Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May

Template:People of Khorasan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm making this appeal because I believe User:Winged Blades of Godric's closure of the discussion - who is not an admin - was subjective, and he incorrectly wrapped up the discussion, while I believe the consensus was around keeping the page.

The page was relisted by admin User:Primefac on May 9th. Since then there were three suggestions to keep the page (by me, User:Wikaviani, and User:Randy Kryn), versus two suggestions to delete (by User:Galobtter and User:Wario-Man).

My take on the discussion is that there was clearly a consensus around keeping the page. I put forward a number of reasons, including citing some similar templates that are active (Template:Ancient Greece topics (see subsection for People), Template:Astronomy in medieval Islam, Template:Chinese philosophy, among many other similar templates in wikipedia). Subsequently User:Galobtter only responds to my example of Template:Chinese philosophy. His argument does not apply to the other templates that I cited. User:Wario-Man pointed out the use of categories, and suggested deletion. Later, User:Randy Kryn responded to User:Wario-Man's point. This is how I see the discussion.

However, User:Winged Blades of Godric closed the discussion with "deletion". I approached the admin, User:Primefac, and although he also recognizes that User:Winged Blades of Godric's move was controversial, he still supported User:Winged Blades of Godric's closure because "(he) has a relatively long tenure at TFD" and he advised me to bring the case here ( see here).

I'm making this appeal because: (1) I believe User:Winged Blades of Godric, as a non-admin, is not allowed to make controversial decisions (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions which suggests that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins."); (2) his wrap-up of the discussion was subjective, whereas he incorrectly concluded the discussion with deletion; and (3) objectivity and intellectual honesty should override how long a user has been in wikipedia. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Cabolitae's appeal. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that we need consensus, but no matter how we look at it, user:Winged Blades of Godric's action appears to be controversial. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What I see is 3 keep vs. 3 delete: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_18#Template:People_of_Khorasan, you forgot delete vote by User:Frietjes. Nobody changed his or her rationale or changed "delete" to "keep". Also, Randy Kryn did not reply to my vote. He posted his own rationale and voted for keep. But I think an experienced admin should review this XfD case again. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wasn't User:Frietjes's vote in the first round, prior to when User:Primefac relisted the discussion? Cabolitæ (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Cabolitae why does that matter? Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I see 4-3, since Woodensuperman nomination also counts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Self-nominations doesn't count in. That's the usual practice. The reason I requested the page to be relisted and the discussion to be reopened was because the page was initially deleted based on a single vote (i.e. User:Frietjes'). Cabolitæ (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely does the nomination count as a !vote for deletion. What a strange misconception. Why else would I have nominated it? --woodensuperman 21:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So would you count in my appeal here as a vote for overturn? Cabolitæ (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, as the nomination, this is clearly what you want to achieve, but you do realise this is WP:NOTAVOTE and that the quality of the arguments are more important than !votes don't you? --woodensuperman 08:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• relist and allow an admin to close it. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Going from relist to gain a broader consensus (suggesting consensus wasn't clear) to add one keep opinion and then ending in delete is surely a perverse outcome. At best consensus still isn't clear in which case we have no consensus. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It shouldn't have been relisted either time, both outcomes have a consensus favouring deletion, and as the closing editor points out on their talk page, the keep !votes are weak. --woodensuperman 21:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because there was no consensus. However, I have a lingering thought that at WP:TFD there may be a greater allowance for non-admins to close than at, say, WP:AFD. Also, does "no consensus" default to delete or soft delete at TFD these days? I'm rather hoping someone can point out that I'm wrong. Thincat (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thincat, a no consensus is the same as at AFD (template is not deleted); soft deletions mostly happen if there has been zero comment other than the nominator. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or Overturn I think a relist may be proper. This is one of those instances where the delete may be the proper reasoning, but the closer provided no reasoning whatsoever. Barring that, an overturn would be proper without any prejudice for a quick renom. SportingFlyer talk 00:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to No consensus). That was not a consensus to delete by any stretch. I recommend against resisting, better to have a pause. Allow WP:RENOM after two months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Bad NAC. When the only !vote following a relist is a keep, an unexplained closing as delete makes no sense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Void NAC. WP:BADNAC item 2 clearly applies. Not to mention, In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure. But, even if this wasn't a WP:NAC, a delete close with the discussion that exists seems like a stretch. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rana (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD was a clear "merge" outcome, but an inexperienced user with little AFD participation closed the discussion as "redirect" citing WP:IAR and giving the reason, "Most of Rana (film) is already been covered in depth by Kochadaiiyaan, so there is no point in letting a Merge notice languish on top of the page." When I asked them on their talk page (permalink) to revert their closure to "merge", they replied, "I agree with you that my closure of Rana(film) was incorrect and I allow you to change it to merge and update docs", which I naturally did not per NACD.
Their first attempt to revert themself by script was botched; they had not reverted in article and in talk, only in the AFD, so XFDcloser could not do its thing.
Trying the manual way, closer reverted in the article yesterday, but then 9 minutes later decided to "redirect per consensus".
I today gave them simple, step-by-step instructions on their talk page about how to correctly implement the merge closure. They reverted themself once more in the article and added an {{Afd-merge to}} in this diff, but then 7 minutes later they changed back to a redirect with the edit summary "Doing this unilaterally without consensus since most of Rana (film) is already covered by Kochadaiiyaan (you can compare the texts if you want)".
Peculiar situation this. Closer admit they were wrong yet they repeatedly implement the closure they think is right. I would like the merge procedure to be left to the editors who participated in the AFD. Sam Sailor 13:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FR30799386

