Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November

< October 2013	Deletion review archives	December 2013 >

29 November 2013

Finnbay – Not recreated. Nobody apart from the nominator supports doing so. – Sandstein 06:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Reason for previous deletion couple months ago: Delete no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources.

I spoke to Gogo Dodo on recreating Finnbay due to new sources and info (cause they exposed Time magazine's buff on news item and nokia's f.ck you message on twitter) I think it should be archived on wikipedia. They are linked by trust-able sources: http://www.helsinki.fi/newstudents/index.html (on the right, discover part) http://www.aalto.fi/en/for/international/ http://jyy.fi/en/2013/03/18/jyy-student-news-week-122013/ (bottom) http://www.travelhelsinki.net/notizie/ (publishing their news) http://www.finnfacts.fi/eng/facts-about-finland/useful-links/ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747004579228190122617098 http://www.europam.org/review-finnbay-and-global-political-economy/ http://anonyymitelaimet.com/en/?tag=finnbay http://www.welcomeweeks.fi/en/useful-links

Here are the new info and sources for the article and would like to add them to the page to improve the article. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) {if you want us to look at a draft, please can you put it somewhere else as posting it here breaks up the formatting of this page. thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)}[]

Hi, Spartaz, Sure. It was just for you to check it out rather than a suggestion to use it for the new page but I put it on my page for you see it as a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Campsite55#Finnbay_Draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse your comment was "and no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary sources", yet your links to the site and refs in the article aren't "significant coverage". What am I missing? (FWIW the WP:GNG defines significant as "addresses the topic directly and in detail") --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Added new links but most of them are in Finnish and does not fit for the EN page.
Using Finnish sources is fine. The links you've added seem to be a couple of blogs(See WP:USERG). One of those blogs I can't identify any information about who authors it or their qualifications, the other is a single sentence, so hardly significant coverage and is essentially advertising their relationship with finnbay, so certainly not independent coverage. The other again doesn't appear to amount to significant coverage, it's a single directory style entry. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

First off why are you using another sockpuppet? Your main account of User:Alabama5 is unblocked, you should stop trying to hide your history. For the record I'm the one who nominated your page for deletion, it made no credible claim to notability then, and as it looks to me now, after 2 page SALTings and many many deletions, it still doesn't. Yes, your website pointed out that TIME made a small mistake (by using a pre-WW2 map of the region). The real question is - who cares? On Wikipedia we have a general notability guideline requring significant coverage (i.e. not a short trivial mention) of the subject. The fact that you pointed out a small mistake that likely no one outside your company cares about, isn't going to cut it. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! TIME mag issue may be a very tiny small thing for people outside of Finland but it was huge in Finland. It was printed on every single major Finnish news-outlet (i gave the iltalehti link in the article), also Iltasanomat: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1288564684900.html , Aamulehti: http://www.aamulehti.fi/Ulkomaat/1194813052622/artikkeli/time-lehti+siirsi+suomen+rajat+karjala+ja+kaksi+kasivartta+.html , Satakunnan Kansa: http://www.satakunnankansa.fi/Ulkomaat/1194813052773/artikkeli/time-lehti+siirsi+suomen+rajat+karjala+ja+kaksi+kasivartta+.html , Prokarelia: http://prokarelia.net/fi/?x=artikkeli&article_id=2072&author=10 The info I injected in this website's wiki article only shows notable and significant info for those who are into Finland relations. If you look at their competitors like helsinki times wiki page, it is just advertising and 90% of them are not significant for wiki info but its there. We all know how hard it is to create new info on TIME wiki page or Nokia's. Also, the Nokia issue is important cause they deleted the tweet from their Nokia tweet page. Thus, it must be given mention on wiki and archived with its notable author. talk
You seem to be struggling. WP:GNG is about if the subject has been written about in reliable third party sources directly and in detail. None of the sources you show do that. notability is not inherited if the events they have discussed are notable, it doesn't rub off onto the people who reported it. Also see WP:NOTNEWS there are many things which appear in the news and have very short term interest, wikipedia as an encyclopedia doesn't document or "archive" them. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
What you are saying is very subjective when compared with other wiki listings, especially "wikipedia as an encyclopedia doesn't document or "archive" them". That's only your own opinion. EU Transparency page (resurrected-few min ago): http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=497621512369-67&isListLobbyistView=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
You need for the last time independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly in detail, regardless of the subjectivity you may perceive elsewhere. You have still failed to produce that. Appearing on a register shows nothing, it doesn't show that the world at large is interested. You are getting quite close if not beyond "I didn't hear that" --86.5.93.42 (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Let's stick to the specific guidelines and points rather than general interpretations. Wiki asserts that "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Second, another rule says "To be worth including in Wikipedia a subject must be sufficiently notable and that notability must be verifiable through references to reliable sources." and WP:GNG has 5 bulletpoints in which this article fulfills 5 of them clearly. "Significant coverage" says that another source must deal with the article and that source must not be affiliated with the subject. It does not go into detail like it should talk about the subject with at least 1000 words with pictures and roses. Thus, I believe sources I provided here and in the draft are sufficient to create the article as they fulfill the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
I quoted the WP:GNG previously - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" so yes let's please stick to the specific guidelines. Feel free to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and failing to listen to what you are being told, the sources you have simply don't cut it, no amount of trying to interpret the guidelines to suit your desire is going to change that, and no one is going to undelete this based on what you've presented so far. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Again, you don't get to decide it. Based on the guidelines, sources are perfectly normal, independent and suitable for the article. Stick to your own opinions as opposed to speaking for the whole community - cause you do not. We got your POV on this, let others speak as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
"Based on the guidelines, sources are perfectly normal, independent and suitable for the article." No, no they are not. Most of these sources prove nothing other than that the company merely exists. The first bullet point of the general notability guideline says it all - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", nothing you've provided comes even close to meeting that requirement, there's really nothing left to be said here. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Even though I do not agree with you two, I would like to move this further and understand what you mean. Can you give me a link to understand your concept of "significant coverage" thing? BTW there is no significant coverage on al jazeera but we made it live.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Al Jazeera doesn't have significant coverage? The article cites 175 references, almost all of them independent sources. As for the example, I'll use the page you mentioned. With just a quick look at the sources I found two perfect examples of significant coverage: [1], [2] the sources are independent of the subject, and most importantly they address it directly and in detail. Not just a short trivial mention, not merely stating that it exists, but full news articles about the subject. Obviously no one is going to expect your company to have as many sources as a major news organization like Al Jazeera, but you need SOMETHING to prove that people are actually taking note of your company, if you can't provide that, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Elexis Monroe – No consensus to overturn the deletion. Four contributors endorse it, with two asking for a relist and two (including the nominator) for its overturn. This outcome might allow a relist at the closer's discretion, but I decide against it because the AfD discussion is relatively recent and extensive, and because even those who want to relist the article don't seem to think that doing so would result in a different outcome. – Sandstein 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the article should be restored because now that the 2014 XBIZ Award nominations have been announced, the subject has been nominated for two new non-scene-related awards (Girl/Girl Performer of the Year and Best Actress), thus passing WP:PORNBIO.

But one more quick thing...I recently brought this to WP:AN and it was shot down by Spartaz for apparent forum-shopping and not providing decent sources, which is odd for two reasons:

Re-evaluting the discussion was Spartaz's idea in the first place.
The new source was listed directly in my rationale (how is this not a decent source?).

It was also mentioned that WP:PORNBIO is disputed, which isn't 100% false, but...no one has commented on the discussion about it at all since October 11th (and I personally did not participate in it). Having no consensus on a guideline does not mean the guideline is invalid. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

1. Listing this at AN rather then DRV is clearly forum shopping and an attempt to override process to get the answer you want

2. Can you please stop personalising discussions? Focus on the content not the contributor

3. A list of nominations is not a detailed reliable secondary source for the purposes of meeting GNG.

4. Since you keep bringing up old history I'll remind you that AN endorsed the closing of the previous DRV and accepted that there was a problem with PORNBIO

5. The discussion may have tailed off but no-one has seriously argued against the fact that PORNBIO is disputed and this means that it is no longer a valid reason to argue that BLP articles that fail the GNG should be retained against the wider community consensus that BLP requires decent sourcing.

6. If you can get a consensus to rewrite PORNBIO in a way that does meet wider community expectations then I expect it will no longer be disputed.

7. Elexis Munro has been nominated as one of 15 people in the girl/girl category and one of 11 in what is not best actress as you asserted but the least important of the 4 sub catagories - Best Actress - All-Girl Release. To my mind this isn't isn't enough to override the GNG but I'd be open minded in allowing a relist Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Doing exactly what you suggested I do is forum-shopping? If so, why did you suggest it? And you really need to retire the "personalizing" argument because you apparently have a different definition for the word than I have (I've asked you numerous times how I'm personalizing anything and you never responded). But if you're allowing a relist, at least we're getting somewhere. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Your claims that it's what Spartaz suggested is disingenuous at best, and really I don't think your reading comprehension skills are that abysmal. What he said back in August per your link was "If you feel that I have acted incorrectly you can seek feedback at WT:DRV to see if anyone else agrees with you.", so let's see he's talking about the way he acted and suggests you bring it up at WT:DRV to see if there is agreement about the way he acted. He did not say, "if in three months time you find some vague new sources, take it to WP:AN" and I do not see any reasonable way of reading what he said as meaning that. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

My reading comprehension skills are abysmal? What are you trying to say? That's a borderline personal attack, so you'd better watch it. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

"really I don't think your reading comprehension skills are that abysmal", guess you are doing your best to prove me wrong. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Unambiguous AfD. The new source adds nothing. It is two trivial mentions, absolutely no commentary, from a connected source. PORNBIO is a farce of a guideline. Ask anyone supporting catalogues of porn actors for having Wikipedia standalone biographies to declare any COI with the porn industry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Erpert's evasion and attempt at obfuscation of the question confirms that it is a good question. Undeclared COI issues are highly relevant to process discussions. If Erpert has a COI here, he should not be participating in either the AfD (where he failed to persuade others), or related DRV discussions. This is an important consideration at DRV. It may be beyond the scope of DRV to say that if Erpert has a COI, he should not be influencing related guidelines, and certainly not while undeclared. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm evading the question? You didn't even ask a question, SmokeyJoe. And as for a conflict of interest, I don't know Ms. Monroe personally, nor am I a member of WikiProject Pornography. So I'm sorry...where's my conflict of interest? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Are you connected to the porn industry? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse and speedy close. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about personalizing deletion discussions, but persists in this disruptive behavior. Absent any indication that such nominations for tinfoil trophies in minor categories meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard (preferably through nontrivial coverage by independent sources), there's no reason to go through this again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Two things:

@SmokeyJoe: Anyone that supports having a porn biography must have a conflict of interest? Can you prove that?

@HW, you have yet to clarify how I am personalizing anything either. As you don't seem to understand, you are not in charge of Wikipedia, so you can't call something disruptive just because it differs with your own personal opinion (in fact, that's disruptive--and there is no chance for this to be speedily closed because the situation is different and you know it).

But returning to the subject...can any of you actually explain why the new source is invalid? Basically, all you're saying is why PORNBIO is apparently a problem, these awards aren't important, etc, etc; which, as in the past, is less about policy or even consensus and is instead using WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:IAR (or even WP:IARBIAS) as a last resort. If I'm wrong about that, prove it to me (and anyway, at least Spartaz is willing to allow a relist). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Its not a source for Elexis Monroe, its a list of nominations & for the purposes of supporting a detailed biographical article on a living subject it is worthless except confirming that she has been nominated for something whose significance is not universally accepted. In other words, its as much use as wet fart in a thunderstorm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It's as much use as what??? 8-} Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

[3] Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review The question, btw, is whether we should permit the article should be restored, not about individuals at WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- That is greatly appreciated. Incidentally, I also created a userspace draft with the new source added. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

What we really ought to do is mark WP:PORNBIO as historical, since all of Wikipedia's processes consistently refuse to enforce it.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- There wouldn't be any porn-related articles on Wikipedia if that were really the case. Also, as DGG clarified above, this is the place to discuss the article, not PORNBIO. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Didn't you start this thread arguing that PORNBIO was the reason for restoring the article? Surely, in that case, the status of PORNBIO is rather relevant to the strength of your argument. No need to thank me for explaining this to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
    - S Marshall talked about PORNBIO alone, not PORNBIO in conjunction with Elexis Monroe. And lose the attitude, please. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
      - There are several people who're likely to close this DRV. None of them will have any trouble understanding the relevance of my remark to the debate that we're reviewing.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Support restoration. Elexis Monroe is quite notable and I honestly don't see what there is to discuss here. Her awards are certainly enough to pass WP:PORNBIO. Monroe has been nominated for:

XBIZ Awards

Girl/Girl Performer of the Year (2014)

Best Actress - All-Girl Release (2014)

MILF Performer of the Year (2013)

MILF Performer of the Year (2012)

Acting Performance of the Year - Female (2011)

AVN Awards

MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year (2012)

I still believe that the controversial MILF Performer awards are notable, but lets avoid that discussion for now and focus on her remaining XBIZ Award nominations:

Girl/Girl Performer of the Year (new award which I think is just as notable as any other LGBT award category such as Gay Performer of the Year and Transsexual Performer of the Year. AVN has added this new category for their 2014 awards as well. I personally think this is long overdue. These ceremonies should have added this category years ago. It is perhaps the only thing I always though they were missing.)

Best Actress - All-Girl Release (Some might argue that this award isn't notable because it is a subcategory and not a generic best actress award. Lets not forget that the AVN Awards divided their categories into video and film subcategories for several years. They had "Best Actress - Video and "Best Actress - Film" for example. These awards are still considered notable, so why wouldn't all the best actress subcategories from XBIZ be notable as well?)

Acting Performance of the Year - Female (I don't think I have to explain this one. We all know this category is quite well-known and significant.

And also, would you all please stop bickering over who's "personalizing discussions" and whatnot and focus on Elexis Monroe. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Please can you link the discussion that agreed that Best Actress - All Girl Release is a notable award. Perhaps you can find some independant sourcing that discusses this award to a standard compatable with the GNG? Or was that a personal opinion dressed up as a statement of fact. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

There is no discussion proving that the Best Actress - All Girl Release award is notable, at least not to my knowledge, but I haven't seen any discussion prove that it isn't notable either. Like I said, Best Actress awards are notable and I haven't seen anyone on WP dispute the significance of Best Actress subcategories such as the AVN Awards for "Best Actress (Video) and Best Actress (Film). Why should the XBIZ Award subcategories be any different? Aside from the "Best Actress - All Girl Release" award, we still have two nominations left. What's your opinion on the "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" and "Acting Performance of the Year - Female" awards? Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Spartaz, you're saying Best Actress isn't a notable award? Are you serious? Try that argument on Talk:Academy Award and see where that gets you. You said you were willing to allow a relist, so why are you now fighting this so hard? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Editors who provide opinions as statements of fact need to be challenged to evidence those statements. This is how we reach a consensus - by testing the arguments rather then shouting across each other and arguing ridiculous points against every opinion that we disagree with. I'm now going to ignore you for the rest of this discussion as I do believe that your tendency to misinterpret everything I say is helping the discussion to develop properly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Why would he go there to discuss a completely different award. If you think these are equivalent to Academy Awards then you really have lost the plot. Many major publications will write and provide coverage of the Academy Awards including best actress, how many mainstream publications do the same for these? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Because adult award ceremonies like these are called the "Oscars of porn" by several publications. [4][5][6] Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This gets more comedy and less serious discussion every day. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist. Given that there are new award nominations, the situation has changed and a new AfD is the appropriate way to evaluate the current consensus. That said, I don't think that there is any realistic chance of that AfD closing as Keep unless she were to win so I would suggest waiting until the award winners are announced as a practical matter. That's all that's directly relevant to the issue at hand. I have deleted the general musings on WP:PORNBIO that I was drafting since they seem highly unlikely to be interesting or useful to either the participants in this discussion or the ultimate closer. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep deleted for now if she wins, I think a new AfD would be called for. I almost went with relist per Eluchil404, but I think it's so likely to result in a delete that it would be more disruptive than helpful to relist at this time (and would make it less likely we'd ever have an article on this topic. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

User:Erpert and Rebecca1990, do you have any COI here? I've lost track. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- Didn't I say "no"? Y'all should really stop making these accusations without proof. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Thanks, I'd missed that. Though I'd claim my question was a bit different. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - As far as I am concerned the "nominations" aspect of WP:PORNBIO is deprecated, having no weight at all towards determining a subject's notability. We are free to ignore a guideline if it hinders the betterment of our encyclopedia project. Our project is better off uncluttered by biographies of non-notable men and women who have only been nominated, never won, a porn award. These people no zero notability whatsoever, only having the faintest of insider coverage by the porn industry itself. It does our readers a disservice by allowing people to use the project as a sort of IMDB of Porn. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- To be fair, Tarc, you said Ms. Monroe apparently has zero notability, but right before that you said users are free to ignore a rule (in this case, PORNBIO). Are you concluding that she isn't notable because you're ignoring PORNBIO? Anyway, I hope people are also considering the newer version of the article as they consider their !vote. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 19:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  - This person does not satisfy the requirements of the Wikipedia's general notability guideline. This person appears to satisfy one part of the sub-notability guideline WP:PORNBIO, but I do not believe that that is sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article on this person just because of that. Simply being nominated for a porn award is not an accomplishment that reliable sources outside of the porn industry have taken note of, therefore it is not in the best interests of the project to create articles for such persons. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]
    - If she were nominated for a single award, I could agree with you, but she was nominated for several; in addition, there is no requirement that states she has to have huge mainstream coverage in addition to passing PORNBIO...which, btw, you just acknowledged that she passes. Also, how does she not pass GNG? The noms and sources are "independent of the subject" (the subject being her, not pornography). The nominations also make her pass the first point of WP:ANYBIO.

All in all, regardless of how anyone feels about PORNBIO, the real question here is, does Elexis Monroe pass it? The answer is yes. (If anyone still feels she doesn't, feel free to explain why.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

The heart of the matter is that "passing" PORNBIO is a joke, it is the low-hanging fruit of the sub-notability guideline family. What I have been saying all along that I am in favor of ignoring the part of PORNBIO that says "multiple nominations == pass", as it lets otherwise non-notable individuals into article-space. And no, ANYBIO is a bogus argument, they are are not "a well-known and significant award or honor"; porn is a niche industry with flimsy, almost cartoonish "categories". I mean, seriously, someone judges that one girl masturbates better than another, so she wins an award? That this anal sex scene is better than that anal sex scene? These awards and nominations are a joke and a sham, it is an industry circle jerk of self-recognition, advertisement, and promotion. Be grateful that "winning" one of these pseudo awards still grants one an encyclopedia article; Given time and inclination, I'd wage war against that aspect of PORBIO too. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This discussion proves that covering niche awards qualify; in fact, everything listed at WP:ATH (for example) could be considered a niche award. How users feel about a certain article's subject (or the category that subject falls under) doesn't determine its notability. And what you just said basically just expresses your dislike of not only PORNBIO, but the pornography award ceremonies as well as pornography in general, none of which this discussion is supposed to be about. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

First off, WP:OTHERSTUFF. 2nd, I love porn, but it isn't art. These awards are just advertising, if you think that someone or a group of someones is actually sitting around making a subjective judgement on what makes a good anal scene vs one that is just ok, I'd say that is a little naive. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

You do like porn? It's a little hard to tell by your comments. At any rate, I don't think OTHERSTUFF applies (WP:ATH was just an example) because this situation pretty much falls under the same situation as articles like the aforementioned Capri Anderson. And as for your comment on anal scenes, well, that's probably why scene-related nominations alone no longer qualify for notability. But the other nominations definitely do. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

28 November 2013

Bailey Pickett – "Keep" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 21:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

- this afd was a Keep. However the arguements were truly terrible. The "keep" voters tried to say it is notable because sources probably exist even though they did not provide any. I dont buy that we wouldn't be able to find any sources because this character is not that old. Other keeps tried to inherit notablity from the show. Beerest 2 talk 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse, unfortunately. You are correct in saying that not one of the keeps had even the tiniest shred of validity, trying to use WP:MUSTBESOURCES as a method of dodging WP:V and WP:GNG indefinitely. However, there is no way the closing administrator could have done differently. Reyk _YO! 04:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - the discussion was what it was, and it doesn't look like there's much of a basis for a delete position. Merging remains possible, as the closer explicitly notes, but that's a content management issue, rather than an AfD issue, so the headcount weighs far more heavily there. Wily D 09:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - you can't possibly expect a closing admin to supervote that sort of consensus away. The closing admin even relisted it (though he probably didn't need to do so) which resulted in one merge opinion and three more keeps. Stalwart111 11:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse because the consensus was to "keep". Thincat (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Keep no way it could have been closed any other way. Some of the keep votes were lame, but so was the nomination. It's a main character in a media franchise, and if it's not up to scratch the way to deal with it is to merge into the character list, not delete it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. It is a WP:Supervote for sure for a closer to close announcing that all the participants are wrong. There is no chance for DRV to ever overturn such a close and delete. The best you might get is advice. I suggest that you follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse I actually agree with the nom that this is non-notable fancruft (and basically unsourced). At best, this should be a redirect to the show. However, as pointed out already by everybody else, there was no way the closer could have closed differently. Wait a few months and then renominate if no sources turn up. --Randykitty (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

27 November 2013

26 November 2013

Michael Burghardt – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Hi, I don't believe Delete !voters correctly applied WP:BLP1E in this case. For BLP1E it must pass all three criteria, including #3 which says: "It is not the case the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". It goes on to say "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Looking at the sources, it appears to have WP:PERSISTENCE. Non-persistence means: "only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". The media has covered it over years, even crossing over to a book of chapter length.

Persistent coverage of an event makes it significant, which disqualifies it from BLP1E per criteria #3, thus invalidating the Delete votes in the AfD leaving basically only my single Keep. I would be OK with a relist too since a discussion of persistence didn't come up during the AfD (I wasn't paying close enough attention). Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

My explanatory comment on Green Cardmom's talk page: -- KTC (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

“

Hi, you had raised those points and sources during the deletion discussions and it was rebutted by at least one other participant. Since their interpretation of policies involved are within valid range to be considered, I cannot disregard their opinion. Taking their argument into account, there were in my opinion a clear consensus for deletion.

”

(You then said take it to DRV if I disagreed, which is I didn't follow our private conversation further). To respond: the Delete votes did not rebut WP:PERSISTENCE, the word does not appear anywhere in the AfD, it was however demonstrated by the source list with dates. The sources are plainly persistent, meaning BLP1E is not a valid argument. Again, I'm sorry I did not make this more clear in the AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I did. It's normal for the XfD closer to explain their rationale, especially if it's not in the original closing statement. Since I wrote my rationale in my reply to you on your user talk, I copied it over here. Regards -- KTC (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - Not all editors subscribe to this extremely narrow interpretation of BLP1E. For others, it is a simple matter of if one subtracts the single event, wouls reliable sources discuss this person in any way, shape or form? With the saturation of 24/7 media, virtually any news-of-the-day story like this will be rehashed on anniversaries, in context of a similar situation, etc... and many, many people extend their proverbial 15 minutes of fame for as long as they possibly can. Wikipedia editors can and routinely do judge what who a one-event individual and who is not. By all measurement of common sense and broad interpretation of policy, it was judged that this person's story, while heroic, was a one-hit wonder. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Persistence and significant coverage is not a narrow reading. BLP1E was designed to protect private individuals from undo media exposure. It was not meant to prevent cases where someone has had persistent media coverage over time. Also this has been called iconic, had a chapter length in a book etc.. it's not typical. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

BLP1E was designed to prevent articles about news-of-the-moment stories from being created. What smattering of continued coverage there is is still reported in the context of the original event; this person has done nothing else to warrant coverage in reliable sources since. No one is going to overturn a deletion when your entry was the lone keep vs. 5 opinions to delete, unless the deletion calls were crystal-clear "delete it sucks!" nonsense. Allowance for and respect of an opposing opinion has to be respected here. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It can be relisted so that significance-by-persistence can brought into the discussion. The topic probably does have persistent coverage per the definition at WP:PERSISTENCE. This is the discussion that should have taken place in the AfD. The word "persistent" does not appear anywhere in the AfD, no one brought it up, it wasn't discussed. I seriously believe the Delete voters were unaware of this aspect of BLP1E. It would not be the first time, I often explain BLP1E to people who don't understand basic things like low profile requirement. It's a complex rule often misunderstood and misapplied. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm well-aware of persistence, but do not give it much weight in this age of 24/7 media that covers everything from Lady Gaga's underwear color to what the President of the United States will have on his Thanksgiving table in 2 days' time. I'd advise you remove the patronizing tone from your comments from here on out, and stop assuming that those who hold a different point of view "don't understand" such "complex" matters. 5 editors hold a point of view opposing to your own, that's all there is here. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

We've got to endorse. Closers need the confidence that when they follow the consensus, DRV will support them. The declining number of active editors on Wikipedia does skew things, and sometimes at AfD nowadays, only the deletionists show up to !vote. This is one of those cases and what can you do? I mean, I have great sympathy with the nominator here. It seems obvious to me that this kind of thing isn't what BLP1E was meant for. When an incident took place in 2005 and people are still writing about it in 2013, that's pretty clear evidence that the incident is significant and can be covered. But Wikipedia is increasingly full of Rain Man-types who think that wherever a rule can be applied, it must always be applied; and WP:Editorial judgment is still a redlink. When these people are in such an overwhelming majority DRV can't fault the closer: KTC had no choice but to find as she did.
In my view the way to tackle it is to write an article about the incident and put in a redirect from Michael Burghart to that. I know it's pathetic but once you've done that, BLP1E no longer applies because it's not a biography. It's reasonable to ask for the article to be userfied to facilitate this exercise.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Thank you for recognizing BLP1E was possibly misapplied here due to (arguably) persistent coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse While some individuals known for one event are exempted from the rule due to the significance of the event in question, what exactly qualifies as significant enough for an exemption is up to the community. I think consensus is pretty clear here. It more or less a judgment call, in that James Blake Miller's one notable event has been deemed significant but Michael Burghardt's has not, but that's the nature of the system we have at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Consensus at the discussion was clear that Burghardt is notable only in the context one event, and that this one event does not make him sufficiently notable for a biographical article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse at five to one there's simply no chance this possibly could have been closed any other way. You're welcome as always to disagree but it's pretty ridiculous to pretend that your vote is somehow more correct than the other five and thus should trump everyone else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The more people who vote one way makes that way more correct. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to no consensus as the XfD is clearly in error: no weight should have been assigned to the !votes citing BLP1E. BLP1E does not apply when there is continuing coverage, and the sources listed cover three years. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This doesn't meet the definition of a BLP1E. Local consensus can override our guidelines and this looks like such a case. I can't endorse this because it's clearly contrary to our rules, but given the !votes, I don't see how the closer could have done anything else. Even a relist for a defective discussion isn't reasonable here. I'd suggest we wait until yet more sources show up (and they will) and try again at that time. Hobit (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse but with considerable regret. It is a shame to be hiding potentially valuable articles (provided they are harmless) so that only admins can look at them. Such is life. WP:BLP1E is there to protect individuals, not to ensure that worthy people get an article. It can be a strong policy reason for deletion but not for undeletion. WP:1EVENT is a relevant notability guideline and I think that it is this, and not BLP1E, that applies here. Looking closely I think some of the AFD "deletes" were using this guidance. Also, the nomination rationale, WP:SOLDIER, is a notability rather than a BLP consideration. Even if a topic meets the notability threshold for presuming an an article is warranted, people may, with reason, think an article should be deleted. In this case they did. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse- There is no way the discussion could have been closed any other way. The participants clearly felt that this article does not meet the spirit of WP:1EVENT or WP:BLP1E. Editors' discretion is still a thing, fortunately. Reyk _YO! 22:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse as consensus is abundantly clear, regardless of whether or not we agree. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

‎T:WPTECH – There's no consensus to overturn the "no consensus" closure, so... let's just agree to disagree. – Sandstein 10:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I closed this discussion about a group of redirects as no consensus. I explained my reasoning for doing so in the closing statement (very basically the arguments presented about the actual redirects under discussion were about balanced), and suggested that renominating in a different way would be more likely to result in consensus. Two of the participants have voluminously objected to my reading of the discussion as no consensus at my talk page (user talk:Thryduulf/archive12#"WTF?" regarding an RfD close) where I have attempted to explain further. John Vandenberg believes that my having participated in a discussion a few years ago about T: redirects means I am not a neutral regarding this discussion. Accordingly I'm bringing the closure here for review. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - the batch nomination was clearly misguided - it resulted in a bunch of mismashed discussions that can't really be synthesized, so "no consensus" is basically all you can do. The delete argument of "I don't like it" is a lot weaker than the keep argument of "it's useful" (which is a hard sell for articles, but an easy sell for redirects), even if the number balance the other way, again tending towards "no consensus". A couple discussions of individual template, but most comments are generalised, making it dubious that any could be closed individually. WilyD 10:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- The downsides of pseudo-namespaces are quite well-known: they take away names from the set of possible article titles, defeat separation of encyclopædic content from Wikipedia organisation and confuse and/or create unnecessary special cases for bots and tools which depend on this division (maintenance lists of pages, Special:Search, the API, etc.), all for the sake of people who are too lazy to type ten characters. There is no need to repeat these reasons every time.
- I disagree about there being "a bunch of mismashed discussions". There were three topics in this discussion: the nomination as a whole, the merits of pseudo-namespaces in general and T:R from specifically — all quite relevant. I think most votes belonged in the first group. And so what if some comments also talked about pseudo-namespaces in general? Are you implying it makes these opinions invalid? Keφr 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - The problem with this is that the assertion that the existence of T:WPTECH takes away a possible article title is too silly to be taken seriously (and in the exceedingly unlikely event there's ever an article that might reasonably be placed at T:WPTECH, our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren (assuming they're editors) can fix it easily enough). That's probably a worse argument than a straight, honest, naked appeal to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's an overarching discussion of basically "it's useful" vs. "I don't like it" that applies to all the redirects, plus several comments that focus on individual (or small groups) of redirects. One might parse those, but since the overriding discussion ignores it, it becomes impossible to pull out a specific consensus in the cacophony of voices talking about different things. Wily D 11:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I find it hard to think about the "idontlikeit" argument, brought up here as if it were used by someone. I did not see that one in the RfD's, or I must have skipped them while reading for being not relevant to the discussion at all a priori. And that is what any closer should do too. The weighing of "ilikes" versus "idontlikes", both idle and weightless, is no business at all for a XFD/DRV closure. So for this WilyD argumentation. -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn There is exactly one person claiming that exactly one redirect is "useful" to them. And then during the course of the discussion that user discovered a better way of doing what they were using the redirect for that didn't involve using that redirect. There are also two others who appear to have been mislead into thinking the nomination was for the entire pseudo-namespace (of one this is blatantly clear, the other is much less so). On the other side, we have several editors finding that these redirects in particular have an extremely low likelihood of being useful given the objective evidence of their very low pageview stats. But apparently these all are rejected because they didn't go through the list and state this individually for each redirect being nominated?
Regarding the conflict between "This is useless" and "I find it useful", how does it come out exactly the opposite way in the very next discussion on the page?
Regarding the supervote contention, it is very suspicious that the close is the same as the closer's !vote the last time this came up and contained blatant factual inaccuracies. Anomie ⚔ 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Whatever happens to these harmless T: pseudo-namespace shortcuts, the first and "major" exception noted at WP:RFD#D6 will continue to work in favor of keeping, or at the very least of not coming to consensus for deleting, any shortcut that has been or will be created to be used in any pseudo-namespace. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Something not being a reason to delete doesn't automatically make it a reason not to delete. Anomie⚔ 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Forgive me, but that's just semantics. The wording is clear: Pseudo-namespace shortcuts are a "major" exception. Is there another item in WP:RFD#DELETE that clearly applies to this submission? May I also say that if one user comes to a discussion and expresses the usefulness and helpfulness of a redirect, how many other users does s/he symbolically represent? Just because few users may know the "secret" of T: transclusion does not in the least take away their usefulness as shortcut links to their targets on talk pages, template /doc pages, and so on. I sincerely feel that it is a monumental waste of time to try to delete these shortcuts, let alone to have to defend them when they are automatically defended by community consensus and by D6. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Sorry, but if you think the difference there is "just semantics", there's no point in continuing to discuss it with you. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
      :>) Anomie, I am more than happy to discuss any arguments that may arise, semantics or otherwise. If what you said is more than "just semantics", then maybe I was wrong. Here is what I read:

"Something not being a reason to delete..."

"...doesn't automatically make..."

"...it (something) (being) a reason not to delete."

