they thought the article was frivolous, one other commenter just commenting to joke about the article subject's hair. I made the wrong call by not contacting them. I should have. However it feels like I am being accused of attacking the deleting administrator's character, which I did not and am not. Unless this returns to discussion of the article, I am going to remain out of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Noremon (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2015

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

Article was marked for speedy deletion under G4; previous versions were deleted for failing GNG. This new article has additional material beyond the previous article (which I didn't author but found in the Internet Archive), including Alahverdian's lobbying work in both Rhode Island and Ohio, on behalf of foster care kids and the Armenian community, and his lawsuit against Rhode Island DCYF. As a newbie editor, I may not fully grok GNG, but it feels to me like this merits additional review beyond G4 deletion. Also, happy to accept advice generally on how to determine GNG. I've read the page several times, and it still feels like there's a level of subjectivity that I'm not understanding. ThomG (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has also been recreated and deleted at Nicholas Edward Alahverdian, Nick Alahverdian and Nicholas Alahverdian. This attempt to circumvent detection/page protection is something that makes me lean towards refusing to restore, but I am not fully decided. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as Deleting Admin I speedy deleted it for exactly the reason above WP:G4. There were 3 other WP:AFD, 1 with very strong delete consensus. Different versions with different names also seemed suspicious to me. Fom what I saw in the article I deleted and the prior AFD's,, there was not enough evidence for me to carte blanche overturn the multiple prior delete decisions. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as Editor: I recognize that earlier versions were deleted for lack of general notability. I guess my question, as a new editor, is how much additional information is required to overcome the bias for deletion based on that history. This most recent version has over 50 sources and three points of notability (foster rights lobbying, the lawsuit against RI DCYF, and recent lobbying regarding the Armenian Genocide). It seems like this surpasses WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, to me. (I assume that admins can see the most-recently deleted version of the page, but if not, I have a copy in User:ThomG/sandbox. To compare this with the original deletion, I found the 2013 version on archive.org.) ThomG (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You aren't a new editor, is the problem; this is a resurrection or a hack of a long-dormant account to push a singular agenda. Everything surrounding this Alahverdian individual revolved around attention-seeking and glory-hounding over the subject himself and an obscure court case filed against a state DCYF. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a new editor, actually, though I'm perfectly wiling to acknowledge that this particular article may have been a non-optimal place to start, given its history. I am legitimately trying to come to terms with the WP:GNG as applied to this person/article. ThomG (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I highly doubt that a "new" editor picks an obscure and frequently-warred-over biography out of thin air to begin (excluding 4 trivial edits over 6 years and nothing in almost 3) their editing career. Per the conflict of interest guideline, it may be advisable to declare your connections to the subject now. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt every conceivable permutation of this individuals name, or consider creating an edit filter that will block same. This is a ridiculous, years-long campaign that the Wikipedia has had to deal with, and the subject has done NOTHING since the last deletion discussion to change the fact that he does not meet the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt - clearly an attempt to promote the subject rather than create a legitimate encyclopedia article and the language in the draft says it all really. That draft should be deleted, also, though I'm glad a brand new editor was able to work out how to userfy something to their sandbox to head-off a technical deletion </sarcasm>. St★lwart111 23:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt. Recreating an article without doing anything to address the issues that got it deleted in the first place makes it a textbook candidate for G4. It is indisputably a promotion campaign. Also salt every plausible version of this guy's name to stop the sneaky recreation attempts. Reyk YO! 02:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, liberally shake the salt, and consider listing at WP:DEEPER in light of the above discussion. Seems like we may have another Mikie Da Poet on our hands. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Yook Sungjae (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yook Sungjae was discussed in October, 2014. That time, he was just member of K-pop boy band, but now He acting in 2 TV Drama (Who Are You: School 2015 and Plus Nine Boys.) as Main/Leading role. and also acted in one series (Reply 1994) as starring role. That it is can be seen that the notable actor. Kanghuitari (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why deny starring as the leading role? He is definitely Main role in two drama. (see Who Are You: School 2015 and Plus Nine Boys) I have a many source, and also want to add a reliable source now. But, how to add sources to the can not modify or redirect status now? I tried adding a source, someone refused repeatedly before adding sources. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think The Banner was wrong both in redirecting the article and in suggesting to Kanghuitari that this was an issue for deletion review. It is likely that the person now meets WP:NACTOR, and thus having an article seems reasonable. Obviously sources need to be added, but despite that, I think The Banner's repeated redirection of the page just because of the prior AFD is inappropriate. When an AFD closes as delete, anyone is allowed to recreate the article if the subject has become more notable or if they have found additional sources. Once someone has added additional evidence of notability or additional sources to the article, the old AFD can no longer be used to deleted the article (see WP:SPEEDY#G4 for information about this). The same should obviously be true for an AFD that closes as redirect, where additional evidence of notability invalidates the old discussion and means the article shouldn't be redirected just because of the old discussion. It is normal and expected for articles to be recreated (or unredirected) once the situation on notability has changed, and doesn't require a deletion review. No one here is challenging that the past discussion was wrong, so this never should have been brought to deletion review. Instead, The Banner should have seen that Kanghuitari was adding an additional claim to notability and asked his on the talk page to add sources to back the claim up. If sources then weren't added or The Banner thought they were insufficient to show notability, he then could have started a new discussion on redirecting the page. But again, deletion review shouldn't have been part of the process and it was wrong to redirect based on the old discussion once there was additional evidence of notability. Calathan (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, there is no proof of added notability as that essential part is unsourced. It still is a BLP so it must be decently sourced. And when my action were inappropriate, why was the article repeatedly protected against recreation of the article? Would all admins involved have been sleeping? The Banner talk 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision, but allow recreation if sources are found and added to the article. Valoem talk contrib 20:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2015

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

Was a factual description of a widely used software application in-keeping with other such software descriptions. Maptitude underpins the political redistricting process in the USA for example, and fact checking release dates for example via Wikipedia is common. 96.233.43.85 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) article history temporarily undeleted for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore It is purely factual,and basically has a NPOV. To be sure, purely factual articles usually have the side effect of giving publicity, but even if that was the motive for writing the article, we still have to judge by the actual contents. And those contents are purely factual, except that the detailed change history is usually considered inappropriate here and better suited to the product's web page. It's probably notable, though the references need improvement: many are not available, and the 3rd party references are quite old. I do not , however, at all blame the admin for judging this a G11. Considering the stress WP is under due to the flood of truly promotional articles for non-notable or barely notable entities, I have nominated a fair number of similar G11s, and even deleted a few borderline ones that I might have done better to refer to AfD. Despite appearances, this apparently was not a single=-handed deletion done without a prior nomination from another user. It appears from the admin's deletion log he was responding to an G11 request placed on Maptitude for the Web and was careful enough to spot the other article also. I'm not sure that was a valid G11 either, but it certainly didn't justify a separate article, and did add to the impression of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. You're correct about the way I came upon this article. I'll only add that the company itself is admittedly behind this article, as per my talk page. -- Y not? 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD. The article is pretty promotional, not to mention whole paragraphs being word-for-word copies from marketing material on other web sites. But, I don't think it was so bad that it justified WP:G11. I doubt it will survive AfD (at least not in its current form), but that's the right forum to decide this. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with option to list at AFD. Could not be reasonably said to be an advert. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn it's overly promotional and I understand why it was speedied. I'd say it could reasonably be called an ad in fact. But it doesn't require a fundamental rewrite to fix it. I was going to suggest AfD, but there are plenty of (niche) sources. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - of course, with the understanding that anyone can list it at AfD if they want. It does need a fundamental rewrite, I think. But I don't see how it's promotional - it readers like a product description from someone with no interest in the product whatsoever. If the company is involved, it looks like the writer hyper-corrected the promotional writing style (while still not getting how to write an encyclopaedia article) WilyD 08:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither you nor Stifle sees it as an ad, so I'm guessing it ain't. But language like "...but competes at all levels of the GIS market in many different sectors" strikes me as marketing speak. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ad" can mean a lot of things. Obviously, a neutral article about newly-invented hoverbikes would be an effective ad anyways (and presumably they'd be more than notable enough to merit an article). "Competes" is a bit jargon-y, perhaps, but it's not particularly promotional - well, "it gets used for a lot of stuff" might be promotional if it's a lie. (And if the problem is just excessive use of jargon, you only need a light copy-edit, not a fundamental rewrite). There is a problem where the format is all wrong - but I don't see how the format is promotional. I don't see how this convinces anyone to buy the software - it's just words barfed onto a page, which ain't promotional. By the time I figure out what it's trying to say, I despise the fucking thing for making me do all that work, right? WilyD 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I agree that the article needs work, it does not look so promotional as to merit a speedy deletion. Mamyles (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and can see some tone in there which could be considered advertising, but it's in no way "unambiguous" advertising. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 May 2015

[edit]

10 May 2015

[edit]
  • Ali_Eftekhari – No action taken. In general, for an AfD decision so long ago (7 years), there is no bar to anybody re-creating the article on their own. But, it needs to be recognized that passage of time is not enough; the new article also needs to address the issues which led to the previous version being deleted. In this case, a new version of this article would need to include sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The consensus here is that the sources presented at the moment don't do that. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ali_Eftekhari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please just check http://mse.ju.edu.et and http://mse.ju.edu.et/booklet.pdf This project has also been featured in other Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia must report creative projects/persons in developing countries particularly Africa. 213.55.105.122 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is a national report of the project: http://www.ethpress.gov.et/herald/index.php/herald/society/9656-an-enlightening-facet-for-change-education Abebe944 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 May 2015

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

please this article Rockette_Morton does not meet Wikipedia Notability Article Guidelines ... please i have proposed this ARTICLE FOR Speedy Deletion ... please can someone help by review the article Samat lib (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 May 2015

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

Should have been closed as no consensus or keep. Four delete votes including the nominator (one of which was perfunctory). Three keep votes. Decision was taken at a time when content that contributed to notability had just been removed from the article (including 5 RS references) and before the relevance of that material had been considered in the debate. Article subject met WP:BASIC. -Philafrenzy (talk)

(Nominated for Deletion review by Philafrenzy (talk) Above is written by Philafrenzy. I corrected the formatting per the request made here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#New_request). No opinion on DRV nor on AfD. ― Padenton|✉   17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, noting in particular that although Andrew Davidson voted to Keep, his rationale was based on original research and primary sources, he never provided a response to my queries based on secondary sources, and IMO the closer accurately assessed that situation and others like it.