• The chronology of events that (courtesy ping) @Sam Sailor: has provided is right. What he has failed to understand is my intent, the question of capacities and ignoring all rules. I concur with Sam Sailor that my first close (I am not talking about the implementation) was not in line with the policies and guidelines and was a outcome of laziness on my part. I have learnt a lesson from that and I will not repeat it. The implementation however was within limits of the guidelines. I decided against adding the templates and directly implementing the merge (per IAR). While comparing both articles side by side I saw that most of the relevant sections of Rana (film) were covered in detail by Kochadaiiyaan. Thus, I just redirected the page Rana (film) to Kochadaiiyaan as is done in all merges. I believe that the nom of the Afd would have anyway done the same, since he thanked me for the implementation. My second close and implementation however was within limits of the policies and guidelines(I concur that it was slightly deviating). I closed the discussion as a merge and then followed the same implementation that I had done before. The last implementation however was perfectly in line with policy. I applied the correct templates. I then in my capacity of an interested editor with a certain knowledge about Indian topics performed the merge using the logic given above( This was completely separate from the closure itself). I await others comments. If Sam Sailor himself has any problems with my merge he is welcomed to raise the topic at the appropriate talk page. 110.225.23.236 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Sorry that was me accidentally logging out — FR⁺ 06:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to (a very belated) speedy keep which would have best been done as soon after the nomination as possible. There was no need for anyone to have been tagging anything. Thincat (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​The AFD discussion ran for more than 8 full days before it was closed the first time, thus no speedy keep criterion can be applied. Sam Sailor 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, Sam, I can see why the process here was less than ideal. But what exactly is the outcome that you're looking for? Given that there appears to be no opposition to merging and redirecting, and the article in question is already redirected... can't someone now just merge any worthwhile info from a previous version of the article? What is it that DRV is supposed to do here? A Train^talk 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​It is not the closer, who should unilaterally without consensus redirect. WP:MERGE says it clearly in §Merger as a result of a deletion discussion: It is the involved editors' job, not the closing administrators' job, to perform the merger. Here the closer is not an admin, has almost no prior AFD experience, and has never performed a merger before. I say: leave it well to those who have.

I do take offense by the aspersions cast in the initial closing statement: there is no point in letting a Merge notice languish on top of the page, as if I have ever failed to perform my duty, and I can frankly not regard the subsequent insisting on a redirect against consensus and against process citing IAR (see closer's talk page), as anything but an MMORPG syndrome.