By switching the word "not" around, your sentence implies that less weight should be given to the "major" exception in WP:RFD#D6, isn't that so? Forgive me if I take exception to your meaning. Such a "major" exception should not be ignored, nor should its impact be lessened by such an implication. Now, this does not mean that I don't like/respect you as I have from the moment I first read you. That has not changed. I guess I just fail to see why the submission of T-colon redirects for discussion, which really should be protected by community consensus and should result in a Snow-Keep as it has in the past, should bring us all to each others throats like this? What am I missing? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

"I want to post pictures of my kids!" is not a reason to edit Wikipedia. Does that mean that everyone who wants to post pictures of their kids should not edit Wikipedia? No, it just means that if they edit they should do so for different reasons. Or if we want an even more ridiculous analogy, that someone is ugly is not a reason to shoot them. But does that mean you can't shoot any ugly person? Even if they're coming at you with a knife and will disembowel you if you don't stop them? Similarly, just because being a pseudo-namespace redirect isn't a reason to delete doesn't mean that being a pseudo-namespace redirect is a reason to keep every single one as you keep claiming. Anomie ⚔ 02:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Very well, that's clear enough. So we must try to reason what are good reasons to delete and what are not good reasons to delete. Search and you will find that the only item under RFD#DELETE that applies is D6, and the only reason it applies is because all the pseudo-namespace shortcuts, with the sole exception of MP: are cross-namespace redirects. That is the only deletion reason that applies, but OH, then there is that nasty little "major" exception that keeps popping up. Down below that, we see RFD#KEEP where we find two reasons to not delete the T-colons, K3 and K5. Above the D#s is the important reminder to delete only "really harmful" redirects. So the disposition of the T: shortcut redirects must take all this into consideration. The closer obviously made the correct decision and even gave a viable next step in the process for anyone who, for whatever reason, feels that they absolutely must keep trying to get rid of these useful shortcuts. To question that, to try to overturn that decision, is, to my mind, a fine example of a violation of the First Law. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Now you are assuming that WP:RFD#DELETE is an exhaustive list, and that it and WP:RFD#KEEP are sets of requirements rather than suggestions. Neither is the case. I could as well tell you to drop the stick. Anomie ⚔ 16:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

And on and on, oh yes let's keep digging and dropping until I've dropped more sticks than you can shake a ball at and you've dug to China and back. I think the conversation has gone on long enough when one of us starts brushing off the guidelines like water off a duck's back and for not one single decisive reason. This was a good call. The closer suggested reasonable options for the next step if there must be one. And sitting here in an argument that cannot possibly be productive was not one of them. We both have better things to do and you are far better than I am at doing them. Neither of us will change our minds about this. The only diff is that my arguments are solidly backed by the usual guidelines that help us determine the disposition of redirects, however inexhaustive they may be. Nothing has been said in either the other past discussions nor in this one that would warrant the deletion of these harmless, useful T-colon shortcuts. Not a blessèd thing. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow me also to remind all here that the guiding principles of RfD specifically remind us that "Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept," and all the "D#"s such as D6 and its major exception are listed in that editing guideline. "Speedily kept?" So why is there a major debate every time somebody tries to delete these harmless, useful shortcuts? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allowed. While you are there, please read Shortcuts ... This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space. And stop writing "harmless" as a fact. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Thank you (for allowing me)! Read your above quote in italics once more, please, DePiep. Note the word "commonly". During the Rfd there were 49 engaged T-colon shortcuts and another 12 (13 total, but at least one had not been disengaged} for a total of 61 T-colon redirects that presently exist. Compare that with the thousands of shortcuts that are not in article space. So does this not meet the criteria you quoted? Of course it does. Shortcuts ... This is commonly done in project space, but not in article space. This says to me that shortcuts are not commonly done in article space, and 77 T-colon shortcuts even put together with a few hundred other pseudo-namespace redirects makes them quite uncommon as compared with the thousands of shortcuts in non-article space. Also, you are not my boss and you are not my wife, so do please stop trying to tell me what to do. You spent the entire Rfd trying to tell people what to do, and now you are here in this senseless conversation try to do the same. I suggest you learn some people skills. You arrogantly tell me to stop writing that nasty "H" word, but as usual you give no concise (short and sweet) rebuttal and tell everybody precisely why you think these shortcuts are NOT harmless. What is so harmful about a handful of shortcuts in article space? Thanks to a lot of help, we have pretty much categorized the bunch as "unprintworthy" so they would not appear in Jimbo's dream of a full-printed version of Wikipedia, and that is really the only possible harm I can see. What other harm do YOU see, DePiep? and please, do try to keep your response fairly concise, please? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Personal attack. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This is not going in a productive direction. Keφr 09:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

DePiep, I attack only ideas and behavior, not people. I certainly don't consider you less of a contributor here than I am, in fact, you are probably better at editing Wikipedia than I am. I really try hard to focus on "what is right" and not on "who is right". But I consider it the height of funny to be accused of a personal attack by someone who has just called me a "dick". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry, Thryduulf, but I feel that in this case the debate should be re-closed by someone else. In a collaborative encyclopaedia users need confidence that our decision making processes are fair (see FairProcess). There's a principle, originally from a legal case (R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy) that any reasonable suspicion or appearance of bias is enough to undermine that confidence. On Wikipedia we have WP:INVOLVED, which can reasonably be stretched to cover this case. I don't really agree with John Vandenberg but his point is arguable. Therefore, a different sysop should close the debate, although I hope they come to the same conclusion you did; to delete these redirects when they're not required for any other purpose is unnecessary and destructive.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- If I had thought at the time that three-year-old views on related but not identical redirects meant I was involved I would not have closed this. I have no objection to being told I got that wrong though - I am human! Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Should we similarly prohibit admins who've argued delete or keep in an AfD on the basis of notability from closing AfDs where WP:N enter into the discussion for the next three years? (Yes, I realise this would be reductio ad absurdum if I'd done any reductioing). Wily D 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn or relist/reclose, whichever is favored by participants, but the NC cannot be allowed to stand. Not only was the discussion clearly in favor of deletion, but also the closing admin was a participant in a previous related deletion discussion. Not good. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- That I expressed views in a related previous discussion does not automatically mean that the outcome was incorrect as your comment seems to imply - whether I was involved and whether the discussion arrived at a consensus are independent of one another. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse The majority of delete views are really pretty inadequate, so it would have been within discretion to close this as a keep, but NC is probably the best reading. No way it should have closed as a delete, so accusations of appearance of bias are really grasping at straws. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Funny, my gut feeling is exactly the opposite: there is no way it could have been closed as "keep". What do you mean by saying "[t]he majority of delete views are really pretty inadequate"? Keφr 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - That two experienced editors have opposite gut reactions about whether a discussion favoured keep or favoured delete seems like a point in favour of a no consensus closure. I can certainly see why both sides can read the discussion as favouring their point of view, but that again is often an indication that no consensus was reached. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Better not take the bait about "gut feeling". Reading the closure and the closer's after comments give me this overall emptyness feeling: why did the closer not search for consensus, or tried to conclude into one. A closer can do more that just count the arguments and writing that below the line, "there are arguments on both sides and there is no consensus by the !voters So, ...". Duh. A closer has more freedom to conclude, and many good XfD closures were made by a closer stepping forward, into the arguments. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

- - - OTOH, it may just indicate that people are applying vastly different criteria, which would mean that some people are being unreasonable in their criteria or that consensus is just impossible because the criteria are so vague. Anomie ⚔ 14:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The question for you still to answer, Thryduulf, is whether you read the discussion or wrote the conclusions offline & beforehand. Zooming in again on your unsubstantiated "no consensus" words is not enough; 90% of your closing arguments were about something else. Your conclusion was based on a flawed reasoning, a reasoning you have left behind completely afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Sorry I've just spotted this question. I have never closed any discussion without having read the discussion and I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would do so. As with almost every edit I have ever made to Wikipedia, I wrote the closing statement for this discussion in the editing window (not that this is relevant to anything). As explained many times, the no consensus closure was based on two factors: The relevant arguments for keeping or deleting the listed redirects being about balanced, and overall their being insufficient relevant discussion about the listed redirects to form a consensus. I have said this in many ways, but this is because there is a lot of refusing to listen happening (from several quarters). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Reopen (or overturn). While deletion discussions are ostensibly not votes, and we base the outcomes on strength of arguments based on policy, there seems to be no reason to dismiss the opinions of the majority of participants which recommended deletion. There is no "policy" about the topic to speak of anyway — both WP:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces and WP:Perennial proposals#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces are "information pages", a bizarre quasi-guideline/essay class of pages, while WP:RFD#DELETE has no "normative status" (so to speak) assigned whatsoever. And I remember something about policies being descriptive of consensus rather than prescriptive anyway: maybe this discussion could have uncovered a need to update those pages to reflect a new consensus. Keφr 11:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- I used the First law of holes to respond to Anomie, but I'm afraid it applies just as starkly to your rationale above. There is no new consensus. There is only "no consensus", and to try to overturn the closer's rationale and advice for a continuance if so desired is, in my humble opinion, just like the backhoe photograph in the article on the First law. There is nothing in WP:RFD#DELETE that applies except the major exception in D6, and there are two items, K3 and K5 at WP:RFD#KEEP, that apply to these useful, harmless shortcuts. But some people won't stop until they reach China. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

In the closing remarks, contributions are declared "unhelpful meta-discussion" (btw, given that closer uses two arguments from the Keep-comments says me that this disqualification is aimed solely on my arguments; a "but I didn't write names" - fallacy doesn't change that). Then the closer introduces arguments ex machina, stating "the most recent consensuses in appropriate venues are that there is no prohibition against using T: redirects to the template namespace." (five words before, the closer threw out a "meta-discussion", but somehow is allowed to introduce(!) arguments from outer space). I still find this a brutality, an arrogant shuffle.

Then he goes on to complain that there is nothing virtually no discussion about the individual redirects. When I actually listed the individually addressed Redirects by name on his talkpage, the argument was suddenly forgotten by the closer and he changed topic. Why at all arguments for the whole list should mention specific entries I still do not get; the closer clearly did not see this possibility. When 12 pages are listed, and I build a reasoning for those twelve, it is not the closers business to tell me I should have listed them. Nor is it his business to throw my arguments in the bin, replacing them with alchemy.

Closer then starts giving directions on how to structure RfD's in the future (but not "too many concurrent discussions" please). This is paternalistic, arrogant, and nowhere it is guaranteed that if one follows this prescription, arguments would be treated different of even better.

The final sentence of the closing is a stab at my arguments (by someone who first pulled some god-given arguments from a hat).

In general, I concur with User:Anomie wo stated earlier that it looks like the closer did not read or get the discussion. I add that the closing argument does not even look like it is about the discussion. It was written in a separate room, using arguments that were pre-written already (now this does relate to earlier opinions).

I feel fucked having my arguments being treated this way: not read, dismissed as "unhelpful meta", flatly wrong in both ways re individually addressed entries, and this all being replaced by meta alchemist pre-formulated arguments from outside. Before the second half of my response, I take a break. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

TL;DR – dig, dig, dig. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Judging but not reading? Another useless off-topic contribution, with personal attack. There is a pattern. Next time please mark your edits. -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Cute – you write endless diatribes in an argument that nobody can possibly win, and you call me a dick? How obsessively and aggressively ironic! You're beginning to remind me of me! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No I didn't. I call out your repeated behaviour here. Personal, off-topic, judgemental, dismissive. -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn into deletion. Mainly from closers reasoning (essentaially throwing out my RfD arguments and replacing them with a personal, outside reasoning), I may have to point to earlier arguments. First there is the "no reason to delete"-argument, landed repeatedly by Paine Ellsworth in this topic (in the RfD too), but nicely disarmed by Anomie early on (in short: "... but there can be other reasons to delete").

Then there is the Keep-contributor in RfD that in a short contribution mainly stated that these were not cross-namespace. It must be repeated that these pages are pages in mainspace. As such, the claim "harmless" can not be made as a blanket.

Then there are claims of "consensus" that these are kept.

PE linked at least twice to WP:CNR, which has that word in the lede indeed. Of course this is just an essay. More tellingly, and reducing its weight to below zero, that page started as a policy proposal, and when that failed it was turned into an essay [7], after which change the phrase was added. All this was about 2007 [8].

In closing, Thryduulf wrote: as the most recent [sic] consensuses in appropriate venues are [9]. About this "most recent" -- how can that be a consensus (apart from being ex machina and unspecified)? Where is that? Closer fails to specify this "consensuses", let alone "recent consensuses".

Here is the issue with deletion of T: articles (possibly expandable with other pseudos): we don't know what happened. Only very few of these Redirects have survived and are discussed at RfD over the more recent years. Most of these must have been deleted without a question at all once Template space was introduced. The fact that we non-admins do not have a trace visible of these says that we can not conclude that they are commonly kept.

And there are clean-cut Delete outcomes: Dec 2010, Dec 2010. So, the "recent consensuses" do not exist (closer's judgments wrong or unbased; actually a simple wp:otherstuffexists allusion, no more).

What remains is that there is no rule. That is the starting point for this RfD/DRV. So we must think for ourselves in the RfD. I have found not one original Keep argument in the whole, all serious "keep" arguments are derived from non-existent outside "consensus" claims. And this is what I wrote (and a lot of RfD contributors with me): For one or more reasons for each (all mentioned in the RfD) all 13 proposed T:-pages can be deleted. I will not repeat the reasons, and I will not repeat on which pages each applies. The closer could and should have done that. -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - Lets just relist them all individually and each one can be discussed separately. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn or Relist (preferably relist as a batch, but individually is also OK) - I would have preferred that the close was reverted and the existing discussion relisted/closed by someone else, but anyway .. we are here. There has never been consensus to keep T: prefixes (e.g. 6 Dec 2010 which was mentioned by User:Cymru.lass in the 29 December 2010 discussion). I can appreciate that batches can be problematic, however I carefully selected a set of T: redirects that I felt were not in keeping with previous decisions.
There were eleven (11) people in the discussion who agreed with the selection, and some explicitly said that this deletion should not prejudice on the ones that I didn't nominate (and I agree). The 11 are DePiep (who created one of these redirects), Anomie, Thumperward, TonyTheTiger (creator of T:AH which I didnt list because it doesnt belong to this set), Frietjes, WOSlinker, Mr. Stradivarius, Kephir, Steel1943, Modest_Genius and myself of nominator.
There were only three (3) people who voted keep. Of those three, Paine Ellsworth is the creator of one of the redirects that I nominated, and Technical 13 has been fighting for the right for anyone to create new namespaces (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace). The last of the three is Jclemens, who has stated that T: should be a formalised as a shortcut for Template:. 11 vs 3. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

More counting: from 13 proposed deletions, only one was singled out in a Keep argumentfor specific reasons. I still do not see why a cover-all argument would not be allowed, here simple leading to a delete-12 keep-1 conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

There has never been consensus to keep T: prefixes...

The history of the main T-colon shortcut that this begins with, T:WPTECH, shows that it was listed on 29 December 2010 and the result was SNOW keep – not just "keep", but "SNOW keep". The "consensus" was that there wasn't a "snowball's chance in hell" that any of these should be deleted. That's been the case for others in this group and so many other pseudo-namespace redirects, as well.

11 vs 3

It shouldn't have to be repeated again: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The decision was based upon the calibre of the given rationales, which is as it should be. The old, worn-out arguments that favor deletion of these shortcuts all have rebuttal rationales that make more sense than the senseless deletion of harmless, useful shortcut redirects. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

The snow keep of 29 December 2010 was because it included many redirects that were in active use. It was an indiscriminate listing of every 'T:' redirect. That was a consensus against nominations of that kind, and it is a consensus I agree with. I put together a carefully selected subset that have similar properties, being that only their creator loves them, and for some of them even their creator voted delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Let's say you are correct about the snow keep of 2010 and the consensus was only against mass nominations. The question remains why anyone would take the time to go through and "carefully" select a subset of harmless T-colon shortcuts that allegedly have similar properties? It's been established that there could be uses of these shortcuts that do not show up anywhere, not page views, not anywhere, and yet you persist and use the faulty argument that there is something very wrong with a creator of a shortcut liking, using and finding it useful, especially when there is no way to tell if the creator is the "only" one who uses it – absolutely no way! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn There was not enough dissent to the proposed deletion to list this as no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Discussions of cross-namespace redirects such as these often produce results that are no better than random. A discussion with more participation than RFD (WP:CENT?) would at least provide an indication of wider consensus on some of the issues. Regardless of consensus on the principle, some of these should be nominated separately as misleading redirects, as the "T:" and "Template:" versions don't lead to the same target (compare T:WPTECH with Template:WPTECH). Peter James (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Weak endorse I probably would've closed as delete, but on further review, these really aren't cross-namespace redirects (that confuses cross-namespace and pseudo-namespace), so there were a few delete votes that really shouldn't be given much weight, premised as they are on an erroneous assumption. Generally, I don't think one editor finding something useful is strong enough to outweigh legitimate reasons for deletion, otherwise the door would be opened for Scw,c and all sorts of other nonsense. But here, I think the margin was within an administrator's discretion. --BDD (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- Except they really are cross-namespace redirects, which has been explicitly mentioned in the discussion. Go for example to [10] and type javascript:alert("this page's namespace is '" + wgCanonicalNamespace + "' (" + wgNamespaceNumber + ")"); into the address bar. Then try it on some other pages. That we allow titles with a "T:" prefix to redirect to the Template namespace is just a custom (and not even a consistently followed one, see T:MP.) Keφr 00:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Yeah, if you have to go out of your way and run some code to discover that these are in the "wrong" namespace, that really doesn't count. --BDD (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Hi BDD, there are other ways to see the problem, using techniques ordinary users use. If you go to special:search and type in any of these into the search box, with only 'Article' namespace selected, they appear as the first result. Even if you exclude the 'T:' prefix, and search for 'WPTECH' instead of 'T:WPTECH', the template redirect appears as the first result; same for 'WPAF', 'WPProp', 'WP Proposals' and 'R from'. Searching for 'VGR', the template redirect appears as the fourth result. A search for 'P2' turns up 'T:P2' on the third page as the 49th result, with 'T:DYK/P2' also on the third page in position 52. That means this 'P2' redirect is deemed more important than the the redirect Pelamis P2, which averages 30 pageviews per month. Even a search for 'FAUNA' returns T:FAUNA as the 75th result, ahead of 44,000 other entries which are more relevant. Searching for 'OU' returns 'T:OU' as the 83rd result, ahead of the redirect Ou Xuan which sees peaks of 50 pageviews per month. Searching for 'TT' returns 'T:TT' around slot 155, ahead of redirect TT Virus, which recently peaked at 28 pageviews per month.
Why are T: cross-namespace redirects more highly placed in search results than other articles which mention the search term multiple times? Simple: they match on the page title, and these shortcut titles are short, which means the search term matches the majority of the page title, so these pages get a high score in the search engine. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

re BDD.... (that confuses cross-namespace and pseudo-namespace) says BDD. Isn't it BDD introducing the confusion here by using "cross-namespace" as a namespace? Further, simply using {{NAMESPACE}} on a redirect page says it. Or {{main other|this-is-mainsp|this-is-not-mainsp}}. I find it strange and tiresome that at the end of this many kB RfD, DRV process this still has to be explained before being able to go into arguments. To an editor who as admin could have closed the RfD. -DePiep (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't know where you got the idea that I think cross-namespace is a namespace. My overall point remains that if it looks like it's part of a given namespace, it should be (a WP:DUCK corollary, if you will). If a mainspace search is finding these sorts of redirects, that sounds like a software issue to me. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

"[Jupiter's moons] are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist." Keφr 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

...? --BDD (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - Batch nominations require commonality in that there needs to be at least one deletion claim common to the entire batch. Here, there were at least two 1) cross-namespace redirects with 2) low number of pageviews/not visited regularly. The reasons for deleting redirects are listed at WP:RFD#DELETE. "T:" cross-namespace redirects are an exception to deleting cross-namespace redirect out of article space. See WP:RFD#DELETE. However, those proposing to delete focused on the cross-namespace redirect portion without accounting for the cross-namespace redirect exception. Also, a low number of pageviews/not visited regularly still shows that "Someone finds them useful" which is #5 Reasons for not deleting listed at WP:RFD#KEEP. Per the close, some of the listed redirects were not tagged for deletion. The close noted that there was no discussion about the individual redirects. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is the standard by which the closer takes action on a discussion and it reads "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." There was a lack of strength of argument and use of policy/guideline/etc. The trouble with batch nominations is that each nomination in the batch usually stands or falls together. In view of the discussion, the closer of the discussion did not interpreted the consensus incorrectly. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

The close noted that there was no discussion about the individual redirects: that notion was incorrect (I pointed to this at closer's talkpage early on [11], then the closer changed argument into a "yes, but ..." [12], evasive). Jreferee could not have made this statement sincerely if they had checked the close text against RfD content.

the closer of the discussion did not interpreted the consensus incorrectly -- how do we know? The closer did not read the discussion, or at least did not use the arguments brought forward. The closer then injected their own opinion from outside as the only base. Also, the closer and Jreferee here still fail to explain why arguments can be applied nor to the whole batch nor to individual nominations. I can gain no trust from "advise" on how to nominate a list, since any next closer can discard that at will. -DePiep (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

What on earth are you on about!? I've detailed which arguments I gave weight to and which were unhelpful, etc. which would be impossible if I hadn't read the discussion. There were relevant arguments for and against deletion, with the weight of neither predominating, and that there was not enough relevant discussion about the individual redirects for there to be a consensus to keep or delete any of them. I made a mistake about how many were not tagged for deletion and corrected that when it was pointed out (changing "almost all" to "some"), if that was the sole basis for my closure then I would have reverted it but in reality it was only a small portion. The main reason I closed this as no consensus was that there was insufficient relevant discussion about the listed redirects to form a consensus, which is why I suggested a way to make a future discussion (which anyone could have started) more likely to achieve consensus. As for outside arguments, I'm not sure what you mean. At RfD there are standard interpretations of some facts and arguments (see WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE) that I obviously took into consideration when weighing the arguments presented, but this is common to every RfD closure that requires an evaluation of competing arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

[13] Thryd closing, 25 Nov: there is virtually no discussion about the individual redirects

[14] DePiep, reply: Addressed by link are, sometimes extensively: T:OU, T:FAUNA, T:P2, T:WPTECH, T:R from, T:ONES, T:S

[15] replt TD: Yes, you [sic; me?] argued about specific redirects, but not everybody agreed with you.

A shift in reasoning, evading responsibility for closing remark "virtually no" (and changing into "you").

You must have "seen" them, but you did not "read" them. You threw them out with no holdbacks. In first argument. And then you introduced your own arguments from outside.

My point "arguments can be applied nor to the whole batch nor to individual nominations [at choice, by the closer]" - still not expanded by you or Jreferee here.

So, when individual redirects were addressed you skip that, when the whole list was addressed you skip that.

I can add that nowhere I expanded the deletion target to the whole of T:space. Commenter PE suggested that more than once, and you bought that. I can not defend against illogic. One more bad reading.

You change tone again when writing here "there was not enough relevant discussion" (about individual redirects). The close said: "virtually no". Subtle shifting of phrasing to clean up your act. I pointed to more of these. -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Adding: [16] particularly as some comments relate to an unspecified subset. Thryd. So that finishes it all. When discussed single redirects: not seen. When discussed the whole set: dismissed. When discussion a subset: did not understand. Closer did not try very hard. -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

user:Jreferee, I agree that there were two reasons. Both reasons were common to all of them. I dont believe that the exception has ever successfully been applied to T: CNR. T: are regularly deleted, as they are not accepted as CNR like MOS: & H: & P:, and WP: WT: which were also once CNR. Suddenly they are exempt? And only now I need to write a legal opinion in the nomination, covering every single possible issue? Why is the bar is so high now, when it wasnt for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_6. People regularly delete T: CNR, such as user:Amalthea speedy deleting T:Asbox. user:MSGJ speedy deleted T:APPLE, saying "sorry these are not allowed", it was taken to CfD by user:Xeno who used the rationale "Recently created, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The banner template is not linked often enough in discussions to require placing a redirect in the mainspace." [and talked about the syntax problems which were repeated in the discussion we are now reviewing]. In response, the creator of the template (user:Mono) agreed and it was speedied again. user:Thumperward successfully argued here that T:DEFCON that be deleted despite other CNR because "We shouldn't encourage people to drop new cross-namespace redirects into the mainspace unless they're genuinely considered to be a good idea." user:Ruslik0 deleted it. user:RHaworth speedy deleted page T:IBT. Back in 2007, user:RockMFR batch nominated 5 C: redirects and 3: T: redirects arguing that lack of incoming links was sufficient and noted that "C: and T: are not usually used as pseudo-namespaces for shortcuts." With only User:delldot and User:Gavia immer commenting, both in agreement, User:JLaTondre deleted them. On the same page User:Radiant! nominates more C: and T:, which were all deleted. user:Tikiwont deleted T:ITN/C when User:B.Wind argued there were better shortcuts available.
In all my looking through T: discussions, I can only find keeps for cases where a significant number of comments either supported keeping the redirect, or many voices indicated in the discussion that the batch nomination was too broad. Neither of those happened in this XFD. Note that I informed all who participated in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_29#T: (which was the keep result), and were not retired. 36 notifications Instead the closing admin decided that the batch nomination was problematic on his own accord.
I didnt tag and notify on two instances: T:P2 (by user:Arbitrarily0) and T:WPAF (by user:Quentin Smith). If the closing admin felt that to be a problem, he should have relisted the debate and notified those people, or asked me to do that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

The Wikipedia:Redirect guideline states that a major exception to deleting cross-namespace redirect out of article space is the T: pseudo-namespace shortcut redirect. Paine Ellsworth raised this in the ‎T:WPTECH RfD discussion. Those arguing delete in the ‎T:WPTECH RfD discussion did not sufficiently rebut this point by indicating why the listed 12 T: redirects should be deleted despite the major T: cross-namespace redirect exception in Wikipedia:Redirect guideline. The discussion deletion arguments looking at past RfDs fall under WP:WAX. In reply to the detailed arguments as to why T: pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects should not be part of the major exception, Paine Ellsworth correctly noted in the RfD discussion that RfD is not the venue to discuss the deletion of an entire pseudo-namespace. Many of the other delete arguments were more conclusion than argument. There was insufficient relevant discussion in the body of the RfD about the 12 listed redirects to form a consensus. When you add closing admin discretion to that, I do not think that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I do not see 'T:' mentioned on Wikipedia:Redirect. Could you point out where it is on that page?
It is mentioned on Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Shortcut, which are information pages only. The latter says "The following pseudo-namespaces are less commonly used, for a variety of reasons" and then lists 'T:'. Please do check the history of that page, as that statement goes back a long way - I checked the last 50 revs.
Paine Ellsworth was talking FUD. The batch nomination did not proposed deletion of an entire pseudo-namespace. I did not list all T: in the batch, as had been done in other RfD; I explicitly included only a subset, and several people agreed only with those listed to be deleted, without prejudice against the other T:s which were not listed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

To exclude T: from the Wikipedia:Redirect guideline major exception, the guideline would need to be revised, such as "The major exception to this rule are the CAT:, H:, MOS:, and P: pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects, including long-standing T: redirects, are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness." Both you and DePiep made good arguments in the RfD to exclude T: from the Wikipedia:Redirect guideline major exception. However, that cannot be done through an RfD. The change can be done by posting a request at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

It sounds like you're repeating the same fallacious reasoning I argued against above, and throwing in a strawman for good measure. "X is not a reason to delete" is not the same as "X must be kept no matter what", and few of the comments even mentioned "cross-namespace" and none seem to have depended on that as their only argument. Anomie ⚔ 15:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]

The outcome of the RfD is based on strength of arguments and the closer reasonably did not find sufficient strength in either the keep or delete position. My 14:14, 5 December 2013 comment you replied to was a suggestion to John on how to address the larger issue. The default length of an RfC is 30 days. Thirty days after posting a request at Wikipedia talk:Redirect to change the text as noted above can resolve the a larger issue. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Some misconceptions here:

WP:WAX is an essay, not a policy nor guideline and therefore not binding.
WP:WAX mainly applies to articles.
WP:WAX does not dismiss outright the merit of such arguments; it merely lowers it: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this"
Decisions made in past discussions, especially past deletion discussions, are often indicative of a consensus formed in the past that should be respected. Far-reaching discussions such as the RFC on giving bureaucrats the desysop userright needed to go through process to change a policy page because of existing cited discussions which supported the status quo at the time before the RFC's proposed changes were implemented. An essay does not trump the long history of deletion discussions and consensus-building that CNRs have experienced.

No comment about the rest of your statement. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Oh yay, involved supervotes and winning-by-bureaucracy. We shouldn't even be having a discussion about overturning this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- Whether or not I was involved, I most definitely did not supervote and I struggle to see how no consensus is a win for anybody? Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  If you are 'involved', your close is essentially a WP:supervote. That is just an 'if'; I am not making that accusation, and I avoid saying anything like that unless I see patterns in behaviour. I know you close lots of CfDs, and participate in CfDs too, so I dont find it unusual or believe you had ill-intention to have closed this one, but given you've been voted on this contentious topic in the past it would have been wiser to let someone else close this one.
  Your close, despite being a 'no consensus', contains many statements that will be used in future discussions, with a voice of authority. Your summary of the CfD seems to be heavily slanted, which was my initial concern. Worse, the more I look at the history of CNR and PNR, the more I can only conclude that your summary of the current status of CNR/PNR in general is erroneous. I can only find evidence to the contrary.
  Part of your summary of the discussion says "Discounting all that there is virtually no discussion about the individual redirects". Firstly, why is that relevant? Where is the guideline that says an RfD must discuss each item in a batch nomination? They were offered for discussion; User:DePiep did specifically identify problems with several of them, without any rebuttal from the 35 people who were notified of this discussion. T:R from was discussed at length, and user:Anomie showed that typing '{{R from}}' was easier than Paine Ellsworth's offered usage used to defend T:R from, to which Paine Ellsworth said 'Point well taken' and then continued to fight, not on the merits of the individual redirect, that we cant delete useless redirects because essay WP:CNR says there is general consensus PNR are untouchable. Technical 13 and Jclemens also couldnt offer any merits of any of them, but resorted to 'keep all because this is a PNR'.
  Your close says "most recent consensuses in appropriate venues are that there is no prohibition against using T: redirects to the template namespace". User:DePiep and I have shown admin decisions, admin actions, and community edits which show the essays being offered as rationale for 'keep all' do not have the authority of an existing community consensus. The more I look, the more I find consistency in the delete outcome except in well-argued situations, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 68#Proposal for an alias to templatespace in 2011, all the way back to 2006. Could you point to the recent consensuses that you refer to in your close? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  - When looking for precedent, one should also note the closing comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#CSD:G1: "[T]he argument that cross-namespace redirects are inherently deletable is strong [...]; it's clear from the history of pseudo-namespaces that PNRs are not welcomed, and existing PNRs are kept mainly to avoid linkrot[.]" Keφr 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Thryduulf, the question is not if or whether you deliberately derailed the lines of discussion. The point is that you still do not admit that your closing may be unbalanced. Even until this moment, you keep arguing your "no consensus" conclusion, but with shifting arguments while omitting any substantial correction or admission. (One exception, the early edit into "some"). -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

This discussion really needs to be closed. Where the heck is Jimbo when you need him? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Why invoke Jimbo? There are no death threats yet. Keφr 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]
Preemptive anal.gesia? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- Like… paine-killers? Keφr 00:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[]
  Good one! Think I have anything to worry about? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

I've been asked to comment about this since I found it in my email. Based on my reading of the discussion, this seems like a no-consensus closure with the possibility of relisting. Thryduulf's closing arguments indicate a lack of centralized discussion about the specified redirects, which are not meant to apply generally to all pseudo-namespace redirects or even all T-colon pseudo-namespace redirects. However overall arguments have been that in favor of keeping:

That they are not harming anyone.
That at least one of them is useful in page transclusions (but this has already been supplemented with the colon before the template name).
That editors should be free to create pseudo-namespace redirects as they wish with due process (which goes against traditional consensus and notions about the mainspace).

To which the opposing arguments to delete were, although somewhat weak:

Kephir's elaboration of the typical arguments extended in debates and non-consensuses regarding pseudo-namespace/cross-namespace redirects ad nauseum.
That though redirects do not harm, neither do their deletion. "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects."
That only this specific batch has low pageview count, both overall and specifically to each redirect (and therefore are rather harmless whether or not to keep or delete, which means this is probably the weakest argument for either case).
That the previous overarching consensus was discouraging not only the creation of new out-of-mainspace redirects but also use of current ones (which also applies to all pseudo-namespace or all T-colon pseudo-namespace redirects). Requoting another discussion Kephir found, "[T]he argument that cross-namespace redirects are inherently deletable is strong [...]; it's clear from the history of pseudo-namespaces that PNRs are not welcomed, and existing PNRs are kept mainly to avoid linkrot[.]"

There is also one argument in favor of speedy keep

That this nomination goes against WP:R (but this page also cites deletion/keep reasons from WP:RFD making this argument circular), possibly because RFD keep reason 5, but this has insofar only applied to T:R_from which is the only listed exception singled out in the discussion. All other arguments have been generally for either all redirects, all pseudo-namespace redirects, all T-colon pseudo-namespace redirects, or specifically this batch of T-colon pseudo-namespace redirects (again with the possible exception of T:R_from).