    I also take difference with Philafrenzy's characterization/assumption that the closer did not examine the AFD, the article, and its talk page thoroughly, rather only looked at some last-minute version after weeks of discussion (the deletions Philafrenzy repeatedly referred to seem to amount to his failure to understand the importance of using high quality sources in WP:BLPs).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the closer read everything even though I disagree with the conclusion reached. My point Sandy was rather that the closure at that moment truncated the discussion of material that had been discussed on the article talk page but had not been discussed properly in the debate. The material was particularly relevant because of the contribution it made to notability which was already moving in favour of keep after the discovery that Tager had an entry in Who's Who that also showed that he had won a law prize. The material you refer to had 5 RSs. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material I refer to (WP:BLP1E) was mentioned nowhere in any high-quality reliable source that anyone could provide, as required by BLP. In spite of a lengthy AFD, nothing surfaced. I believe the closer read the discussion and the analysis of all of the sources correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who Is a Directory. Please see WP:BIO, footnote 6: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the UK Who's Who which does not accept self noms and is known for its exclusivity. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason that we do not accept Marquis Who's Who as proof of notability is that it has been heavily criticised (particularly by Forbes) for containing 'inexplicable' entries for people who appear to be obviously unworthy of notice. James500 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is not in point here due to the preponderance of other material. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the linked Wikipedia article: "The entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects." Not independent per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source. It should not be cited as evidence against the independence of the publication Who's Who, or anything else, as that is WP:CIRCULAR. James500 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They send the questionnaires to the chosen subjects, you can't apply to be in it, and they don't charge. It is their independent editorial judgement who is in it and that is the important factor. It's true they allow some leeway in what people say about themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, not independent. Solicited feedback. And for your future BLP writing (particularly on lawyers), please understand that there exist multitudes of sources which solicit and print non-independent input from attorneys. Why you are creating BLPs from sources like accountingweb anyway is another mystery. Are you combing through trade journals trying to find tidbits to make people notable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My position was, as stated, based upon the broad range of sources which were quite varied in nature and so countered the BLP1E assertion. I declined to engage with Sandy's bludgeoning, indicating that this was too verbose. But here we are again. This matter seems quite pointy, as the brother seems much the same notability as the sister, and the idea that we should have one but not the other does not seem worth all the energy which is being expended on it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the minor difference that Helen Tager-Flusberg was not written to highlight a tax issue mentioned in a tabloid and picked up by none of the mainstream press, with other primary and marginal sources used to pad it up into a real story.

Presumably, you are familiar with WP:PROF? I wouldn't mind at all if you want to submit Helen to AFD to see if others agree.