My apologies if filing here is considered over the top, but all attempts to talk to the close on their talk page did end with them doing as they saw fit. I'll be happy to close this, if the implemented redirect – btw. not categorized as an {{R to section}} and {{R from merge}} per WP:SMERGE – may be undone. Sam Sailor 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is best had at Talk:Rana (film). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See question below. Sam Sailor 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Sam, if I'm understanding you correctly, your goal here is to change the redirect from Kochadaiiyaan#Development to Kochadaiiyaan? I would say just do it. There's nothing in the AfD consensus that would prevent that. If someone reverts or otherwise has a problem with that, the discussion can happpen on Talk:Kochadaiiyaan. I don't think that opening a DRV was "over the top", just that it's a very unwieldy tool to accomplish what you want. A Train^talk 17:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do so then. Thank you for your guidiance here, A Train, I appreciate learning something new, and again: my apologies if this was wasting community time. Sam Sailor 18:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (redirect). The actual merging can be done from the history, subject to consensus at the target article. Participation was small (3 people), which is enough, but should there be opinion to reverse the redirect, first establish consensus at the target talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to what guideline? Come to think about it, better late than never, why would BRD not apply? Sam Sailor 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-I hereby confirm that I am aware of whatever has happened. Additionally, I stand corrected-the consensus I implemented was wrong. I believe this discussion has outlived its usefulness and should thus be closed. Thanks — FR ⁺ 08:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 Cast.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Admin speedily deleted the photo however it does not meet the criteria it was deleted for. Photo was also in use at Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) Original Discussion: User talk:Orangemike#File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 Cast.jpg Secondary Discussion: User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Next step?. Also pinging @Masem and CambridgeBayWeather:. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Orangemike doesn't identify which part of WP:CSD#F7 applies (Have I whined recently about how bad an idea it is to merge speedy deletion criteria that are only superficially similar? Well, I have now.), so I've got to guess.
  • It was tagged {{Non-free fair use in}}, which, though not terribly specific, isn't "clearly-invalid".
  • It's not, so far as I can tell with Tineye, owned by a commercial image source.
  • It wasn't tagged {{rfu}} or {{dfu}} at all, let alone for 2/7 days, so it's not those either. Though I'd be tentatively supportive of a dfu tag based on the usually-incorrect source of instagram, of all places.
    So I'm strongly leaning overturn here, absent more information from the deleting admin. —Cryptic 23:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note If the issue here is SOLELY the source I'd be far more than happy to re-upload it from a different source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just adding a link to WP:MCQ#File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 Cast.jpg since the discussion of this file appears to have originated there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no applicable CSD reason to remove the file. An XFD challenge is fair if there's question of replaceability, but cast photos are allowed images if all other parts of NFC are met, so CSD cannot be used. --Masem (t) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as it wasn't tagged with anything to qualify for F7 the image would have to either have a clearly invalid fair use tag or come from a commercial source, neither appears to be the case. I would definitely recommend that the uploader clarify the source though. Hut 8.5 06:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at FFD. The file doesn't appear to meet CSD:F7 as-is; therefore, the deletion was incorrect. There is at least an arguable case that it should be deleted for insufficient compliance with WP:NFCC, but that is something to be hashed out at FFD. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. F7 does not authorize admins to summarily delete any image they believe to fail NFCC, but is much more limited in scope. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. File was not tagged with an incorrect non-free license (for example, {{Non-free audio sample}} or some other clearly inappropriate license) nor did it originate from a commercial source like Associated Press or Getty Images. The remaining two bullet points require the file to be tagged for deletion with either {{Rfu}} for two days or {{Dfu}} for seven days, which it was not. ℯxplicit 07:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]] ([[|talk]]|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[Goldziher|article]]|XfD|restore)