One final note is that although pageview count is important I have curiously not seen a keep reason if favor of a redirect's age, and particularly with respect to a number of redirects in these batches (some go back as far as 2007 [and have also been nominated twice for some of the same reasons which proves how controversial and upsetting to the wiki any discussion props up regarding the existence of these redirects] while others are as recent as 2011). Therefore, my final verdict on this one would have to be relist for consensus. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Alright, so doing a little more digging I found WP:CNR: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might be retained value for extra-Wikipedia links, and that pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc.) may be used freely." The problem with this statement, which others have used as a reason both to delete and to keep (thus signifying its ambiguity), is the distinction between 'cross-namespace' and 'pseudo-namespace' redirect, though this could just be splitting hairs and wikilawyering. But it seems that, based on this statement, the only distinction so far has been that pseudo-namespace are 'established' redirects preserved for posterity while cross-namespace are not. Going along this train of thought, 'established' is very vague and based on whatever consensus exists at any present moment and arbitrary sets of rules, some of which have merit such as the age and use of a redirect and some of which do not. Either way, the arguments hashed and rehashed again and again on that essay page should apply here as well, with discretion of course. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Gee, I don't know, TeleComNasSprVen – there seem to be several who absolutely hate these poor, harmless little shortcuts, and several more who absolutely adore them. What in the name of heaven and earth would make anyone think that a new listing would be any different from the last one and from this deletion review discussion? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

PE, this is a DRV. Stop the drama postings. And you could have read the answer beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the gentle reminder, DP! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[]

You're appealing to the wrong person, Paine. I'm trying my best to distance myself from my opinion in the actual discussion to more objectively give a reading of the consensus, considering I had not given it yet during the RfD. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Very well, then (and I shall try earnestly to limit any "drama" content), maybe you could extend your contribution to include one more reason to keep? I mentioned this reason, but few seem interested in exploring its impact. We may call it the "Dynamic Re-Creation" reason. Let's for the moment put aside that these 13 shortcuts were "carefully chosen" by the nominator as representative of past subjects of deletion discussions that may be considered exceptions to the keep and snow-keep dispositions for reasons of evident uselessness. Since it has been established that the What links here page should not be used as a sole criteria for deletion, and that the number of page views may be misleading due to at least one possible usage (on "Show preview" pages), which does not increment the page-view statistics, how useful these shortcuts are should be closely scrutinized. And yet, without knowing or being able to know how useful they are, we can only speculate. Having to begin somewhere, let us say each of the 13 shortcuts is on the average useful to 3 editors. It would then follow that there are about 40 editors who find these shortcuts useful. Now, let's delete them. If you happen to be one of those 40 editors, and you were to try to use your shortcut as a link on a talk or documentation page only to find it red-linked, what would you do? My contention is that you would either re-create your shortcut or create a new shortcut with the same target. If all 40 editors do this, then where we had 13 shortcuts, we would have 40 shortcuts. At best, we have no way of knowing whether or not "3 editors per shortcut" is conservative or accurate; the number may very well be 10 or more editors per shortcut. So if we delete 13 shortcuts that are useful to 10-per editors, a potential 130 new shortcuts may take their place, and so on. I consider this a logical reason not to delete, and I wonder if, in your opinion, it may possess any ability to affect a future consensus? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[]

In short, "keep because a minority of editors will reinstate them anyway"? If editors continue instating redirects that have been rejected by consensus, we have measures to deal with them, ranging from a WP:TROUT to WP:ANI and/or WP:BLOCK. Or worse, WP:RFA. Keφr 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[]

These are shortcuts – cheap, redirect shortcuts. These are not articles, they are just shortcuts. The editors would not recreate them to incur the wrath of Wikipedia, Keφr, they would recreate them because they need them, because they find them useful. These are not "really harmful" redirects, they are harmless shortcuts in a strange type of "namespace" that long-standing community consensus has determined can be "used freely". Your reaction to my speculative situation appears to epitomize this entire situation, from the first discussion to this most recent: First delete the shortcuts, then threaten to block anyone who tries to make more of them. Will a group of "cops" keep Special:PrefixIndex/T: under their wings to make sure no dastardly criminal editors make more? One contributor finds a shortcut useful, but another contributor says it must be destroyed, and if you make it again, we'll send you to Siberia to edit an alternative language Wikipedia. Where does it end? Where does anybody get off telling another editor they cannot use a harmless Wikipedia tool that they find useful? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Participating in a similar discussion several years ago is not enough to make the closer involved. If we applied those sort of standards, it would cause serious problems. How many admins active at AfD have, for instance, participated in AfDs on schools? Are they to be precluded from closing any discussion on them in the future? As for the close, I think it was reasonable and certainly within admin discretion. While it is permissible to nominate batches of redirects, it may cause problems if different considerations apply to different ones. This seems to be the case here. The redirects should be renominated individually to enable a better attempt to reach consensus. In this discuss, reasonable arguments were made on both sides, so a no consensus closure was quite proper. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[]

It's not that simple. Closing editor used mostly arguments from those discusisons years ago, while neglecting arguments made in the current discussion. Already on the pre-DRV talk, right after closing, two editors (including me) complained that it appeared as if the closer "had not read" the current discussion. Only after that those earlier involvement was noted. Also, on this page very few or none editors comment on that. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

25 November 2013

Lingdian – Consensus is to endorse the deletion and that no action is needed as a result of this DRV request. – Sandstein 07:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Note that closing admin moved Lingdian (band) to Lingdian, I temporarily undid that by WP:BRD and after discussion with closing admin opened this DRV, but another editor in good faith not knowing this DRV was happening put in a RM, I have undone my WP:BRD and closed the RM as WP:SNOW. Hope that makes life easier all round. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Reason: deletion of intermediating disambiguation page is a breach of WP:DAB. Lingdian the company is much more notable than Lingdian the band, inside China no doubt the band is more notable, but outside China it is the public survey opinion company which receives Google Book coverage for its political significance as the only privately owned market research company venturing into the sensitive area of public opinion survey. WP:DAB is explicit that Wikipedia dabs on article content not titles, but there has been a steady trickle of move proposals at WP:RM advocating in effect civil disobedience to what WP:DAB states. This AfD is another example of that, in my view at least. Lingdian was and should be a dab page giving readers access to both Lingdian per WP:TWODABS. I have no personal dog in this since I created both Market research and opinion polling in China which features content on Lingdian company and Lingdian (band) if anything the opposite since personally I have listened to the band, but not to the extent of pretending it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which it isn't. No particular issue with the admin who closed who handled it as well as could be expected given the !votes, the problem here is !votes which deliberately go against definition of topic in WP:DAB ...when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No action required. Even if Lingdian (band) is not the most notable topic named Lingdian in existence, it is the only topic by that name that has a Wikipedia article so far. If an article is created that is about the polling research company Lingdian, we can decide at that time whether the company or the band is the primary topic, or whether neither of them is the primary topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:Metropolitan90, really and truly sorry but same problem again, does your definition of "topic" in existence here agree with what WP:DAB says in the first paragraph about "topic" cited above? What is the point of having a guideline which says "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" if no one follows it? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:Metropolitan90, I'd prefer to hear your own reply to my question to you. The central question here is the application of WP:DISAMBIGUATION to an AfD of a disambiguation page as the main relevant guideline. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

.

You can ignore me, of course is your right. The difference with the last time you asked others to "ignore me", is that this is not RM, you aren't in your confort zone. You opened this discussion so Metropolitan is not the person who has to explain why the AFD discussion result was incorrect. WP:DAB is a guide not a policy, it is *your* work as this DR opener to demostrate why disambiguation should be applied to a non-ambiguous situation, as one of those ambiguous terms doesn't even exist. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Also, can you explain which one of the 5 purposes of DR is being used? In fact none of them apply, but your application falls into "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". This belongs to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion not Wikipedia:Deletion review. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The answer to your own question ("if no one follows it?") is in the next part of the quotation you go this: "[It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow,] though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". You try to WP:BURO every guide in Wikipedia you follow, only when it is convenient for you, otherwise, why Wo zhe shi nian is full of WP:POVs? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I have no complaint against WP:DAB and do support following it in general. But the amount of effort being devoted here to having a disambiguation page at Lingdian seems unproductive to me. If this discussion is necessary or desirable to have at all, it should be done when the Lingdian research company has an article, not before then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse deletion. Let's analyze IIO comments in this page alone. You say the company is "much more notable than ... the band". Do you live in China or Asia? If the answer is yes, can you explain how and why the company is "more notable" than the band? If the answer is not, can you explain where you obtained such conclusion? It is an unsourced assertion (frequent in your case), which includes an opinion given by you. Until this moment no one has seconded your "more important" assertion, and per Talk:Lingdian (band)'s RM, no one will. Anyway, if the company is "more notable" than the band, why the company does not have an article? Before you create it (I know you), it should be done in a way that presents:
- "more than a passing mention [in external references] but it need not be the main topic of the source material"; you believe, and you want us to believe, the company is notable because of the article Market research and opinion polling in China, but it is not the case. There are several sources of the fictional radio station Flashback 95.6, should we create an article because of that? No, trivial mentions in indepentent sources are not a guarantee the subject is notable. Also, what makes books reliable sources? Anyone can write a book, and being posted to Google Books won't make your book reliable.
- "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability"; Market research and opinion polling in China refs 8, 9, 10:
  - 8: "a third institution that produces ratings data is the Horizon Research Consultancy Group (Lingdian diaocha gongsi...)"
  - 9: "One successful example of a commercial survey firm is Horizon (Lingdian)..."
  - 10: "According to its founder, Yuan Yue, Lingdian..."

What these three sources are saying are just "incidental" mentions of the company, not "the subject of significant coverage", and that if it is created it should be at Horizon (company), as it is the name references use is in English.

- "An article about a[n] ... organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"; if the article does not indicate why the two points above are satisfied, it can't pass A7, and therefore, it is a clean deletion of a non-notable company.

WP:TWODABS still applying, as, although you are correct with the "if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page" concern, there is no ambiguity to disambiguate, and even if Horizon's article is created, the hatnote "{{for}}" exists for these reasons. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

And close, unless opener explains why this falls into the venue of DRV, per any of the 5 purposes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Tbhotch, you have increased this page to 9,236 bytes. I discussed this DRV with the closing admin. Technically I guess purpose would come under 2 and 5, except as I said I don't think the closing admin is the problem here. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

If readability is comprised comments can be moved to talk page (by not removing the key parts of my comments). Purpose 2 states: "if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed", AFD is not CSD, and it took almost one month of discussion. The "otherwise disputed" refers to the first part: "if a speedy deletion ... is otherwise disputed"; Purpose 5 states "if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." This DRV explains what #5 means. The "substantive procedural error" you are referring to is that through the AFD discussion WP:DAB was not followed under the "a topic covered by Wikipedia" clause, but it was, and Ymblanter considered in the result; as the result was not a "no consensus" Ymblanter considered other arguments more valid than yours, for example Boleyn's initial comment, Uncle Milty's, Mark viking's or even mine; by the way calling me troll won't make me a troll, will make you see immature to real life situations (will you call "troll" your co-workers because they disagree with you, they understand better the rules of the company, and refer to your mistakes with proves?) This is why you have to talk with the admin first. The admin even told you what I did but shorter: "create another article, wait for some time so that it does not get deleted, and recreate a dab which at that point would be a perfectly valid page", because that's the only solution to this issue, but if Horizon does not demostrate notability, there's no word-sense disambiguation required. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Now 11,580 bytes. Let's let some 3rd parties comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Now 12Kb. Nowhere in WP:DRV states that discussions should be kept in 5KB, and trying to censor me is typical in you, so, what's the point of your check-bytes-point? Also, your comments generate 1/4 of the whole discussion if you didn't know. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse It's not "two topics" for a DAB page, but "two articles". The current text of the lead of WP:DAB might be confusing, but the rule is both simple and elegant: the DAB page doesn't need to come back until more than two articles tie into the same word. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment. As per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_25#Deletion_of_DAB_pages, it would work better if deletion of DAB pages was discussed at WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

24 November 2013

23 November 2013

Pindos (Russian slang) – Endorsed - we can look at this again when someone is able ti help with the sources. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Allow recreation There was only one vote for delete in the AfD. This term is indeed a very notable Russian slang term. There are many sources listed in the Russian Wikipedia: [17] 71.191.189.195 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm afraid that my Russian has deteriorated to the point that I can't follow the article as well as I would like. Please can you identify which of the sources mentioned are substantive content that meets our sourcing requirements. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep deleted pending the provision of substantive sources. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

File:Icarly-logo-2.png – I can't see any consensus here on anything. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I'm a little concerned about the SVG file (File:Icarly logo.svg) of the iCarly logo. The logo is unfree, and SVG is more superior than the PNG. I tried to request undeletion of the inferior PNG just to avoid infringement of the image's original use and original quality. However, it was rejected, so I'm requesting consensus here. If the format is irrelevant, then is avoiding copyright infringement less important than image quality? George Ho (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Reverse - The PNG logo should be used in place of a user-made SVG logo. If this was a logo pulled digitally from documentation from the copyright holder, then using the SVG version is generally accepted, but this is clearly stated as a user-made recreation of the logo, and as a non-free image, an SVG is not allowed in this scenario (tiny errors, etc.). The SVG needs to be deleted and the PNG restored. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment The refusal was here and the preceding discussion was here. My understanding is that, because SVG images are scalable to large dimensions without loss of quality, some think it is (normally) an unsuitable format for non-free images which WP:NFCC guidance says are to be of low resolution[18] because WP:NFC policy requires us to respect commercial opportunities[19] and minimal extent of use.[20] I don't think any non-SVG policy/guidance is documented. Anyway, there are problems. Thincat (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The important thing here is to give a true representation of the logo so as not to tarnish the reputation of the trademark holder. Some of the fair use criteria go against what the purpose of the logo is for. The copyright holder does not want to minimize use or have low quality copies. The issue of resolution in nonfree images when it comes to svg files is how much information or detail is in the file. In this case there is not much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I completely respect the true representation part, and that's justification for using an SVG that is pulled automatically from digital documents from the copyright/trademark owner. This is not (the uploader specifically cited it as their work). However close it may be to the actual logo, that's not true representation; a PNG pulled from the show's website is better than an SVG made by a user (and then we have to add in derivative work copyright issues). This is why SVGs are strongly discouraged for NFC. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't see how reduced quality may infringe trademark use. Care to explain? George Ho (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Question is there enough originality to be subject to copyright? I didn't think a shape with some text would rise to that level, but I'm no expert. Masem? Hobit (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Masem says that 3D effects make the logo copyrightable enough. George Ho (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Could well be, but I don't see how it isn't just a font. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - The shadow effects aren't copyrightable to you? George Ho (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
      - I'd say it's just a font, but again I'm no expert. Might be worth bringing to possibly free files or something. Hobit (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
        Here's the old review. George Ho (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
        SVG files are sometimes copyrighted as computer software (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), and therefore the SVG adaptation often needs identification of the programmer who created the SVG file and a licence from that person. If it is based on a different vector image, it may need permission from the person who created that vector image as well, even if that image was in a different vector format. Unfortunately, it doesn't say where the SVG file comes from, and the threshold of originality for computer software isn't clearly established on Wikipedia.
        
        The logo itself may or may not be simple enough, but the United States Copyright Office approved a registration of the Disney Junior logo, so this is probably too complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
        
        The lighting and shadow effects go beyond simple dropshadows or the like, making the logo appear as a real 3D object and thus gaining the copyright that unique lighting/shadows would have been granted to photographers. A comparison is the Oreo logo which was at commons but since deleted (though reused here under NFC allowances) per [21]. This logo is even moreso well beyond the threshold of originality. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It could be argued that the SVG violates WP:NFCC#3b, but this depends on how closely the SVG resembles the correct rendering of the logo. If an SVG isn't faithful to the logo when rendered at a high problem, I don't think that it would violate WP:NFCC#3b. A low-quality PNG wouldn't have this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Roslyn_Fuller – The 2009 AFD probably wouldn't have been kept these days but that doesn't take away from the fact that CSD does not apply to articles that have survived a deletion discussion. Overturned – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Page has been deleted with reason A7 despite the subject being a well-known Irish academic, with dozens of citations on the deleted page. Timing of deletion is suspect as subject has just recently been featured in article on Russia Today on controversial subject - Link here: http://rt.com/news/wikilicious-whistleblower-calendar-glamor-091/

Please advise as to possible steps to reverse deletion

Abraedt (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Speedy close on procedural grounds, DRV is not for reviewing CSD. The admin who deleted the article (or any other admin for that matter) can "userfy" the article to your sandbox so that you can work undisturbed on it until it is ready to be moved into mainspace again. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Of course DRV can look at if a CSD was applied correctly. Point 2 in fact of what DRV can be used for. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The admin who deleted it hasn't given any grounds beyond A7, nor has the admin sandboxed the article for me, but simply deleted it. Request for the article to be reinstated. If an admin wants it deleted, grounds need to be given.

Abraedt (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The page was already reviewed for Deletion in 2009 and content upheld... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscooby (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Restore and send to afd First of all, it is not an A7 by any stretch of the imagination, as there are very clear claims to significance. Second, it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roslyn Fuller. FWIW, I am not at all sure that there is clear notability , but it has to be discussed. This speedy was totally out of process.

And Del Rev can certainly be used for undeleting a speedy. It's not usually necessary, but if the deleting admin declines to restore or userify it, it can be appropriate to come here. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Thank you everyone! Please advise on next steps. Do I resubmit the article or just activate an earlier version? Some additional facts can be added to underline notability if required - for instance the subject has since published a leading text book on international law in Ireland. Thanks! Abraedt (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment The deleting admin commented here so more discussion would have been helpful before coming to DRV. However, it does not look to me that speedy deletion was appropriate. @Abraedt: you should not edit the temporarily undeleted article until this DRV discussion closes and I suggest you also wait before resubmitting anything. Thincat (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This isn't really the place to be saying it but the deleting admin has an unusual recent record for contributions [22] and deletions.[23] Thincat (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment Now that I can see the deleted article, I agree that this is in no way an A7. However, neither do I see in any of the respective talkpages a request to userfy or undelete (only a request for an explanation, which was given; also, another admin can decide to restore, too). The deletion certainly was a weird decision, but DRV was one step too early. --Randykitty (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

NOTBURO. When there's a really weird decision, coming here is one way of getting it the appropriate attention. It's however true that I and some other admins would have simply undeleted it if asked. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Abraham modal haplotype – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome.the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while other editors like user-agricolae were stonewalling/word play and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which the page nominated for deletion for deletion in the first place.I contacted administrator coffee but no response. The article is important for Arabs and i would appreciate serious adminstration review of discussionViibird (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Did you see on the Purpose section of the Deletion Review page where it says, "Deletion Review should not be used: . . . 8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias"? That means you don't get to accuse me of "stonewalling/word play" here (or as you also did in requesting the Galilee modal haplotype deletion review). Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Uphold decision There was a clear consensus to delete. And despite huge walls of text and attempts at wikilawyering by Viibird, no cohesive argument to keep was presented. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

~~Overturn~~ (no need to nominate and !vote - we understand your view) - Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome linked Viibird (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Out of scope, per item 5 of "Deletion review should not be used" at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment I have consistently disagree with Stifle over the years about the proper use of deletion review: I consider that correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself, are perfect. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. This is only a comment, because I have not yet examined the actual situation. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Consensus was clear. Closing administrator acted in an appropriate manner, entirely consistent with the consensus. The lack of notability won't change by reopening the discussion for a term that has no Google scholar hits, no PubMed hits, no Google News hits, when you eliminate Wikipedia mirrors has fewer Ghits than some random word strings, and where the paper in which the term was coined has never been formally published. Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Uphold decision to delete. I follow the scholarly literature on this topic closely, and there simply aren't reliable sources out there in the real world to support this as an encyclopedic topic. An article based solely on fringe primary sources does not uphold Wikipedia policy, and the encyclopedia project will be the better for following reliable sources as the verification policy expects. Keep the article deleted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Galilee modal haplotype – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while editor agricolae was stonewalling and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which he nominated the page for deletion in the first place Viibird (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Uphold decision Basically the same as the one above. Viibird is encouraged to get more acquainted with our notability standards and to stop creating pages on non-notable subjects and creating unnecessary DRVs. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - as above, nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

~~Overturn~~ (no need to nominate and !vote - we understand your view) Even though I don't have BA degree in English, I have MD degree among others (the field of article), and I managed to study extensively the great wiki-Notabiblity guidelines, to see the article clearly fit the guidelines. The sources in the article are clearly not Primary but secondary and tertiary (one to be added). The article is important scientifically for Arab ancestry and scientists tangling the issues of genetic diseases of Arabs.Viibird (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You may have studied them but you don't seem to have understood them, nor the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. You'll not get far by ignoring the views of others. Stalwart111 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I was talking about Notability guidelines policy of wiki policy, and you are talking about consensus of the discussion! ( is consensus of discussion part of notability guidelines of wiki? the consensus was one wiki user to 1. Is that a consensus of the scentific community?

because the scientific community have consensus that galilee modal haplotype credible according to the several studies sited in the article. so 2 perons beat the scientific community? consensus of deletion discussion is not part of notability wiki guidelines Viibird (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I noticed this at top "For administrator use only:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

" doesnt that mean adminstrator decided to keep the article?

and the deletion was made by non administrator!Viibird (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That's just hanging around in the template as a nowiki to remind someone closing manually to tag the talk page. Its means absolutely nothing in this context. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Uphold Consensus was clear and policy-based. The page creator was the only participating editor in favor of retention. Closing administrator acted in an appropriate manner, entirely consistent with the consensus and with policy. Agricolae (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

22 November 2013

Funkshone – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies recreating the deleted page. I first discussed the matter with the admin who deleted the page. I have no connection whatsoever with the subject of the article, except that I'm aware of their significance through hearing national radio interviews and reading funk music articles, and I have been present at their performances. ClareGC (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse deletion by default: nom claims to have new information but hasn't specified what it is and, most importantly, how it might nullify unanimous AFD consensus just a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse deletion No new information actually presented. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

New information:

The reason given for deleting the page was "A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I can detail the band's importance and significance, and can rewrite the main article to give it a neutral perspective, add further information (such as their 2011 and 2012 compilation albums) and add citations to support each statement, using secondary sources. That would also address all issues marked at the top of the article.

The review that was cited in the article, by David Barros, Too Much Flavour magazine (2008) http://www.toomuchflavour.co.uk/review_funkshone.html mainly charts the factual history of the band, but it also compares their singer (Natasha Watts) to Aretha Franklin and notes that the band's music is eclectic and original. It quotes, "Funkshone serve as a reminder to us all that funk is truly alive and still happening, and it's happening in the UK" and "Funkshone aren't afraid of going where other bands may fear to step with music", which shows their music is new and original (That their songs are not merely covers and remixes that many bands produce) and that they are progressing the genre on from its routes in 1970s America.

I would add more recent articles, such as a BBC review by Angus Taylor (March 2012) on Funkshone's second album release http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/23b6 which states "There is a sure progression in the group's own musical journey" "towards increasingly cinematic, orchestral sounds". The band have added a strings section for their latest album, expanding from funk music to include other genres. It also states, "In opening younger listener’s ears to the original music that inspires them, Bandoni and co perform a very useful function indeed". It is considered usual for funk bands to copy the historic sounds, so it's significant that this is new music evolving in a new direction and having an influencing on the young.

When interviewed by Craig Charles on his BBC Radio 6 Music show (9 June 2012) Mike Bandoni explained how the band are "Trying to push it a little bit more, to get as original, different and diverse as possible". The full interview is still available in the 'BBC Radio 6 Music Best Bits' highlights for the network http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/showcase/clips/p00tr7zp/in/collection/p00h6w5p.

The band is successful, as they receive regular national airplay, and their most recent album went straight to number 1 in the UK funk charts - Caroline Cook, The Wokingham Times (13/4/2012) http://www.getreading.co.uk/whats-on/music/nine-piece-band-going-funky-town-4202431. The article also mentions the albums the band have produced in Japan, so they are not only successful in Europe, and that they have brought in "instruments such as a theremin, a mellotron and a hammered dulcimer." and "all the sounds on the album are authentic, with no samples or loops and only using vintage instruments”.

Funkshone have performed with Fred Wesley who was part of James Brown's band, who is the originator of funk music, http://www.bluesandsoul.com/live_item/236/fred_wesley_and_the_new_jbs_the_impelllers_funkshone_229_the_venue_2712/. Their live performances need to be to the largest audiences as a 9-piece band is very large for a funk band.

There are many reviews of their music production and live performances in Blues And Soul magazine. Snowboy writes that their most recent album "has a very informed sound throughout. It is diverse in styles. It takes us on a journey of all the permutations of Funk from mid-60's to mid-70's", and this is educational to listeners, http://www.bluesandsoul.com/column/142/the_snowboy_jazz_andand_funk_column/. In the same journal, Emrys Baird describes Funkshone as "one of the UK's top funk bands" http://www.bluesandsoul.com/review/1767/funkshone_2_skyline_recordings/.

The band are influential, as their original songs have been remixed and covered by other bands, and one example is played within the radio show interview mentioned above. The remixes improve the exposure of the band and diversity of the music industry.

Their producer and drummer, Mike Bandoni, won Greatest British Living Funk or Soul Drummer in a 2009 BBC vote, and became drummer for The Fantasy Funk band, which is made up of the leading musicians in UK funk music [24]. The band are working on a new album. ClareGC (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Could someone look into this band please? The entire deletion 'discussion' consisted of a single person stating that they'd done a web search and could only find "free downloads and such". This is not true! For instance, their latest album, which is available to purchase in high street shops on vinyl and CD, went immediately to number 1 in the UK funk charts, and they have record labels in the UK (covering European sales) and in Japan. A second person then added 'delete', but there is nothing to indicate they weren't influenced by having read the misleading comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClareGC (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with how things work here, but it is the duty of those seeking to add and retain content on Wikipedia to provide the necessary proof of notability, verifiability, etc. so nobody's going to "look into this band" for you. You need to find and cite, yourself, the evidence necessary if you want this article to be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Hi Stifle. Thanks for replying. Do you mean further proof of notability and verifiablity than I've already cited above? As a professional scientist, I understand the necessity of providing supporting evidence, however, as you say, I'm struggling to understand how things work regarding page deletions here, since I've never disagreed with any of the deletions I've noticed in the past. From my reading of the justification given, I believe this page was deleted in error, so I had been hoping that an admin would simply notice this mistake and reverse the deletion. But, I understand you when you say that, since it is I who wishes to retain and add to the content, it is I who must effectively argue the case to reinstate the page. Which is why I'm asking users to read the evidence I've cited above, so that they can offer a considered opinion on either side. If there are reasonable grounds for the page to be deleted, and what I can add still wouldn't have it meet the noteworthiness criteria, then of course I accept that, but the single reason given so far, that this is a 'free downloads' band, is an error. ClareGC (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

21 November 2013

20 November 2013

19 November 2013

Carol Kicinski – It appears that no one thinks a coeliac closing this to be involved so lets get this back at AFD. Relisted Please feel free to discuss if anyone disagrees with my doing this. Thanks. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

AFD2 is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Kicinski (2nd nomination)

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

<Hello, I recently had a discussion with an administrator about the deletion of the page Carol Kicinski. Mark Arsten was the person I spoke with and he suggested I file a request for undeletion. I was able to find more sources for the article and would like to add them to the page to improve the article. The page was deleted because of notability, but I have since found additional sources that can help prove notability. Please let me know if you need additional information from me or how to proceed with the request for undeletion. Thank you.>--M.Renae (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Could you list the new sources here for us, please?—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Here are the new sources I'd like to add to the existing sources: http://www.oregonlive.com/foodday/index.ssf/2011/07/with_a_nut_crust_mascarpone_be.html
http://tbo.com/dining/dunedin-author-offers-recipes-for-gluten-free-goodies-243413
http://www.northjersey.com/food_dining/051811_In_Your_Kitchen_Salted_Peanut_Caramel_Brownies.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/dining/gluten-free-dishes-become-a-lot-more-tempting.html?_r=0
http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/a-guide-to-gluten-free-eating/
http://dunedin.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/dunedin-womans-cookbook-features-gluten-free-desserts

Thanks, --M.Renae (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist Looking at the AfD discussion, the nomination and the only delete !vote were made before the article was substantially improved by User:Green Cardamom and the orig. editor. It would have helped if the people who improved it had commented at the AfD. I'll comment about notability at the subsequent AfD--this is not the place to decide it . DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist per improvements made to article subsequent to deletion arguments and additional sources presented. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Delete Too much promotion, not enough independent notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This isn't AfD.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That's OK, this isn't an article on a notable topic with sources to demonstrate that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'll go with relist, those sources are substantial enough to be worth considering at the proper place (which is AfD).—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Hi everyone, thank you for putting this up for consideration. Is the article temporarily open again? I couldn't tell by the discussion if it is already open somewhere so I can go in and make changes or if that is still in debate. I appreciate all your input on this and would also appreciate any help in the edits so that this article can stay on wikipedia. Please let me know what the next steps are for this. Thanks, --M.Renae (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No, don't do anything until this DRV closes and, presuming it is closed as relist, you should make changes as soon as possible during the following AFD. People here will help you with the process, if need be. Thincat (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist In its changed state and with more information, the article deserves further AfD discussion. No criticism of the AfD close however. Thincat (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The nominator of this DRV (who I believe is also the article's creator) has asked about working on the article. I advised them that I didn't think editors normally worked on articles while a DRV was underway. Can we make sure to notify them at the conclusion of this discussion so that they may work on the article (if it in fact restored and (possibly) relisted). If someone wants to copy it over to their sandbox so they can work on it there and then paste it back over if/ when the article is recreated that would work too and be quite helpful (I don't see why they shouldn't be able to work it up in the meantime). My expertise is insufficient to feel comfortable doing something like that while respecting whatever protocls might be involved. I do think they should be able to work on the article as soon as possible and before (if at allpossible) it is relisted at an AfD. At the very least I hope that we can notify them once this part of the process concludes. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist - There is enough information for an article on her professional efforts, but I don't see a biography - no early life information, no career development over time information. I think the best way to go in this case is to write an article about her book Simply . . . Gluten-free Desserts and summarize the source information in relation to her book. Some information [25][26], [27] (her mom?) Relist in view of the new material. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The outcome is pretty obvious but I'm reluctant to close as I'm a coeliac and don't want to appear involved. Can someone do the needful or do people agree that its an obvious relist and its OK for me to do it? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[]
- Looks like an obvious relist to me, I can't imagine anyone objecting.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[]

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

18 November 2013

Appy Pie – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The Article Appy Pie was deleted as its source list was considered as press releases, trivial mentions, deadlinks and blog posts, However this was not correct as the source list were from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Company, As suggested by Mark Arsten (talk) I created a well sourced draft in my userspace and here is the link for your kind review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie and after reviewing the same Mark Arsten (talk) asked me to request for deletion review for my Article Appy Pie -Cxs107 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Needs more work, in my opinion. It's not really the role of DRV to review articles for publication (that would be WP:AFC) or for deletion (that would be WP:AFD). In this instance I suppose the role of DRV would be to give you some advice as to whether your new article is likely to survive another round of AFD (given that you seem to accept that the original deletion was justified and so reviewing that deletion is a bit pointless). At this stage, I'd say it would be touch and go. There are probably a couple of good sources there but a lot of it is about routine business announcements (generally not considered significant coverage) and there's some user-generate stuff there and at least one article on a platform specifically designed to promote new tech ventures. Those that might be okay spent a bit of time talking about the venture's competitors and I can't help but think this is an attempt to promote this subject rather than cover it in an encyclopaedic manner and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Stalwart111 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I agree with Stalwart111 other than I'd say it would likely be deleted. There just don't seem to be any sources where there is an editorial process that doesn't look like a press release. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't necessarily agree with Stalwart111 opinion, mainly because of the fact that Appy Pie a cloud based mobile app startup and mostly all technology startups get a top level assessment of what the startup has to offer from the technology journalists, However, the previous article that I had created had issues in the sense it had some press releases that were sent out by the startup as notable sources, however in my latest article all the sources are independent technology journalists which came across Appy Pie and decided to share their feedback of what the startup and its product has to offer and in no way they are trying to promote the product on the contrary they are just sharing their honest opinion, and even thinking on the lines that they are promoting the product is like insulting them. Cxs107 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm talking about sources like NextBigWhat (previously Pluggd.in) who promote their site with testimonials and the first on the list starts: "Pluggd.in helped us establish our brand by featuring our products. We got many important business leads after this-clients were directly approaching us!". They exist to promote start-ups. That's perfectly fine, but it doesn't have much value to us here as an independent, reliable source. I don't think it's "insulting" to point that out. Stalwart111 22:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

What you referring about NextBigWhat hold true for the world's most reputed websites like WSJ or nytimes, anyone can write a paragraph on their website that a listing on WSJ got them thousand of vistors and a lot of business, I don't think there is any wrong in those claims as long as the journalists on the websites did a non biased non paid review or assessment, also in the page Appy Pie there was mention of the same on TechCrunch http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/i-built-a-windows-phone-app-and-it-freaking-sucks/ in a negative sense but I decided to include that aswell so as long as we cover all the facts I think we are doing a good job in sharing facts to the world using WP. Cxs107 (talk 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Considering that the article contains the sentences "Appy Pie will also soon allow you to sell products via your business’s app, a boon in the age of mobile shopping" and "no technical or programming skills are required nothing to download or install, just create you mobile app in 3 Simple Steps" I'm surprised it got as far as AfD -- I would have considered this a G11 candidate. If you want to try again, use AfC. It may take a little longer, but that won't matter unless you're trying to use WP to promote the new product. But you'll need references that are not just reprints from PRWire. One doesn't have to read between the lines to know that--it's stated right up at the top for Bloomberg, TeleCrunch, Reuters, and the WSJ. All these sources do also publish reviews by "independent technical journalists", but they publish this sort of thing also, which is why we are rather skeptical about sources in this area. Fox Business did write their own article, but it's one of 5 unevaluated products. CBS and NBC are no longer visible. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Sure I understand the concerns with regards to sources its hence I re-drafted the article to fit the norms, Please review the same at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie and do let me know if this re-draft meets all the guidelines in WP's Book with regards to notable sources and promotional in nature. Cxs107 (talk 23:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Agree with DGG, send this to a draft page to let it develop. I clicked on the Wall Street Journal source and it was listed as a press release. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Yes Sportfan5000 I am not disputing the fact either that while creating this article I also used some press releases that were published on some highly reputed news sources, but on realizing my mistake I updated the article so that there is no reference of any press release sort of articles but current references are only made up of notable sources which meets the guidelines of WP and I was hoping to get my most updated article published on the restored page by consensus in the coming days. Cxs107 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Wikipedia:CUM – No consensus to overturn. I am boldly depreciating the link, however. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Well, I've been a log-time DRV contributor, but this is to my memory the first filing. A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a nastily juvenile and seldom-used redirect titled "WP:CUM", which is an alternate to WP:CMF for the Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files help file. Thryduulf closed it as a "keep" however, due to what is IMO an misapplication of WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The concept of "not censored is one I have defended many, many times, but from what I read into that policy, it is only applicable to article space. We can and do censor ourselves in project-space, there is no policy that protects the creation of an obscene term to title a user helpme file. The admin also cites the utility of the redirect, but this assertion is debunked by comparing the "what links here" of both (minus the page itself and the RfD) "WP:CUM" (6) vs. "WP:CMF" (28). In fact, over 500 link directly to the help file itself. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media; it is not necessary to direct new users to this file via this shortcut, it has been used 6 times in the 3 years that it has existed, and it is not protected by our project's antio-censorship policy. The closing admin IMO erred counting 2 keep voted that were grounded in a censorship argument, and further in his explanation of utility and usefulness. Sometimes we need to consider the public face we put towards our readers and contributors; to maintain this shortcut looks egregiously bad. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

closing admin. In addition to my closing statement I have explained myself further on my talk page at User talk:Thryduulf#breaking the existing links and disrupting the users. The number of uses of a redirect is not solely determined by the number of linking pages, but also by the number of page hits, which Tarc neglects to mention. I stand by my determination that the arguments in favour of retaining this redirect outweighed those for deleting, despite tarc's numerous comments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Well, obviously we discount hits made in the last few weeks, as I, you, and many others have clicked it only in the context of investigation and discussion. I stumbled across it on 7 Nov via this edit summary), so if we look before that date, there are only a smattering of 1-2 hits per day for ~40 over 90 days. Compare to the hits for WP:CMF, which was viewed ~300 times in the last 90 days, subtracting for recent events. And compare both to Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files which received 4,000 hits in the same time frame. Both redirects are lightly used, the one with the offensive term/acronym being the lightest of all. What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful"). The weight of an offensive term should have been counted more than a redirect with 40 hits over 2-3 months. We can live without this redirect, given how much more the alternates are utilized by the readers. Apart from that, Thryduulf neglects to explain how the non-censored policy (which 2 keeps voted rested upon) for articles extends to project-space, an extension that does not appear to be supported by the respective policy page. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure. Irrespective of whether the closer misinterpreted the various WP:NOTCENSORED arguments (and I don't believe he did), the decision was also based on the abbreviation's plausibility and the redirect's current use (not just via incoming links, which can be retargeted, but also searches, which cannot, other than via this redirect). Taking into account all the arguments presented in the discussion, as well as the usual considerations common to all RfDs, the decision is entirely appropriate. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