If you are going to respond to every poster here, could you please refrain from inserting your points in the middle of other discussions? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in the Daily Mail that I saw it. I don't buy the paper (because I despise their general attitude - that doesn't mean they are not a RS for facts) and I don't watch their website. It was accountingweb which is one of a number of financial websites that I read.
I just thought the Mail article was a useful summary so included it in the refs. I didn't know then quite how much some people hate them - so much that it can lead to all this.
In any case, what does it matter where it started? All that matters is the article as it currently stands. We don't evaluate past versions, only current versions. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic. If you don't know why WP:BLP matters, then maybe you should avoid writing them, or at least avoid waiting for other people to fix them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Closing admin Unless I'm missing something, there were 4 delete comments (inc. nom) and 2 keep (the two editors above). I'm not entirely sure how the concept of "supervote" has been invoked here - that would be me saying "I think it's non-notable", rather than me saying "I have analysed the comments and decided that the delete voters have succesfully refuted the other side". Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing James500. I bolded his keep but he reverted me! Philafrenzy (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy is correct. There were three keep !votes, not two. If you check the rubric of AfD, you will find that !voters are not required to bold their !votes, and !votes should not be ignored or accorded less weight because they are not bolded. James500 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought you forgot. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though it is not unexpected that unbolded comments may be missed. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this AfD should have been closed as keep or no consensus, that being the being the correct interpretation of the debate, looking at the numbers and the strength of the arguments. Since the entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, a publication inclusion in which, like an obituary in the NYT, and for similar reasons, strongly indicates notability, was only discovered, or at least mentioned, by the final !voter, namely myself, I would be tempted, frankly, to ignore, or accord less weight to, all earlier !votes for deletion that don't acknowledge its existence (or where the delete !voter edited the page after the final !vote was added) as being presumably based on incomplete knowledge of the sources, and close the discussion as a clear keep. I think that if more !votes had been cast, the discussion would have moved more clearly in that direction. The number of the !votes alone, without looking at the merits of the arguments, would produce a result of no consensus. I can see nothing in "the analysis of the sources claiming to provide notability" that would amount to a consensus to delete. Indeed, if we look at the strength of the arguments, the opposite result would be more likely. I think the closing admin's decision should be overturned, and the page should be undeleted. I don't think its worth the effort of relisting the debate to find out if the ultimate result of more !voting would be keep or no consensus, since the practical effect of the two outcomes is the same. James500 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, and in view of the comments below: (1) The judgements were not the only sources cited by those !voting "keep". The two biographical dictionaries that were cited are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage that is much more than a trivial mention. (Notice that the guideline doesn't say "more than a passing sentence or two" though that is the case here). (2) In any event, judgements are not necessarily primary sources. Where, for example, they are interpreting the evidence given in the case they will be secondary within the meaning of one of the definitions we use. There, the evidence of the witnesses is the primary source. The source of confusion here appears to be the fact that "primary" has a number of meanings in relation to sources, not all of which are relevant. (3) N doesn't actually say that notability is a case of GNG or SNG or nothing, only that GNG and SNG create presumptions of notability, and even if it did, it would violate the policy, WP:IAR, in that the hopeless incompleteness of the SNG, and the obviously imperfect coverage of sources, would result in absurd deletions and thereby prevent us maintaining Wikipedia, and N would in that case not be a valid guideline, because a guideline can't violate a policy. (4) So, all that considered, no, I did not misunderstand any guidelines, despite what is claimed below. James500 (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the delete votes said the article claimed inherited notability and the vote appears to have been based on a superficial reading. The article is clearly not based on inherited notability and the vote should have less weight for that reason. That makes it 3/3. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse appears to be within boundries of reasonable discretion regarding quality of sourcing and such. A relist probably wouldn't have been totally out of the question either but the discussion had been going for over 2 weeks and had taken a turn for the worse, with Philafrenzy claiming abuse of process and so on. I suspect another week would not have helped much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admins should certainly never be allowed, on the basis of their own discretion, without actual consensus, to reject full articles etc in 'premier' sources, such as an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who (as in this case) or an obituary in the NYT, or a full article in the ODNB or Britannica, or a full chapter in a book published by OUP or CUP, or etc etc etc (just to list some other very obvious ones). The admin will not be better qualified to assess notability than the expert editors of those publications, and it is inconceivable that consensus could exist for such a discretion. I don't like the idea of them rejecting obviously reputable sources generally. James500 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because closing admins don't do that (or they certainly shouldn't). They look at the arguments presented by those discussing the article. They don't take a position on the sources, they take a position on the arguments presented about those sources. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if the arguments are not soundly based on fact or policy and contain false statements? The statement that sources are not RS when they are, or are missing when they are in the reference list, or that they don't exist when they do, I could go on. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I've just read the AfD, and it appears the "keep" proponents do not understand some of the basic principles underlying our notability guidelines, to wit:
1. coverage of the subject must be found in secondary sources, and judicial decisions are primary, not secondary sources;
2. coverage of the subject must be significant, which means more than a passing sentence or two about a case in which the subject barrister is involved;
3. in the absence of a specific notability guideline that applies to the subject, significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources is all that matters;
4. the subject's court cases, philanthropic activities, professional memberships and qualifications, etc., are irrelevant unless those aspects of the subject's life have received significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.
If the notability of barristers and trial attorneys were based on being mentioned in trial court decisions, then most of the barristers and trial attorneys in North American, the UK and Australia would be notable, when, in point of fact, the overwhelming majority of barristers and trial attorneys are not notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines properly understood and applied. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Tager met these criteria easily with the primary sources only used as back up sources. The judge's ruling for instance had four additional secondary sources that were all RSs.
Can we have the article restored please so that we can see what we are talking about? In my view the description of the sources in the AFD does not correctly characterise them, leading to the danger of a decision here based on misinformation. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop exhaustively replying to nearly every comment. It's considered poor form (see Wikipedia:BLUDGEON) and at this point is likely hurting your case rather than helping it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay and it is a load of complete and utter nonsense. If it was strictly applied, it would make it impossible to determine consensus by suppressing the non-repetitious expression of additional arguments that have not already been advanced. It would turn discussions into an actual vote, which they are not. There is no 'word limit' on contributions, which is what "equal say" implies, and there cannot be one for practical reasons. I have had it in mind for some time to write another essay explaining why that essay is rubbish, but I haven't got round to it. James500 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an exaggeration Andrew Lenahan I think. It is a debate after all. I hope the decision will be based on the facts and nothing else. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be a valid rationale as there were other sources, and erroneously advancing one invalid source cannot invalidate arguments based on other sources that are valid. James500 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks that they can win an argument about notability by citing DM coverage then I think we can quite reasonably say that they are talking bollocks and that they have no credibility or understanding of what an RS is, That you are defending this shows that your views have similar worth too. Sorry if this sounds harsh but the DM is utter shit and anyone that thinks that an encyclopedia can rely on it for content doesn;'t understand what an encyclopedia actually is.(I'll leave a space underneath for the inevitable bluster and faux outraged spluttering Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Placemarker for outraged response]
Your comments do not make me feel remotely outraged. I just think that they are in error. I think that an argument to the effect that if a editor makes one terrible mistake about one source, then he must be completely useless in all respects, and nothing he says about other sources can be taken seriously, even when objectively they are actually good sources and what he says is actually correct, is obviously based on a logical fallacy. In any event, as far as I am aware, admins are supposed to accord weight to arguments, not editors, and your line of reasoning is not compatible with that. How, in particular, can admins accord weight to editors when we have an edit notice that says that commenting on other editors, as opposed to their arguments, at AfD is per se considered disruptive, citing WP:NPA, thereby preventing all discussion of the merits of editors? Think about it: suppose, hypothetically, A makes, amongst other good comments, a stupid comment in an AfD. B does not make any stupid comments in that AfD. But I know, and the closing admin does not know, that B made a stupid comment in a different AfD a week earlier. How is the closing admin going to give the correct weight to B, when he does not know about B's earlier mistake, that 'proves' B's incompetence, and I am not allowed to tell him? I don't think he can. I don't see how that approach could ever work in any way, shape or form. James500 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was not a party to the original AfD. As James500 states, he is in the British Who's Who so he is notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- within administrator discretion. Reyk YO! 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Run-of-the-mill "I disagree with the result" complaining, which is not the rold of Deletion Review. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not within administrator discretion to fail to correctly count the number of !voters on one side and base a decision on that wrong number. Nor is it "run of the mill complaining" to object to that. In this case, there was a serious error in the decision making (failing to have regard to a relevant fact) which the admin admits. That is a good reason for a DRV which is clearly within the role of DRV. James500 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is, as AFDs are not votes. Closing admins close discussions after judging th consensus of the disucssion, taking note of which editors' opinions are based in project policy and guidelines and which are not, thus weaker. If an AfD on "CoolGarageBand" sees 10 participants, 9 of whom say "keep they have a kajillion youtube likes" while 1 says "the band has received no coverage in reliable sources nor does it meet any criteria of WP:BAND", the article would be deleted. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that, in this case, the closing admin says above that his decision was based on the numbers. Numbers are a factor in consensus, even if they are not the only one. If the strength of the arguments is equal, the numbers will be decisive. James500 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously the arguments weren't equal. This isn't rocket science. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not obvious at all. Prima facie "satisfies BASIC/GNG + criteria 1 of ANYBIO" is a good argument, and the counter-arguments were full of holes. James500 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That you keep re-arguing the discussion shows that you do not understand the role of DRV. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You were the one who started re-arguing the discussion first. I was only giving a direct response to what you said. You said "obviously the arguments weren't equal" instead of saying something like "obviously the closing admin decided the arguments weren't equal, accorded more or less weight to certain arguments, namely arguments A, B, etc. because X, Y, etc., and thus accorded them the correct weight (which isn't remotely obvious either since the closing admin hasn't, as far as I can see, disclosed whether he accorded any argument more or less weight, much less which ones and why). I was well aware that what you said contained a technical error, but I feel that under these sort of circumstances, the best course of action is to answer comments like yours as they were written because I consider it inexpedient to attempt to second guess what the other person really meant to say, or even assume that he meant to say something different to what he said, and, in any event, I consider it reasonable to answer some comments that are not 100% strictly relevant, such as yours, because we are NOTBURO, and the answer may be helpful to the other user. Now, turning back to the matter in hand, it seems to me that what the closing admin has said so far is so vague and unclear that: (1) It is still not 100% clear that he did accord more or less weight to any particular argument. (If he did not, then the numbers (4 to 3) alone produce "no consensus", and consensus has not been correctly assessed). (2) If he did accord more or less weight to any particular argument(s), it is not clear (a) which argument(s) he accorded more or less weight to, (b) how much more or less weight he accorded the particular argument(s) (eg 100% less weight (ie ignore it altogether), 50%, 25% or whatever), (c) why he accorded the particular argument(s) the particular amount of weight he did accord particular argument(s) (ie what policies, guidelines or (thinking of IAR) other ideas did he apply, and how did he apply them) and (d) how he decided (ie the method used) that those weighted and unweighted arguments together produced that result (ie how did he draw that conclusion, how exactly did he add those arguments up). If he accorded more or less weight to an argument(s) that he should not have, or he accorded the argument(s) the wrong amount of weight, or he didn't add them up correctly once he had weighted them, and the mistake is big enough to affect the outcome, all of that is grounds for DRV. I don't consider any of those possibilities excluded at this time. In fact, my provisional opinion is that he could not have assessed consensus correctly because I cannot see how a closing admin could get from that discussion to that result. And that is why we have a good reason for a DRV. I think the best way to move this DRV forward would be for the closing admin to provide a more precise and complete explanation of how he 'worked out' that result, of the exact reasons for that result. Then we can comment on the actual rationale, instead engaging in guesswork as to what it might have been, or re-arguing the discussion, which is what most participants here have been doing. I hope this clarifies my position for you. James500 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Brevity is the soul of wit, James; I'm not even remotely interested in parsing that text-wall. Black Kite is one of the more respected admins of the project, and barring some egregious vacancy of the senses, his measure of the consensus of an AfD should be regarded as reasonable and within the authority that we vest in administrators to make these judgement. Of course no one is infallible, but after reading the deletion discussion, I concur with the closing and the rationale. You may huff and puff to your heart's content, but it won't do any good. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • A significant proportion of what you say above is irrelevant (such as invoking the level of respect that someone commands), and a significant proportion is nonsense, Tarc. In view of the nature of some of your latest comments, I do not think it would be expedient for me to provide further explanation. James500 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not only that, but James is exempt from the normal conventions of editing that aid readability. James, you appear to be quite proud of not bolding your keep (fine), but would you mind indenting your responses like the rest of us mere mortals do? You start a new thread, without indenting, to debate every editor's input here. Cute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • (1) I didn't start a thread to discuss an editor's input. I started a thread to discuss the input of two editors in separate comments. If I had indented this thread it would have made it look like I was only replying to one of them, and not both of them. That would be confusing. Indentation actually does little, if anything, to improve readability. In fact, on the mobile version of the site, it very rapidly makes discussions impossible to read, probably because of the small size of the screen. Some of the comments above are so heavily indented that they are already becoming less easy to read on my device. So I would be grateful if the rest of you would keep indentation to an absolute minimum in order to make the discussion more readable for me. (2) I am not proud of not bolding my AfD !votes. James500 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I don't think he's notable. But I also don't think there was a consensus. To explain in more detail: we have no good standards for judging he notability of lawyers, with the exception of those who obtain political office. What references there are usually are either mere notices, or deal primarily with the legal cases they are engaged in--and opinion has varied widely on whether such references show notability for the lawyers. Consequently, each case has to be judged individual on the basis of the arguments, which inevitably tends to be more a measure of effort than of logic. Our GNG guideline seems simple, but each of the phrases in it can be interpreted in many ways, and the interpretations are what count in making decisions, not the principle. For almost all articles such as this, I could construct an argument that I would consider satisfactory in either direction. When dealing with them, I consequently make a global decision on whether it would be in accord with our usual practice to have an article here, and construct an appropriate argument. (I put a considerable value on consistency, for the alternative is a random hodgepodge.) Thus, I judge not notable on the basis that lawyers at this level do not usually have articles.