Highly relevant, authentic and meticulously collected information, touching upon manifold facets and contributions, has been speedily deleted, showing the deleter's utter unawareness of the fundamentals of the topics involved along with their deep-seated aversion to scholarly research. Khasif746 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, by any chance, talking about User:Khasif746/Arabs, Islam and the Arab Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages, which got moved from main article space to your user area? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it might be a reference to Ignác Goldziher, where the lister added a lot of content which got reverted. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Shreve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an inappropriate non-admin close. The discussion has been tainted by extreme WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:BLUDGEONING by User:E.M.Gregory. He has argued that my use of WP:MULTIAFD is somehow inappropriate. I nominated two articles together about two politicians who hold the same exact position. This tatic has already been tried in a previous Afd and it failed. I don't know why USER:Exemplo347 bought into this silly argument or why he/she decided to go ahead with an non-admin close which would clearly be controversial (because it was a non-admin close, I'm bringing it directly here skipping the talk page step which seems only to apply to admins anyway). The discussion needs to be reopened so it can run its course. And I'd prefer not to just open two new discussions for this and fall into a trap where the same people who argued for the procedural close here will argue that those need to be procedural closed since they were just nominated. Rusf10 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Exemplo347 has been previously warned about closing controversial AfDs as a non-admin. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen ASAP. Not suitable for an NAC as controversial. Improper bundling arguments are the least convincing when only two articles, easily discussed and !voted on discretely, are involved. There's absolutely no good reason to shut down this discussion after more than a dozen editors have commented substantively. A perfect example of why really bad NAC closes should be reversible by experienced editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vascon Engineers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I have submitted the draft Draft:Vascon Engineers according to Wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia Paid policy, I disclose that I get paid monthly by Vascon Engineers as a Digital marketing professional and I am associated with Vascon. I would request to Wikipedia editors to review the article as per Wikipedia policy, And provide the access, so that article can be created. Thanks 183.87.183.51 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The text in the draft is only trivially different than the most recent deleted version, which we last reviewed less than a month ago, and the only difference in referencing is this wholly unsuitable source. Reject. —Cryptic 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beka Vachiberadze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Restore this article because this footballer already played in the fully pro league for the Latvian club FK RFS, see [1] for example. 46.211.155.144 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was an expired PROD and can be restored upon request at WP:Requests for undeletion, however the Latvian league is not fully pro per WP:FPL. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That list is incomplete. From Latvian Higher League: it's a professional football league and the top tier of football in Latvia. Otherwise all domestic Latvian players' articles should be deleted. 46.211.155.144 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't the appropriate place to be having this discussion. Bring it to WP:RFU, it should be restored as it was a PROD, and if anyone thinks it should be deleted, they can take it to AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Auditor-General Republic of Namibia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The material copied was from the Constitution of Namibia and excerpts from the law governing the position. It was sourced to a government page that quoted the material. I don't believe such material is copyrightable and in the remote possibility it is, that reproducing the material in an article about the position is actually fair use. I did raise this with the Admin who did not undelete. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Laws in general aren't necessarily in the public domain, at least in their country of origin. Taking you at your word that the disputed material was in fact wholly from the Namibian constitution (I haven't checked), this one is, though. See wikisource:Constitution of Namibia. —Cryptic 03:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was copy-pasted from the following pages:

• http://www.oag.gov.na/about-oag-summary
• http://www.oag.gov.na/governing-legislation
• http://www.oag.gov.na/about-us
• http://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/downloads/4_documents/E_ComPolicy_Fin031106.pdf

It's a blatant copyright violation, which should have easily been caught at AFC. Contrary to what Legacypac states above, it is not all copied from the constitution - it's copied from a government website (which in one case summarises legislation, rather than a direct quote). The oag.gov.na pages (which form the vast majority of the article's content) clearly state "© Government of Namibia". [stwalkerster|talk] 08:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say only constitution. Both the constitution and governing legislation. I ran earwig and compared - finding they were quoting law. One may not be able to reprint entire statues (in Canada the right to publish entire laws on paper is reserved to the Queens Printer). You should not make a fake government website - the point of the copyright notice here. But quoting sections of law or even a short summary should be fine. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I have checked the deleted page vs the Office of the Auditor General page (and others) where the text was taken from, and the Constitution which it was quoting. The OAG page summarizes the text, not copies it verbatim, and thus the copyright listed at the OAG page holds and the G12 was appropriate. Since this is a copyvios deletion, pinging @Diannaa, Sphilbrick, TonyBallioni, MER-C, and Hut 8.5 for their input as people who do this sort of thing a lot. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't very clear cut. To take the sections in order:

• The second half of the lead is copied from here which makes it a copyright violation. I can't find a source for the first half.
• The "Role and functions" section is basically copied from the Namibian State Finance Act 31 of 1991. I suspect this is in the public domain in the US. (EDIT - yes it is: All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level, including other countries’ governments, and the court opinions of any court case are in the public domain - WP:PD)
• "The organisation's structure" is mostly lifted from [2] or similar, the lists of bits of the organisation are copied from other places.
• About half the "International liaison and involvement" section is copied from [3] and most of the rest is copied from an organisation's mission statement.

So if we removed all the text which is definitely copyvio we'd be left with half the lead and the "Role and functions" section, which is a text dump from a Namibian law. I'm not entirely sure either of those are clean and they wouldn't make much of an article anyway. I think deletion is reasonable here. Hut 8.5 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Namibian law is PD in Namibia as well (Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act 6 of 1994§15(8a)), so we could use Role&Functions ethically as well as legally. Not that we should particularly want to, at least not when presented in Wikipedia's voice (as it was) rather than as quoting the law. —Cryptic 19:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Hut 8.5's analysis. Once we get rid of the stuff we can't have, there isn't much of an article left to keep. Deletion is reasonable. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per above discussion and analysis.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 08:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hut 8.5. This is a potentially encyclopedic though, so we shouldn't prejudice against recreation with good sources. A Train^talk 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Sinnotte (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrectly deleted as WP:A7 by Y (talk · contribs). The page had three references to books covering the subject (two of them not available online afaict so Y most likely had no way to assess them before deletion). This is imho sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. I raised the deletion on Y's talk page on 18 May 2018 but they have not responded despite editing other articles in the mean time, so I'm bringing this here. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed your note. The article was nominated for A7 because it attests to her existence but doesn’t indicate why she is notable important. If there’s a genuine claim of notability that can be added here, I’m happy to undelete it. -- Y not? 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Y: As pointed out by multiple editors here, notability is not relevant for A7. The bar is explicitly lower and it has clearly been met in this case. If you genuinely believe that articles need to claim notability to avoid A7 speedy deletion, you probably should refrain from handling A7 speedy requests in future. Regards SoWhy 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. There’s no indication of “importance” per wp:A7, I fixed it above. -- Y not? 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that three different people found her important enough to write about 100+ years after she died is not an indication of importance for you? Why? Regards SoWhy 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirms her existence, not her significance. Like I said above, I’m happy to undelete it. Hopefully you can add a sentence in there that explains why, out of the multitudes of humans who served in the Civil War, this one is in some way interesting. It’s not in the deleted revisions. Goodbye! -- Y not? 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're applying too high a bar. WP:CSD only applies to the most obvious cases. If you've gotten to the point of evaluating the quality of sources, you're beyond CSD territory. It only took me a few minutes of searching to find several pages on-line about her (I think this was actually one of the sources cited in the original article). I could certainly see somebody arguing at AfD this this is a first-person account, and thus doesn't contribute to WP:N, but surely it's enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, as the given sources demonstrate notability plausibly enough to pass the A7 bar, even though there's nothing in the text of the article to indicate significance. (I'll be arguing for deletion in the afd. Google Books shows me the Hall source and one page of the Holland source, and they're both just as much passing mentions as the Harper one that was linked in the article. But that doesn't make this a good speedy.) —Cryptic 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the article had a number of inline citations to printed books. A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability, so if an article indicates that the subject might be notable then that's enough to avoid A7. That includes articles citing a number of reliable sources, unless they're all clearly unsuitable for establishing notability. Hut 8.5 17:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. That's totally bogus, per User:Hut 8.5, but even more so considering this is somebody who died 120 years ago. The existence of any on-line sources for somebody from that era is a reasonable guess that they're notable. Maybe not enough to get past AfD, but surely enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mgaidhane/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created a page on an expert endoscopist 'Michel Kahaleh'. The page is missing, and it does not show up in deletion logs. No reason has been given for deletion. May I know the reason of deletion and who deleted it? Mgaidhane (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of medicine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

absence of consensus (see below) NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion with the closing administrator:

NightHeron (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: I've collapsed what I think is just your quoted text, to make this easier to read. Please take a look and make sure I grabbed the right stuff? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Yes, that's fine. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn there was no consensus, about what the article should say, or what it did say, or whether it was harmful to WP. Trying to decide in such a situation by headcount is contrary to policy. (We do resolve some matters by actually voting, but to do that fairly requires much wider discussion than practical at an AfD.) It is often forgotten that "consensus" does not mean agreement, but finding a solution that everyone or almost everyone can live with. An indecisive AfD should result in a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm just being dumb, but is the result you are proposing with overturn a "compromise"? It appears to merely be awarding the win to the minority view in the discussion, certainly not what I understand by the word compromise. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn so that the contents remain accessible to editors. If this article and AFD were of the usual variety I would have thought just about any close would be within discretion, based on the !votes and their individual justifications. However, the present situation, that the article's content will be only visible to administrators, so clearly goes against the tone of the discussion that I think it is necessary to probe more deeply.

The nomination suggests the article should be removed but some of its contents may be usable elsewhere. This implies some sort of potential for continued access (and attribution?). Roxy concurs while expressing this as "delete". Natureium's and Kirbanzo's "deletes" are explicit that some material is reusable. Kirbanzo agrees to a "redirect" to achieve this. Semmendinger seems to agree and suggests the contents are moved to a suitable place or retained in a history. Biogeographist and WhatamIdoing suggest a "redirect" to enable splitting some material elsewhere.

Discospinster and NightHeron opine "keep" (and my apologies for so crassly oversimplifying your opinions).

DGG voices a clear "delete" but later gives a nuanced "keep". @DGG: clarification? Legacypac's "delete" expresses a view on the AFD discussion but not on the article.

TenOfAllTrades concedes the possibility that some minor information might be usable elsewhere but is rather firmly of the view that the article and contents should be removed. Andrew D deplores the polemic nature of the subject, thinks criticisms should be embedded elsewhere and, I think, suggests this article has nothing worth salvaging.

I suggest "no consensus" or "redirect" would be a reasonable conclusion based on the discussion (and, frankly, either is more desirable than delete). Move to draft is maybe too creative for DRV to stomach. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind to keep upon re-examination fo the article and the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "No consensus" and restore the article, as per NightHeron and DGG above. Do not relist, but it can be relisted later if any editor so desires, as with any no consensus result. Several of the editors who commented proposed splitting the article, which is not properly a "delete" result, because attribution would require its retention in that case. Specifically, SEMMENDINGER, Kirbanzo, and Biogeographist favored this approach. The argument that Any title starting "Criticism of..." should be deleted as contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV. by Andrew D. clearly does not have site-wide consensus and should have been discounted. LegacyPac's view was a meta comment on the discussion, providing no policy-based reasons for deletion, and should have been discounted. The assertions of SYNTH and of need-for MEDRS-based sourcing were convincingly refuted and should have been discounted. The argument for BURDEN and PROVEIT was misapplied. The deletion policy is clear that there must be an active, policy-based consensus for deletion, and that in the absence of such a consensus, an article is not deleted, which is why a no consensus close does not lead to deletion. Headcount should not be applied to determine consensus to delete at all. Back when it was, in the days of VfD, the standard was that at least 2/3rds of those commenting must favor deletion to form a consensus to delete. by my count, 14 editors commented on point, and 7 of those were clear delete views (even counting those I said above should be discounted). Even by headcount, this is not a consensus to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sandstein and I don't get along too well. He/she can seem stern. However, his/her judgment is ok. Are there many reliable sources, such as a book entitled "Criticism of Medicine"? I think not. If this is allowed, then anyone could start articles called "Criticism of Trump", "Criticism of Obama", "Criticism of the University of Virignia", "Criticism of United Airlines (which would be a longer article than the United Airlines article), "Criticism of Dermatology about why you hate your skin doctor. Cowding Soup (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein mentions NPOV and OR, which is policy. This would prevent articles such as "Criticism of Dermatology why you hate your skin doctor". It would also prevent "Holocaust Never Happened" articles. Cowding Soup (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC - Having the benefit of viewing the deleted article helps, which is far from great but the concept is valid and encyclopedic, and the arguments presented in the AFD might have leaned towards delete initially, but overall were a mixed bag. The main issue here is the number of !voters who wanted to split the material, which indicates they wanted to keep it even if in a different format. It's a borderline case, so I don't fault Sandstein, but I don't see a clear consensus to delete here. Basically, I agree with DGG here that the material should be accessible so it can be merged. If done properly, the stand alone article could be worthwhile, and the overall concept, criticism of (western) medicine, is certainly a notable one that is covered in more than a few thousand publications, so it is reasonable to assume that WP:RS and WP:V could be met. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid reason. If you want the information so some of it can be used, either start reading sources or ask for a partial undelete in your sandbox. We can't have junk in article space. Administrator Sandstein in right. Cowding Soup (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've become an expert in 81 edits. Then please, be sure to read WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein being an admin is meaningless here. All the people !voting for overturn are also admin, we just disagree with him. Addressing him as "Administrator Sandstein" is unnecessary, and moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Did User:DGG !vote twice in opposing ways? His first !vote makes more sense. He and several others advocated rescuing a mess by "split and merge", which is a horrible thing to do with a mess, from an attribution perspective. I haven't seen the article (a temp undelete please?), but I think the closer did good, and the "split and merge" ideas should be satisfied by providing the list of references but not the creative product. When doing a merge from a mess, it is much better to go back to the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @SmokeyJoe: You say you haven't seen the article, but three times you refer to it as a "mess". Don't you think you should read an article before pronouncing it a "mess"?NightHeron (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. It is my word, but it is the indirect impression I got from the AfD.