So apparently: (1) when Wikipedians say "WP:CUM" to each other, it's sometimes perfectly innocent and accidental, and (2) these innocent uses are causing offence, and (3) turning the shortcut into a redlink would stop that from happening. To my amazement, based on the 7th November diff, (1) actually does seem to be true. (That noise you can hear in the background is my mind boggling.) Is there any evidence of (2) or (3)?—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Ick. I don't think there was consensus as I don't think one side had significantly stronger arguments than the other (though delete was, IMO stronger as the potential to offend (intentionally or otherwise) seems to conflict with WP:IAR and the whole point of building an encyclopedia. overturn to no consensus as the vote was split and I don't see how the keeps could be seen to have a stronger argument. Delete would also have been an acceptable close IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Well for #2, my initial reaction was more along the lines of a "WTF? How is that a blue-link?" I'm not personally offended in a Mary Whitehouse kind of way, I just feel a term which is far, far more associated with the sexual word than anything else is quite inappropriate to use for a project shortcut. As I said in the RfD, what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates? Tarc (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
"what if we had a help file regarding the Creation and Usage of New Templates?" The existence or otherwise of such a page is entirely irrelevant to both whether this redirect should be kept or deleted, and to whether my closure of the deletion discussion was correct or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You are not personally offended but simply assume that others are? Sounds like a textbook case of pluralistic ignorance. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
By that logic then I cannot speak up if I hear an anti-gay slur, since I am heterosexual. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
No, in that case no assumptions are required, since there is ample evidence that anti-gay slurs are offensive to others. We're all still waiting for any proof that someone might be, or has actually been, offended by the contextually appropriate use of the three letters under discussion. —Psychonaut (talk)
That's an unnecessary and unreasonable standard to request, so, consider it discarded. An average reader will, when presented with the title "Wikipedia:CUM", not think "oh, creation and usage of media", but rather that will think "why is a Wikipedia page named after semen?" Tarc (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Clearly you believe the "average reader"'s emotional and intellectual sophistication to be roughly on the level of Beavis and Butthead. I'm sorry you hold our visitors in such contempt. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Wow, really? In the workplace I'd certainly avoid having an acronym as "CUM" because it would be likely to be found offensive. I've no doubt that if I tried to do something like that I'd be quickly called into _someone's_ office. I'd think that would be true in nearly any workplace. Would it be acceptable in yours? Perhaps we are all too "PC" these days (though I'd certainly never call Tarc that...), but yeah, this is pretty clearly a bad idea and would be treated so in any workplace (from fast food to academia) I've every worked in. To attack someone for upholding what is pretty typical work standards is really unacceptable. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
As I noted in the closing statement, when used in context, the redirect is clearly an acronym and not sexual and for example new users should be linked to the actual page title not the shortcut for all pages (not just this one). One of the standard things that is taken for granted in RfD discussions is that just because a redirect can be used inappropriately does not necessarily mean that all uses are inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
While I think this should have been a NC close, I don't find it problematic per se. I do on the other hand think Psychonaut's characterization of Tarc's concerns are well over the line. I'd prefer for internal things we stick with "workplace acceptable" for our language and communication. I suspect it pushes away a lot of potential editors (I'd guess mainly women and older folks?) but I get that that's not where we are. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
The problem with "workplace acceptable" is that there is no such standard because what is acceptable varies from workplace to workplace. For example as a speaker of British English I had to seriously think about why on earth Tarc would cite "FAG" as something unacceptable as this side of the pond "fag" means "cigarette". Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

While I understand what you are saying, I do think things are standardized enough that few English-speaking workplaces would consider using "CUM" as an acronym. Do you disagree? [28] is somewhat insightful on the topic. Again, I realize that Wikipedia isn't the workplace, but I do think trying to maintain a professional environment is a reasonable goal. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I seriously oppose holding Wikipedia to workplace standard, what with existing articles on the types of sex and porn and appropriate pictures. KonveyorBelt 20:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

In the workplace one can (say) be at a company that writes human sexuality books without throwing around gratuitous sexual references. Just because we cover that material doesn't mean we need to use it as part of our standard office conversation. I suspect you'd find that World Book Encyclopedia employees can mange to cover sexual or offensive words and ideas without having it be a part of their workplace culture. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Close was policy-based and within admin discretion. The delete votes were not grounded in policy. The suggestion that this was likely to cause offence was not substantiated. As the closer noted, it is an acronym that fits with the title of the page, so it is not there as some sort of bad taste joke. There is no reason to believe that most people will fail to realise that it is an acronym for a page title, rather than a gratuitous sexual reference. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]
WP:NOTCENSORED governs article content, not our project pages, so I question an endorsement that claims "policy-based and within admin discretion". I don't believe admins are empowered to extend policy beyond their intended scope. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

OK, so NOTCENSORED may not technically apply, but Thryduulf identified the correct question: "whether the potential offensiveness of the redirect outweighs its usefulness." Indeed you have above, in different words, identified this as the crucial issue: "What we have here is that WP:R#DELETE #9 ("offensive or abusive") is pitted against WP:K#KEEP #5 ("is useful")." You just disagree with his weighing-up of the competing arguments. That's perfectly legitimate, but it's also where the closer's discretion comes in. We won't overturn that judgment unless it's unreasonable, and I don't think it was here. Neljack (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Ok, but if you concede that "not-censored" does not apply, then the RfD would have to be overturned as 2 of the keep votes cited "not-censored" as the reason to delete. We're really not here to re-argue the merits of the deletion discussion....though invariably all DRVs do stray into that territory a tad...we're here to review the closing administrator's actions. Thryduulf incorrectly counted those 2 keep votes in his measure of the consensus of the discussion. It wasn't within Thryduulf's discretion to apply his own opinion to the matter, as that amounts to the proverbial SuperVote. I don't mean to come across as flippant here, but this is really a very elementary matter; if 2 editors improperly cite a policy that does not apply, their entries are to be discarded. The closing admin did not properly discard them, thus I seek to have his decision overturned, as with those votes discarded, the RfD would stand at 3-1 in favor of deletion. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

But that was not the main reason given by Launchballer (with whom BDD expressed agreement). NOTCENSORED was mentioned briefly, but Launchballer went on to argue that CUM was more plausible that the other acronym, that people using the link would discover that it wasn't a sexual reference, and that it was hard to see why people would take offence. They are all perfectly valid arguments, though you may disagree with them. Neljack (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

"Not censored" was the crux of Launchballer's input; he began with it and ended with it. In the middle was an argument about "plausibility", but that argument is deflated by the stats I showed above that showed this shortcut is rarely used. If C-U-M was indeed more plausible than C-M-F, then it would have been a more-used search terms by our readers. It was in fact outstripped 40 to 300 over a 3-month span. We have a mis-citation of policy and an inaccurate statement of plausibility in this user's call to keep. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You appear to be confusing "plausible" (the standard used at RfD) with "most plausible" (a standard not used anywhere I am aware of). Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The comment did not end by invoking WP:NOTCENSORED - it ended by saying that it will be apparent to people who click on it that it isn't a sexual reference. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Refuse to dignify with a !vote. This may be the single most pathetic waste of time in the history of policy nit-picking. WHO THE FUCK CARES if we have a redirect called WP:CUM?! I'd feel differently, I guess, if it were actually trying to make some crude point, but it's not, it's just a fucking acronym, Tarc. It's also not a particularly offensive word, and it's also a perfectly apt abbreviation. Look, I'm quite solidly in the group of Wikipedians who like to hang around project-space and comment on policy, but this DRV makes me ashamed to be in that group. Usually we metapedians further the goal of improving the encyclopedia; this nomination, however, just makes us look like collossal drains on the community's time and energy. I am only writing this in the hopes that others may either choose not to waste their breaths on something so utterly inconsequential, or !vote quickly and decisively and give this the speedy close it deserves. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment. I don't see anything particularly bad about Thryduulf's close, being based on a balance of the arguments. I will say though that it makes some sense to get rid of the extra redirects (both CUM and CMF) because it is unnecessarily confusing to have lots of different names for the same destination (that applies to a lot of pet redirects for many policies/fora). I strongly oppose "salting" of the term, claims that it is "obscene", and so forth. Didn't anybody around here graduate magna cum laude? wikt:cum also notes the usage "barista cum waitress", etc. Try to keep it in your pants. I would suggest just wait the proper term before trying a new AfD, or if you really want a faster way, then let's get a general AfD going with a single consistent usage stats standard for MANY obscure abbreviations; we can agree once and all to AfD them all and replace them, for a limited period, with a template page saying that as part of a consolidation we're phasing out their use; maybe program a bot to go back and change the old instances. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Why are multiple redirects to the same location confusing? They exist to help people find pages, and many pages have multiple logical names - for example WP:DRV and WP:DELREV; Las Vegas, NV, Las Vegas, Nevada, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Sorry, I've been a bit confused myself - I see now there actually isn't a better-named redirect than this (there's no CUMF). Wnt (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment I hope I'm not complicating things, but what the hell, I did this: Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files#Requested move. Feel free to shut 'er down if it is inappropriate. Rgrds. --64.85.215.198 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Not inappropriate I don't think, but not a solution. As I commented there, moving the page would not automatically result in the deletion of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - And as I commented there, it is not the existence, it is the usage. Eh, it's worth a shot. --64.85.215.198 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Support closing decision Whether NOTCENSORED applies to article pages or not is irrelevant Wikilawyering. CUM is the correct abbreviation and should stay. KonveyorBelt 19:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Well, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate redirect for any sort of professional environment. But when did we start pretending Wikipedia was a professional environment? It's not, it's dysfunctional and it's getting worse. We might as well be open about how dysfunctional the community really is. I look forward to seeing WP:WANK, WP:SPUNK and WP:ARSEMULCH in the near future (and I see that we already have WP:ASS).—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Earlier, I had intended to say as an example, "this would be as bad as using WP:Fag for a shortcut", until I was dismayed in edit preview to see it a color other than red. It is dismaying to see people actually support the retention of locker-room humor, which is all this shortcut clearly is. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - I don't get why some people still confuse perfectly good acronyms with bad humor. AGF anyone? KonveyorBelt 23:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - If I thought this was locker-room humour rather than just a logical shortcut given the page title, I would certainly support deleting it - but I don't see any reason to think that. I do think WP:Fag should be nominated for deletion. It seems to me to fall on the other side of the balancing - more offensive and not a particularly useful shortcut. In fact, it isn't all in caps, so it looks like it is using the word, rather than an acronym. Neljack (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Looking at the history of that redirect, it seems to have been created in all innocence, by someone who was and still is active in the WP:FINDAGRAVE project and shows little sign of being interested in Wikidrama. Maybe he should have realized it could be misunderstood, but then again no one noticed it for two years (and why would they, unless they were familiar with the Wikipedia namespace went looking for it). 117.203.226.183 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close That some will find juvenile humor in an otherwise-viable redirect is of little consequence. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete - IAR. Make no mistake, the MfD closure is absolutely reasonable. Yet I don't think the acronym is appropriate for linking to a policy or guideline. I personally have no qualms with it, but I understand it doesn't sound right. One thing is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a fundamental principle about content and freedom of discussion -another is having questionable acronyms around for no reason when a much less questionable one as WP:CMF can be used. If not deleted because it would disrupt previous links, the acronym should however be deprecated and removed from the page it points to. --cyclopia^speak! 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- So your opinion is more important than the consensus of editors at the discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - What is this queston supposed to mean? I offered my opinion to propose a novel consensus, quite obviously. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete. Agree with Cyclopia, Wikipedia is hostile and dysfunctional enough without further antagonizing editors needlessly. Find a replacement and lock this one down from future use for the next 50-100 years when attitudes about sex significantly evolve so that trigger words that sell pornography are no longer as effective to warrant concern. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete. Offensive to a significant number of users, not a natural acronym, and a perfectly valid substitute acronym is available. NOTCENSORED is not a valid counter when the offensive content is gratuitous, without an encyclopedic purpose. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- These three "overturns" are nothing more than RfD votes. They have offered no evidence that the discussion was closed in error. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - WP:DRVPURPOSE; also just a note that it looks like all of 4 pages use this as a redirect. If correct that would seem pretty easy to clean up. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Why would you blue-link to something that proves that your "overturn" is useless? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]
      - "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;". Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete. Content is not censored; discussion gets censored all the time, and rightly so. There's no need for this particular acronym except childish provocation. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse per Neljack. Collisions with naughty sounding acronyms happen; there is no policy-based reason to overturn the closure. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Useful acronym that is being used on wikipedia namespace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure, silly discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete a childish redirect that serves no purpose other then to stir up shit. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think it depends if someone has that kind of mind or not, here are some examples one can also use: Tokyo Institute of Technology (T.I.T.) Technological Institute of Textile & Sciences (T.I.T.S). Or in this case Capital University of Medical Sciences (C.U.M.S) Should we delete the Cum and Tits dab pages as well for being childish? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Cute, but I'm not buying it. Besides, those are content, and this is not. No reason why this couldn't have been CUMF, except that it would have been as sniggery. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Okay you don't want article content? WP:JAP is prob the better example here, it is used as an acronym for Japan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Not really, given the need to distinguish Jap from JAP. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Whether something is capitalized or not is irrelevant. After all, CUM is capitalized yet you see a problem with that. KonveyorBelt 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete Serves no purpose, WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to topically-relevant content, which this is not. Only someone looking for obscene content would search for this. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Do you have any evidence for that claim? Especially since it was created in good faith for a completely different reason. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse keep. "nastily juvenile" -- This far-fetched allegation borders on NPA. The redirect was created innocuously in the exact same way most project shortcuts are created. Evidently, the only thing "nastily juvenile" here is the nominator's reading of the redirect. You should never blame reality or other people for your own thoughts. The word "CUM" is not intrinsically linked to the creation and usage of media -- "CUM" is not a word, but an acronym, exactly like AGF etc. The nominator himself is reading the acronym as a word. --85.197.20.10 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — 85.197.20.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

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

17 November 2013

16 November 2013

Jessie Rogers – Restored from speedy deletion without questionable content per deleting admin. – Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

This article was speedy deleted by secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:TNT claiming it was full of BLP violations. After checking the deleted history, I find that it has recently been lifted of semi-protection, and has been plagued by vandalism, as this person is a heavy target for it. The lastest version of the article appears not to have many policy problems (the only one I see is a non-RS as the last source). I have temporarily restored the article pending further discussion as well as semi-protected it indefinitely. w^L^{<speak·check>} 08:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I deleted it per WP:DONOHARM as the subject of the article requested deletion because of false statements sourced to unreliable sources. I just noticed in the history that Nick removed the questionable content just prior to my deletion of the article, so I'll admit that speedy deletion was a mistake as I didn't notice the removal, if not I would have taken it to AFD. I'll say keep deleted or move to WP:AFD as it's not quite clear she meets WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO and is clearly causing harm to the subject. Secret ^account 14:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

List at AfD this should not have been speedily deleted. While the article certainly contained inappropriate material, the fact that it was possible to get rid of it by editing rather than deletion means it wasn't a summary deletion candidate. WP:BLPDEL says that requests for deletion from the subject and notability concerns should be taken to AfD rather than summary deletion. We certainly ought to consider the subject's request for deletion though and an AfD is a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I removed the content that was making claims about the subject's medical history - it was never close to meeting our BLP policy, information of that nature generally needs a good reason to be included and when it is, needs to be sourced to multiple reliable sources, not a single tabloid source. I'm not comfortable that the article meets both the spirit and the letter of the notability guidelines (especially as they're currently disputed as they relate to porn stars) but as the page was getting significant views and there are those significant differences in opinion on the notability guidelines, I'd agree it's better for it to go to an AfD for the community to decide, although if the subject does want the article deleted, I'd endorse the deletion right now. Finally, I'd like to hear from the creator and substantial editor of the article, Rebecca1990 about any conflicts on interest and their involvement only with pornography articles. Nick (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Wikipedia:Bounty board – Wrong forum, this isn't the place for content disputes. Settle this in talk, or if the discussion gets out of hand, take it to WP:AN/I or WP:RFC. Secret ^account 14:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC) – Secret ^account 14:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

A well-attended MfD discussion was recently closed by Yunshui with "Mark as historical" as the outcome. In the discussion, the idea of removing the page's contents was brought up. After the close, a few editors have made extensive changes to the page. After discussion at [29], [30] and [31] Biosthmors' change has been reverted but Casliber's changes remain. —rybec 07:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Thinking ... Wrong forum. A rough consensus of "mark historical" was found. That close doesn't seem to be challenged. The page is marked historical. Further details as mentioned belong on its talk page. Attract further attention with a RfC, but I don't see a DRV issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

15 November 2013

Robbie Widlansky – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Same thing as the below DRV on Adam Reifer. As the discussion was closing, BASEBALL/N, the justification to keep the page, was changed, such that the Australian Baseball League was removed, meaning that Widlansky now fails that guideline. He also fails WP:GNG, more importantly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- When I posted on the admin's talk page, she indicated no interest in anything beyond the close, which is her prerogative. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me but, because the circumstances have changed, I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD again at an early stage. I think PROD would not be appropriate because the issue of redirection rather than deletion needs to be discussed. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart111 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn closure and send to AFD. Usually I would trout the nominator because DRV is not AFD round two but in this case the AFD should have been relisted for more discussion. Neither of the keeps had a valid policy based reasoning for keeping and there is very little discussion to determine a consensus anyways, and definitely not a keep discussion. Poor close, thus should be relisted. Secret ^account 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse, perfectly reasonable close and per Stifle. That doesn't mean a new AfD can't be started now, though; clearly, if the guideline's changed, then there are grounds to renominate.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Adam Reifer – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

This was a close one (3 vs. 3, including the nominator). However, the keep votes were made on the basis of passing Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball due to the individual having played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League. Due to numerous simultaneous nominations of fringe minor leaguers who could be argued to pass BASEBALL/N for this reason, and yet fail WP:GNG, this discussion commenced, which resulted in a tightening up of BASEBALL/N #2. Reifer now fails BASEBALL/N, as well as GNG. Because of all the simultaneous nominations, I failed to vote in this one, but would've voted delete. I think we should delete it now here, instead of through a new nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist I do not think it right for us to delete it here. If the questions is whether of not it fails the guidelines, that should be decided at AfD. If the questions was whether the decision was arbitrary, or a supervote, or improperly influenced, or the like, then it was a matter for us. I know I sound bureaucratic, but it's important that a somewhat obscure place than this with only a few regular people commenting decides on the interpretation of the guidelines. FWIW, the change seems eminently sensible, and I'd guess that there will be many other players to re=evaluate, and there should be some discussion about how to go about it. Perhaps PROD would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. I agree with DGG's and Stifle's comments. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me and I don't even think that DRV should demand a relist. However, because the circumstances have changed I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD (or even PROD) at an early stage. Thincat (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart111 12:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Lil Chuckee – No policy based argument has been put forward to overcome this deletion and the evidence is that this remains below the inclusion threashold. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks says that there were 23,228 attempts in a typical week (including from outside Wikipedia) to access page Lil Chuckee. Some sort of page is needed there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - the article was totally unsourced, so there ain't much DRV can do, other than to suggest you find some sources and write an article. this is the only substantive source I found in a quick search, but there's a lot of incidental mentions, so other sources are probably lurking out there. Wily D 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The 2010 deletion isn't really relevant any more; deletion discussions expire after a while. How long "a while" takes depends on various things but three years is definitely well past that. We should permit creation of a sourced version. The new article would be immune to G4 but subject to AfD in the normal way at editorial discretion.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

go ahead and write a new article. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment I see a new article has been started. Alas, I also see it has no really reliable sources at all, and mentions no more accomplishments than in the previously deleted article. But I disagree partially with S.Marshall, Certainly a new article can be started without permission from anyone if the previous one has not been protected against re-creation, but debates do not lose their relevance if the interpretation of the guidelines has not changed. I think the overwhelming majority of pre 2010 AfDs would reach the same result today on the same material. Going back further, this would also hold for 2005+. Earlier than that they seem a little erratic.

Though a new article can be started without coming here, Nonetheless there is a reason to come here if there is a request to undelete the old material so it can be used for an article. (Though I think that if any admin thinks it clear-cut enough , they could do it by themselves, as for any other non-contentious action, after notifying the original closer if still present.) DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks starting has changed the information picture. Its first edit was at 04:26, 15 February 2013. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Federico Pistono – No consensus to overturn. To the extent that there is new information here, however, this does not prevent an uninvolved editor from creating another draft of the article with the new references (thereby avoiding CSD G4 and the need for a new DRV). If an experienced editor (preferably one familiar with Italian) wants the deleted revisions to serve as a starting place for addressing the concerns from the AfD, I would be happy to userfy it. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I was recently notified that the page Federico Pistono, was being considered for deletion. Obviously, just as I did not interfere with the original article, I could not be part of the discussion either, so I just observed and let Wikipedia run its course. After it was deleted, I contacted the admin in question TParis, expressing some concerns, and his reply was as following:

Editors do the best they can to give an honest review but they arn't perfect. If you think there was a mistake made during the discussion, there is a review process at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV. There is no problem with you opening a review even if you are the subject of an article. Simple state that you have sources that were not considered in the deletion discussion. If you have online links to those sources, that will help.

From what I understand, there were two main concerns with the article as it was:

Lack of reliable third party sources
The article needed re-writing

I do not intend to discuss the merits of the decision. My intention here is to simply provide links to articles which I think might have been overlooked by those who reviewed the page initially, possibly because they were not properly indexed by Google. I rest in the hands of the Wikipedia community to decide what to do with them.

Huffington Post (English, video) (source)
Wall Street Journal (English, video) (source)
Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by Stanford Cultural Historian Piero Scaruffi (English) (source)
Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” at the Sturbridge Times (English) (source)
Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by the Socialist Party of Great Britain - Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse? (English) (source)
RT Interview (English, Video) (source)
RAI 3 reportage (Italian) (source)
Canale 5 reportage (Italian) (source)
Interview with Computerworld (Dutch) "Esplori: all video education in any language" (source) and "The Pitfalls of Innovation" (source)
TG1 (Italian National TV) article (source)
Wired article (Italian) (source)
Free Software Foundation (English, audio)- Interview with Free Software Foundation Brazil (source)
The Zeitgeist Movement Interview (English) (source)
Wedwereld article (Dutch) (source)
El Universal Interview (Spanish) "Los robots robarán tu empleo, pero está bien" (source)
Jornal do Comércio (Portuguese) - Você vai perder seu emprego (May 20, 2013) (source)
Rede Globo (Brazilian TV, Portuguese, Video) - Interview on Brazilian TV Tudo+(source)
Huffington Post (Italian) (here, (here
Folha de S. Paulo article (Portuguese) (source)
Singularity Hub article (English) (source)
Interview with Tom's Hardware (Italian) "I robot ci ruberanno il lavoro ma ci ridaranno la vita" (Robots Will Steal Your Job, But Also Give Your Life Back). (source)

Finally, there were four awards/recognitions listed, perhaps the most significant of which being the Young Knight Prize Award (Premio Cavalierato Giovanile) (source).

I don't know how many of these references are useful and fall under Wikipedia's policies of reliability etc. I just thought it was worth mentioning them.

best, 4v4l0n42 (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - There were 36 sources cited in the deleted article. The AfD already considered those. DRV is for significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. See WP:DRVPURPOSE Please identify which of the above 21 references were not considered during the AfD and, of those, please identify which of those represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:GNG). -- Jreferee (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- I don't have access to the source of the page prior to deletion (or I don't know where else to find it), but by memory the following are all new, reliable, independent sources, which were not considered during the AfD (20 out of 21):
  Wall Street Journal (English, video) (source)
  
  Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by Stanford Cultural Historian Piero Scaruffi (English) (source)
  
  Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” at the Sturbridge Times (English) (source)
  
  Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by the Socialist Party of Great Britain - Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse? (English) (source)
  
  RT Interview (English, Video) (source)
  
  RAI 3 reportage (Italian) (source)
  
  Canale 5 reportage (Italian) (source)
  
  Interview with Computerworld (Dutch) "Esplori: all video education in any language" (source) and "The Pitfalls of Innovation" (source)
  
  TG1 (Italian National TV) article (source)
  
  Wired article (Italian) (source)
  
  Free Software Foundation (English, audio)- Interview with Free Software Foundation Brazil (source)
  
  The Zeitgeist Movement Interview (English) (source)
  
  Wedwereld article (Dutch) (source)
  
  El Universal Interview (Spanish) "Los robots robarán tu empleo, pero está bien" (source)
  
  Jornal do Comércio (Portuguese) - Você vai perder seu emprego (May 20, 2013) (source)
  
  Rede Globo (Brazilian TV, Portuguese, Video) - Interview on Brazilian TV Tudo+(source)
  
  Huffington Post (Italian) (here, (here
  
  Folha de S. Paulo article (Portuguese) (source)
  
  Singularity Hub article (English) (source)
  
  Interview with Tom's Hardware (Italian) "I robot ci ruberanno il lavoro ma ci ridaranno la vita" (Robots Will Steal Your Job, But Also Give Your Life Back). (source)
- 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse the AfD (the nomination did not seek to do otherwise). It was proper for the subject of the article to open a DRV (declaring his interest) and at the AfD the "do not delete" editor's contribution was also proper (and indeed helpful) because they also declared an interest. Editorially, the article is very unsuitable for an encyclopedia and I am disappointed that the people concerned do not realise that. However, it does seem at least some book reviews have been adduced which might affect people's view of the notability of the subject (or even the book) and a rewritten article might conceivably be acceptable. However, since the subject of the article should not be the person rewriting it, I don't have a good suggestion for how to proceed. Thincat (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think many of the references given above meet the Wikipedia notability standards, and therefore I recommend that the article be restored. If the problem is that the last version of the article before deletion is poor, as stated in the comment above, then I recommend to restore the article and add the new references and any other appropriate edits.Giulioprisco (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think a bit more comment would be really helpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't read enough of the languages to really evaluate those sources properly, but I wanted to say that of those I could review, I found source #2 rather impressive. What we need is a view from someone independent who speaks Italian.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

14 November 2013

13 November 2013

12 November 2013

Alvaro Dias Huizar – DRV is not a venue that tolerates discussions being used to attack other users or cast unfounded aspertions – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Clearly notable. People voting to delete are clearly Causasio-centric and conspiring to deny South Americans a ny positive recognition. He who shouts the loudest thinks we will prevail in this rigged discussion, by keeping the Indigenous peoples down. Similar phenomena are clearly seen on articles criticism Hugo Chavez on Wikipedia. Churrasco Eater (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Dismiss. Frivolous trolling by a new account. See this earlier attempt at humour, almost certainly the same person. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It is very telling that the absolute loudest voice shouting for the public lynching of Senor Alvaro Maria Dias Huizar Rodriguez is here within minutes attempting to stifle discussion. It is no wonder that all of those screaming for blood have been from the Estado Unidos or that enormous backwards region of New Sealand/Australia. Churrasco Eater (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure Disregarding all kinds of SPAs, the consensus clearly was to delete. No new elements brought forward by the nom, accusations of Caucasian-centric bias are indeed rather frivolous. The nom should have read the DRV instructions better, thisDRV nomination does not present any valid argument to overturn the AFD closure. --Randykitty (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close - The AfD consensus was that there is not enough source material in any language from all countries to meet WP:GNG for the biography topic on Alvaro Dias Huizar (born July 28, 1979), a Venezuelan-Mexican-French resident chess player [1] and FIDE Master. That was not sufficiently refuted by those maintaining a keep position. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. - Jreferee (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close. Total misrepresentation of the debate by the nominator here, with ridiculous aspersions of discrimination and rigged discussions. Most, if not all, of the keep votes were from entirely new accounts, and some of the were double votes. The article was deleted due to a lack of reliable sourcing, that is a deal-breaker on a WP:BLP. Also during the debate, some thought to think that the presence of Category:Chess FIDE Masters means that all FIDE masters can have an article. By that logic, we could have about seven billion articles due to Category:Living people. The result was also quite consistent with earlier practice on chess players, an FM title is not sufficient basis for notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Frivolous request, keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

11 November 2013

Futz! – Allow recreation. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Please note that this deletion review is an exact repeat of a very recent one that was closed early for a reason unrelated to the review itself. While all responses for the short duration of that review were positive or neutral, and the closing administrator offered to userify the article, I would like to ascertain community consensus before working on the article. Furthermore, I plan to notify every user who was involved in and/or notified of that discussion - if you are one of these users, it is not necessary to declare this below (but I do not object to it either, of course).

Be aware that at least one user who participated in the prior discussion has declined to do so in this one citing the view that participating in repeats of procedurally closed discussions is unnecessary.

I anticipate this being a difficult deletion review due to the relatively small number of reliable sources, but I'll try to make my case anyways. Please consider that this television show is a series of shorts and that the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots due to this.

Anyways, here are the new reliable sources I've found:

The following reliable source was already present in the most recently deleted revision, but I have found additional links from it besides the first one:

[40], [41], [42], and [43]

Lastly but quite possibly most importantly, this show was nominated for an award. Yes, it was only a nomination, not a win, but I think it still adds to its notability significantly:

[44]

I would also like to ask that you take into consideration that DRV is apparently not supposed to be as stringent as AFD in terms of sourcing requirements. More importantly, please consider that WP:GNG only requires multiple reliable sources, so even two such sources could theoretically suffice. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

As I said earlier, the most reasonable thing will be to permit rewriting, followed by an AfD . AfD is always a better place to evaluate the sources, DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow recreation of Futz! (TV series) to enable sources to be better evaluated, at an AfD if desired. However, I disagree with the suggestion that "the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots". The same standard of notability should apply for short-format shows like this as for regular-length shows; if sources are lacking for a short-format show, that may be a sign that the show is not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- User:Metropolitan90, regarding the point you made: I agree to some extent, but I was referring primarily to possible comparisons to more well-known shows. I don't think notability standards should be so high as to cause the deletion of articles on TV shows just because they aren't particularly popular. (Also, note that Futz! was actually the title of the deleted article, not Futz! (TV series).) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment Notability is a concept which must be understood as completely divorced from popularity — Wikipedia contains many, many articles on thousands and thousands of recondite and abstruse subjects which are highly obscure and for which there is only a very small audience but whose subject matter is verifiably notable. It is notability that determines whether or not an article warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Popularity is completely irrelevant. Of course, a potential article maybe both unpopular and not notable… Perhaps this is the case here. But please do not expect Wikipedia to lower its bar for inclusion based on the lack of popularity of a particular article's subject matter: popularity (or lack of it) has never been a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. The policy is simple: please understand that there are no exceptions to it, and no sympathy support for the unpopular or the obscure. KDS4444^Talk 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- User:KDS4444, as in the case above, I agree with you to some extent but you seem to imply that there exist some strict notability standards on Wikipedia when this is in fact specifically not the case - notability is always assessed on a case-by-case basis. This can be seen by taking a look at any significantly large sample of deletion discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - A statement with which I do not disagree, and you are correct and I agree with you when you say that notability is assessed on a case by case basis. What I meant to emphasize is that popularity of a topic is not a criterion, that notability must be verifiable, that there are some consistent guidelines on what constitutes notability, and that the standard of notability does not change out of sympathy for what one person or another considers a worthy topic. Sure, the guidelines are flexible— but they do not "flex" for all the reasons (particularly emotional ones) people might sometimes like them to. Is what I was trying to say. Does that sound better, Dogmaticeclectic? And if it doesn't, then help me out. KDS4444^Talk 21:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - User:KDS4444, I agree with that pretty much entirely and should perhaps have worded my own statements in this regard more clearly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

10 November 2013

John Galea – Quack Quack – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I have more sources and have a non biased version. Dterrybeano (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Dterrybeano, yet another sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Li Surname (郦) – Overturned to non-consensus but not relisted as its quite clear that the issue is over the ordering of this content rather then getting rid of it. I encourage editors to open an RFC on how to treat surnames that are different in their native language but identical when transliterated to latin text, – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The user who closed the discussion did so with the explanation "Consensus is clear to Merge/redirect to Li (surname) (non-admin closure)", despite that the discussion does not show any definite consensus regarding the issue. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Endorsing my decision. Yes, since I'm not currently logged into my admin account, I closed this non-contentious series of AFD's as merge. There were multiple "articles" about Li surnames, all of which were AFD'd - which all should have been on a single AFD nom. As such, the consensus across all of those AFD's is what needed to be taken into account. I reviewed all of AFD discussions, and applied the decision (merge) consistently across them all. ES &L 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - "I reviewed all of AFD discussions, and applied the decision (merge) consistently across them all" is not germane since there was no discussion on the other AFDs and discussion had been redirected to Li Surname (郦) as the 4th or 5th most notable Li which had been expanded way beyond normal WP:GNG criteria. All the others can be equally expanded if editors are not prevented from doing so. You also did not review Lí (surname) (黎), Li (surname meaning "plum") (李), Li (surname meaning "profit") (利) because the group AFD missed the most-sourced articles. How then does your close address merging 5 of the 8 Li surnames, and leaving 3 unmerged. What does your close say about later taking these 5 out as break out articles to join the 3 non merged articles with separate sources? What does your close say about notability for surnames beyond WP:GNG, and what does your close rule on the WP:GNG as it applies to Li Surname (郦) itself, and what criteria relevant to WikiProject Anthroponomy and WikiProject China articles have you applied to judge that Li Surname (郦) is not notable but Lí (surname) (黎), Li (surname meaning "plum") (李), Li (surname meaning "profit") (利) are?