Among the arguments which I do not think apply: a / The British Who's Who is much more reliable than any of the US versions, but we have never accepted it as by itself a sufficient criterion for notability; perhaps we should, but nonetheless, we haven't. b/ Being a barrister is not by itself notability, any more than any other profession. Being a QC has never been considered as such either (according to our article, it's the 1000 barristers. We could conceivably consider them all notable, but we've never done that. c/ being director of any number of companies is not notable, though it can be taken into account, because such appointments are not made without reason--they do show a certain status in the relevant community d/ we do not have a practice of giving any more consideration to the closing depending upon the general reputation of the closer; similarly, we do not look for occasion to attack the quality of the work of people making arguments based on what they may have said elsewhere. We consider the argument, not the person. e/ we do not have a practice of assigning formal percentage weight to arguments.
There is a certain tendency in closing difficult or borderline cases for the closer to try to reach one result or another. But when there truly is no consensus, it's best to say so. That's how I would have closed. I think a re-argument here might clarify the discussion. Alternatively, close as non-consensus so the next argument would wait for a month. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short version: Possible compromise: create an annotated list of Queen's Counsel and merge him to it; together with an unassailable argument that notability was incorrectly assessed (failure to realise ANYBIO was invoked with no counter-arguments whatsoever): (cf NASTRO and the list of minor planets for something similar) Long version: In view of comments above: (1) Appointment as Queen's Counsel satisfies criteria 1 of ANYBIO and the criteria of LAWYERS. The honour is well known and significant and indicates pre-eminence with in the legal profession. This being the case, by the rubric of BIO, QCs are likely to be notable (but not necessarily), and a QC who fails BASIC must be merged into an article on a broader topic, which will probably be a list of QCs, not deleted. All the keep !votes said that he was notable, or likely to be notable, because he was a QC. The closing admin should have recognised this as a reference to ANYBIO (because it could not be anything else), should have recognised that all QCs satisfy ANYBIO individually (and LISTN as a group), should have applied that guideline, and should have accorded all those !votes the full weight of ANYBIO. Not one of the !votes for deletion argued that QCs were not likely to be notable (as opposed to saying that they were not all notable, or that he was not notable), that they do not satisfy ANYBIO, or that they do not satisfy LISTN. That is a consensus of 3-0 in favour of "satisfies ANYBIO". Accordingly the closing admin could not have correctly assessed consensus, because, if he had, the worst case scenario would be a merge to a list of QCs, if necessary by creating that list, per the rubric of BIO, not deletion. (2) QCs are automatically included in Who's Who. In this respect the publication is independent of the barrister in question, because automatic inclusion is something that he cannot influence. (This also contributes to proving that the honour is significant and well known). (3) Although there are about 1500 QCs today, in the past the number was much lower. In 1775 it was 14. In 1839 it was about 70. In 1897 it was 238. (1898) 104 LT 98. In 1973 it was 329. In 1978 it was 404. (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, v 1, p 479). In 1995 it was 891 (see AfD). James500 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the NASTRO list was a special case, done in response to repeated arguments from various people (including myself, tho I would not make the same argument today ) that all astronomical objects were inherently notable on the same basis as all geographic features on the Earth. With that one exception, all lists of this sort are limited to those individuals who are notable by virtue of the having received an award or elected position, etc. Keeping NOT DIRECTORY in mind, I do not think we would have consensus to make any additional exceptions. Who's Who, on the other hand, is a directory and an appropriate place for such information. A good case could be made for a free equivalent, but that would be a separate project. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of BIO is that we have lists of people who are likely to be notable because they satisfy one of the additional criteria (as in this case, where they satisfy ANYBIO), in view of the requirement to merge them to a broader topic if they fail BASIC. (Queen's Counsel is an "award or honour": that is why it is called "honoris causa"). The manual of style list criteria for people (LISTPEOPLE) allows us to have a complete list of groups of people most of whom notable (as in this case, where the majority of QCs satisfy GNG/BASIC and/or POLITICIAN as judges and MPs, etc) or who are famous for one event (such as being appointed QC). Even there, there is no requirement that every entry be notable. I don't think NOTDIRECTORY is engaged in any way. A & C Black's Who's Who has not been a directory since 1897. It isn't a bare list anymore. James500 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 1500 QCs, most are MPs or High Court judges? I note that until recently, promotion to QC was automatic for any barrister elected as an MP, so that may not mean very much. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was expressing the opinion that most of them are notable on any applicable grounds, not that most of them satisfy POLITICIAN. I am also of the view that circuit judges and recorders satisfy POLITICIAN for a number of reasons, including, in particular, for example, (1) the Crown Court is a national court ("national office"), (2) those judges can sit as High Court judges as part of their office as a circuit judge or recorder, (3) under the practice directions for the distribution of business in the Crown Court, they have been able to try the vast majority of the same offences as High Court judges, including murder, even when sitting as a circuit judge, (4) they tend to receive 'significant coverage'. There are enough circuit judges and recorders to more or less soak up that number of QCs. The Royal Commission on Legal Services says that MPs were appointed QC on application, not upon being elected. This may not increase the 'prestige' of the honour, but it does mean that those entries in the list would be notable (and therefore blue-linked) which is what the exception criteria of LISTPEOPLE requires. Since the number of QCs has increased over time, we could legitimately curate the list by excluding redlinked non-notable QCs appointed after a certain date, if there proved to be a preponderance of those. In the instant case, the relevant date is 1995, when Tager was appointed, when there were 891 QCs, not 1500 odd. If you go back as far as 1839, Alexander Pulling in "Order of the Coif" says that fully two-thirds of the seventy QCs alive at that time were "very eminent", meaning, of course, that they were not merely notable by Wikipedia standards but were figures of first rate historical importance (he mentions John Stuart Mill in this connection). So I have no doubt that a complete list of QCs is definitely in order, the only possible question being whether, and on what date, the list should end. James500 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure within reasonable admin discretion. Distant second choice is overturn to no-consensus. Under no circumstances relist; that would just cause another tendentious argument and come back here a week or two later. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe that the subject does not meet WP:BASIC ? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion review discusses whether the deletion process has been correctly followed. It is not a venue for the AFD to be reheard. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the process hasn't been correctly followed as the closer miscounted the votes as 4 delete, 2 keep, when it was 4-3 because one keep was missed as has been admitted above, making it a clear no-consensus. The closer also missed the point that BASIC was clearly met and truncated the discussion when new material had just been added and it was moving towards a resolution (probably a keep). That's three failings in the closing and evaluation of the discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but Stifle is spot-on here. AFD isn't about counting votes, so it wouldn't matter if there were no bolded !votes. The closer is expected to make a decision based on the arguments made, not the number of people making them. The closer isn't expected to form a personal view with regard to BASIC, only a view as to whether that argument has been sufficiently established by participants. And nothing seems truncated there - the discussion ran for almost twice as long as normal and there had been more than 24 hours since the last comment - he hardly cut someone off mid-comment to close it. None of those are "failings". St★lwart111 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - allow an impartial admin to close. WilyD 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty seruious charge - that BK wasn't impartial in closing this. I think it needs evidencing or withdrawing as it just reads like a personal attack. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it probably just means someone not involved in this discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would make no sense. Why would being involved in this dicussion invalidate the close such that someone else would need to reclose it? We want admins to be willing to discuss their closes, and I'd certainly hope that the starting position of any admin is to endorse their own close (if they don't think they got it right, then they shouldn't have closed it). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. An admin should say "I made a mistake" if, after reconsidering the decision, they realise that they have made a mistake. We don't want to discourage them from doing that by saying "if challenged, we expect you to stubbornly dig your heels in, no matter what, and we'll say you are an unsatisfactory admin if you don't". That would be counter-productive. James500 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is unsurprisingly a complete mis-characterisation of what I said. Rather than frothing perhaps you should attempt to comprehend what people are saying "...the starting position..." i.e. the initial state when asked to review their close should be that they closed it correctly. Contrast that to the idea of their "ending position" which could be that they've seen an error they've made, or could be they still believe their close to be correct. The failure of those wanting to overturn to persuade the closing admin to change their mind is hardly an automatic indication of some sort of bias/fault - or as seems to be being implied by the initial comment they were in some way impartial when they initially closed it. I'm sure my primary school debating club managed a better standard than this. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any admin who endorses their own close at DRV totally destroys their standing at an impartial closer. Regardless of the correctness of the close (or the pureness of their act), it's poisonous to the trust the community places in admins to close discussions based on the consensus rather than their own opinion. Obviously I can't know your mind, and should've said "who can act as though they're impartial" rather than "is impartial". That was sloppy language, so sorry on that point. I obviously don't know what goes on in your (metaphorical) heart, and shouldn't have implied otherwise. WilyD 09:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh OK, but I'm a bit confused, to say the least. After all it is standard procedure (and something which I almost always do at DRV) for an admin to explain their own closure (which of course, unless they've changed their mind, is to endorse it). I would be more irritated if the closing admin didn't turn up at a DRV of one of their closures! Though perhaps it's superfluous to add a bolded !vote. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the many years I've looked at DRV the closer coming along and usually starting with an endorse of their own close is pretty normal, it's only recently that WilyD has started suggesting it's an issue, I don't think any other DRV regulars have stated such an opinion. It is in my view a flawed argument, as this is supposed to be about process issue and if the admin closed in line with consensus, anyone endorsing the close isn't endorsing the outcome of the discussion, merely that the process was followed and that was indeed the consensus in the discussion. There are plenty of examples of editors endorsing the outcome here despite not personally thinking the result was correct or having opined in the opposite direction during the deletion debate. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle is reminded that BLUDGEON is an essay, that it is a very small minority position, that it is a load of rubbish and that what it proposes is unworkable, bizarre and pointless, and would make it impossible to determine consensus if put into effect. Suppose that each of the !votes advanced a different argument, and that all of those arguments were wrong, for different reasons. They would all have to be answered individually. What that essay proposes makes no sense at all. James500 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I'm surprised and dismayed that it needs to be said at all that a closing admin (a good one, anyway) doesn't rule on nose count over arguments. I'm astonished that it needs to be repeated as often as it has been at this DRV, which is fast approaching the trout-slapping level. Obviously Philafrenzy is powerfully motivated to outshout everyone, as well as to retry the merits of the AfD here, but there's just no valid reason to overturn, let alone "I don't like that the AfD wasn't decided the way I wanted it to be." Ravenswing 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since my concerns are not accurately described in the preceding comment, I just want to clarify that the gist of them is that it appears to me that the closer of the deletion discussion in question interpreted the consensus incorrectly (criteria 1 of DRVPURPOSE). James500 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: James, you've stated your concerns. Repeatedly, and at considerable length. I am neither required to reiterate them, cite them or address them. As it happens, though, I did. Do I really need to repeat that closing admins are not required to rule in favor of head count? (Apparently so.) Beyond that, given that Black Kite didn't address "consensus" at all, claiming that he interpreted it incorrectly is specious. He stated simply that his analysis of the sources was compelling; that was his right to do. You may feel that his judgment is poor, and obviously you would've ruled differently if the choice had been yours. Retrying the AfD, however, isn't within the scope of DRV. Ravenswing 15:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer weighed the arguments. The "delete" argument in the original AFD discussion pointed out that a few tangental newspaper mentions and some primary sources do not equal "significant coverage" and the delete argument made it clear that was the case here. The delete argument pointed out the only press coverage actually focussed on Tager addressed his tax fine, and 1E applies to that. The "keep" !voters have no valid counter-argument. They think it's a vote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Anthonyhcole. Question. It seems to me that the keep !voters all argued that he satisfied criteria 1 of ANYBIO for being a QC. Isn't that a valid counter argument? We all said "QCs are notable/QCs are likely to be notable", or something clearly to that effect. I certainly said that (specifically "Contemporary QCs are likely to be notable"), and what I meant must have been very obvious, since that matches ANYBIO almost exactly. Andrew Davidson said Tager was "notable for ... their status as a Queen's Counsel". Philafrenzy mentioned his appointment in a way that clearly indicated he too considered that a grounds for notability ("And a Queen's Counsel too, the most senior form of Barrister in the U.K. Appointed for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts"). No one argued that QCs were not likely to be notable (the minimum to reject ANYBIO, since it says that people who have received a well known and significant honour are likely to be notable and must be merged if they don't satisfy BASIC). Doesn't that produce "merge" per the rubric of BIO, rather than "delete". Was there a valid counter argument against "satisfies ANYBIO" advanced at any point during the AfD? All I can see is people arguing that some (as opposed to most) QCs are not notable or that he isn't, which doesn't seem enough to prevent a merger under BIO. James500 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As best as I can recall, no one in the AFD discussion argued for merging this article into another based on the policies you cite above. Based on those, yes, one might consider adding an entry for this person to a List of UK QCs or similar. Or not. That argument is yet to be had. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is amusing - first I was accused of writing the article as a personal attack - now I am being accused of doing it for pay. It's just a normal article on a notable person like the c. 1200 others I have created. The fact that people can't tell either way must show I did a good job of remaining neutral? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't answer the question, did you? The question more generally would be phrased as "are you paid to create articles"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is an unequivocal NO. Not this article, not any article. Make your mind up Sandy, am I launching personal attacks against Mr Tager as you originally alleged or writing a puff piece about him as you now appear to think? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive, but thank you for the answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2015