Additionally what does your close say about the previously discussed merger of the Lee (Chinese surname) redirect with Lee (English surname), Lee (Korean surname) since these are also homonyms which cannot be distinguished without disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Quote: "There were multiple "articles" about Li surnames, all of which were AFD'd - which all should have been on a single AFD nom." - I did not participate in the other Li surname AfD discussions, because I did not have a strong opinion for those articles, did not believe that the articles could be saved, and were not interested in participating in those ones. However, I considered Li Surname (郦) much more different. Unlike the other ones, which were comparatively non-notable, lacking in information, and resembled dicdefs, this particular article was much better, which is why I thought that this one was worth keeping, and not the other ones. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - The keeps provided weak to no argument regarding whether the topic met WP:GNG or is a major subtopic per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in relation to the article of Li (surname). Another issue, best articulated by Blueboar, was not sufficiently addressed by the Keeps: "one single article is the best way to inform our English speaking readers about the various names that are transcribed in English as "Li". It's about how to present the information to our readers." Wikimedes expanded further on the idea: "they all transliterate to the same word in English, so it does make sense to group them together in English." These arguments go hand-in-hand with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The arguments of those on the delete/redirect side were stronger, which supports the close that the consensus is clear to Merge/redirect to Li (surname). -- Jreferee (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

overturn to no consensus I did not see a clear consensus here; the votes were evenly split and no side had a stronger policy-based argument. There is a long-standing (silent) consensus that most common last names are inherently notable, no matter how well sourced. To avoid systemic bias we should not merge two names together simply because they are transliterated in the same way; it would be like merging two different people together b/c their names transliterated the same way. These names *are* different, and there is a lot more history of these names than many western names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Actually, we do occasionally merge multiple people into one article. That's what many of our list articles are. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Yes, but *only* because they are all minor characters on a tv series or something. We don't, as far as I know, combine all of the "Mr. Smiths" together into one article b/c their last name is spelled the same. None of those arguing for merge established that the surname was not independently notable, and those voting to keep separate did exactly that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles: "A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." And "A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation..." i.e. it can contain more information than a simple list. Li (surname) is an article of surnames that share the same name in English. Seems like a good example of a set index article. (Should we be rehashing and expanding the deletion discussion in this review?)--Wikimedes (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'm intrigued by the closer's word choice here. "My decision." Is that how you view AfD closes, ES&L?—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Even just in the current batch of DRVs there are two other closing editors (one an admin and the other not) who have used the same phrase in commenting on their own closes. I think it can reasonably be taken to mean "my decision on what was the rough consensus". However, not an utterly ideal expression. Thincat (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Well, Randykitty says: "... my decision to close rather than relist", and Coffee says "... my decision on WP:IINFO's relevance to the article", and in both cases there's quite a lot of context to those remarks. At first glance it seems to be only ES&L who's referring to his whole close as "my decision". Of course, there's no need to make too much of a chance remark, but it did bring me up short when I was reading this discussion for the first time.

I agree with Obiwankenobi about not combining a lot of disparate things together just because the word's the same. This is well-grounded in policy, specifically WP:NOTDIC, where there's a very clear table headed "Major differences" that explains it all, and point #4 of "minor differences" gives clear and specific guidance on proper nouns which we have not followed.

I think that overall we're looking at a close which is, arguably, in accordance with the rough consensus but it's also at variance with policy as I understand it from NOTDIC. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad close, but it does warrant quite a close look if it's brought to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

What's wrong with the word "decision "? After reading all of the arguments you make a decision on which policy -based arguments were most convincing...what a ridiculous red-herring. ES &L 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That'd definitely be an overturn, then. If you see deletion discussions as a sysop suggestion box, then that's not a ridiculous red herring, it's a major problem with your closes.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

S Marshall, what the hell are you talking about? You're simply making stuff up, and pretending to attribute it to me. If you have a quarrel with me, take it elsewhere - stop making stuff up. DRV is for useful comments, and not a place to play your passive-aggressive games ES &L 13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Based on the words you've used, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of a discussion closer.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn (for an admin to reclose). Bad close. Consensus was not clear. It was within admin discretion for a no consensus, keep, or merge, and with some strong, divergent committed positions. Contentious discussions are best left for admins to close. --~~SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)~~[]

~~Why would an admin sign a close with "(non-admin closure)"? WP:TROUT him for being randomly but willfully misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)~~[]

that's the AfD closure tool...I didn't know that it checks itself to see if the closer is an admin or not. ES &L 00:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Ah, so it's automation that was slightly too clever. OK. You should remove the NAC tag from your close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Clarifying comment: Let me make my original point regarding the articles being unrelated a bit more clear: Just like how "Smith", "Jones", "Ahmadinejad" and "Finkelstein" are four different surnames in the English language, Lai, Lei and Lik (Cantonese pronunciations) are three different surnames, with three different English language spellings, three different etymologies, and three different pronunciations.
The only reason why all three articles on Wikipedia are titled "Li (disambiguator)" is because WP:MOS-ZH and WP:NC-ZH dictate that Hanyu Pinyin is used for all China-related articles, and in Hanyu Pinyin, it just happens to be a coincidence that all three are written identically as "Li". The reason for WP:NC-ZH/WP:MOS-ZH and using Hanyu Pinyin on Wikipedia is understandable, because it is the official Chinese romanization standard of the People's Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan) and Republic of Singapore; however in the case we have here, it is counter-productive, as people not familiar with the topic assume that all three topics are definitely related. In Hong Kong, they speak Cantonese, not Mandarin; if a Hong Konger is born with the surname Lai, do people here think that it would be fair to bunch him up with people with the completely unrelated surname Lei for no good reason at all? Not everybody speaks Mandarin, not even every single ethnically Chinese person; ethnic Chinese are quite linguistically diverse, and there are speakers of Cantonese, Hokkien and Hakka out there as well. These surnames are just as applicable to native Cantonese speakers as they are to anyone else.
Right now it might be hard to comprehend, but think of it this way: in Japanese, "Rocky Bale" and "Locki Vale" are both pronounced identically as rōkii baioru (ローキー·バイオル). Imagine hypothetically that we all wake up one day and discover that the English Wikipedia has been taken over by the New Imperial Nipponian Empire, and this powerful entity forced everybody to adhere by their standards - would you all consider it to be fair if they merged all instances of "Bale" with "Vale", because in their mindset, they're considered the same thing? This is essentially what I mean by WP:SYSTEMIC - we're essentially assuming that there is only one valid viewpoint in the universe, and all other viewpoints are irrelevant or insignificant.
In summary: These articles are unrelated. Therefore, I really disapprove of the idea that the separate surname AfDs can be closed "together", as if they were one continuous discussion, as EatsShootsAndLeaves as stated. These AfDs were nominated separately, the discussions took place separately, therefore closure should have been done separately as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Oh, and one more thing: Before someone questions the "significance" of the Cantonese analogy, I'd like to make a reminder that there are more speakers of Cantonese in the world (60 million) than there are people in South Korea (50 million). Mandarin and Cantonese are mutually unintelligible from one another (they're as related as French and Italian are related; the main difference is that France and Italy have armies and navies). --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Well, if the articles' names were Lai, Lei, and Lik, we could rule out the merge and get down to debating whether or not to keep the articles or apply WP:TNT. (Or we could argue about whether or not they were similar enough to be included in the same set index article - the possibilities for contention are unfortunately endless.) Since they're actually called Li, it seems that the merge should be on the table.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I for one would be happy to rename Li, Li and Li to Lai, Lei and Lik, if it solves all of our on-wiki problems. I doubt that it would work though, since people will argue that such a move would be either impractical, a deviation from official standards (Hanyu Pinyin is essentially the "gold standard" for Chinese romanization), a violation of WP:COMMONNAME (there are 850 million native Mandarin speakers, and 60 million native Cantonese speakers), and a violation of WP:MOS-ZH/WP:NC-ZH. If someone can form a good argument for WP:IAR, I'd be delighted; it's starting to get to the point where even I wouldn't mind renaming all the articles away from "Li", to solve the dispute once and for all (and I'm otherwise a strong enforcer of guidelines such as MOS-ZH and NC-ZH). --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn - a completely ridiculous close, even though I'm on the oppose here (both from WP China and WP Anthroponymy perspectives) as a third party I'd still view this as one of the worst closes of an AFD I have seen. Evidently there is no consensus, and the proposed "merge" already leaves out Li (surname meaning "plum") per nom, so the merge is to Li surnames except the main surname Li.
The core problem here remains that two of the participants who have been most active (Rob Sinden and Blueboar) have no concept at all of the Chinese surname system, and have refused to address the basic problem... these names aren't all Li. They only happen to coincide at Li when written in tone-stripped Anglo pinyin representing the modern North China dialect. The surnames in modern Cantonese, Hokkien, Tang Dynasty China, etc. or even modern Mandarin pinyin with tones, not to mention the actual ideogram are as different as Freiburg, Freiberg and Fribourg, and more different than all the towns not merged at Springfield (disambiguation). This would be an extremely unusual and precedent making merge of WP:GNG passing articles for no evident reason. The closing admin should add least be able to state what exactly the merge rationale is. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Of course I understand the concept of the system. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Reopen the discussion. The deletion discussion is continuing so make it official.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn - Four keeps, two merges, and two redirects. How is that a "clear consensus" to merge? As In ictu oculi points out above, some people who voted clearly lack the cultural background necessary to make an informed decision. Chinese surnames are logographic and organized in a fundamentally different manner from Western names: a logogram can have many different pronunciations but is still considered the same name (see e.g. Liang (surname), Zheng (surname), Ye (surname), etc.); conversely, different logograms can have the same pronunciation but are considered different names (such as the Li names being discussed). The millennium-old classic Hundred Family Surnames treats all the Li names distinctly, and the modern Chinese census treats them as different ones, yet a few people here who know nearly nothing about Chinese names are convinced that they are the same. Ridiculous. -Zanhe (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You're not counting properly. Including my initial nomination, there are six !votes in favour of delete/merge/redirect, and four keeps. Your own !vote was "notable surname with 3000 years of recorded history", which hardly presents a strong argument. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn and relist. The discussion plainly failed to appreciate the fact that the three surnames at issue are entirely distinct and unrelated entities (other than the shared Romanization), and is therefore fundamentally defective. The proper solution to the problem of different things sharing the same name is a disambiguation page, not a Frankenstein-esque mess of an article. I also have serious reservations about the closer's finding of a "clear consensus" on the basis of this AfD, but I need not pursue that line of argument further because of the defectiveness of the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Actually, it's been repeated ad nauseum over the past several months of the Li surname saga that these are different names in Chinese, and anyone who has participated (e.g. Rob Sinden and Blue Boar at least) is likely painfully aware of that fact. I think if you read the other deletes/merges [45] will find reasoning along the lines of WP:not a dictionary and WP:TNT.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn per T. Canens, Zanhe and original nom. Frankly, this topic has been beset with Randy in Boise problems with arguments being based on ignorance of the subject matter. But the primary point here is that there was no consensus at all, rendering the close invalid. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

In regards to that... where exactly are we supposed to continue the discussion?

Wikimedes, you said "It seems to be a point of pride for some editors that all the different Li surnames should have their own articles." - can you name the editors who you think it's a point of pride? Because I don't see that at all, nor see why a personal motive like wikt:pride needs to be assigned. Is it pride that editors see Springfield (Massachussets), Springfield (Missouri) and Springfield (Illinois) having separate articles? If so why isn't the pride of those editors at those articles disregarded to merge those articles. How is this surnames case different from Springfield (Massachussets), Springfield (Missouri) and Springfield (Illinois) having separate articles?

In regard to "Well, if the articles' names were Lai, Lei, and Lik,.." well they can be, is that what it takes? I for one would be willing to put in RMs to move these articles to Cantonese spelling if it helps remove the problem that in tone-stripped Anglo-Mandarin they are homonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

"is that what it takes? I for one would be willing to put in RMs to move these articles to Cantonese spelling if it helps remove the problem" - and I thought I was the only one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Benlisquare, I believe I supported your suggestion earlier as 3rd choice, but now - since this close against the 4 keep !votes - then I would be happy to rename Li, Li and Li to Lai, Lei and Lik, if it solves all of our on-wiki problems. I do not know the mechanics of initiating a RM to move to Cantonese at this juncture. Again the closing admin BWilkins has given no guidance in the close of what constitutes notability for surnames or how to proceed with the 3 of 8 Li's left as breakouts. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It just seems that there's no concern over whether the articles have any useful (broadly construed) information, or are even intelligible, but it's very important that they exist regardless. That's what I was driving at by "point of pride".

Speaking for myself, I don't particularly care if the articles are called Li (disamb1), Li (disamb2), and Li (disamb3) or Lai, Lei, and Lik as long as they meet basic quality standards for inclusion and contain enough information beyond etymology, etc., to be considered encyclopedia articles instead of dictionary definitions. Merging into Li (surname) is just a convenient way to preserve what little information was contained in articles that should never have seen the light of article space.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Incoming WP:TLDR, progress if you must, don't bother if you don't need to.
Introduction
"Merging into Li (surname) is just a convenient way to preserve what little information was contained in articles that should never have seen the light of article space." - and that's where a portion of the problem lies - yes, I am fine with merging shitty articles with limited usefulness, but there is a line between shitty and non-shitty articles that quite often becomes quite blurry. The problem at the moment is that whilst we're merging shitty Li articles into the big, general Li article, there are also not-shitty Li articles, and people think that the not-shitty Li articles should also be likewise merged. This isn't a fresh issue, this has been a part of a long-term dispute regarding Chinese surnames, and is merely a small portion of a much larger problem. Many of the arguments that have been thrown around in the past, on the talkpages of these Li articles and on wider discussion venues such as WT:Naming conventions or WT:Disambiguation, include "it is policy to use English, therefore we should ignore all non-English usages" and "this is the English Wikipedia, we should only concern ourselves with our own little world, the Chinese Wikipedia exists for a reason". I believe that this kind of thinking is dangerously anglocentric, and is at odds with the founding principles of the Wikipedia project.
The potential for future expansion
There are better Li surname articles, and there are slightly more shittier ones. Of the shittier ones, there are two kinds: Ones that are completely non-notable (e.g. number 38487326545 in the surname list, or a rarely used surname with only 600 people that use it). For these articles, I do not oppose deleting or merging them, because they are largely of little use for an encyclopedia. Then, there are articles that definitely are notable - there are large populations of people with the surname, and there are plenty of third-party reliable sources written about it - it just happens to be that the article at present time is either written poorly, slightly unsourced, or too short. In this case, I would have to oppose deletion or merging, because Wikipedia is not built in one day, and that there is always room for future improvement. Remember, I personally did not oppose all the surname deletions - I merely opposed the deletion of the ones I think had potential.
Shitty surname articles, and non-shitty surname articles
What makes a surname article completely useless, unencyclopedic, and non-notable? This entire concept of "encyclopedic-ness" is subjective, as one person's interpretation may vary from someone else's. There are plenty of English-language surname articles out there, some of them are quite decent, and others that are pretty much, shitty. However, there's less scrutiny on those articles for reasons unknown, compared to surnames that are homographs in the Hanyu Pinyin romanization system (to repeat: not the English language, the Hanyu Pinyin romanization system) but are completely different etymologically, socially, historically and linguistically. I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS right now, because this is not an AfD discussion, but a deletion review that's doubling as a general community discussion on a related problem. It's unfair and anglocentric to allow shitty Anglo surnames, but not shitty Chinese ones; either delete all the shitty surnames, or leave all the shitty surname articles shitty (and potentially expandable/improvable in the future). What's with the double standard?
What do you mean by surnames being "etymologically, socially, historically and linguistically" different?
What do I mean by that? Well, Li (in Hanyu Pinyin; alternatively Lei in Cantonese, Lee in Taishanese) was the family name of the royal family of the Tang Dynasty; this surname is completely unrelated to Li (in Hanyu Pinyin; alternatively Ly or Lai), who are the tribal descendants of Shaohao. The only relationship between these Li surnames is that a bunch of fat, nerdy communist party members with coke-bottle glasses and mao suits who double as linguists sat at a table one day, and said "hey, let's romanize Chinese in this way, so that 李, 黎 and 利 look like Li, Li and Li", and then rubber stamped their idea. That's all there is to it, end of story.
Conclusion
Wikipedia is currently bad, and if you don't like to read lots and lots of words you probably don't need to know the whole details, but it's bad enough that I've managed to waste my time writing a giant load of useless writing about it. Because of this, I'd like the community to reconsider and reevaluate a few things. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I agree with much of the above. I was starting to write up a TLDR reply, but decided to spend the time in real life instead. And write up a short bit of comic relief on other crap exists [46]. Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Just to be clear to everyone. DRV is not AFD2. Arguments to overturn based on re-arguing the AFD get discounted or even ignored so please don't try to keep that chatter going. Its a distraction to the DRV and makes the final consensus marginally harder to establish. So far we have two key arguments here that seem to me to be relevant - firstly the contention that the closing editor was making the decision not reading the consensus. Secondly, and I think the most interesting, that the discussion was defective and didn't properly understand that 3 surnames written the same way in one transliteration but with different tonal sounds are in fact three entirely different surnames. As a potential DRV closer, that argument is certainly the one I would find most helpful to see commentators expanding on. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

...where exactly are we supposed to continue the discussion? -- If that's the outcome of this DRV then the closer will write something to the effect of "overturn and relist", and will begin a fresh AfD.
As regards the expansion Spartaz asked for, it might help to paraphrase WP:NOTDIC. As a dictionary, Wiktionary has one article per word. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has one article per concept. So to use "set" as an example, a dictionary has one huge entry (it takes the Oxford English Dictionary more than 60,000 words to define), but an encyclopaedia would have lots, and we use brackets to distinguish between them: set (tennis), set (mathematics), etc. But where there are several words for the same concept, Wikipedia just has one entry, because it describes the concept rather than the words. Hence set (tennis) is actually a redirect to tennis score.
Isn't it self-evident that the surname "Li" is one word, but many concepts? It's several distinct phonemes describing several distinct things. We don't have any trouble coping with this in English: Smith (surname), Smyth (surname). But for some reason the AfD found it hard to cope with in a foreign tongue.—S Marshall T/C 13:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Regarding Spartaz's request above: The editors in that AfD discussed Merge/redirect to Li (surname), which was the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS stronger argument for reasons I noted above. I don't think it is reasonable to assert that the closer was making the decision not reading the consensus. As for claiming the request to delete Li Surname (郦) was defective for not focusing on something other than what to do with the Li Surname (郦) article, the AfD was not an RfC on 3 surnames and there is no basis to treat it here in DRV as an RfC. The AfD discussion consensus properly understood that the Li Surname (郦) surname was a subtopic of the Li (surname) article, whose topic is "Li is the pinyin romanization of several Chinese surnames." No one in the AfD claimed or provided argument that Li Surname (郦) is not a pinyin romanization of one of several Chinese surnames. The closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus correctly. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Of course, if the close of Li Surname (郦) took into account discussion outside of that posted in the Li Surname (郦) AfD request, then that might support a DRV position that the closer of the Li Surname (郦) deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Smyth appears to be a major subtopic of Smith per the Smith (surname) article. However, if the Li (surname) article is a case of putting three or more distinct topics in one article, then Li (surname) should be listed for deletion at AfD and perhaps turned into a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, which is how to effectuate the assertion that the 3 surnames "are in fact three entirely different surnames". Without a parent target article for Li Surname (郦), Wikipedia:Summary style would no longer be an issue for Li Surname (郦). (It also would help if "郦" were replace/augmented with English in this English language Wikipedia, but that is a secondary point of pride issue). There seems to be issues beyond the AfD. However, this DRV should only address the AfD review before it. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:Jreferee "However, this DRV should only address the AfD review before it." - no, that is not the case since the AfD was linked to previous discussion trying to establish what constitutes notability for a surname. The AFD discussion failed to identify any specific notability criteria beyond WP:GNG, and everyone agrees that that Li Surname (郦) passes WP:GNG (or at least they failed to express that it didn't or offer any reason in accordance with notability guidelines as to why not), BWilkins in closing failed to comment on the relevant notability guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The AfD being linked to previous discussions does not mean the text of those discussion or the participants views in those external discussions are "incorporation by reference" into the AfD. If Wikipedia operated that way, we would have a very low level of assurance regarding consensus of a particular discussion. The closer of a deletion discussion need only interpret the consensus correctly, not comment on one thing or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No, sorry but if an AFD specifically references previous discussion then that is part of the discussion, just as a policy being linked is part of it. As is illustrated by the problems with the close. The closer BWilkins (who I have respect for btw) in this case not only failed to read consensus but (2) also failed to reference the underlying WP:GNG issue with surnames and (3) English homonyms, but (4) more importantly give guidance on whether improving the articles is allowed - if that seems like a bizarre thing to be needed, again see references to previous discussion and editing behaviours. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:S Marshall: That's a reasonable comment but I thought Smith (surname), Smyth (surname) were actually the same surname where as surnames "plum" "whetstone" "profit" etc. are evidently not the same surname, a significant number derive from feudal warlord families where the feudal warlord states have separate articles, so that doesn't explain the AFD close. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That's true. In fact a much better example for what I mean would have been Leigh (surname) and Lea (surname): words phonetically similar to "Li", but of quite different origin, quite different meaning, and (at least in Old Englisc) pronounced differently, that have separate articles. Wish I'd thought of that earlier.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn, and apologies for raising arguments that should actually be raised at an AfD. As well as being an irregular wikipedian, I also study Chinese, and I have learned that the tone (represented in pinyin as the accent above the vowel) in which a syllable is sounded is, to a Chinese viewpoint, an intrinsic part of the pronunciation - in fact, it is more apparent to a Chinese person's ears than the consonant or vowel in the syllable. Because of this, the Lí, Lǐ and Lì syllables are, in fact pronounced completely differently, and should not be merged into a single article. And, even for the surnames which are pronounced alike, the characters are different, which means that they are separate words, which happen to (in the Mandarin dialect) have the same pronunciation. Linguistically, therefore, there is little in common between all of the articles, other than the romanisation (excluding tones). What is more, even if there were a main article at Li (surname), summary style would dictate that it is reasonable to have separate "sub-articles" on each individual surname. Bluap (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist A good case can be made for re-evaluating this, and AfD is the place to do so,not here.All we need decide here is that it is worth a renewed discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn Consensus to merge this was far from clear, either numerically or on policy-based arguments. On policy, indications of separate notability, separate etymology, and separate usage in the original language are IMO more potent than arguments that they should be lumped together because a particular system of transliteration uses the same romanization for different words. No need to automatically relist, any editor who chooses can start a new nomination, although i would advise waiting and seeing if sourcing is improved on the shorter existing articles. DESiegel (talk) (talk | contribs) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment. It would be imprudent of me to endorse the close, but there seems to be a move to discredit myself and other supporters of the delete/merge/redirect route, as is evident by some of the language on this page (and the various discussions that have been had on the subject over the past months). I am fully aware of the fact that these are different surnames, but the point has always been on how best we should serve the English speaking readership, which would be well addressed by User:Blueboar's attempt to tidy up the article (at User talk:Blueboar/drafts - Li (surname)). With these protracted discussions, there seems to be a move by certain members of the Wikipedia community to bring this situation to a stalemate. (And I note that no-one notified me that an AfD that I had nominated was at deletion review - a common courtesy I would have thought) I do hope that whoever closes this review takes into account the previous discussion, and the fact that we practically already had consensus for the merge back in July; it was only my redirects being reverted that prompted the AfD in the first place. I hope also that the closing admin also takes into account that the stubs were recently created by a banned user, so deletion should almost have been the default action. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

First of all, there is a significant difference between a WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK. A ban is a forced exclusion from the project for a set amount of time (sometimes permanent) rectified by a decision process, whilst an indefinite block is a technical prevention of a user from making mainspace edits to prevent further disruptive editing which can be lifted at any time if the circumstances are right. Your statement is potentially misleading, as User:Bmotbmot is not WP:BANned. Second of all, argue the content, not the contributor; who gives a damn if the article creator is blocked? Would it matter if he was Jewish, or if he was a bisexual? The article creator isn't the only contributor to the article in the first place. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The user was blocked specifically for creating these and similar non-notable stubs. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Which does not mean that he is banned. If he were banned, then we would follow a different protocol compared to if he were simply blocked. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Apologies for using "banned" when I meant "blocked". A simple mistake. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

User:benlisquare, correct, big difference. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Everybody, discussion is still ongoing, but would someone at least count the overturns/supports above. User Rob Sinden is again going out on his own blanking the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The AfD discussion has been closed as a merge, and articles were tagged as such. These only get reinstated depending on the outcome of the deletion review. Stop reinstating. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

9 November 2013

Fifi La Fume – I'm not seeing any procedural argument that the AFD was run incorrectly or that any procedures were incorrectly applied. On that basis we don't have a great deal to do here. The outcome is not manifestly wrong but the consensus of that discussion is not overwhelming to the point that we couldn't look at what to do with this further on the article talk – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The deletion discussion was not posted on the articles talk page (I was only watching the talk page, and was surprised when it just popped up being deleted) and as such, it is possible that other interested parties (such as myself) who watch the articles talk page may have disagreed with the deletion. Further more this was a non-admin closure. Surely another week, with a relevant section created in the articles talk page should suffice in a more fair deletion of the article. If it's a matter of lack of reliable sources, we have these four sources Fictional Skunks:, Reading the Rabbit, Tiny Toons Characters, and Fictional French People available.--SexyKick 08:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Weak endorse AfD close. Endorse AfD close. - There are some mentions: New York Times 1990 (cited in the deleted page), Daily Herald, Chicago Tribune, Google Books. It does not add up to enough new source material for a stand-alone article on Fifi La Fume. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Regarding my post position change above: The AfD close was fine. The sources listed above are not significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. But given the low participation and the new information posted above, I would not object to the page being relisted to consider the new sources. I did not fully look through Google Books and it seems like a topic where there would be off line book write-ups. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment It looks as if the AfD was notified on the article itself [47] which is right way to have done things. Perhaps a relist would have been preferable since there had been so little discussion – I'm still mulling over whether closing rather than relisting was within discretion but if it was then "redirect" was appropriate. I see the close was along with a considerable number of similar redirects and merges[48] but I am not sure how that should affect my view of things. With an AfD hat on, Jrefereee's Google book search is mostly turning up Wikipedia republishers but I found some substantial real world coverage here. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment As far as I know, one cannot watch a talk page, but not the article itself. As Thincat says, the AfD seems to have been properly notified. Whether or not to relist the AfD was indeed a judgment call. The article was not heavily edited (just 15 edits this year until the AFD, last talk page contributions almost 2 years ago), so a low turnout of !voters was not too surprising. There have been a number of other recent nominations of fictional characters/places and almost none seem to generate much interest. Hence my decision to close rather than relist. In any case, the complaint of SexyKick that the AFD was not sufficiently announced seems to be meritless to me. That this was a non-admin closure equally seems irrelevant. The only debatable issue therefore is whether or not I should have closed or relisted. --Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist When there are no comments except the nom, a relist is needed. The sources found by Jreferee need to be discussed, and AfD is the place for it. I point out that this was one of a large group of nominations of similar articles from the same editor, and it is very possible that one was overlooked. I have always objected to such nominations, for the effect, whether intended or not, can be just this sort of neglect. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment For the record, I'd like to note that there was another !vote besides the nom. I would never close an AfD where nobody except the nom participated. --Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think there are two points to make here. First, any experienced editor can close an AfD, and admins have no special privileges in this regard except for the technical ability to delete content. Participation at DRV tends to give you a cynical view of adminship because it sometimes shows our admin corps in their worst light. They are, by and large, a well-meaning bunch but there are children and self-confessed drug-users among them, and AfD closes aren't always made with sufficient attention. It's safe to say that all the worst closes we see at DRV were made by admins... Randykitty is well-qualified to close an AfD and the fact that he's not an admin doesn't mean his decision should be overturned.
Second, it's better to reach a conclusion than relist all the time. Wikipedia's dropoff in editor numbers means that AfD is much less well-attended than it was, and the small number of volunteer editors have a lot of material to review. We have limited resources of editor time and attention, and we've got contentious real-world content to consider. This was a decision to redirect an article about a little-known cartoon skunk. All in all, I'm going to go with endorse.—S Marshall T/C 09:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I agree that a non-admin can perfectly well close, if qualified by their knowledge of wp policies. And Randtkitty is certainly knowledgeable, & I have as much confidence in their decision as in any admin. SMarshall is furthermore correct that since it is the questionable admin decisions are he ones that show up here, DelRev is not a fair sample of the average work of the admins. But I disagree about relistings. Sometimes 7 days is enough, and sometimes it isn't... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Unnecessary DRV. Ultimately, a deletion discussion can only result in two outcomes, delete or not-delete. Not-delete outcomes are expressed with various different terms such as keep, redirect, merge, etc. but there is no need to use a deletion review or other formal discussion to do so. Anyone can either use WP:BB or a talk page discussion to change from one flavour of not-delete closure to another. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- See also WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions. With only two participants at the AfD, the consensus here is not exceptionally strong, but I worry about encouraging dissenters to revert, restore, or redirect in the face of a solid non-delete consensus. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - That's an essay and does not carry any weight. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - It's certainly true that essays aren't policies, but that particular one seems quite astute and perceptive to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

8 November 2013

Mihovil Lovrić – We don't need this review. I have looked at this BLP vio - it was extreme and had no place here and the user editing the article is a self disclosed hacker with an extreme POV. I have just removed his editing rights. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The closing administrator performed a speedy delete without anyone challenging the proposed qualified secondary sources. None of the 3 users who voted for speedy deletion attempted to resolve the presented issues by improving the article as per the alternatives to deletion. No editors of the article except myself participated in the deletion proposal voting. The deletion discussion was closed after mere hours (h) instead of after expiration of the minimal discussion period of full 7 days. No new voters supporting deletion appeared after I proposed qualified secondary sources and there were at least full 6 days remaining for editors to vote. The deletion discussion page was blanked regardless of all information contained in the article and in the discussion – including the verifiable information claimed merely defamatory and in no way inclusive into an encyclopedia – being publicly available elsewhere, including on the Internet. The closing administrator has not answered my first line of questions thoroughly, is acting too aggressively, and has issued a threat that they will block my account permanently while I am merely trying to discuss the deletion and argue about it with them. Thus, I am unable to continue trying to resolve the issue with them as then they might block my account to prevent me from presenting a valid argument. It may have no bearing, but I notice that they are employed by the United States Air Force and I happened to participate in the penetration into the computer system of their Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where their Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Research Laboratory etc. are located, due to which some conflict of interest exists. The United States Air Force is the information warfare component of the Department of Defense. I would also like to note that my phone line was to be cut by a neighbor who is partially of the same ethnically as the person the article on whom I contributed to, my tires were repeatedly punctured, I was arrested without being charged with anything at all, had my person searched, was interrogated about various nonsense, and my residence was examined etc. after editing Wikipedia in English in early 2007, so I do not take issues here lightly anymore. It is possible that this was due to being Mihovil Lovrićs' grandson and not due to anything here. I am even forced to edit over Tor – I've been granted an exception – to prevent imminent physical danger at this location due to contributing to articles on controversial topics at Wikipedia. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't like the idea of AfD discussions being shut down after just a few hours but, Neven Lovrić, I think you should argue for this article based on its merits, not on the perceived personality of the Admin who closed the discussion or your own personal circumstances. Those claims are all unverifiable (especially since you haven't created a user page) so this discussion has to be based on the article itself and whether the AfD process was conducted correctly.

At the very least, you might consider having the article moved to your own user space where you could continue to improve the article and try resubmitting it in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The procedure has been violated and I am asking for that to be addressed. The articles' merits were to be addressed in the deletion discussion by the community, which was prevented. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: See here and here. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: Deletion discussions on articles that include libellous attacks on living people are treated much differently than standard AFDs, and this article had some very serious issues. I also would like to note that User:Neven Lovrić has just admitted to the felony offence of hacking into a US government information system which presents a direct threat to national security, and as such I will be reporting him to the relevant authorities for further investigation. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

How is it libelous if there are qualified primary, secondary, and/or tertiary sources for those statements? The deletion after mere hours prevented discussion and/or verification of those sources. By the way, the United States of America seem to have already reacted to that penetration, although covertly. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

7 November 2013

Ilan Shiloah – The closing admin has overturned this to no consensus and there is clearly no consensus here to delete this so hopefully everyone is happy now. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I am as big a fan of saving articles from AFD with new sources as anyone else. But it's tough to read this closure as an implementation of consensus rather than as an admin supervote. The issue under discussion at AFD was not primarily whether sources that mention this subject exist (trivially, they do), but whether they establish independent notability for him. I inquired with Coffee, the closing administrator, but his response furthers my belief that this was a supervote; this closure was based on the administrator's valuation of notability (rather than the consensus viewpoint), his opinion about the "inherent notability" of a position that carries no such benefit under policy, and his acceptance of interviews with the subject as sources establishing notability (despite not being independent sources, by definition). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: I was attempting to get another admin's opinion on this before it came here... but Squeamish Ossifrage jumped the gun a bit. At any rate, if another admin feels that this close was done in error, I'll gladly overturn this myself. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to no consensus. Claiming the discussion a keep makes no sense. The closure looks like a supervote indeed. I think the closing admin would have better leave his opinion on the AfD and let someone else close it. On the other hand, I feel that WP:HEY and the closing admin comments make a cogent argument for keeping the article. For this, I'd say that if we take the closing admin comments as a !vote instead of a closure, and re-assess the AfD this way, it would have been a reasonable "no consensus, default to keep". --cyclopia^speak! 16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Closing administrator reply: See: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Vote counts. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. I thought that was a good, well-reasoned close. The AfD nominator's challenge was a lack of sources. Several good sources were added, so the nominator's challenge was blown out of the water.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Yes, but two users argued that the added sources were insufficient - that was the whole point of the deletion debate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Could have been a "no consensus" close, but it was not a "delete". I recommend Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I see that the nominator fairly summarizes the deletion debate, but ultimately does not challenge the result (i.e. does not argue that the article should have been deleted); starting the deletion review solely to determine whether the debate should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" is pointless bureaucracy. I also see that the debate has been open for almost a month to no avail, so somebody needed to make a verdict. If somebody still believes that the article does not meet the inclusion criteria, the article can be renominated for deletion in the future; however, I recommend taking it to the article talk page first. Endorse as a no consensus keep. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - Looked more like a no consensus close, but keep is fine. There may be more material for the article in [49](noting Ilan Shiloah and Film producer Arnon Milchan invest a total of $15 million in Channel 10), [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to no consensus, while I do agree with the argument that the nominator has put forward, there isn't anyway that I could get "consensus to keep" out of that discussion. In this case, perhaps they should have considered just !voting instead and letting another admin make the close. To a degree this is pointless bureaucracy because it won't change the outcome but it's important to emphasise that closes that imply consensus should actually have consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[]

Endorse Keep Those who said "delete" in the AFD did so before Glovex104 added in the two extensive interviews reliable sources did with the person the article is about, proving the article should be kept. The only editor to comment after that said KEEP. The deletes said there wasn't enough coverage of the guy, but that was solved by Glovex104's addition. So "keep" was the only valid outcome. If you contacted those who said "delete" and ask them to look at the new sources, they'd almost certainly change their minds. Dream Focus 02:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to non-consensus I did not comment at the AfD, but looking now, I think it's at best a very borderline keep. The combination of marginal notability and promotionalism--some of which still remains , e.g. "one of the leading global Performance-Based Marketing Companies" without any source for it & even if there were, "what counts as one of the leading"? -- nowadays often leads me to say delete for this sort of article. But in any case, I do not see consensus in the discussion, and it should have been closed accordingly. It had already been relisted once, and the comments after the relisting were still divided. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: I've self-overturned the close, per my preset condition at the beginning of this DRV. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]
What difference does it make if its "keep" or "no consensus default to keep"? This whole deletion review has been a waste of time. You did the right thing, and don't let any nitpickers tell you otherwise. Dream Focus 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

List of diseases and conditions with unusual features – No consensus to restore. Opinion is divided about whether the original deletion decision is (still) correct or whether this should be brought back to possibly face a new AfD discussion. – Sandstein 19:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Per WP:CCC. We have recently had several discussions (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unusual_deaths_(7th_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names_(5th_nomination),Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_unusual_deaths, Wikipedia:VPP#Proposal:_Lists_must_be_based_on_objective_criteria, Wikipedia:VPP#List_criteria) where consensus is emerging that "Lists of unusual X" are indeed allowed (even if many agree that somewhat stringent inclusion criteria are needed). Now, for consistency it seems this list, that has been deleted in 2009 (four years ago) could be allowed to exist again. The concept seems to have a similar level of sourcing of the abovementioned articles (cfr. Google Scholar hits for example) and as such I'd like to see it discussed for possible recreation. I hope this is the correct venue. cyclopia ^speak! 10:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This is the correct venue. Our usual practice when we're considering an old decision and it's claimed that new information has come to light is that we don't need to analyse the old decision in any detail except to review the reasoning involved and decide if it still applies. Opinions normally come in the form "keep deleted" or "allow creation".
It would be quite tenable to argue that a 2009 deletion is old enough to have "expired", and a new list would therefore be immune from G4. This would be an "allow creation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD." But I don't like that line of reasoning in this case because I think the reasoning in that 2009 deletion is still good and in alignment with our policies and usual practice.
I take issue with the phrase "for consistency" in the nomination, because of the unstated implication that if we permit a few lists in the format of "list of unusual things", then we should permit lots of other lists in the format of "list of unusual things". I strongly oppose this view. I think the true case is that we don't normally have "lists of unusual things", but a few specific exceptions are permitted. I don't think a "list of diseases and conditions with unusual features" should be in the mainspace.
I do think it's normal and appropriate to have such a list in userspace or in Wikipedia space, so my position is restore to userspace, with leave to move to Wikipedia space if this is desired, but keep deleted from the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I take issue with the phrase "for consistency" in the nomination, because of the unstated implication that if we permit a few lists in the format of "list of unusual things", then we should permit lots of other lists in the format of "list of unusual things". I strongly oppose this view. I think the true case is that we don't normally have "lists of unusual things", but a few specific exceptions are permitted. - My point is that the situation is similar, and I do not see the reason for inconsistency in this regard. This does not mean that automatically all lists with the word "unusual" should be allowed. But if the amount of sourcing and other policy-based issues are parallel with cases which recently found consensus, and with the recent consensus obtained at several venues, it makes sense to discuss if we could allow this to be recreated. This is also in line with the fact that, if repeated AfD nominations are allowed especially in case of changed consensus, for symmetry article recreation requests should take into account the current context. Anyway thanks for your reasoning. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close with no prejudice against userfication: The discussions the editor is talking about here do not state a consensus that "'Lists of unusual X' are indeed allowed", but instead that those specific lists are indeed allowed. Therefore, the premise here is invalid and is without enough reason to warrant an overturning of the 2009 close. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The two WP:VPP discussions are very general in scope.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

See: Denying the antecedent. Those discussions were on the basis of not allowing any of these types of articles to exist, and the community with good reason stated that was a ridiculous request. But, that does not mean that the contributors there were arguing for the automatic inclusion of all lists of this type. Therefore, your premise is still invalid. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

But I never said it is about all lists of this type. There may be hundreds of reasons for which other lists of this type should not exist. This case however seemed to me extremly close to the previous ones and backed up by that kind of general consensus; as such I don't see why treating it differently. Of course the discussions above linked do not prove this list should be restored, but I think they shift the onus on who desires to keep it deleted. You can rephrase the DRV as: "We can treat lists differently, but: Is there any reason we should keep treating this list differently?" --cyclopia ^speak! 17:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow recreation and relist This is indeed a good deal vaguer than the ones we have approved so far. I think we do need to discuss it to see where consensus currently is. There's enough reason already for a new discussion. If it's done in userspace it'll require both another discussion here and one at AfD --we might as well go directly to the afd; DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment. I've been stridently avoiding the current list criteria discussions, but in my mind one of the complicating factors here (and raised in the original AFD) is that calling a feature of a disease "unusual" is a term of art (for atypical presentations, for example); combined with the sourcing standards for medical-related topics, I'm not certain how this list could avoid being indiscriminate, even accounting for the consensus at other recent list debates. Whether that's an argument to be made here to prejudice against recreation or one to be made at an inevitable AFD discussion after recreation... is outside my pay grade and level of familiarity with DRV. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]
We don't need the same sourcing standards you have for medical related topics, since its just repeating information from those main well sourced articles. Dream Focus 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Recreate it There are television shows that show rare medical phenomenon, anything that is unusual and interesting to people. There are articles written about them, and surely books about them also. Just need to find proper sources. A major television network had a show which showed a man who appeared to be pregnant, because he had grown over his own twin, and it kept growing inside him until he finally had it removed. It the size of a small child. A guy who looked like a tree, because pounds of warts or something were growing on him. Anything interesting enough to be put on television and talked about simply because the condition was interesting, can be done. Just find a proper name for the article and word the inclusion criteria properly, and its fine. Dream Focus 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep deleted: What's unusual? What isn't? Who decides? Can it be decided objectively? If the answer to the first three questions is "I don't know" and the fourth is "not really", we shouldn't have this list. This just seems to be a list of things some people think are cool to show on TV, which is WP:ILIKEIT and also poses WP:NPOV and WP:DISCRIMINATE issues. Am also concerned that the initiator started this discussion to prove some point (he participated vociferously in the five discussions, often berating people who disagreed with him), and that he's stretching consensus farther than it's actually been reached. Just because people don't want it set in stone forbidding "unusual" in a list title doesn't mean go out and create/recreate a zillion spurious lists. Note that my point doesn't address the CCC isssue, which is why it's worded as "keep deleted" (i.e. if you relisted it, I'd vote delete) rather than "endorse". p b p 04:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Userfy; allow recreation per DGG 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC) and per nom. Allow retesting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think SMarshall and SmokeyJoe have it right. Userfy so things can be cleaned up as much as possible and then allow an AfD to move forward (if anyone wants to) once it's in mainspace. The close is old enough that this is a reasonable step and there are reasons to think WP:CCC might apply. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

DRV not needed Restore it and clean it up, and it's G4-immune since it's not the same content. Then if anyone doesn't like the result, they can AfD it again. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment' - Whether stated or not, a focus of complaint in this area is the use of the vague term "unusual" in the article title. Is it really that difficult to use a thesaurus to find and use a word different than "unusual" in the Wikipedia article name? We have millions of articles and only a few use "unusual" in the article name.[58] We have more page at AfD using "unusual"[59] than in article space. I get using the joke in Wikipedia space. Some editors might find humor in linking to that joke page from our LSC guideline. However for articles in this area, the "unusual" term in these article names should be changed so editors can move on. -- Jreferee (talk)

I don't see how using a synonym would change things. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Inherently subjective, POV article from the get-go. The original consensus was correct and backed by policy. For the record, I would vote to delete every "list of unusual X" article we have for this same reason. Quite frankly, they are ridiculous; they damage our reputation as a neutral encyclopedia and enforce the notion that our articles are hodgepodges of unrelated trivia. Them From Space 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

6 November 2013

5 November 2013

Elf or Jinn – Endorsed. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) No matter what monarchy of admins. No acceptance of printed material what a definition of source. No matter What a justice of all you scholar admin, my one article (Elf or Jinn) during editing deleted. I have got a award of making Jinn as God, see his comments on my talk page.Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Er. I have never said that you posited that God were a Jinn. Rather, I said that you were making comparison between Jinn and God. (E.g.: "Unlike the elf, God never sleeps" - for some reason, you consider the Elves a western equivalent of the Jinn.)
In any case, keep deleted (as the deleting admin). The article was an unencyclopedic religious essay, and it was duplicate with the existing article Jinn per comments by the article's creator (WP:CSD#A10). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse I am sorry, but there is obviously a problem here with regard to competence. Nannadeem, with all due respect and from one non-native English speaker to another, but a lot of what you write is not understandable for other editors. Also, you don't seem to grasp the difference between encyclopedic content and original research/synthesis. You should study our guidelines and policies a bit more. Article creation is one of the more difficult things here on WP. Perhaps it would be better if you first would get some experience on the Wikipedia of you own language and brush up on your English, before continuing here, because at this point I am really afraid that you are wasting your valuable time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - Seems like a duplicate of what is already covered at Jinn. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment @Nannadeem: I see that this is the second of your new articles that has been deleted and this is clearly a disappointment for you. However, I agree with the other people here that these sorts of article really are not suitable for Wikipedia. From the discussion at WP:Deletion review#Ape is a Punished Man there are a few people who seem to have an understanding of what you are saying but even they do not think Wikipedia is at all the right place to be expressing your ideas. Any article you write must be entirely based on what has been published elsewhere and you cannot add in your own beliefs even if you are sure you are right. That is what Wikipedia is about. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Sorry, this is not the place for original research and essays.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - What was the Criteria for speedy deletion used to delete the article? WP:NOTCSD notes that essay articles are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't know what criteria was used, but one look at the article suffices to see that this would be a valid application of WP:IAR. No sense in going through the moves of an AFD here and waste everybody's time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- As I have noted here, the article meets the speedy deletion criterion A10 as a duplicate of the article Jinn (per creator's comment on his talk page, "I have been attempting to write about jinn or elf as per available material already published on scientific approach, based on religious doctrines.") At the moment of deletion I wasn't really sure under which criterion the article fell (I was thinking about A1 or A10 [duplicate with God in Islam and related pages]), but the user clarified his intentions later. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse I suppose we could go through the formality of AFD but it's not worth it. And I'm afraid this is another personal essay on an Islamic/Arabic which is simply not material for an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Refer the nom to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. This material is not close to suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

A personal Essay. An Islamic Essay. A non referenced (where printed material has been denied). These are basis for evaluation of my articles. At times I would prefer to take this matter in arbitration. The purpose is to keep me out from editing. This is a domain now being dominated by some biased admins. Nannadeem (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

When you sign your posts, just put the 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end for it to show properly. I moved yours for you just now so it would display properly. If you do it at the beginning, it throws the comment formatting off. But anyways, the Arbitration Committee doesn't preside over matters of content, they only do matters of behavior and interpretation of policy, so I really wouldn't recommend trying that route. This is nothing against you personally, it is just that encyclopedia articles are not a place for original writing or thoughts on subjects, it is for reflecting and referencing what external sources have to say on a subject. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It's an interesting article but it's also original research, which we don't accept here. I would encourage the original poster to find somewhere else to publish this, but I also have to endorse its removal from this site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[]

I know the WP since its inception. I was a supporter of WP by Debate. In one of my article a learned admin argued about printed material in Urdu Language giving his views that it is not comprehended to others (endorsed by admin family). Such Admins should consider the basis of knowledge. Knowledge or Science does not have a language, region or religion. Language of Aristotle is not understood but knowledge he delivered in his language is achieved without commenting the standard of language. Before denying printed material in Urdu language rational health is necessary.

Personal Essay: I accept in my first article there was a reflection of personal style. However, I asked for help from editors and admins to point out removal of contents or modification of style/format – but nothing from either side. I attempted to remove the controversial contents and personal reflection.

There are numbers of articles on WP which are disputed since long but no admin using his power. WP is not a democracy. If democracy or dictatorship then no hope for logic or rationality (parents of Science).

The question of source: my reading is a source and its address or location has ever been provided, the acceptance of source is something else. Recognizing a source should not be weapon of admin, instead there should be clear list of acceptable sources. Presently my sources meet the criteria of WP laid down policies. So the matter qualify for arbitration. Nannadeem (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Nannadeem, are you a troll or a kook? Are there teams of editors or administrators out to get you, censoring perhaps. Consider whether you may be displaying some features causing others to think you are either a troll or a kook. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Smokeyjoe, thanks. May you be more wise. I have good faith and no malafide designs for my WP (our WP).Nannadeem (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Please tell me what Wikipedia:Attribution tells you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

4 November 2013

Muumuu House – Recreation permitted and further AFD at editorial discretion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

There were previous problems with lack of notability WP:GNG for this page. However, I have founded notable sources for the article that reference the publishing house and it's activities/history directly and ask that the article be relisted. See my talk page for a draft of what the article and its references will look like. User:OR drohowa/sandbox OR drohowa (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Permit restoration. I closed the AfD, and could not have closed otherwise in view of the comments there and at previous discussions; also, I agreed with the "delete" comments--the article at that time was impossibly promotional, as were earlier incarnations. But it does seem as if it might well be notable, and the suggested article is acceptably objective. Further doubts should be taken to an AfD if the notability is still doubted, because this is not the place for that discussion. in any case the article will need watching and possibly semi-protection. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse deletion, part of a massive and rather desperate wiki spam campaign (see this for details). Given that, I'd want to see a massive leap in notability before even considering restoring it to article space. All the rewiting in the world won't help when the subject is fundamentally not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's productive to have a notability discussion, actually. Irrespective of notability there doesn't seem to be enough content there to justify a separate article; you've said everything there is to say in four sentences, plus a list of publications which mainly serves to bulk out the four sentences of actual content. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty good draft given the sources, but I also think it's an unexpandable stub and it's better to group content together than have lots of little fragmentary articles. Why not just put the Muumuu House content as a section in Tao Lin and add an entry in the List of English-language small presses? Then Muumuu House could be set up as a redirect to the section in Tao Lin and (I suggest) kept edit-protected because of the history of spam.—S Marshall T/C 01:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

~~Endorse and redirect to~~ ~~Tao Lin~~ Permit restoration (see below). - Normally, we could allow recreation and let AfD sort it out. However, AfD speedy deleted and salted the article. When ever Muumuu House is written about, it's usually is in passing context of Tao Lin: "Tao Lin's own Muumuu House", "started a press, Muumuu House", "Tao Lin's Muumuu House", "founder of the Muumuu House literary press", "publish the work online through Muumuu House , his publishing company", "Tao's Muumuu House", etc. I don't think there are two articles having Muumuu House as the main topic. Muumuu House probably does not meet WP:GNG. Redirecting to the Tao Lin article and letting Wikipedia:Summary style handle the issue on the Tao Lin talk page seems a better way to go at this point in time. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The AfD was closed under speedy delete and User:OR drohowa/sandbox draft no longer meets any speedy deletion criteria and good-faith editor OR drohowa continues to desire to pursue an article for the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

~~Permit restoration.~~ (Your nomination above is your iVote -- Jreferee (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)) - As I posted above, see my talk page for a draft of what the article and its references will look like for starters User:OR drohowa/sandbox. Although the length of the article is short, I don't think that is a reason for not creating a separate article altogether. Lots of stubs are created independently when they could also be added as a subsection in another article. I also think that it is an expandable stub. The publishing company is still active and even gaining popularity with the popularity of Tao Lin as I understand. To answer concerns about the references being specific to Tao Lin rather than the publishing company, the Poets&Writers article, the Morning News article, the NYLON article and the Free Williamsburg article all talk about Mummuu House as its own entity, and discuss the writers, ethos, environment of the press rather than just focusing on Tao Lin. I think the article should be restored with semi protections and watching. OR drohowa (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

3 November 2013

John Schlossberg – Overturned per AfD closing administrator request. Anyone interested can list at AFD again if they so desire. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

This article had sufficient GNG sources. WP:INHERIT doesn't censor WP:GNG sources, rather it's an essay on arguments for Wikipedian's themselves to avoid making during an AfD eg. "I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is notable because I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is famous." .. rather in this case, it is the sources which express he is notable by virtue of newspaper articles about him. INHERIT is often misunderstood this way, it's not meant to censor reliable sources, rather original arguments made by Wikipedians. (Also INHERIT is an essay and not an established guideline. While it is often viewed as a guideline, it is not because there is no consensus for that, and probably shouldn't trump the guidelines when there is debate over INHERITs application.) Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn and relist Sources have been shown and linked that clearly bring fully focused coverage of the subject. The delete !votes simply ignored that. I wouldn't go so far to overturn to keep, given the AfD, but I think it should be procedurally relisted and discussed with a bit more sense. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist I agree with Cyclopia. The delete voters did not address the sources presented and only argued against the non-existent opinion of "he's notable because he's a Kennedy." Of course, three new stories does not make someone notable, so it's possible the end result would be another delete closure. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist WP:GNG is a guideline. It is perfectly OK to say "the subject has in-depth coverage so I am guided to presume notability, but because the coverage is in-depth fluff I think we should not have an article in this case". And I can argue that "despite the in-depth coverage there is inadequate material for a balanced BLP". However it is not clear that is what the "deletes" are arguing and so further discussion could help clarify the matter. Thincat (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to keep The sources presented in the AfD clearly demonstrate sufficient non-trivial, independent, reliable source coverage. None of the delete !votes had any merit, and should have been discounted by the closing admin, but were not. Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Green Cardamom presented three sources during the AfD. One of them is easily ruled out: there's a clear and longstanding consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLPs. The other two stand, and the fact that they talk about Schlossberg in the context of his relationship to JFK doesn't mean he isn't notable. It's commonplace for the relatives of important political figures to attract coverage in reliable sources; see, for example, Norma Major, a woman who is (objectively speaking) utterly lacking in achievements or independent significance. But the GNG is not a scalpel capable of separating people who attract coverage because of their relatives from those who are notable for achieving something. It's a big blunt instrument. The only test is whether there are two independent sources. There are, they were linked for all to see, so the notability challenge was dismissed and the case for deletion was destroyed. The close should have been keep and we should overturn it accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 12:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Could you point me to where the Daily Mail consensus was reached? Hobit (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - It was reached incrementally; most of the discussions are linked from here. The Daily Mail is Britain's Fox News: we can use it with care for non-contentious subjects, but on anything to do with history, politics or climate change it's far out of line, and on BLPs it loses libel cases much too frequently to be considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia's purposes. This case is a double-whammy: a political BLP.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Thanks. My reading of that discussion is that it can be used for BLPs in some cases. I think it should count toward notability. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn Yeah, there were not any policy-based reasons for deletion. I don't see how there could be given the sources. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Relist The close was too much of a supervote, expressing the closer's opinion of the matter. The discussion was weak and seems to have given insufficient attention to alternatives to deletion such as merger with Kennedy family. Making this a redlink just invites recreation and we can do better. Warden (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn It meets the WP:GNG requirements for an article. The Daily Mail coverage was quite extensive. [60] Irish Central had a two page article about him, and quoted bits from the interview he and his mother gave to CNN. [61] The New York Post article was about him. [62] They don't just cover his political announcement, they talk about him. Dream Focus 14:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- The daily mail is a tabloid and generally UK tabloids are not considered reliable sources. The broadsheet media is what passes for reliable sourcing in the UK although I'm sure many will dispute even this. The mail's characterisation of Ralph Miliband as a man who hated Britain despite pulling strings to flight in WW2 when he could have stayed non-combatant says it all really. There are far too numerous other examples to cite even going back to the eve of WW2 and "Hurrah for the blackshirts" for there to be any doubt about this. I feel very strongly about this and won't be closing this review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Ah. What about the other two then? My Highbeam account isn't finding anything [63] nor Google news search, just minor mentions and some articles hidden behind paywalls. Surely his announcement will get ample media attention like the rest of the Kennedy family does, constantly, for every little thing they do. Dream Focus 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Though I certainly agree in general with Spartaz about the Daily Mail, I do not see how making a reference to a story there about him , most of which is confirmed by other sources, by itself invalidates the article. I agree that coverage by that paper is not coverage that by itself shows encyclopedic notability, but it wasn't the only source. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: I see no need in keeping this open as it seems the consensus is that those sources (which I ruled out in my closing) do in fact establish notability outside of him being related to JFK. My close was not a supervote as Warden claimed, but instead a misinterpretation of consensus on those sources. Therefore, I'm fine with this article and it's AFD being relisted and closed by a fellow administrator in a week's time. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Four wanted to delete it, two said the sources were fine, so simple mistake. Dream Focus 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

List of unusual deaths – Closure endorsed. The final sentence of the closure should be read as an admonition against superfluous nominations. It is not a moratorium. – Jujutacular (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The closing admin attempted to prevent any future AFDs of the article, which is beyond his reach.

No reasonable analysis of the input can justify a close as "keep." "No consensus" would have been reasonable, and "delete" is within reach, but not "keep", and certainly not "keep" with this extraordinary preemptive clause that prohibits bringing this thing to AFD again. The deletion arguments are summarized pretty simply: "unusual" is a highly subjective deletion criteria and there isn't any reliable source that allows us to deem any specific death unusual, the community has tried time and time again to agree upon an objective set of criteria and failed. On the "keep side", we have Dream Focus arguing that there is an objective set of criteria while he simultaneously advocates ignoring objective criteria at Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 8#no need to use the actual word "unusual", you can think for yourself, Edison arguing that the same objective criteria actually exist, without providing evidence that editors actually follow them. LM2000 and others argue for keep simply because it has passed AFD before, others arguing that Time Magazine coverage of the article mandates keeping it. This whole "objective criteria exist" argument fails to recognize that editors, on the whole, ignore the sourcing criterion and even take to the talk page to argue that requiring sources to describe the death as "unusual" is unfair and unreasonable. Does the criterion exist? Certainly. Is there widespread consensus to use it? Not really.

Colonel Warden even attempted to argue that the Fortean Times is a reliable source in his "keep" argument.

We also have "keep" votes that argue in favor of original research, like Necrothesp, and other keep arguments arguing per Necrothesp.

Making a troublesome AFD worse, we had Martinevans123 disrupting the proceedings in a determined effort to prevent reasonable discussion, making no fewer than 90 comments that generally consisted of snipes at other editors' comments. As for his actual "Keep" vote, it was not based on any Wikipedia policy, it was WP:ITSPOPULAR.

It's impossible to provide very much weight to "it's fixable!" for an article that has been to AFD seven times and never been repaired, and that's the majority "keep" argument here. It would be reasonable to conclude that there was no consensus here. It's probably a little early to conclude that the deletes finally have it and that the community is willing to recognize that the article truly is irreparable. Decreeing that the delete side has no foundation whatsoever for its arguments and is being disruptive is out of bounds, though. Sometimes it takes eight or nine passes before people start to see how weak the keep side of an argument is, and there's no reason to declare that this article is immune to future deletion discussion.

I'd love to see an overturn to delete, but I recognize that that would be as or more problematic as this close. Realistically, I want an overturn to no consensus and a removal of the language that dictates that no further AFDs can ever be started against this article. —Kww(talk) 16:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: Please see User talk:Coffee#List of unusual deaths AFD for further context. I'll take more time to lay out my reasoning to the reviewers here, if/when that becomes warranted. Please keep in mind I'm sleeping throughout the day due to my current work schedule, so I may be late in replying to questions or concerns. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- (edit conflict)Closing administrator comment: One thing I find imperative to point out here (although any reviewer could easily see this by looking at my closing rationale) is that I did not state that an AFD could never be opened on this list again. What I stated, and with good reason, is that an eighth AFD based on the same arguments should not be started again, unless there has been a drastic change in current policy. This is the very spirit of the "Renominations" point in WP:DELAFD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - Given that the article is deletable under current policy, that's a distinction without a difference. All that's required for deletion is for a closing admin to weigh arguments appropriately.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Given that even in this DRV you have shown no policy-based argument to delete the article whatsoever, apart from cherry-picking some bad keep !votes, I'd say that it is not deletable under current policy. So much that people have tried to change policy to delete this article (and failed miserably). --cyclopia ^speak! 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

If anyone else thinks my contributions amounted to "a determined effort to prevent reasonable discussion", please let me know. I'd also like to know if Kww was prevented from reasonable discussion. And could he tell us how many comments one is limited to at an RfD? Perhaps (to save community time) I could be topic banned from participation in any future RfDs (on any subject of Kww's choosing). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You rely on people not clicking on your links to see that they are completely irrelevant to the subject, such as your link to Topic (chocolate bar) in this comment. I'd love to hear the logic that defends such postings. If your goal is to poke fun at the discussion process, it's hard for me to see it as a constructive contribution.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC

I see. Thanks for clarifying that, Kww. One can just hover, I think, before one decides to click. But I certainly don't rely on people. And it depends on your definition of logic, I guess. Do you think "topic bans" always work, or do you think maybe some addicts always get their comeuppance? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC) []

(edit conflict) Endorse very, very strongly. Actually, Coffee close is one of the best and most thoughtful I've seen on AfD in ages. But let's see a few points in detail
- Delete !votes do not ever bring a cogent policy-based argument for deletion of the topic. Most delete !votes (e.g.TheRedPenOfDoom, Purplebackpack89, Obiwankenobi, to list three of the most active users in favor of deletion) argued that the list is inherently subjective. This has been (1)proven false since the list can be based on the objective criteria of sources calling the event unusual or a synonym of it (2)that sources have to deal with objective, monolithically consistent criteria for such an assessment does not exist in any topic (3)calls to WP:IINFO fail because the topic is eminently WP:DISCRIMINATE.
- Attempts at changing policy mid-AfD failed overwhelmingly The delete !votes were actually acutely aware that their position was, at best, shaky policy-wise. So much that one of them, Purplebackpack89, started a thread on WP:VPP to change policy to backup their position. The proposal was met by practically unanimous opposition, calling for a WP:SNOW close. This shows that every delete !vote based on such an argument (that is, the vast majority of them) is pushing a non-consensual position.
- That it has not been fixed does not mean it is not fixable This is a logical fallacy, that also forgets that we have no deadline. I do not deny that there are serious WP:OR concerns. That they are "unfixable" is instead false, as shown by the fact that inclusion criteria based on sources are being discussed right now, with good support so far (the more people want to participate, the merrier, by the way). Editors as Kww himself and TheRedPenOfDoom have also done lots of work to fix the article removing unsourced entries and asking for sourcing. To bypass our deletion policy one would have to show that the article is intrinsically unfixable, because of the topic. This has not been shown.
- Reliable academic sources on the topic have been presented by both delete and keep !votes To present the discussion as if all the keep !votes pivoted around Colonel Warden's Fortean Times sources is disingenous. During the discussion, an important point has been the finding that medical and forensic academic journals actually regularly cite the concept of unusual death. Remarkably enough, a delete !vote has brought this to the table -that is, Obiwankenobi. That is a novel and important development in showing that the quality and quantity of sourcing for the article is actually strong, and it is a strong argument in favour of keeping the article.
- The AfD closure actually covers the bad keep !votes To call for a deletion review could perhaps make sense if the closer actually completely discarded the fact that some keep !votes were invalid. This could bring credence to an admin supervote closure. Very honestly instead Coffee's closure actually remarked that !votes based on article popularity are to be discarded (I include myself in those making a variation of that argument). The point is not that some keep !votes were weak: the point is that none of the delete !votes has basis in any consensual interpretation of policy, while plenty of different kinds of reliable sources have shown that the article can satisfy WP:LISTN, WP:V, WP:GNG etc.
- Discouraging further AfDs is policy-based and correct WP:DELAFD is clear in labeling multiple nominations as disruptive. Given that seven AfDs have all hovered between "keep" and "no consensus", it seems obvious that further nominations without a change in policy would be just a (probably hopeless) attempt at forum shopping until, by sheer statistical chance, the outcome gets the way the nominator wants. This is disruptive and tendentious, and at best a waste of everyone's time.
- Numbers Well, yes: AfDs are not meant to be a mere vote count. Yet fact is that consensus, by head count, is leaning strongly towards keep, and almost all by established editors (no SPA or newbie accounts have been seen AFAIK). Most importantly almost all of last !votes are on the keep side and citing other keep !votes for their rationale, showing that the community has been reading, pondering and ultimately endorsing the keep arguments.

For all these reasons I think not only that Coffee closure is excellent, but also that this DRV is basically an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING and a case of being hard of hearing. We have discussed this topic to (an unusual) death. People who have problems with the inclusion criteria are more than welcome to come to the article and help fixing it instead of endlessly argue again and again that they basically do not like it.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse Kww didn't produce any evidence to support his subjective claim that this article is a "terrible idea". He is therefore in no position to scoff at the evidence produced by other contributors. Anyway, the substantive point here is the close's point that "this means that all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". WP:DELAFD is an existing policy and it seems quite appropriate to refer to it in this circumstance. Seven nominations is far more vexatious repetition than would be permitted in most other places. Enough is enough. Warden (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure The closing administrator made a wonderful case, laying out everything in clear details. Since certain participates would start up the argument again, and again, and again, as they have in past AFDs where they didn't get their way, I think it best to specify that they can't renominate this AFD for an 8th time unless there have been a change in policy. No nominating for claims of Original Research, he dismissing that in his closing statement, or other things listed in his closing. Dream Focus 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to delete: The administrator's closure ignored policy. Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, you can't forbid renomination down the road a piece, as Coffee tried to do. And when you throw out all the deletes that are "I like it", "This gets hit a lot", "this shouldn't have been renominated", or "There's objective criteria" (which they're blatantly isn't, and will never be), you actually end up with more delete votes than keep votes. Wikipedia should neither be a place for ridiculously subjective lists such as this one, nor a place for ridiculous admin supervotes such as this one. I am also a bit disturbed by the OWNership level the three endorse votes above took at both the AfD, and in the talk page of the article. p b p 21:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
(Is that OWNership or ACTive editing to the article? I don't recall seeing you there very often.) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
@Purplebackpack89: So, let me get this straight: In this AfD there have been a grand total of zero policy-based delete !votes, plus a massive majority of keep !votes, plus a sound refusal by the community to disallow "ridiculously subjective lists" (as you put it) when you asked for it on WP:VPP -and yet you come here with a straight face saying this should be overturned to delete (something that even the DRV nominator had the dignity and brains to avoid). And after having forum shopped to get policy the way you wanted mid-AfD, you have the balls to accuse editors of WP:OWN. Pbp, you are welcome to have your opinions, but you are making a fool of yourself if you keep this kind of denial in the face of consensus. --cyclopia ^speak! 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
If we're talking about straight-faces, I don't understand how you can say that there were zero policy-based delete votes, because that's inaccurate. p b p 23:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]
That's if we are not fooled by mistaking "!votes linking to policy" for "policy based !votes". Yeah, many linked WP:IINFO, but all failed to produce a cogent argument for it that went beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see Kww's own !vote for example, based on the personal opinion that article is a "terrible idea"). The other argument by delete !votes (intrinsic subjectivity) is not present in any policy. So much that you yourself had the honesty to acknowledge it and attempted to fix the policy. If the deletes' reasonings were policy-based, what's the point of trying to fix it? --cyclopia ^speak! 00:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
Yes, articles based on subjective criteria for which we cannot agree on authoritative reliable sources are a terrible idea. If you can actually generate a stable consensus about what kind of source it takes to justify an entry in this list, my objections will go away.—Kww(talk) 00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
(1)This is a fair opinion you're perfectly entitled to, but it met little consensus so far. Without an overwhelming consensus about this being a "terrible idea", WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. (2) If you think that generating a stable consensus on inclusion criteria is at least theoretically possible, then your opposition to the article falls under things that can be dealt with normal editorial process, and as such we should fix 'em, not delete 'em. That's exactly why the claims of WP:OR in the article - which I do not deny - are however not relevant for deletion. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Abstain. A much larger problem here seems to be how we trust WP:RS (if such a mythical beast actually exists, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I found this reminiscent of the various deletion debates for List of common misconceptions. It triggers a lot of similar reasoning. I think there are three facets to consider.
First facet: In theory, any article may be nominated for deletion at any time by any good faith user. However, in practice repeated renominations of the same article on the same basis, if nothing has changed in the meantime, may be construed as an attempted end run around the previous consensus and speedily closed (with possible sanctions if the renomination was disruptive). This situation is common enough to have its own shortcut (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED) and speedy keep criterion (WP:SK ground 2c), so most of us know how it works. However, so that there can be no misunderstanding, the way this normally works is that for a few months after a deletion debate has been closed as "keep" or "no consensus", the article enjoys a temporary immunity from the AfD process unless there is (a) a change in policy or (b) a significant development such as a new source. Exactly how long this immunity lasts depends on the article, the sources, and the nature and number of previous debates. In this case we have now had a total of seven well-attended debates on the same subject and the community's view really is hard to misunderstand. The opposition to this article is persistent and vocal, but it has not attracted widespread support. I would personally view an early renomination as a wilful failure to get the message. I think all this is what Coffee intended us to understand from his closing statement. However, since it's possible to read Coffee's closing statement in a different light, and some users are reading it in a different light, I come to the first finding I think this DRV should make: The article is not immune from future AfD, but an early renomination would be unwise.
Second facet: Seven failed deletion attempts do add up to a significant weight to the "keep" side. It should not be necessary for the article's supporters to repeat themselves four times a year just because other users insist on fresh debates every three months! This is why the arguments raised in AfDs #5 and #6 should be taken into account in the close of #7. Coffee took this into account in his close and he was right to do so. The second finding of this DRV should be that in this respect, Coffee's close is endorsed and, in the inevitable AfD #8, future closers are recommended to take the same approach of giving weight to views expressed in recent previous discussions.
Third facet: Some lists are kept not because they meet encyclopaedic criteria but because they're simply interesting and widely-read. Such lists are good gateways into the encyclopaedia and they are among our most popular content. Wikipedia is inconsistent about the way it deals with such lists. The List of Unusual Deaths and the List of Common Misconceptions have been kept in the mainspace. The List of Unusual Articles is kept in the Wikipedia space (at Wikipedia:Unusual articles) but with a cross-namespace redirect from List of unusual articles. In my view, this compromise has a lot to recommend it, so the third finding I would suggest for this DRV is that although an early deletion nomination is not advised, a Requested move, RFC or other discussion about moving this content into the Wikipedia space with a cross-namespace redirect would be acceptable and would not be inconsistent with the close.
I do prefer "keep" over "no consensus" and I do not think it's a good idea to disturb Coffee's close in any other respect.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I come to the first finding I think this DRV should make: The article is not immune from future AfD, but an early renomination would be unwise. - Just for clarification, S Marshall: the closure as I interpret it allows for new AfDs, obviously, provided however there is a relevant shift in policy. This sounds wise to me: we have repeatedly gauged consensus in the current policy situation, and while it is true that consensus can change, it is also true that a new consensus would require, to be sound, novel policy-based arguments: these seem extremly unlikely to come out in the future unless policy itself changes. I'd say perhaps that unless someone finds a ground-breaking new conceptual angle for an AfD nomination, future nominations should be disregarded. That is, if the new nomination is a rehash of old nomination arguments, we can shut the AfD immediately, because we already know the answer.--cyclopia ^speak! 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think that would be true for the near future (say, the next six months or so). But if AfD #8 starts in 2015 when the list looks different, then I don't think we could constrain the closer to that extent.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I was about to post the exact same thing p b p 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

and if the list looks the same, the claims of "the problems are fixable" will be even more facile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I've always found that view hard to sympathise with. In logic, whether the problems are fixable does not depend on whether they've been fixed within a particular timescale. Fixability is a property, not a deadline.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Exactly so. Actually the reasoning above should be written explicitly in some policy -after this mess of multiple AfDs, DRVs etc. has settled. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The credibility of the statement that it can be improved is certainly reduced. It's an affirmative defense: if someone wants to claim that something can be improved, they should eventually be able to point at an improvement. Going the other way is attempting to prove a negative: a constant lack of improvement certainly suggests that something can't be improved, but cannot prove it.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

(But Red Pen improved the article with his removal of items that did not meet the (albeit informally) agreed inclusion criteria). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

At some point claims of "its fixable" actually need to result in fixes, otherwise they are no better than tales of Santa Claus in their basis in reality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The credibility of the statement that it can be improved is certainly reduced - Not really. All you need is to point a reasonable and practical improvement route (as I did recently on the article talk page). Also you can often successfully argument that an article cannot be improved, e.g. an article on Antarctic exploration by Babylonians cannot be improved no matter what. That's not the case here. All the article needs is a practical and policy based inclusion criteria agreed by editors. If there is one benefit of this last AfD and all the bitter discussions on the article, it is that: forcing people to sit at a table and lay down these criteria once and for all. TRPOD seems to have sort of joined the effort, so I'm even more perplexed at his skepticism. Kww, wanna help? --cyclopia ^speak! 00:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

But if consensus can change, it can change in both directions, right? If six months is all it takes, then consider the consequences if there's another AFD and, due to the vagaries of the discussion and close, the article is deleted for once. Another six months then passes and it would then be ok to recreate the article, just like before, to test the state of consensus six months on, right? That's ok is it - that we have can have an infinite cycle of discussion, potential deletion and recreation? I'm thinking that the delete camp would soon change their tune if they managed to get the page deleted. They'd be talking WP:CSD G4 so that consensus would then be frozen, rather then allowed to change. This lack of symmetry would be grotesquely unjust per WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Agree with Warden. There is an intrinsic and unfair asymmetry between AfD and recreation. This general issue has to be taken into account when dealing with multiple AfD nominations. It seems that so far multiple deletion attempts are all jolly good, while attempting at overturning a deleted article are much harder and dimly seen. Again, I think it is correct to discourage further nominations unless at least one of article content, policy or deletion arguments have massively changed. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

"All right! Since you say it's fixable, it's your job to fix it by next Tuesday. Hop to it!"