[edit]

6 May 2015

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

The was no consensus to keep. Closers explanation is problematic. "After reviewing it, in the absence of another vote, I counted a 3-2 vote in favor of Keep." AfDs are not headcounts, the should be decided on the strength of policy based arguments. For the most part those arguing keep have weak arguments. WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines is not a policy. Both Dirtlawyer1 and MASEM directly address this in their !votes. Those "notability guidelines" are bad, relying too much on inherited notability (#4). Spatms claims that "this team is part of the national association governing rugby". That does not make them notable so that claim should be dismissed. Annieann1's !vote was that the article has primary sources, not a valid argument for notability so should be dismissed. Another problem with the closers head count is the numbers, "3-2 vote in favor of Keep." If one were to go purely on headcount then it would be 3-3. Closer inexcusably dismisses the nominator. Other justifications closer gives for their keep close are that it does no harm, there are other articles worse off, a lot of hard work was put into it. They are bad reasons. This should have come down to WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 explanation of why it fell short was a much stronger argument than any set out by Barryjjoyce and any of the "hit and run" keeps. Other reasons for closing keep were " players who have played in this program went on to play on the United States national rugby union team, and that the conference the team is part of the Southeastern Collegiate Rugby Conference." Neither were part of the discussion. This is a virtual supervote from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my rationale as the closing administrator (as explained on my talk page as well). Personally, I have no bias towards the topic, I delete/keep articles on many topics, and was just combing through a list of older AFD's. I read the arguments, I read the article itself, and my interpretation was a keep, albeit a weaker one. Here are the reasons why.
  • Rugby Notability Guidelines I deferred to the definitions in the wiki project which says a team is notable if, "Provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union." This right here should have been enough to close it after the last voting period.
  • WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Which is exactly what I did. Honestly, the nominator contributed very little to the overall consensus, as they did not contribute in the discussion. A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate has far more weight than the delete of a nominator who posted it to AFD as a hit and run.
  • WP:IAR - At the end of the day, including this article in Wikipedia does it no harm, and in fact, in my opinion, adds value to it for the following reasons:
  • That it had been in debate for almost 3 weeks, when there is SO many more articles that are in desperate need of attention is to me, a huge waste of effort and resources (another reason for WP:IAR)
  • Somebody put a lot of work into the article, and as a reader with experience in peer review, I, although by a weak margin, felt it asserted notability, and that the sources were good enough for inclusion, far better than hundreds of other articles I have seen that nobody is fighting to have deleted.
  • The Strict definition of notability" which was argued for, is no where near as cut and dry as it was make it out to be. For example, a reputable school news paper may be an independent source, assuming nobody from the rugby team is writing the article. That is something that we have to judge, not blindly throw away.
  • If more editors went to the effort to clean their articles up, include as many references as possible, and make an honest Good faith effort to bring an article that would have been nothing more than a stub up to an article that actually has a good amount of content, this significantly improves Wikipedia as a whole.
  • Additionally, that an editor who was a huge proponent of a Delete decision AND was the one who re-listed it, is also something to be brought up as well. If you are participating in a discussion, and the voting period has ended, extending the choice to extend it should be made by somebody impartial/uninvolved in the discussion, otherwise, it turns into a, "if I can relist this before an admin closes it, then I can get more time to change the outcome."

In summary, I came in with no background and an objective mind about the decision to be made, and was not afraid to make it with the available information. The AFD had been open for more than 2 weeks with enough consensus in my judgement to close it, and, even if in the next 3 days, 5 hit and run deletes came up, they would have had to have very strong arguments given what I provided above. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the DRV request seems to violate WP:AGF when the nominator says "...from someone who's denigration of delete proponent betrays a bias." Lets keep a positive tone here please. At the end of the day, we are all volunteers who are trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd count it 3-3 since the nominator is a delete too, I think when it's apparently evenly split like that the admin should really do a better job of explaining their outcome in the closing comment. Personally I see it as no-consensus at best more towards delete, but quibbling between no-consensus and keep is a fools game, just renominate it for deletion after a suitable gap. Looking into the admins statement here though I see several flaws. (1) Wikiprojects don't get to dictate guidelines, if they want broad community consensus that a guideline is supposed to enjoy, they need to put it in front of the broad community to endorse. This was said in the AFD and seems to have been ignored there and here, disappointing (2) Yes re consensus, yet the desciption of a hit and run comment at AFD without strength of rationale seems to apply to the keep vote of Annieann1 as well as anyone, spatms pretty much sole reliance on a wikiprojects guideline (see 1) is not much better either again pretty disappointing that much weight seems to have been given to this, since weight has been apparently been dismissed for such a perceived flaw on the delete side (3) and IAR argument presented here does indeed lead to suggestion that the closing admin couldn't find a consensus, so instead injected their own view on how the encyclopedia should be developed (If the close was correct on the first few points, there are no rule to ignore, so bring IAR into this does suggest no real conviction that the close was correct based on the other points). Finally on the matter of WP:AGF perhaps/perhaps not, but DRV isn't dispute resolution, we aren't going to punish someone for not WP:AGF, we are going to be looking at what the correct outcome should be. Though I'd note the comment suggesting potential motivation for the person doing the relisting is certainly heading towards the same territory regarding WP:AGF. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to duffbeerforme:

  1. The summary above by duffbeerforme bears very little resemblance to the actual AfD discussion. His description of the arguments raised in favor of "keep" are at best incomplete and at worst innaccurate. For anyone who is interested in this discussion, take all of the above statements with a grain of salt, and read the AfD yourself, or even better, read the article. The article, in its current form, has 26 cites from a wide variety of sources.
  2. duffbeerforme was the one who began the AfD. It was one of 11 AfDs he initiated during a two-day span, and in 10 out of those 11 AfDs, duffbeerforme made no further contributions to the AfD discussion after submitting the nomination. However, this is the third time in the past two weeks that duffbeerforme has initiated a DRV discussion protesting a decision he did not like. I don't think it is productive for an editor to serially start drive-by AfDs, decline to make meaningful contributions to discussions after initiating them, and then appeal the decision on DRV.
  3. After launching this DRV, duffbeerforme chose to notify only two people: the admin who closed the discussion and the only other editor who had argued strenuously in favor of delete. He declined to notify any of the three editors who had argued to keep the article. I stumbled upon this purely by accident.
  4. There has been much criticism of the WikiProject notability guidelines, with editors suggesting they are somehow unmoored from the general notability guidelines. Those criticizing these guidelines don't seem to have read the WP:RU guidelines closely, in particular the opening section: "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
Although I've been on Wikipedia for some time, this is the first time I have participated in a DRV discussion, so I apologize if I have misunderstood the process here or how things are supposed to work. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Anyone commenting on the close should always read the AfD. They would be seriously remiss if they failed to do so. The summary is not just of the AfD but also the closers justification on their talk page. It's not intended as a complete summary, just raising some relevant points.
2. Misleading ADHOM.
3. I notified the closer (as I had to) and the editor that first questioned the close at the closers talk page so was directly involved in the review process. Nothing inappropriate there.
4. That first bit is good and already exists in policies. That does not change the fact that other bits are bad.
Yes, you've missed the purpose. It's to discuss decisions made as a result of deletion discussions, not to have a go at me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trouts all round. Chrislk02, your long explanation above is a keep vote, not a closing statement. Dirtlawyer, don't relist debates you've voted on in the hope of getting more time to change the outcome. Wikiproject Rugby people, wikiprojects don't get to make up their own inclusion rules and expect them to be binding on everyone else- because everyone knows enthusiasts' standards for what's notable and what's not are usually unreasonably lax. As for this debate, it seems the delete side's arguments are stronger and better thought out, but not so much so that it would be an unshakeable consensus. Clsing as no consensus would have been the most appropriate. Reyk YO! 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reyk, I'll keep your trout and throw it on the grill. Chrislk02 (and you) clearly need to read the AfD dialog regarding the relisting: it was not done in the hope of changing the outcome in favor of deletion (the !vote was snarled at 3–3, and I expected a no-consensus outcome). It was done in the spirit of collegiality to give Barry an extra 7 days to pursue additional references that were being discussed in the AfD. Both you and Chris should actually read my AfD comments before you comment further here. Virtually every point raised here was directly addressed in the AfD. Barry was making fine progress by adding new sources at the time of the premature close by Chris, and the AfD should have been simply allowed to play out with Barry's work. Instead, we got a premature close, based on several very bad rationales, and this DRV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm not a huge fan of the bastard stepchildren of WP:N, but they are invariably used as either or - Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability might not be a policy, but neither is WP:N - J. Random AfD is not the place to argue this long-standing practice shouldn't occur at all (for an exception to usual practice, perhaps. But to deny the general practice just undermines the position). Similiar, WP:ROUTINE is invoked, but by editor(s) who clearly don't understand it at all. This also substantially undermines the delete position. So, yes, there's a balanced headcount, but the deletion position asserts things about precedent, practice, and policy that are unambiguously false - it's not unreasonable to discount that position as ill-argued and mis-applies policy. It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and !voters who don't familiarise themselves with the situation before arguing can't be taken as seriously. WilyD 09:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wily, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with the various elements of WP:ROUTINE and the various elaborations of the meaning of "routine coverage" in other related guidelines. Furthermore, no WikiProject has standing to adopt its own notability guidelines for subjects within its scope -- to assert otherwise borders on the fantastic. There are only two applicable guidelines in this AfD: the specific notability guideline for clubs, teams, companies and other organizations per WP:ORG, and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Neither is "policy," but they are both Wikipedia guidelines, and they are the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club. These are the same guidelines we use to determine the notability of NCAA Division I intercollegiate sports teams, NFL football teams, Japanese minor league baseball teams, association football clubs, and NBA basketball teams -- and none of the Wikiprojects for college sports, baseball, American football, association football or basketball have ever attempted to argue their own in-house notability guidelines should apply to clubs/teams/leagues within their scope. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez, please read and understand WP:ROUTINE before lecturing me. Similarly, both ORG and N say "use your brain and judgement" - it's patently silly for you to assert here that they're "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". That you have made arguments without bothering to familiarise yourself with the circumstances, policies, precendents, is unfortunate. That you're doubling down, and attacking the other editors around, is not okay. WilyD 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee whiz, Wily, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong on several of the points you assert above. You have denigrated the importance of the general notability guidelines per WP:N/WP:GNG and the specific notability guideline for organizations per WP:ORG, saying they're "not policy". For what it's worth, I agree that's true, they're not "policy"; they're guidelines; very little guidance on Wikipedia notability constitutes "policy". You also strongly implied that a WikiProject may adopt its own notability guideline for subjects within its scope. Sorry, one of us is wrong on these points, but it's not me. Without WP:GNG and WP:ORG, we are simply making up our own notability "rules" as we go. I would be curious to hear other "circumstances, policies, precendents" you think are relevant in this discussion; so far, you've been pretty vague on those points.
As for WP:ROUTINE, here's what it says, in relevant part:
"Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. . . . Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable."
WP:ROUTINE is an important corollary to the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG, and a sound understanding of significant coverage must consider WP:ROUTINE. Bottom line: a two-paragraph post-game summary of a rugby match in Rugby Today is routine coverage, not significant coverage for purposes of determining the notability of a rugby club team. If we accepted your interpretation, every high school sports team in the United States would be notable and entitled to a stand-alone Wikipedia article based on the routine coverage they regularly receive; that would be an absurd result. And I can tell you, based on my own intimate familiarity with American high school and college sports, that the subject rugby club team of this article receives far, far, far less newspaper coverage than the typical American high school football team.
You say that "it's patently silly" for me to assert that WP:GNG and WP:ORG are "the only permissible bases upon which to determine the notability of a sports team/club". Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, but how about telling the rest of us what you believe are the other permissible bases for determining the notability of a sports team/club? And please be perfectly clear: is it permissible for a WikiProject to adopt its own notability standard for subjects within its scope and expect other editors to accept that as part of an AfD discussion? I unequivocally assert that no WikiProject has that authority, and it appears that several knowledgeable participants in this discussion agree. I think the burden is on you to provide some authority for that assertion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to no consensus) per User:Reyk. Participants should not relist. The closer's explanation is embarrassing. It would be very difficult to justify deletion given the improvement of the article during the discussion. Give it at least two months and then allow renomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Barry's progress in adding additional sources, the AfD should have been allowed to run the remaining four days of the relisting. That said, Chris' "keep" rationale is a complete mess, based on a bogus WikiProject in-house notability "guideline" and several other non-factors that should have never been cited (conference membership? former players on the national team? school newspapers are independent coverage? huh?), and because of the bad rationale the close should be overturned to "no consensus". I was not the nominator of this AfD, and I have no intention of filing/relisting the article at AfD because Barry was making progress in adding additional sources, which were actually being discussed at length in the AfD. Instead of an elaboration of what sources are "independent" regarding a college sports team/club, or what constitutes "significant coverage" or what is or is not "routine" in the closing rationale, we got gobbledygook that is contrary to the applicable notability guidelines and years worth of sports team AfD precedents. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirtlawyer, I am not sure if we are in any disagreement? It's not a great article, but I've seen worse kept. And I would like to see Barryjjoyce given a chance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we really are not in disagreement. It was a bad article with one independent source before Barry started adding references, and before I started describing what an "independent" source is in the context of establishing the notability of a college sports team/club. I am also quite offended by Chris' attempt to mischaracterize my reason for relisting the AfD for another 7 days as an attempt to game the system, and buy more time to rally "delete" votes. That is complete bullshit, and no participant in this discussion should accept that at face value. Here are the relevant excerpts of what was actually said in the AfD:
Barry: "I'll continue to work over the next few days on continuing to find more cites and on replacing existing cites with better cites."
Dirtlayer: "Barry, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article; that's partly how the AfD process is supposed to work. . . ."
Barry: "Thanks for the positive suggestions on how to improve the article. I've added a few more cites, and will continue to add more over the coming days."
Dirtlawyer: "Barry, if you're mining a productive vein of new sources, I would be happy to slap another "relisting" template on the bottom of this AfD to buy you another week -- would that help? If you're being productive in your research, you should have the time to finish. Let me know."
Barry: "I've continued to improve the article since this discussion began 4 weeks ago. It is up to 26 cites now from a variety of sources. Unlike in previous posts, where the article was improving as the discussion progressed, I think the article improvement project is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Hopefully the article is good enough as-is. I don't plan to work on it much further at this point. I hope we can reach consensus, close this discussion, and keep the article."
Dirtlawyer: "Thanks for all your work, Barry. It's obviously a lot closer than it was before you started working on it. I re-listed the debate for another week yesterday, so we should have some breathing space. I'll take a look at your new references in a day or so, and let you know what I think."
It's a really shitty thing for Chris to do, taking a collegial gesture of working together, and then construing it as an attempt on my part to game the system. With a another independent source with significant coverage added by Barry, I might very well have changed my vote for a 4–2 close instead of a 3–3 deadlock and a closing administrator supervote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't say that I would sign off on your precise words, I don't see anything you say that I would choose to disagree with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; a delete was not a possible outcome. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted because (a) it had already been listed twice and (b) he/she was involved. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: Did you read the rationale for my relisting stated in the AfD? Perhaps you should. "Delete" was not a likely outcome, but neither was "keep" at the time of the relisting. The relisting was done in the spirit of collegiality to give the strongest "keep" proponent another 7 days to add additional sources. That's not a conflict of interest; that's good manners. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - The closing rationale by a long-time administrator is one of the weakest I have seen in 5+ years of participating in AfDs for sports teams, leagues and athletes. In four more days of the relisting, there may have been a clear basis for "keep," but the closer's rationale seems to be a series of arguments in search of an actual notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I want to make it clear that I made no assumption of bad faith on the part of anybody involved in this as @Dirtlawyer1: has raised as a concern on my talk page. It was included as part of my rationale to explain why I closed it without letting it run through an entire relist period. I think we are all here trying to do our best to contribute to this project in a way that betters it, and we will not always see eye to eye on what that means. That being said, I stand by the assertion that, as a general principle, one who is heavily involved in a discussion should not be one who relists it, regardless of whether they were in support or opposition, and regardless of their motives. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who has in part justified there closed based on WP:IAR concerning arguments which routinely get dismissed by consensus views, it's somewhat disingenuous to say "regardless of their motives". For me reading your original statement above and your revised view here there is a fair disconnect, it would be better to add a clarification or retraction to your original comment at the point it was made. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statement is meant to express the principle as a general. For example, it to me seems highly likely the a potential WP:COI exists when an editor actively involved in an WP:AFD is the editor who relists it (and this sentiment seems echoed by several others above as well). Regardless of motives or position, being so closely involved in the discussion leaves the WP:COI door wide open, and this extends beyond the current AFD under DRV. I added the above note to clarify for a fellow editor (@Dirtlawyer1: who had expressed it as a concern on my talk page), who had re-listed it to give another editor time to make changes (assumed to be in good faith). It sucks when you go out of your way to try and help someone, and you feel like it gets thrown back in your face, Ive been there before, and that was not, and has never been my goal. In the big picture, I think it is important to strive to be above reproach, and, a more appropriate action that could have achieved the same outcome would have been to leave a note for the reviewing admin saying "Hey, can we have another week to work on this?" In that case, another editor not involved could have come along and made the decision from an objective point of view, closing the WP:COI door, making it a non-issue completely. Hope that clarifies things for you! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. This should probably be no consensus, but in my mind overturning "Keep" to "No Consensus" is timewasting policy wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn that debate was no consensus leaning delete, and the justification by the closing admin above is seriously flawed:
  • This page is not a policy or guideline and should not be used as the justification for an AfD close. Pages like that are potentially helpful rules of thumb and people who rely on them should be given less weight than those who cite policies and guidelines. Even if the Wikiproject guidelines are "based on and explicitly reference Wikipedia's generally applicable notability guidelines" that makes no difference.
  • The fact that the nominator didn't take part in the debate has no relevance to the outcome, and only two editors did (one from each side). "A Keep where somebody cites a specific policy explaining why it is appropriate" should indeed have substantial weight, but there weren't any in this debate.
  • That a debate has been open for three weeks is a good reason to close it but is not a good reason to close it with any particular outcome.
  • The IAR reasons listed are the personal opinions of the closer and would get very little weight if listed in a Keep comment. Very few articles deleted on notability grounds are submitted in bad faith or actively harm the encyclopedia, but that doesn't stop them from being deleted. AfD discussions are not closed by having an objective observer review the debate and decide which side they think is right.
Turning to the debate itself, while the Keep comments themselves didn't cite any policies or guidelines, in the subsequent discussion the argument was made that the sources in the article were enough to satisfy WP:GNG. That argument is more solid and I don't think it can be discounted, so No Consensus is probably the best close. Dirtlawyer1 should not have relisted the discussion as a participant but this didn't affect the outcome. Hut 8.5 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be a bit off-topic, but since there has been much discussion here about the role of WikiProject advice pages guidelines, I'll point out that a number of WikiProjects have created their own notability advice pages guidelines. See [[Category:WikiProject notability essays]]. This includes a number of sports related WikiProjects, such as:

There has been a fair amount of discussion here about how much weight to place on these advice pages guidelines. Is there a consensus on this issue? Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barry, in terms of AfD discussions for athletes and teams, in-house WikiProject notability "guidelines" have no authority whatsoever. If an individual WikiProject wants to provide additional guidance to its members, that's between the WikiProject and its members. Conversely, I am aware of several WikiProjects that have tougher notability standards than those that are applicable Wikipedia-wide; there is a serious question whether that, too, is permissible. I am an active member of three of the four WikiProjects you listed above, and I regularly participate in AfDs withing the scope of the fourth; I cannot recall in any AfD in the last five years where anyone successfully cited to an "in-house" WikiProject guideline as authority for keeping an article that would otherwise have been deleted. That said, WikiProjects seem to have a fair amount of latitude in determining what articles should be combined into larger articles or lists; e.g., WikiProject College Football routinely combines non-championship seasons into decade articles; WikiProject Baseball routinely combines marginally notable minor league players into lists grouped by MLB franchise minor league systems. Remember: satisfying GNG (or any other specific notability standard) only raises a presumption of inclusion; it may be that covering the topic as part of a larger article or list is determined to be a better approach for a variety of reasons. I will also note that WP:NSPORTS incorporates sport-specific notability guidelines for athletes in something like two dozen different sports (including both forms of rugby). To the best of my knowledge, there are no formally adopted specific notability guidelines for teams in different sports; all teams -- professional, semi-pro, major league, minor league, American college (and otherwise), amateur, etc. -- must satisfy the specific notability guideline of WP:ORG and/or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. In practical application, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are nearly identical in terms of what they require, but ORG is somewhat more specific for organizations. Essays, whether their topic is notability or something else, only have such authority as individual editors ascribe to them, which means if the essay's logic appeals to you, feel free to cite it, but remember no one is required to accept it. In my opinion, where your in-house "guideline," Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability, runs into trouble is in defining classes of "notable" teams without any reference to WP:GNG or WP:ORG; given that disconnect, it is inevitable that articles for college and amateur rugby teams are going to run into trouble at AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree that wikiprojects have guidelines in so far as guidelines have a specific meaning on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines lays out how things become "real" guidelines and it certainly isn't merley a wikiproject setting up a page and declaring it a guideline. Taking into account that (a) any one can setup a wikiproject on any subject they want any time they want and (b) wikiproject can have either direct or indirect overlaps with each other and (c) under any wikiproject anyone can at any time setup a page about notability and (d) wikiprojects by nature indicate they will be frequented by people interested in that area. Do you then think there would be a community consensus that such details on notability which may or may not yet be written, under such a project which may or may not yet exist, would some how be considered to automatically have broad community support? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 86.2.216.5 comment on 07:29, 9 May 2015: Thank you, I found your concise response helpful. In my question I had misused the word "guideline"; I should have said "advice pages", so I have corrected my poor choice of words above. Following up on your other points, do you think that different amount of weight should be placed on notability advice pages from different WikiProjects? For example, would it be your position that the notability advice page from the now inactive Arena Football League WikiProject would be given no weight, but that the notability advice page from the very active WP:FOOTY WikiProject would be given some weight? If yes, how much weight? If no, why not. Barryjjoyce (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have just answered my own question. The following text appears on several WikiProject notability pages. I have added it to the WikiProject rugby union notability page, which should be helpful in any future rugby AfD discussions.
"This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article. The degree of consensus that went into creating this essay (a potential measurement of the reliability of the advice) can be judged by consulting the history and talk pages." Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer nevertheless, it's possible that one essay enjoys more support than some other, but I don't think it makes much difference. In reality it either enjoys broad community support or it doesn't, if it's believe it's the former then someone should do the leg work to get it promoted to be a guideline, if no one has done that, then it's perhaps not an unreasonable view to take that it doesn't. Regarding the template on some of these, again I would be careful of what that means. Any essay can be referred to in a deletion discussion, in and of itself it doesn't give it any weight, it's much more a shorthand for an argument rather than expanding it in full each time, if the opinion is at odds with guidelines and policies it doesn't create any sort of requirement that it should be followed. I'd note it got listed for deletion at some point, and although it was kept there seems to be a strong suggestion it's not worded very well - though not really fixed since then. As to how much the sentiment on that template reflects community view is I guess debatable also, it says things like projects being encouraged to come up with their own notability essays, it doesn't say who is encouraging this or why. The history of the template and it's talk page seem distinctly lacking in terms of contribution or discussion. For the example I gave it was changed here with an edit summary of tighten - where it used to say "WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability..." quite how removing that additional wording is "tightening" I don't know and seems to have been done with no discussion. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with such essays and such templates, but they don't override the actual underlying policies and guidelines. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose by another admin Any admin that cites IAR as a reason to ignore guidelines simply doesn't get how AFD works and then to count votes rather then assess arguments.... Tsk tsk. An example of how not to do it and invalidates any discretion we should offer the closer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article is sufficiently changed since the beginning of the afd that a new discussion would be helpful. I personally doubt the team is notable. For many years there have been contradictions of various sorts between our general guidelines and our guidelines for sports, and there has never been a firm conclusion over which supersedes the other--whether the sports guidelines if more restrictive do or not apply if the GNG is met; or whether the sports guidelines if less restrictive apply, regardless of whether or not the GNG is met. Our statement of these have varied considerably over the 8 years I;ve been here. (My own view, fwiw, is that the potential over-coverage of sports is so great, that whatever guideline is them ore restrictive should apply, except for earlier Olympic athletes,), This is especially the case for the minor sports, and most especially those sports which are major in some countries but not in others, as applied to athletes in the countries where they are not major sports--I think the danger of overcoverage in the places where they are minor is so great that I would be quite restrictive). But this is only my own personal view, and almost any other position on them is quite defensible. Idon;t think the closing is an outright error, though I would have probably closed non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: Your point, DGG, is a good one -- whether the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG trump specific notability guidelines such as WP:NSPORTS, or vice versa -- but that's not really the key question in this AfD. In fact, for the sports in whose related AfDs I regularly participate -- American football, basketball, baseball, college football, college basketball -- it's pretty well settled that it's an "and/or" situation, that is, satisfying either GNG or NSPORTS is sufficient evidence of notability. What we have here, however, is a cat of a different stripe. WikiProject Rugby Union has written its own "guideline" regarding the notability of rugby teams and leagues, including semi-pro, amateur, and college club teams, and the WikiProject has not sought any form of Wikipedia-wide sanction for its in-house "guidelines" from "the entire community," as required by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There is already a specific notability guideline for sports leagues, teams and clubs -- it's WP:ORG. In fact, WP:NSPORTS, the specific notability guideline for sports subjects expressly states "It is not intended that [WP:NSPORTS] should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." That's pretty darn clear. So, the issue here is whether WikiProject Rugby Union may adopt its own "guideline" -- the "guideline" cited by the closing administrator -- without consultation with the wider community, and in contravention of WP:ORG, and then expect the wider community to accept it. So, what do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all my years of participating here I've rarely seen a clearer case for a "no consensus" outcome. DRV has consistently refused to enforce specific notability guidelines such as NSPORTS where they conflict with the GNG, and there is absolutely no question that in cases of doubt the GNG should always prevail.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DelRev has consistently endorsed some special notability guidelines--politicians, PROF, Geographic features, and even some Common Outcomes. The sports guideline has distinctively been the special guideline most disputed. The GNG itself states it does not apply in all situations. What is undoubtedly the case is that all special guidelines of any sort need to be accepted by the wider community, and cannot be assumed to be all automatically valid.
S Marshall, do you mean that in your opinion a sports person or team is notable only if it meets both the general and special guideline, or that they are notable if and only if they meet the GNG alone.? DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SNGs that we've most consistently declined to enforce include PORNBIO and martial arts-related ones. I'm not aware of any cases where we've enforced a SNG where the GNG wasn't met—ever. We have turned to SNGs for clarification and supporting arguments on occasion and I think that's what a SNG is for. They're ancillary to the GNG. I think that with any article, including biographies of sportspeople, they're notable if and only if they meet the GNG. It's the single, solitary, necessary and sufficient, condition for notability.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with S Marshall's observation, that the sub notability guidelines are consistently considered to be subservient to the GNG, but with the exceptions of WP:PROF and WP:CORP, both of which were respected guidelines before WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also NGEO, probably the most widely used alternative guideline of them all. And I thing POLITICIAN and ENTERTAINER--and even ANYBIO. The current reading of WP:BIO under the heading of "additional standards" is "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. " Additional means standards other then GNG. And NSPORTS says explicitly,"'The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."' Note the "OR". OR does not mean AND. (despite all this, I agree that NSPORTS is a guideline under constant dispute, and I would not assume that any part of it actually has general consensus) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not associate POLITICIAN ENTERTAINER ANYBIO or NSPORTS with anything like the credibility/respectability associated with PROF, when it comes to relaxing the general standard. The fine text of the dubious subguidelines carries little weight if the topic fails the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus First off, this was one of the 1st AFD closes I made in over 4 years (the last one I can find before a pretty significant period of inactivity was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marchan-dising), and it seems that alot has changed since then. Secondly, as the closing administrator, this long draw out DRV was not my intention, I was hoping to put an end to a long running AFD that would never be a clear delete, although it seems to have sparked some heated discussion on WP:NOTABILITY. Finally, I think the idea that WP:GNG provides the base criteria for generic inclusion, and sub-groups provide the criteria that the WP:GNG criteria must meet is a good approach (and one mirrored in many real world domains such as academia). For example, an article on a school that was up for deletion had "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed added to it, citing it as independent external coverage. I brought up the argument that it sounded more like the minutes from a PTA meeting, not an encyclopedic article. Not all coverage indicates notability, that needs to be accepted, we need to use a little common sense along with WP:GNG, and it should be up to specific areas of focus to determine what that "common sense" should be to determine if coverage is notable.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like a standard WP:Supervote. Your input sounds quite considered and substantial, but amounts to a !vote, not a close. Can I suggest that you revert your close, !vote instead, and then leave it for someone else to close? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2015