Whether something is fixable does not depend on whether it's actually fixed within any particular timescale. If I say something can be fixed, then what I mean is that there are people who could fix it. If I mean "I, personally, will fix it before the next AfD", then that is what I will say. If I have not said that, and the content remains un-fixed three months (or three years) later, then the impact on my personal credibility is zero. I hope the difference between "fixable" and "imminently about to be fixed by me" is now clear to everyone concerned and we can move on.

This is all of very tangential relevance to the actual DRV and I suggest that we hat it.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Usually when something is renominated 6 months after it closes, it ends with the same results. I don't think everyone should have to keep going to the same AFD every six months, especially when its the same group of people renominating it and making the same exact arguments as before. Remember what happened the last time this was at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (6th nomination) A few days after the previous one closed, PBP renominated it stating "Anything can be renominated immediately if it closes in no-consensus." Based on that, the closing administrator was justified in telling this small group of stubborn people not to renominate it for deletion yet again just to repeat the same process yet again. Dream Focus 01:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Little known fact: Whenever Dream Focus and I edit the same AfD or DRV, he invariably finds some way to attack me. What should have happened was that AfD 5 should have relisted rather than closed as no consensus. If the relist had been done properly, I wouldn't have had to renominate it (and FWIW, this is exactly the place to discuss the proper closure of an AfD) Again, I remind you that consensus can change, and also that I didn't start either AfD 5 or 7. p b p 01:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Consensus can change a few days after it closes? You participated in the 5th, it didn't go your way, so you started a 6th deletion discussion a few days later. Dream Focus 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You seem to have missed my point about relisting, i.e. letting it go on another week so more people can participate. Considering that more people voted in AfD 7 than AfD 5, it's likely that there would have been enough participants to discern a consensus had it been kept open longer. Not really any different from the DRVs you've started and admins you've pinged when articles you wanted kept were deleted. Anyway, this discussion is about AfD 7, not about AfD 5 or 6, and you clearly brought it up for the sole purpose of poo-pooing me, so it's time you stopped talking about it. p b p 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This isn't the only time you renominated something shortly after it closed. A repeating pattern occurs with you and a few other similar minded editors. You need to stop assuming everything is about you. The AFD was closed the way it was, because of previous AFDs for this topic, thus it relevant to mention that, regardless of who the person was that renominated it that quickly. Dream Focus 01:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Dream Focus, please stop. Deletion review is about closes----it's about content, and procedure. It can't help resolve difficulties between editors and it's explicitly a drama-free zone. We've gone far off track. Could we please return to discussing the merits and demerits of Coffee's close?—S Marshall T/C 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This is about the close. The closing administrator made a point about people not renominating it again unless policy changed. Some protested this. I pointed out it was necessary, since someone had, after the 5th AFD ran its proper course and closed, renominated it a few days later. The fact that someone keeps insisting everyone is out to get him all the time, is not relevant. Some mentioned people should wait 6 months before renominating it, I mentioning a response to that at the start of this. Dream Focus 02:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You could have easily worded it in such a way as to leave my name out of it. Instead of "PBP renominated it", you could have said "it was renominated", and left out the part about "this small group of stubborn people" altogether. The fact that you elected for a personal wording, combined with the previous interactions I've had from you, does lead me to the conclusion that you are attempting to harness this DRV to force embarrassment or sanctions upon me. Also consider my comment on Coffee's talk page: I'm perfectly fine with saying wait six months, even longer, and also fine with saying any of the previous participants can't renom. The problem I have is with the blanket statement about no renoms unless a very specific set of circumstances are met. p b p 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I had to mention you since I had to quote what you said there, that relevant here. And your wording and past interactions lead me to the conclusion you are just paranoid and ridiculous as usual. And you are still stubbornly determined to renominate this article yet again. Be it a few days or six months or longer, its still just gaming the system, trying the same thing until you get your way and wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

OK, I just said that I'd be fine with somebody saying that previous participants (which would include me, and you too) couldn't renom. That would suggest that I had no intention of renomming. So to claim that I am determined to renom is completely inaccurate, and again proves that you're commenting just to prove some point. There's a little gift waiting for you on your talk page p b p 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

So someone else who wasn't there this time around will renominate it instead, but you'll still show up along with many others who participated this time, and everyone will make the same arguments as before. There is no reason to allow that. No policy was violated, therefore unless policy changes, no reason to allow this to repeat itself yet again. Dream Focus 03:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

And you will show up with the same non arguments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

So, @Dream Focus:, you apparently want to ban anybody who voted "Delete" from any future discussions pertaining to the topic of unusual deaths (nevermind that that's an ANI matter, not a DRV manner). I assume you're also willing to ban yourself, Cyclopia, Warden, and anybody who voted "Keep" from future discussions as well? After all, that's only fair p b p 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

OK, we get that you don't get on now both of you stop the bickering or I'm going to close this early to end the disruption. Enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse The rough consensus was to keep and the closer gave a good explanation of that. Later !votes were strongly towards "keep" so, unless there was some recruitment (and it doesn't look so to me), the earlier discussion seems to have persuaded people that "keep" was appropriate. Our convention at the XfDs is that we entertain all sorts of nomination, however ill-founded, closing only those that are grossly improper. Hence, I don't think the closer's ending remarks represent de facto policy. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It was listed by the Article Rescue Squadron, Thincat, which some may consider recruitment. The last part of your comment is unclear to me: do you support overturning that prohibition on future AFDs?—Kww(talk) 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The most likely person to be recruited by ARS listing is Purplebackpack89 who can be relied upon to show up and !vote "strongest possible delete" in such cases. Warden (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Not true. I don't even vote in 40-50% percent of ARS noms! But Kww is correct in that an ARS tag reliably correlates to 3-4 extra keep votes. p b p 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Please stay on topic and stop insulting a Wikiproject you don't like with baseless accusations. You can look through the things listed now and see that they did not in fact bring in 3-4 keep votes to everything, some things getting no participates at all. People only respond to things that catch their interest. Dream Focus 14:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

@Kww: (1) Not so much recruitment as a reveille to the standing army. The ARS was informed almost immediately the AfD was opened[64][65] so, if they were responding, their response was very delayed since the swing towards "keep" was several days after the AfD had been opened. I was actually going by the names of those !voting "keep", some of whom I recognised and not in an "inclusionist" context. (2) If the closer issued a prohibition of future AfDs I think he should not have done and I would not be supporting it. Thincat (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse I actually think a lifetime limit of 3 AfDs is more reasonable than 7, but I think the closer has it right: the latter part of WP:NOTAGAIN applies, no matter how much a few people believe it ought not to. Jclemens (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

overturn to no consensus I agree a new nomination should not be made for a while (say, 1 year), but I don't think policy needs to change dramatically (or at all) to consider re-deleting this list, and I think the closer overstepped their bounds in so-declaring. The decision should be overturned because Coffee basically made a !supervote, with this phrase: "I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria." - it is not up to the closing admin to decide whether the article in question violates a policy, it is up to the closer to weigh the arguments - and many people OTHER than Coffee did feel it violated WP:IINFO, because collecting a group of deaths just because some source used a synonym of "unusual" to describe them is inherently unencyclopedic and indiscriminate, and this argument was made by multiple participants. "Unusual" is simply too vague a term, that's the bottom line, and claiming it is equivalent to "strange" or "bizarre" is also a form of OR. The closer tossing those arguments out is tantamount to super voting. It was pointed out during the discussion that by the same reasoning that the !keep camp used, we could easily create List of beautiful actresses or List of customs considered weird or List of Mysterious People - or in the domain of death alone, we could create List of deaths considered tragic or List of deaths considered untimely or List of deaths considered sad or List of deaths considered suspicious or List of deaths considered sudden or List of deaths considered unexplained and so on, for dozens more adjective + noun combinations, and there are books and blogs that make exactly such lists, so the sourcing would be equivalent. But ultimately, this is not good for the enyclopedia, as it brings us down to the level of Ripley's Believe it or not and the Fortean times. I demonstrated in the AfD that we could source likely hundreds or even thousands of suicides as "unusual", and then could do the same for every other "common" means of death, like diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, and so on, and then we could go on to create List of unusual disease cases for examples where the lucky people survived! - but collecting cases where the medical community has used the word "unusual" to describe them, while easily sourceable, would lead to a list with thousands of articles and would serve no encyclopedic interest save a collection of deaths through a trivial intersection - the use of a single adjective. Overturn to no consensus, and let the next nom happen in a year.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]
If there are books about unusual deaths, and newspapers covering a list of the most unusual deaths in history, as have been found, then it a valid article. We do have other articles listing deaths that are seen as notable by reliable sources. List of entertainers who died during a performance, List of inventors killed by their own inventions, List of association footballers who died while playing, List of professional cyclists who died during a race, List of political self-immolations, and Death from laughter. For your example, the list of deaths considered suspicious or list of deaths considered unexplained, we have List of unsolved deaths. Also a list of the most beautiful actresses might work, I Googling it and finding plenty of coverage. Whenever anyone who has an article is on one of those list of most beautiful women, from any reliable source, it gets mentioned in their article. Look at Angelina Jolie for instance, it even in the lead. Dream Focus 19:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

As I pointed out, there are books about all of those *other* types of deaths as well - but that doesn't mean we should hence have such an article. Again, for: list of <adjective> <nouns> we could come up with thousands of such lists, but most would be non-encyclopedic, because description-by-a-vague-adjective is not a sufficient criteria for us to create a list. The other lists of deaths you have above are all much more specifically sourced and not based on single adjective, they are all based on actual facts in the case - e.g. "Is X a performer? Did they die during a performance" or "Was X killed? Have investigators thus far been unable to determine the killer? (and for that list, I note that as soon as the case is solved, it would be removed - but NOTHING that I can see could cause a death to be removed from "List of unusual deaths"). As for the actresses, please create it, I would estimate it will not last longer than a few days. List of big-bust models and performers was deleted and the deletion upheld, as were other similar lists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

but most would be non-encyclopedic, because description-by-a-vague-adjective is not a sufficient criteria for us to create a list. - I hate to bring this up again, but (1)"non encyclopedic" is a circular fallacious reasoning (2)the attempt to modify policy to bring your argument in policy has completely failed consensus. Anyway, when all this mess of AfDs and DRV settles, I will consider DRV-ing the list of big bust models and performers (and another couple) for recreation: not that I care much about the topic, honestly, but I agree the issue is similar and thus there should be consistency. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No, it's not fallacious; you will see such an argument often forwarded. WP:NOT was developed exactly to outline a list of examples of things considered non-encyclopedic, and that is a POLICY. Again, this particular close should be overturned, b/c the closer !supervoted and decided that WP:NOT did not apply, even though almost all of the delete !votes referenced WP:NOT or subsections thereof. The fact that a particular example of this sort of list was not provided in WP:NOT is not grounds to say this policy doesn't apply, and that fact that an overly aggressive attempt to modify LISTN failed does not mean the argument failed consensus - indeed, there was NO consensus (thus this should be a no consensus close).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It is a fallacy, for two reasons. (1) WP:NOT exists to list the cases where we know that something is, indeed, not considered encyclopedic: but these cases have been determined and listed by consensus. You can't use WP:NOT as a policy umbrella to justify removing everything you personally think is not "encyclopedic". The fact that a particular example of this sort of list was not provided in WP:NOT is not grounds to say this policy doesn't apply - Yes, it is grounds instead. There is a reason WP:NOT lists so many cases in detail. Everything not listed there is either backed up by massive consensus (and thus probably would go end up as a further comma of WP:NOT) or it is simply a statement of the fact you do not like the article(s). That is why the close is not a !supervote. It simply reasoned that !votes claimed to be backed up by policy, but actually weren't. It's like dealing with !votes referring to WP:BLP on the AfD of a long-dead person, or of an asteroid: yes, such hypothetical !votes would link policy, but it would be ridiculous to claim them as "policy based" and to give them any weight. To sum up, you would have had a better case by simply calling WP:IAR: at least that would have been intellectually honest (but again it would require massive consensus to be enacted, and it would have needed to show strongly that it improved the encyclopedia). (2) About that an overly aggressive attempt to modify LISTN failed does not mean the argument failed consensus - indeed, there was NO consensus, that's really twisting logic and facts. The attempt was to modify WP:NOT in addition to WP:LISTN, and the argument failed consensu: or better, there was a clear consensus against changing the policies to introduce that concept. This in turn reinforces the fact that you cannot claim WP:NOT for cases not linked explicitly without a strong consensus backing you: that interpretation of WP:NOT has been soundly refused by the community. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

No, I'm sorry, that's just wrong wrong wrong. You need to read this section: Wikipedia:NOT#And_finally... which explicitly states that this is not a complete list, and there are many *other* bad ideas that should not be in wikipedia. In any case, WP:IINFO clearly states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - since the word "unusual" (or its pseudo-synoynms, bizarre or weird) is so vague, any collection of deaths joined only by that adjective is by definition INDISCRIMINATE. When I said "there was no consensus", I meant at the delete discussion, not the VPP discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You can repeat "wrong" as many times as you like, Obi-Wan: it still doesn't add up to an argument. Yes, I know about the "And finally..." section: and that's why I didn't say that WP:NOT flat out excludes anything it doesn't list. I said, instead, that if you want to bring forward that an idea is "terrible", you need consensus for it, and a very solid one, to go so far as to remove an entire class of articles that survived several AfDs so far. Such a consensus has been explicitly show to have been rejected (even if you are again beating the poor dead horse). That the adjective "unusual" is "so vague" is frankly just your opinion, and again not a consensual one. Context and independent sources for entries in the list have been shown to be abundant -first and foremost by the academic sources you yourself brought to the table. --cyclopia ^speak! 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't want to go into why Unusual (and its various synonyms) are vague and poorly defined, and if you didn't realize that the medical examples were meant as a counter example, demonstrating deaths Fortean times would consider very usual while calling them unusual, then you sort of missed the point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I did realize your point very well. It's not my fault if what you brought as a counterexample was instead an excellent argument in favour of this list. Boomerangs. --cyclopia ^speak! 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Note that I closed this early under the mistaken belief that PBP was the nominator and his request on my talk page was akin to a withdrawn nomination. Clearly I was mistaken so lets leave this to fester for a few more days before another admin comes along and closes it. Apologies to everyone for interrupting your feud. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

How soon we can renominate depends on the situation. We need to differentiate between the practice of renominating until there happens to bye a temporary consensus for deletion, from renominating to test whether consensus has changed. I don;t think the closer was logical in saying we shouldn't renominate until we had proved that consensus had changed, because how else are we to determine that but by another discussion? Nor need a renom show a change of policy -- something like this is more likely to be a matter of interpretation. In this particular instance, with a number of non-consensus closings, rather than a string of keeps, I would probably suggest trying again in 18 or 24 months--after all, if one wants to delete the article, the last thing one would want is another successive keep closing, and it's wise to give consensus a chance to actually change.

Non-consensus closes are different -- they can be relisted immediately, but there's usually little point in that, because waiting a month or two is much more likely to give an AfD that does reach consensus one way or another. If there's a strong case for deletion for a BLP or the like, and the close was nonetheless nonconsensus, a shorter time might be appropriate, but this situation is not usual, because such a close is likely to be overturned here to either delete or relist. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Why would you relist it as a new AFD? Just expand the existing one another week if you think it would matter, no sense everyone just repeating the same thing they just said over again. Dream Focus 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse closure as keep, but remove the claim that no future AFDs can be open. The closure as keep is correct in that current policy and guidelines do not necessary prevent articles like this, but I would strong urge those that maintain it to improve the sourcing requirements to avoid it appearing like trivia. As for the claim that no future AFDs can be opened, I think this is excessive, even if there's no policy change. It is the strength of the nomination that matters. If someone comes and renoms on a simple claim of IINFO, yes, that would be reason to quickly close the AFD as that's the same argument. But if someone gives a much better rationale to start, that's a valid reason to continue the AFD until normal closure. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn to no consensus - The AfD close states the list membership criteria is that the item in the list needs to be referenced to sources that express the subjective opinion that the death is unusual. That AFD Keep consensus membership criteria fails WP:LSC, since it uses a source's subjective opinion about the term "unusual", which itself has several possible meanings because it relies on personal/regional perspective/experience, and is not based reliable sources that support use of such membership criteria. The inability of editors of the article to write a list selection criteria is not a basis to close the AfD with additional hurdles to relisting the article at AfD, particularly when the current/consensus list selection criteria leaves readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria to where editors have to guess at what may or may not be added to the list. Rather than a basis to close as keep, it is a basis to find no consensus or delete. List articles such as List of musical works in unusual time signatures and List of unusual units of measurement appear to be capable of complying WP:LSC because one of the two intersection elements is quantifiable. While the literal end of life is quantifiable, (i) the act of dying and (ii) a requirement that the act itself be uncommon in amount or degree creates an intersection of two variables in which neither is quantifiable. Until the list can comply with WP:LSC, editors will continue to disagree as to whether Wikipedia should have a list on the topic. That disagreement is clear from the AfD itself. Since the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly and the strength of the delete arguments did not overcome the keep arguments, overturn to no consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That's not exactly the case. WP:LSC explicitly tackles the case of subjective membership criteria, and explicitly makes "list of unusual X" as an example: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Everything else is your own opinion on what the sources should indicate, which is fair, but it is more of an issue about content to be dealt with editing. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Yes, especially in cases where the membership criteria are subjective, the membership criteria itself should be based on reliable sources. No one has come forth with an expert's definition on what is an unusual death world wide over all time, so no one has come forward with reliable sources on which to base the membership criteria per WP:LSC. The lists of unusual things links to the joke page Wikipedia:Unusual articles as an example of what does not meet WP:LSC. Regarding the other example terrorist incidents, accepted expert definitions of non-state terrorism do exist whereas the AFD Keep consensus membership criteria fails WP:LSC for the reasons I noted above. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

absolutely overturn the rider the admin's reaching beyond the scope of policy and individual admin discretion to forbid any additional AfDs, particularly when such a question was not the one up for debate. I have not seen that the admin has been able to show rationale for xir claim of "no basis for WP:IINFO" ; that does not seem to be a consensus in the discussion itself, and therefor is the use of a super!vote, and therefore there is certainly not a consensus to "keep". overturn the close position to either "no consensus" or "delete". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Closing administrator reply: If you're making the argument that I used my own opinions to close the discussion in a manner akin to a "supervote", I regret to inform you that you have absolutely no clue as to what my principles are on the encyclopedic nature of this site (I would invite you to click on the link in my signature labeled "essay" to see that if I was going off of my principles or ideology on this matter I would have deleted it in a heartbeat... but being an administrator means that I throw away my preconceived notions and become a medium for consensus). Nor do you understand that in closing these types of discussions, administrators do not count votes, but instead weigh the overall arguments based on policy and then decide whether or not the article is within the community's already prescribed inclusion criteria. In this way, it prevents small pockets of people from manipulating particular articles of their interest, on to or in this case off of the encyclopedia. - I held to this standard with my decision on WP:IINFO's relevance to the article, by simply reading more than the title of the section linked. While the title "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" could easily be misconstrued (as it was in this AFD) to subjectively mean that anything certain editors don't like is inherently an indiscriminate collection of information, the actual content of the section is very different. In fact, once one actually reads the community policy below the title it becomes impossible to make the stated misinterpretation, as the policy has a very clear definition spelled out regarding what actually falls into this. And that definition cannot be misinterpreted, in any possible way (by someone with intelligence), to mean that this article does not comply with community policy. Therefore, I suggest you re-read the policy and then reevaluate how you got to your conclusions on my close. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
  - I did "read more than the title" - I read "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There are no sources that are putting the deaths into context of " How unusual are these deaths on the Ripley scale of 1 to 100?" or any context. Some are a single reporter who happened to use the term "unusual", some are because the story happened to run in the section called "News of the Weird", some because they are in a book called "101 Bizarre Deaths" or "Odd Celebrity Deaths" - but there is no context in any of the sources that I have seen as to how the deaths are "unusual". And there is certainly not any consistent application of what is considered "unusual"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
    - Closing administrator reply: Note that I didn't say you hadn't read past the title... but instead made the point that, I as the closing administrator had (I'm really getting tired of spelling out simple, simple logic). But from that point on what you're saying here is completely reliant on only your own perception. The article clearly meets the above stated point of the policy by creating the context of reliably sourced deaths considered to be unusual from the entire societal perspective. Putting it into ridiculous scales such as "How unusual are these deaths on the Ripley scale of 1 to 100?", in no way meets the intention of that policy as scales have nothing to do with that context, and therefore that point is irrelevant. And no where does the policy state that the data has to be put into finley defined constructs of context, as you seem to be insinuating. However, that doesn't mean that a set list of inclusion criteria can't be perfected, and obviously I'm for that as I made clear in my closing statement. But the article not being perfect yet is not a good reason for it's deletion... and neither are logically fallacious interpretations of policy. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close Can't get more astute and spot-on as that particular close. The plaintiff here (who really should know better), seems to misunderstand the word "should". "Further nominations should be closed" is wise words of advice, not an ex cathedra decree. There is nothing in the closer's caveat that forbids re-nomination, or makes the speedy close of such a nomination binding. Surely Kww understands this. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close - I have to agree with the closer on this one; how many failed attempts is enough? BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator comment: Although I attempted to make this abundantly clear here in my second point (above), it seems that many are, either disingenuously or not, still misinterpreting my closing note that "all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". Clearly, I cannot force nor decree a fellow administrator do anything let alone immediately close a future AFD. Therefore, I'm compelled to point out the distinct importance of the word should in this context. If I had said "will" that would have dictated an expected method of reactionary behavior to the set conditions laid out, and that is an authority which I obviously do not have in this context (of course this changes if we're talking about community bans, etc). But, I did not. I used the word should. And I used it to advise what I, as the medium for consensus, saw as the best course of action for a future administrator to take. Regardless of the precedent, the amount of weight my closing note has is this: a sanctioning of future closes being done early in a manner coherent with consensus and policy. In other words, this means that administrator X can allow any future debate to go through it's normal timeline of discussion before closure without any perceived change in community consensus, but that this should not be done as this is a waste of the community's time. And on the flip side, this means that administrator Y can close a future debate early if they so choose, and they should do so, as this out-of-process action is clearly sanctioned by the long-term community consensus. - I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly than this. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Coffee, I think the people who object to that part object for reasons other than choice of modal auxiliary. They object to the part about "unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD", because it seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and consensus can change even if policy doesn't. If you had predicated it by adding in a time frame where deletion would be unwise (say, a year), people would have probably felt more comfortable with it. p b p 16:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: I find it only necessary to state that policy is no more than a reflection of current site-wide consensus, so if consensus ever changes enough for this article to be deleted there shouldn't be any problem in making that edit to policy. In this case we're arguing semantics where the context has already clearly been established, which is pointless. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

It's still an overreach, Coffee. You dismissed all delete votes as being not based in policy, despite there being a reasonable opposing view that it is the "keep" camp that has a tenuous grasp on policy. You closed the AFD as if it were a slam-dunk "keep" when it sits on the keep/no-consensus boundary. After that, you placed a statement that makes it sound as if it is a given that it is the "delete" camp that is wasting time, when, again, there is a reasonable perspective that would point the blame for any "time wasting" on the "keep" camp. The article doesn't keep coming up for deletion because it is a sterling example of what Wikipedia articles should be, after all, and a series of "no consensus" retentions doesn't pave a strong argument for saying that every future AFD will inevitably result in a "keep."—Kww(talk) 16:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: What you're arguing here is that I should have gone directly against the logic in WP:SUPPORT, WP:ADHOM, and WP:FALLACY, in my close. To be quite honest, I'm not certain how to reply to that. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I suggested no such thing. I do suggest, however, that those policies apply as or more strongly to the arguments being used to keep the article as they do to those arguing for its deletion.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: Stating "a reasonable opposing view that it is the "keep" camp that has a tenuous grasp on policy", is actually suggesting exactly what I just stated. Simply saying that's not the case, doesn't actually make it so. (See: Reality.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

If you think suggesting that arguments based on using the Fortean Times as a reliable source, accusing the nominator of saying "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away", or pointing at coverage in Time magazine are based on a firm grasp of policy, I don't know how to answer that, either. You suggested in your keep that an RFC was the answer to solving the inability to agree on the inclusion criteria. If you are so certain that further AFDs are likely to generate the same result as the previous ones, why do you think a new RFC would be any more successful at generating an agreed upon set of inclusion criteria than the failed on sitting on the talk page? Why do you expect further discussion of that topic to suddenly be productive?—Kww(talk) 19:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: I'm beginning to think you can't make arguments for this outside of logical fallacy, and inside reality. You've now built a ridiculous straw man where I somehow "[suggested] arguments based on ... pointing at coverage in Time magazine are based on a firm grasp of policy", which means either you are inept at reading where I stated in the close "the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list", or you are being deliberately disingenuous. As you've been on this site long enough to be an administrator, I think it is obvious that it is the latter. And with that realization in mind, I'm going to stop wasting my time spelling things out for you. I suggest you, likewise, stop wasting the community's time. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

And you are correct: you did dismiss the worst of the arguments (the "Time magazine" one). The arguments about OR and RS that you dismissed remain relevant, and your flat statement that there are no policy-based arguments for deletion remains false.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: Fallacious logical conclusions don't magically become sound logic just because you say they are or want them to be. Especially when you have not been able to present any empirical evidence to make your case. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

What empirical evidence would satisfy you? That there has never been a stable set of inclusion criteria? No, because you said that didn't matter (unless I misinterpret "stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion"). You state that there should be an RFC to settle them, which leads me to believe that you expect one could come to a satisfactory conclusion. 101 months since the first AFD and a failed RFC sitting on the talk page as we speak would tend to argue against that. "Calling the article 'crap'" may be colloquial and colorful, but it falls under WP:NOT#And finally... pretty neatly. That the majority of contributions made over time have been original research requires only a critical examination of its history. That the current contents after efforts to purge unreliable information out of the article still contain warnings that the content is likely to be apocryphal and that it still contains deaths by such unremarkable means as scalding, accidental poisoning, a ruptured appendix from a stomach blow, and a submarine accident, frequently supported by links like like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/365923.stm which make no claim to "unusual" at all show the trouble the article remains in after eight years. You dismiss obvious truth as "fallacious": the article doesn't meet sourcing standards, never has met sourcing standards, and is unlikely to ever meet sourcing standards. You are right that there's a substantial portion of the community that doesn't view that as a reason to delete, but to dismiss the argument that it should be deleted because of it as "fallacious" and give zero weight to the deletion arguments is so extreme as to be wrong. That's the core of my objection here. Do I give the "keep" arguments too little weight? Perhaps. But you have the opposite problem: you write as if the deletion arguments are baseless when they are clearly well-founded.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

How many times can you rehash a number of issues that are to be solved by editing, claims of WP having some mysterious deadline and your usual "I really hate this article" crap as a "clearly well-founded" argument? WP:NOT#And finally... is not a cogent argument unless you have massive consensus that it is, indeed, a terrible idea -something that clearly isn't, as several discussions (on the AfD, here, and WP:VPP have conclusively shown). Linking a policy or even believing that you are making an argument based on policy is not the same of actually making a cogent policy-based !vote. Saying "delete per WP:BLP" on the AfD of an asteroid does not make a cogent policy-based !vote, no matter how strongly you believe that asteroids are people; same here for IINFO and such. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Coffee, your responses here have only solidified my opinion that this was a supervote. I've read through the deletion discussion again, and found very few, if any, keep votes that challenges WP:IINFO or WP:NOT, which was cited by several people. The text is quite clear - wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and grouping together deaths just because some random journalist called it "unusual" is a classic example of indiscriminate information. You may disagree, but that's not your job as closing admin, you're supposed to weigh the arguments that were given. As such, your dismissal of the WP:NOT arguments made repeatedly by the delete camp is a form of supervote, because the keep camp did not mount a strong defense against same. Indeed, I would have tossed out many of their "keep" votes, many of which amounted to "Its a popular list and interesting" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator reply: I'm not going to continuously repeat myself here, and I'm getting tired of hearing the same biased answers from the both of you (not that I expected differently as you both !voted in the AFD itself and made such terrible arguments there that I even had to rule them out specifically in my closing statement). So I'm not going to bother to continue replying past this point, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than making you look more legitimate. At any rate, I'm sure the admin who closes this will be able to decipher for themselves whether this was done inside the realms of policy or not, and so far I would say the vast majority of people here think it was. Good luck, and I hope you all can find ways to actually improve this site instead of wasting people's time in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Actually, Coffee, the arguments aren't terrible, you simply disagree with them, and you let your personal disagreement make you overreach in your close. If you look through this discussion, you will see that a substantial number of people that didn't participate in the AFD think your close was an overrreach.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I am on the side of User:Obiwankenobi and User:Kww here. The closing administrator didn't explain why he believed that the article didn't fail the policy against indiscriminate information; he just dismissed the argument out of hand, and continues to dismiss it with straw man arguments. (WP:BLP on an article about an asteroid? Please.) Ultimately, I agree with the spirit of the closure, but disagree with the letter. Yes, the article should not be nominated for deletion again without a good reason. Yes, the (no) consensus can change, but the burden of proof is on the nominator. No, you can't demand policy change and say that barring that any further nominations can be summarily closed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Closing administrator replying against his own better judgement: @Mike Rosoft: I'm afraid you've now created two straw man arguments here, which I can't just let slip by. The first is obvious, as instead of actually building a policy backed argument against my close or presenting ways that I've somehow built "straw man arguments", you decided to create a ridiculously imagined situation between an asteroid article and our BLP policy (and before you say, "wait, he didn't speak to my point on how he threw out the relevance of WP:IINFO"... I point you to exhibit a and b, which were readily available days before your comment here). The second straw man is built in your final sentence, where you're claiming to make an argument against my close that I already made twice by myself (one at the very begining of this DRV, and the other again days before your comment here) to fortify my closing rational from further confusion. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I apologize for the asteroid part; this comment wasn't made by you, but by User:Cyclopedia. With regards to your restriction on further deletion nominations, please note that I have clarified my position on it. (See my comment near the bottom of this page.) Yes, I am aware that that the restriction isn't binding, and that you never intended it to be binding. But still, I hold that it's too strict. I say: If it can be demonstrated that the (no) consensus has changed, e.g. on the article talk page or by analogy with similar articles, the article can be re-nominated for deletion - policy change or not. Still, this isn't likely to happen in the near future, so the article probably shouldn't be nominated for deletion in the near future. (As I have said: I agree with the spirit of your close, but not with the letter.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse. Exceptionally thoughtful closure. The repeated sniping at this article's existence, in the face of multiple AfDs to the contrary, has created a hostile editing environment at this page that is bad for the page and bad for the encyclopedia. It's time to call a halt to it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Indeed. I especially liked the way that the closer tagged the article as closing and then closed it over an hour later. This and the detailed closing statement indicates that some time and trouble was taken — it wasn't a snap-judgement or cookie-cutter close. Well done, Coffee. Warden (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

endorse closing. i am not going to indulge in the inane wikilawyering going on here. i will instead point out that it is the cancer that is killing the encyclopedia (and of you voting, who of you were actually here during the great flamewars of 2006 that led to this problem? i was.) and that this article is not worth having this much disagreement about. there is an abundance of articles which should be considered first and i find it repulsive that so much effort has been spent on this particular page. ... jane avriette:talk 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

you are certainly right "http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive."] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Yeah, sure: because we all know the lack of entries on female novelists are a direct consequence of the existence of this article. "I wanted to edit the article on Doris Lessing, but then List of unusual deaths appeared and I couldn't write anymore." --cyclopia ^speak! 12:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Fully endorse. Frankly, all this fuss about having an already-survived-to-seven-AfDs-article nominated for deletion for the eighth time sounds ridicule. Spend your efforts in most important topics and questions. Cavarrone 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Fully endorse. The admonition on future AfDs is just an admonition, and a wise one. We have articles to write and improve, leave this one alone for a bit if you can't handle it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse per Arxiloxos. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse per Arxiloxos, Cavarrone, and Milowent. It's time to drop the WP:STICK. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- ...and per Tarc, infra. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - At the end of the day (a trite phrase, but...), I think we have to acknowledge that people can disagree with your opinion without being necessarily wrong; it's ok to look at a topic and conclude "this doesn't satisfy what I think an encyclopedia is for", just as it is ok to think "there are sources out there and that is enough". So we present our sides in a deletion discussion and let a 3rd party, usually an admin, close the discussion and determine who has made the better arguments, which cite policies and guidelines and such to support their argument, and what the numbers are (a lesser concern, but we all know it plays a small part). Rough count puts at 15 to delete and 25 to keep; the deletes generally fell to WP:NOT and the keeps generally point to reliable sourcing for "unusual deaths" noting that it has been a topic of interest over time. A quibble or two about an occult/fantastic-based aside, there's really nothing substantially wrong with either position. So by the numbers and fact that this was the 7th trip to AfD, there's a significant hurdle to overcome to achieve deletion here. One would have to show that something substantial has changed, e.g. policy-wise, from the time of the last discussion. That didn't happen here. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The point is that the nomination has merit. However, there is currently no consensus to delete the article, and there is little chance of this changing. Endorse as a no consensus keep. I disagree with the closing admin's claim that any further nominations can be summarily closed barring a policy change. However, I agree that the article should not be nominated for deletion again without a good reason; there's little point in arguing back and forth whether or not the article should be deleted, when the next nomination would in all likelihood be once again closed as a no consensus keep. (The bar should be something like "consensus on the talk page that the page is unsalvageable, or shift of community conventions and interpretations of policies towards deleting similar pages", not something nigh impossible as a policy change.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- TLDR: The article should have been closed as a no consensus keep, not demanding something nearly impossible as a policy change for further nominations, but requiring a heavy burden of proof on the side of the nominator that the (no) consensus has changed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

endorse but rephrase I think Coffee's comment should read something like "Bringing this article back to AfD absent relevant policy changes would likely be disruptive given the large number of AfDs thus far". Making it clear it's not part of the close per se, but rather the closer's (rather relevant) opinion. I think that's what he was going for in any case. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