[edit]

4 May 2015

[edit]
  • Maxim Stoyalov – No action taken. Speedy closing this per Stifle. The deletion was so long ago, there's nothing which prevents anybody from just recreating this on their own. Of course, that doesn't guarantee somebody else won't come along and nominate it for deletion, and no guarantee it will survive AfD, but none of that is going to be decided here. Go forth and be wp:bold. – -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maxim Stoyalov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

1 + movies Dead Rising: Watchtower as Zombies, The Burning Dead as Zombies, Juarez 2045. + 234 51 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Half-Life (2011) 23[28]3Film Review: 'The Hope Factory'. 3 4 Red Square Screenings< Maxim Stoyalov 4 5 [29]. Stoyalov5 67</ref> 8 1 2 3 4 56. 1 2 1 7, 8. 100bestmovies 9 10kino-likbez< Stoyalov Maxim Stoyalov1234 ATM 1 2 3 4 Maxim Stoyalov 1 2 3

  • Comment - This person has a grand total of 2 film credits in imdb, neither of which are named roles, and one as "himself" in a Comic-con documentary. This mass of web sites appear to be garbage; running this one through Google Translate shows an article written by someone with the same last name and mentioning Maxim, i.e. the magazine. There doesn't appear to be anything valid here, just some two-bit Russian background extra. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2015

[edit]

2 May 2015

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

He is a american male model known by the international media. Sources abound to prove his existence and the work he did. I do not understand why the page was deleted three times without ever having had a formal discussion. I want the page to be restored in order to correct the mistakes that caused the deletion. The following sources: [30] [31] [32] [33][34] [35] [36] Brenhunk (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would probably be a simpler solution if you just ask for it to be unprotected so you can create an article about him including your sources. The absence of evidence was the mail problem with the deleted versions and it was a long time ago too. Deb (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and Restore if there is anything of any substance. I don't see how an expired prod ends up being a reason to protect. The sources here aren't the most impressive in the world being largely lifestyle type pieces (the first two aren't of this ilk, but I don't think are that usable the first being apparently based on "self" submitted data), but there are a few of them and enough to give an article a go. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)updated based on Hut 8.5 below ---86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure if you looked at the logs for the page, but it's clear that the salting was carried out because the article had been created three times within a short period. Deb (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I looked at the logs, created 3 times in 18 months, the last one presumably didn't qualify for speedy deletion. The last deletion was an expired PROD, which can be challenged at anytime including after it's been deleted and results in the article not being deleted, no questions asked. I'd say 3 times in 18 months on it's own is hardly a problem worthy of salting, and given the final deletion can't see it as appropriate. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've lifted the protection so it should be possible to recreate it now. Deb (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore the deleted version, it appears to be a copyright violation. It certainly sounded like a press release and the text can be found (word for word) in this. Since the article only existed for about a week in 2008 I don't think that link got the text from Wikipedia. This applies both to the PRODed version and the version deleted using A7. The version deleted in 2006 didn't contain any usable content, it just said "Brad Kroenig is an American supermodel". No objection to having an article at this title if someone can write a properly sourced version but we shouldn't be restoring the deleted versions. Hut 8.5 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I want to thank you for your help. Only unlock the article is already good for me, what was done. Is possible finish the discussion now? I need the conclusion of the discussion to start the new article. Thank you. Brenhunk (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2015

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_May&oldid=660059399"