If it is decided, as it seems to be overwhelmingly so thus far, that it is disrupt to send this to AFD yet again by those determined to delete it, can we also agree it is disruptive for those who argue constantly to delete the article, to keep trying to delete as much as possible from the article, and arguing on the talk page nonstop about the same issues? If consensus has proved it is not original research, can they still argue that it is, CONSTANTLY, on the talk page, or and we can agree it is disruptive to refuse to let that one issue go? Dream Focus 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Note that those who failed to get it deleted at any of the past AFD or deletion review, or them arguing for months/years on the talk page, are now trying to delete most/all on the things on the list by claiming a reporter saying something was "unusual" fails WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight. Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#list_items_-_contesting_many_of_the_entries If its disrupt to keep trying to delete in one AFD after another in a short period of time, can it also be declared disruptive to try to delete it by other means as well? Dream Focus 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Irrelevant. This discussion is about whether the article should be kept, not what goes in the article if it's kept. p b p 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Its about the article being kept and the conditions against disruptively trying to delete it again with another AFD for the exact same issues without anything new having changed. But deleting it in AFD, or deleting it by normal editing methods, is still deleting it. It is disruptive when you fail to delete it by one method, rushing straight away to try to get it deleted by another. Dream Focus 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Having the article kept doesn't mean it automatically gets to be kept exactly the way you want it. I again remind you that bringing up matters that don't have to do with the AfD (and article content is one of them) is disruptive at this location, and either belongs on the article's talk page or at ANI. If you don't realize that, you may need to stop editing on this Wikipedia p b p 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Pbp has a point (even if calling for "need to stop editing" are a bit beyond the pale). @Dream Focus:, disputes about article content are unrelated to disputes about article existence. While I strongly disagree the arguments of some editors make sense for deletion, I don't think they are to discard when discussing improvement of the article.--cyclopia ^speak! 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Fully endorse. More closes prohibiting further AfDs please! One of the most disheartening things about Wikipedia is the way deletionists are able to relentlessly renominate their target until finally not enough sensible voters turn up to save the article from destruction. From an editor retention perspective, an inverse equivalent to salt has been long needed. I felt Coffee's discounting of page views as a keep reason was a little strong -other wise the close was word perfect, and couldn't have summed up the policy based consensus any better. Bravo! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse close 100%. The two sides in the most recent AfD debate share precious little common ground, disagreeing not only about the merits of the article but also about certain fundamentals of core content policy. Both sides argued in good faith and made valid points, but the closing administrator concluded—correctly, I believe—that one side had both the greater numbers and the better argument. If this had been the first or perhaps the second AfD, a no-consensus close would have been reasonable, but it was the seventh. At some point, the losers in a long-running fight need to either come up with grounds on which to argue or else stop arguing; to keep arguing on the same grounds becomes a purely disruptive exercise in WP:IDHT. This close acknowledged that, and stated it elegantly. I hope it will be upheld in full. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Fully and absolutely endorse close Three AfDs are enough. Seven is just plain disruptive. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that I personally think should not exist, but if the community wishes them to stay, I move along. I think a notice should be placed on the article's talk page that any further AfD's will be considered disruptive, will be immediately closed and may result in sanctions. In any event, I fully support and endorse the actions of Administrator Coffee. Safiel (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment Also, I should note that I am a totally neutral party. I have never viewed or edited the article in question and just happened to come across this discussion while viewing something else. Safiel (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Apparently, we've put up with 41 deletion discussions for a particular page. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse - the closer rightly doesn't weight highly a delete argument that lacks either facts or policy to support it. While the precedents for number of allowable AfDs is a little higher than this, *ahem*, repeatedly renominations of articles for deletion because you don't like them based on nothing at all is a disruptive practice. The rider only says "should not be nominated again", not must not, which is absolutely correct - it's just a statement of WP:SPIDERMAN. So - nothing to see here. Wily D 11:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse The closer dissected every major reoccurring argument that was present in that AfD without much bias, that also means that some of the keep arguments also were dismissed with explanation. We were headed down a path in that AfD where it was clear the article was not going to be deleted either way, and frankly since this is the third AfD that this article has faced in 6 months, I would also agree that future AfD proposals should be dismissed unless some unprecedented change in policy occurs which would alter the validity of the keep arguments. Policy and consensus could change over time, but given the number of AfDs this article has been the focus of it seems this is a "pitch till you win" kind of thing, and that is ultimately disruptive.LM2000 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse, close was within the closing admin's remit. Even though I don't personally care for articles like this, there have been three nominations in the past six months with essentially the same rationale, none of which have been successful. A fourth would be a waste of the community's time and a prime example of flogging a dead horse. I suggest those still agitating for deletion here just let it go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[]

Endorse the outcome of retention. I detest the article and its contents but cannot let that influence my view on the thoughtful closing summary and outcome. I chose not to offer an opinion either way on the article in any of the discussions on deletion because of my dislike for such lists, but could see no policy reason to delete it. Some entries, yes, but the list, no. I realise that is straying into the territory of discussing the article. I present it here solely to set my endorsement into perspective. Fiddle Faddle 14:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Note: As I see it, there is little to discuss in this deletion review. There is no way in hell the deletion debate would have been closed as a "delete", and very few people would argue it should have been (I count one such a vote). Rather, the problematic part is a comment that was seen as an attempt to unilaterally impose a restriction on further nominations of this article for deletion, but the closing administrator has clarified that this wasn't his intention. (See his "16:17, 5 November 2013" comment.) Handling of repetitive nominations of the same article for deletion, as well as handling of similar lists, should be better taken to a request for comments. (The attempt to change the inclusion criteria in the middle of the deletion debate was exactly the wrong way to do it, and ultimately doomed from the start. Remember, guys: discussion first, policy/guideline change then.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I resent the "exactly the wrong way to do it" comment. A discussion on changing policy can be started at any time. p b p 14:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

There is what can be done, and there is what should be done. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Plus, this wasn't really discussion, just an attempt to arbitrarily change the inclusion criteria in the middle of the deletion debate. If there's no consensus to apply this principle in the deletion debate for a single article, there's no way in hell it could be formalized as a policy/guideline! (And that's coming from somebody who believes that such lists do not belong in an encyclopedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

This article should be deleted because there is no objective criterion for including items. Hence it is just original research in violation of policy. One hopes that at some point an AfD will be successful. TFD (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Apart from the fact that your comment isn't germane to the purpose of the DRV forum, "objective criterion" is not a requirement for lists. Recent attempts to expressly make it so were soundly rejected at VPP. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - According to the AfD close -- "As long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual." -- information from all of the following can be added to the Wikipedia list:

New Check Planned On Unusual Deaths In Cyanide Inquiry, New York Times, June 23, 1986, retrieved November 12, 2013
Ten Unusual Deaths, Miami Herald, July 27, 1987, retrieved November 12, 2013
Manny Garcia (May 12, 1991), Violent Deaths Unusual In Gables, Miami Herald, retrieved November 12, 2013
Alessandra Stanley (August 9, 1995), Deadly Risks For Russian Vips Unusual Deaths Plague Country's Movers, Shakers, San Francisco Chronicle from NYT, retrieved November 12, 2013
Michael Romano (August 25, 1995), Other States Keep 'Unusual Deaths' Secret But Some Officials Say That Kind Of Information Is Part Of Public Record, Rocky Mountain News, retrieved November 12, 2013
Jason Felch and John Ingold (July 23, 2003), Possible links to slaying probed Unusual deaths in family's past, Denver Post, retrieved November 12, 2013
Attila the Hun, died of a nosebleed, Al Capone, died of syphilis, Jim Fixx, author of the book The Complete Book of Running died from running, Olivia Goldsmith, died from a chin tuck, novelist Sherwood Anderson, died from swallowing a toothpick.
Jen Graves (October 7, 2010), "Fascinated by Unusual Deaths", The Stranger, vol. 20, no. 5, p. 25, retrieved November 12, 2013
Kathleen Lavey (September 30, 2013), Lansing cemetery tour shares stories of unusual deaths, Lansing State Journal, retrieved November 12, 2013

There is much more out there. How can it be said that the AfD close complies with MoS:List selection criteria or that editors should be restricted from pursuing AfD beyond the time (3 months to relist at AfD?) restriction place by a Keep close? -- Jreferee (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

We have all noticed the article has problems. This does not mean it needs to be deleted. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

But that's an argument that the deletionists have raised - if editors haven't been able to agree on inclusion criteria in almost 10 years, what chance is there that they will now? You see, this argument works both ways. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think it's a mistake to delete articles when editors can't agree on inclusion criteria. Because that creates an incentive for certain users to wrangle incessantly about inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Right. The failure to reach consensus is not a problem with the article itself. It won't be easy but someone who is trusted would put forward proposed options that represent the core group's views, then place those options in an RfC and advertise it widely so outsiders with no vested interest can weigh in. The attention brought by this AfD/RfC is a perfect time to do it. Wikipedia has solved more difficult problems. I suspect one reason consensus was never reached is as S Marshall suggests, there are parties unwilling to accept the article's existence and wrangle for no criteria option being acceptable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Editors routinely disagree on inclusion criteria for the various "List of Jewish..." lists in the project, but deletion is never considered in those cases. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Damn those certain users! They always get in the way of everything by insisting that people actually take WP:RS seriously. Think of what fun we could have making List of ugly women or List of funny-looking hairdos if we didn't have to worry that were no sources that have a reputation for reliably making the determination that a woman was ugly or that a hairdo was funny looking. Or that a particular death was unusual.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Yes, that's the key problem that the deletionists cite. How do you determine that something is unusual? If you used a quasi-criterion that "I can't define what is unusual, but I know it when I see it", you'd get an unencyclopedic list based on somebody's private opinion. If you tried to come with an objective criteria of unusualness, you'd get original research. So we're left with basing the list on that a particular writer or journalist happening to use the word "unusual" to describe the death; to me, this is an indiscriminate listing (trivia). And if we don't accept every such a mention, what are reliable sources for calling something unusual? I say: there's no such thing, precisely because "unusual" is a fundamentally subjective description. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The list and close obviously complies with MoS:List selection criteria as this provides explicit guidance on "lists of unusual things". It could hardly be clearer that such lists are expected and acceptable. Warden (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Yes, the "unusual lists" are expressly mentioned in the manual of style, but the question still remains: what reliable source is there for something being "unusual"? (I'd say that the guideline not so much sanctions their existence, as acknowledges that such lists exist on Wikipedia and tries to regulate their contents. The other example - List of terrorist incidents - is fundamentally different. "Terrorism" is a legal term found in the criminal law of many countries; there also exist draft definitions in international law. As such, there are reliable sources that can be used to justify inclusion of a particular attack in the list; for instance, a court verdict finding somebody guilty of terrorism.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Again, you link to a page which contradicts the point that you assert. The list of terrorist incidents says plainly, "There is no single accepted definition of non-state terrorism in common use, so incidents listed here are restricted to those that ... [are] commonly called terrorism". So, this is not a fundamental difference. It is, in fact, exactly the same method used here. You could hardly be more wrong. Warden (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse as well within admin discretion, per Tarc's arguments. The close is reasonably well explained, although I wouldn't object to Hobit's suggestion for a rephrasing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

2 November 2013

Jain-Hindu relations – Recreation of a NPOV properly sourced and balanced article on Hinduism and Jainism permitted, I think the clear consensus is that the material added by Rahul Jain isn't what we are looking for and that particular material is not to be added to this or any other article. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

The article was deleted under the CSD A10 which says it is a "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". I don't think the article meets this criteria since it does not duplicates any existing topic. There seems to be a rough concensus at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Jain-Hindu_relations against speedy deletion. I have also tried to talk to the deleting admin but am not convinced with the reasons that he gives. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment, I think that this is definitely a topic worth discussing with an article, but I regret that don't know enough about the topic to say whether User:The Rahul Jain/Jain-Hindu relations is a decent treatment of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC).[]

Comment - for those who are unaware of the subject - following links may be helpful - @ Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Jain-Hindu_relations and @ User_talk:RegentsPark#Jain-Hindu_relations - to get first had view of topic. Further, one can also go to links [66] when twice such and article created by same user Jain and Hindu religion was deleted. Also please note that AfC - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jainism and Hinduism was repeatedly declined by reviwers and finally deleted upon request of its author none other than User:The Rahul Jain, who has sought this deletion review. - Jethwarp (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - as is indicated in the threads that Jethwarp provides, and in other threads elsewhere, this article has been discussed quite a lot and the tendentious recreations are symptomatic of the underlying coatracking problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Keep - This may be with Wikipedia, because this is about relation between two communities which is closely associated. there is nothing wrong. I thought article should must keep. GKCH (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - @ Gokulchandola (talk · contribs) - Wikepedia does not run on what you think. Please either get aware of the subject - which was mentioned in article - and do not be mislead by title of article and cite valid reasons for your keep vote. Jethwarp (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Endorse deletion but Allow recreation - For, as rightly said by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) in his talk page to Rahul Jain - you can't go around trying to endgame the system by adding the same material under different titles.. Also Sitush, who is very much aware of the subject has rightly pointed that the whole article deleted had coatkracking problems. Further, article was based on fringe theories and non reliable sources and original researches - which was the main reason why similar article was repeatedly declined at Articles for creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jainism and Hinduism) by different reviewers. When this failed he created article under new name - Jain and Hindu religion -, which was deleted twice. Again this was just one more recreation of same article under different name Jain-Hindu relations, which was deleted by an admin, who is well aware of tactics of creator - which is why he commented - you can't go around trying to endgame the system by adding the same material under different titles. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Added allow recreation - which was though never denied by closing admin in his talk page. He was rather advised by Regentspark to recreate article devoid of original researchers and send it to AfC. Though AfC is not a per-requisite for creation but considering the history of article over many years it is better be sent to AfC. Thanks.Jethwarp (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

*Endorse first G12 speedy as a technicality, but allow some sort of recreation in a modified form.

18:16, 1 November 2013 "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Similar article with different title previously deleted - several times - at Jain and Hindu religion" – I AGF that this was correct.

21:51, 20 October 2013 "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, jainism and hinduism are obviously fully covered already" – this seems very problematic to me and with hindsight was controversial.

~~05:40, 20 October 2013 "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: too much copyvio from other articles, also at AfC" – I AGF that this was correct but it would have been easily remedied with {{~~copied}} on the relevant talk pages. AFC is not a priori a prerequisite for article creation. A recreated article avoiding copyright infringement would be appropriate at AFC or main space (where it is likely to be submitted to AFD). Thincat (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Is the vote for all the three deletions or just the G12, because I wished to review the A10 as I mentioned in the opening statements. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

So far as I am concerned, if any of the speedy deletions was appropriate then it is appropriate that the article was deleted. That does not mean it can't be recreated in a suitable way (and it looks probable that the previous recreations have been unsuitable). Thincat (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The first article was deleted on the grounds of copyvio (G12). The content I copied was written by myself in other wikipedia articles. Despite that, I removed these specific contents (and hence the copyvio, if applicable) to create the second article. It was deleted for A10. I, then recreated the article under a different title (change of title was suggested on the article's talk page) and its again deleted for A10. The article does not qualify for A10 and deleting it even if previous version had copivio does not seem correct. There was no copyvio in this particular article. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Deleting admin comment The article has been created and deleted multiple times under different titles (most recently as Jain and Hindu religion and as Hinduism and Jainism through an afd discussion but with a much longer history of creation and deletion). Though the article content does shift, the numerous recreation attempts with title changes is excessive. I've suggested here that the author seek help on sourcing and structure, build the article in user space, and get some sort of consensus before attempting to create a similar topic in article space. That, I believe, is a constructive suggestion that would help us all if he chooses to follow it. Otherwise, this article is likely to be stuck in a cycle of deletions/deletion reviews/AfDs and other time sinks. --regentspark (comment) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I think there's an encyclopaedic topic to be written about but there's a consensus that the actual text we're discussing is inappropriate for it. The encyclopaedic topic is the one that fits in the blank space on a diagram:-

Religion

Abrahamic religion

Christianity and Islam

	Christianity

	Islam

Jewish religion

Indian religion

MISSING ARTICLE HERE

	Hinduism

	Jainism

Buddhism

If there's a word for this topic, I don't know what it is. By analogy with Christianity and Islam, the right name might be Jainism and Hinduism or Hinduism and Jainism, although I see that both titles have been deleted several times in the past and declined at AfC.

Therefore my view is that we should allow creation of an appropriate article on the topic, but we endorse the deletion of the content repeatedly added by The Rahul Jain, which has been removed a number of times now in varying forms. The message here for the Rahul Jain is: making minor changes and re-submitting this content with a different title will not work. We want an article on this subject, but we don't want this article on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The article was deleted through speedy-deletion, not through consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jainism_and_Hinduism appears to be a consensus discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

That was not the article I wrote. Rahul Jain (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

~~Overturn~~ Using G12 for material copied from other unspecified articles in WP is not reasonable, because the links just have to be added. Nor is a 2006 discussion on a topic of this general sort necessarily a justification. And speedy deleting an article like this on grounds of duplication is too far a stretch--that is contains material also covered or included in small parts in many other articles does not mean its a topic by itself. Many reasons, but none of them apply. I am not necessarily endorsing the article, or its title, but this sort of decision is not for an individual admin, and should be discussed at AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - @ User:DGG - please note that the article we are discussing deleted using A10 - A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Similar article with different title previously deleted - several times Further a similar article created by user:rahul Jain, was also originally at Afc (see [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jainism and Hinduism ) - when author could not get his article cleared at AfC for several reasons - he created an article by another name in main-space and later requested deletion of the AfC page by blanking the page and using db-self tag. Please see comments of User:Regents Park @ User_talk:RegentsPark#Jain-Hindu_relations - where therefore he had to comment you can't go around trying to endgame the system by adding the same material under different titles. also he was advised to build the article again in his user space and submit same at AfC again for review. Jethwarp (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You are I think correct that in view of the history, allow recreation would be a better choice. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow recreation. In the light of the subsequent discussion I am striking my previous comment. The topic is suitable for an article to be written meeting notability guidelines and not infringing copyright. Since the AfDs that deleted articles on the same topic were in 2006/2007, they carry little weight. It was appropriate that the current recent version of the article was moved to user space and it should be left there to be worked on. If it is moved to mainspace again (and I suggest it should be under the current title) it should not be speedied again solely on grounds of previous history. It is optional whether the AfC process is used. This article has been created and recreated in a very unsatisfactory way but the deletions, by denying an opportunity for AfD, have also been unsatisfactory. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow creation of Hinduism and Jainism (bigger one first). The AfD debates were long ago and poorly participated. Urge acceptance of RegentsPark's advice, or else risk seeing it deleted at AfD. Redirect the other mentioned titles, there is no case for more than one comparison article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn there is no applicable speedy criteria and I don't think an article start at AfC counts--A10 is very narrow. I think we can and should have an article here, but the one proposed feels like a WP:OR essay. It would likely be wise to try for a somewhat more academic treatment. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management & Technology – Speedy Overturned any editor may nominate the article for deletion normally. – Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Without waiting a single day, page was deleted. And when I asked for review, I have not get satisfactory reply. After all we need some time for add to information, there is no promotional content. I am not close to Article, as he mention. I just want to value addition. GKCH (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Could we get a temp. undelete? Also, I'd like to complement the deleting admin for his very clear response about why the article was deleted. Hobit (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Looks like the page was userfied to User:Gokulchandola/Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management & Technology.There is a Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management (LBSIM), which is different from LBSIMT (Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management & Technology). -- Jreferee (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn speedy, send to AfD I guess. It's not overly promotional IMO, but I'm not finding any reliable sources. I'd prefer GKCH either withdraw the DRV or supply proposed sources as I don't think this has a chance at AfD with what little I'm finding. Better to wait until you have sources than to get this deleted at AfD and make getting an article accepted later all that much more difficult. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn. allow some time to add information, before sending to AfD. The article is not prootional, erely inadequate--this is straight description. Consensus has been in the past that all genuine institutions of higher education are notable just as high schools, tho it is sometimes admittedly difficult to decipher the status of college-level institutions in India. At least one ref. is needed to prove real existence. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Overturn - the article (as suggested by others also) does not seem promotional. It says it is promoted by a trust headed by Anil Shastri, who is none other than son of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Some educational related website also mention its name as per following links [67] and [68] but I am not sure if these sources can be cited as Reliable sources. But these indicate that institution exists. Let it be discussed at AfD, meanwhile author is advised to find additional sources. Jethwarp (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

1 November 2013

Futz! – Since the nominator has been indeffed this becomes moot but I'd be happy to userfy this for anyone who wanted to work on this. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

I anticipate this being a difficult deletion review due to the relatively small number of reliable sources, but I'll try to make my case anyways. Please consider that this television show is a series of shorts and that the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots due to this.

Anyways, here are the new reliable sources I've found:

The following reliable source was already present in the most recently deleted revision, but I have found additional links from it besides the first one:

[77], [78], [79], and [80]

Lastly but quite possibly most importantly, this show was nominated for an award. Yes, it was only a nomination, not a win, but I think it still adds to its notability significantly:

[81]

I would also like to ask that you take into consideration that DRV is apparently not supposed to be as stringent as AFD in terms of sourcing requirements. More importantly, please consider that WP:GNG only requires multiple reliable sources, so even two such sources could theoretically suffice. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment - Futz! is a Teletoon (Canada) original serices that started airing in 2007. The reference

Tonight'sTV Complete daily listings in Go@home, The Hamilton Spectator, August 24, 2007, retrieved November 2, 2013

mentions Futz. Dogmaticeclectic - if you put your sources in the Template:Citation, it will make it easier for editors to evaluate them. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

I'd allow creation of an article based on those sources without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. NB: I was invited to participate in this DRV by a note on my talk page, although the note was appropriate and not in any way a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'd have participated anyway, of course, as regular DRV closers are no doubt aware...—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Note that I left such notes at the user talk pages of all users who participated in a very similar recent discussion here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow recreation and we will then judge it at AfD. That's a more suitable place than here. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Allow recreation - The "STRONG Delete and SALT" reactions almost a year ago at the AfD seem to be more of a reaction to creating the article after an undelete request was denied, twice. the topic probably still does not meet WP:GNG even with the new sources. They are new sources, so AfD is a better place to evaluate them. The show consists of 26 episodes, so someone probably wrote about it, but it may not appear online. Dogmaticeclectic, I think if you make a trip to your local main library branch or university library and find source material that does not appear online, that may go far to sway those participating in the next AfD. I was invited to participate in this DRV by a note on my talk page, but it appeared after I already commented above. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

RIDC – Allow re-creation from userspace draft at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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

Note to readers, this is 1/6th of the discussion (there are 5 other threads on talk pages I was invited to). All concerns (some of which are raised only at the other talk pages) have been edited some on the userfied as of Nov. 4^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Less than an hour of time allowance was provided despite over 5 hours of work and dozens of edits on the page (even 2 edits to address the original editors tag after the tag was assigned).

3 notices were posted to concerned Wikiprojects around 6AM EDT so not only was no consensus reached, no consensus was even started.

Despite it being a new article the topic is comparable to a Research Triangle Park & was intended to not clutter wikipedia with a dozen+ notable business research parks but provide a consolidated streamlined article on most of them, sites that have similar or more notability than those wikipedia has articles for at Business Parks or Research Parks.
The original reasons given for justification of a speedy deletion were addressed on the article's talk page but were never responded to until after the page was deleted (and responded to by the 2nd editor on his/her talk page) despite 4 press articles and multiple agreements with 'Fortune 500'/'Forbes Largest' on the 58 year old public/private organization, one of which included State legislative hearings notability was raised.

-- ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Comment At the request of the editor, I have userfied the article. It can be found here: User:Marketdiamond/RIDC. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Appreciation to StephenBuxton on retrieving it for sandbox but the article (tho not perfect) should be able to stand on its own after what I contributed and allowed to be edited live on the encyclopedia, even if it is tagged for improvement in other ways, thanks.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Unresolved
^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Apologies on interrupting the pin drops but it is up to almost 40 RSs and this only takes us up to 1981, and in less than 18 hours (about 6 editing hours) it may help the wikipedia policy against article ownership if the 100+ 1982-2013 citations could be opened up to the community, as well as the discussion on editors concerns to the centralized talk page. So many wikiarticles link to it just before 1982 that having talk page discussions at Volkswagon, Carnegie Mellon University, the Appalachian Commission, US Steel etc. will add that clutter and confusion that speedy delete was intended for.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

You write "the 100+ 1982-2013 citations could be opened up to the community ..." Did someone delete these citations from Wikipedia? I could not find them. The RIDC was established August 8, 1955, so the topic should meet WP:GNG. The user space draft has so much promotional language, that it's hard to figure out what the topic is about. As near as I can tell, RIDC is a private company that develops land in Southwestern Pennsylvania for business that make a profit and does so as a non-profit. Do you see anything wrong with "modern tenants," foster, diversify, "catalyze and support economic growth with quality job creation through real estate development to advance the public interest", "captures emerging and existing growth opportunities across diverse industry sectors" "A dynamic, regional economic development" "handle some of Pittsburgh's most challenging", "a dynamic economic development portfolio through preserving, strengthening and expanding "? Instead of trying to write about the topic, summarize what the independent reliable sources write about the topic using neutral language. Put each of your sources in Template:Citation. Look over a few of the Category:GA-Class organization articles articles to get an idea of how to write such articles. -- Jreferee (talk)

Thank you for the response Jreferee. When the articles talk page is up (and thus the article) a discussion of this would be more beneficial for the encyclopedia. The 100+ post 1981 citations are standing by, since almost 40 have been added to a "speedily deleted" article, why bother with 50 or 60 etc. or any major language improvements. You're comments are useful for a live article (and are echoing 2 other editors on their talk pages, my talk page & other wikiproject talk pages).

Long to short, this is the forum where an article is determined solely to be encyclopedic, or can I start answering all these points here and asking about tone or neutrality when really the articles talk page or tags should be the proper place?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Your specific quotes of concern I dulled down, part of the problem I keep seeing both in this thread and on all other multiple threads (again no talk page so we now have several conversations overlapping) is that the article has too much non-neutral language, but as you put it Jreferee those "independent sources" currently listed also tend to describe the RIDC in this way (tho it is a lot of reading). The reason is state governors, global conglomerates from Volkswagon to Gulf Oil to Sony to US Steel, federal commissions, the who's who of those in SW Pennsylvania and such academics as Carnegie Mellon University all use the RIDC as a clearinghouse of sorts and co-ordinating arm to plan, research, develop and network resources in a quarter of Pennsylvania. If the language was a bit over the top it is from those citations of CEOs Westinghouse is meeting with a leading researchers and discussing this with the Governor's economic chief and the County Commissioners so yes even the RSs frame it as the cat's meow not because it claims to be but because the organizations and people with the power have chosen to centralize economic development issues in it since the beginning. That said I toned down some of the language but the citations do surprise on what this organization had its fingers in, again not because it is bragging but simply because it was the efficient means to an end. I'll take another look at the intro but given that this entity is involved in the vast majority of development and redevelopment I am open to suggestions on what if anything we can do to lessen confusion on its own talk page. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Restore with no prejudice to immediately listing it at AFD if requested by any editor. The article has been improved with the addition of numerous print sources since User:DGG put speedy deletion tags on it, and while I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, it's grey enough to warrant further discussion and community examination before being deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC).[]

Still promotional. The problem at this time is not notability, but promotionalism. The jargon-filled languague is still present. It should not be restored until it has been rewritten. After that I have no objections DGG ( talk ) 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

As stated above, specific suggestions I dulled. A non-profit has no need to be promotional, yet the language is dulled down from press reports/official site & once again it is the regional 800 pound gorilla with governor offices, mayors & area CEOs making it so. Press refer to it as an "agency". If it becomes more dulled down it risks becoming unencyclopedic by not stating that it did "handle some of Pittsburgh's most challenging" (which has been dulled down & removed), when RSs use the terminology for a job that CEOs & Governors can't fix then "jargon" & "promotionalism" should be in the article. I'm not Speedy Deleting the Redsox 2013 Championship. Promotional much, yeah. The cites added to the userfied may be instructive, if this is the defacto talk page for article improvement (I was under the impression this was to determine if RIDC should exist at all).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Of course a non-profit does need to be promotional. It needs public support, and continued founding. It needs awareness of its operations. It tries to have a good reputation. Its executives want to stay in operation, and look for expansion. all of this requires public relations and promotion and advertising, just as much as any profit-making enterprise. We write in English, not jargon, no matter what other sources do, except in direct quotations. The language PR people use, whether or not journalists copy it, is not the language an encyclopedia uses.

This discussion is to determine whether it is obviously so promotional that it would require extensive rewriting beyond normal editing. If it is that promotional, then it was properly speedy deleted via CSD G11, and the above defense of the promotionalism confirms my view that it indeed was appropriately deleted. If the speedy is upheld, your recourse is to try to write a proper article. If the speedy is overturned as not being hopeless, then anyone may do the necessary editing, or take it to AfD for a community decision of whether, regardless of obviousness, it's too contaminated to be worth keeping. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

The purpose of this DRV discussion is to determine whether the "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11"[82] speedy deletion was done outside of the speedy deletion criteria. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. Everything discussed in this DRV outside of that is more along the lines of commentary or advise, but the DRV closeer still will read it and may have some influence on the close. Regarding your 12:59, 2 November 2013 comments above, "Jargon" & "promotionalism" are opinions, which are not capable of being proven true. Facts are something capable of being proven true. Both opinions and facts can appear separately in Wikipedia articles. Sometimes "Jargon" & "promotionalism" overlay facts in sources, and republishing "Jargon" & "promotionalism" overlaying facts in Wikipedia makes it difficult for readers to figure out whether something is a fact or opinion. Some other suggestions - Positioning a list of Research Parks currently being run by RIDC above the history of the corporation in the Wikipedia article is promotional. Also, each of those research parks are chronological events that should be part of the prose history. Choosing to list the for fee services offered by the company in a list instead of presenting the information in prose form in the context of the company history again is promotional. This is a topic whose age and regional importance make it one that can have engaging, even brilliant, prose of a professional standard. Yet, the draft only has a few sentences and then, bam!, here is two detailed lists of pay-for services for which Wikipedia readers can contact RIDC if they are interested. As of this post, the article has 63 references. Yet, the draft only has about 400 prose words.[83] You don't seem to be summarizing what the sources say. Instead, it appears that you are writing what you want to say about the company and then listing sources at the end of the sentence as a way of supporting the conclusion you posted. WP:SYNTH notes, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Is the conclusion "It has partnered with the Appalachian Regional Commission, Carnegie Mellon University the Heinz Endowments and the Richard King Mellon Foundation among others[41][42][43][44]" your personal conclusion or is it a statement in each of the four sources? I'm posting this for your consideration. It does seems likely that the draft eventually will be moved back to article space and the topic will survive AfD. Hopefully, you will continue to work on improving it. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Thanks, tho I haven't read relevance in the other 80 cites.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

To answer your question (I initially read it 'for consideration only') it is a sourced statement.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Restore This is arguably notable and should be restored, with the possibility of AFD afterward. Content issues of promotionality and jargonishness is a content problem, not notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Restore per GrapedApe. Much clean up is needed, but WP:IMPERFECT. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Restore after a week of careful consideration of all 6 threads & the helpful Wikipedia links included therein with the corresponding contributions (by an additional editor as well) to the article. The more I study the suggestions here the more I realize this really need its own dedicated talk page.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[]

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