"Criticism of" I usually consider to be "mess"

• So you agree with Andrew D. that any "Criticism of" article (of which there are many on Wikipedia) should probably be deleted? That POV leads you to a judgment based just on the AfD discussion's negative claims, ignoring the positive statements and the refutations of the negative ones.NightHeron (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" essay rather than an encyclopedic article"

• If you read the article, you'd see that this is false. It is carefully sourced without editorializing.NightHeron (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" it's too broad a topic and should be split up into other pages"

• Too broad compared to what? Alternative medicine or Criticism of science?NightHeron (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"but an essay. Split into other articles"

"TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 2 May 2018", I summarise as a "mess". This does not mean good stuff in there.

The notion of split and delete creates an attribution mess.

My early impression at this stage is that they way forward is to accept the deletion, collect the references, and start again adding new content to other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont vote, I give an opinion. Rereading the proposed article , I think it i a melange of material that have better be handled separately. there fare, alter all two questions in this areaL which can best be handled separately. I would divide the critcism of the sxientific practice of medicine, viewed as an applied science, form the criticism of the perfomance ofthe medical system regraded as a matter of public health of orgnaizatrion. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was a fairly clear consensus in the discussion what we shouldn't have this article, the only question is whether the page is to be deleted or split across multiple other pages. The close allows for the latter if an editor is committed to doing it (The article can be userfied if somebody does want to recycle some content in other articles) and nobody seems to have requested it. I don't see what overturning to no consensus would do, if anything that seems to be the outcome with the least support. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfication of an article to be split will almost certainly result in an attribution failure, and will certainly result in ugly attribution records. Better to start again with the references only. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the entire page was written by NightHeron I don't think attribution is going to be a problem. Crediting NightHeron in the edit summary would be fine. Hut 8.5 06:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC - I realize this was a tough call for the closing admin, but on the whole I think it is better to restore the article and rely on our editorial process to improve it, while preserving the edit history, which is not trivial. The title can be changed, the content reorganized or split as needed. The basic material in the article is notable, sourced and important, and there is clearly no community consensus against "Criticism of..." articles per se, since we have so many.--agr (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Wikipedia mirror sites have copy of the version and it is apparent that the article adhered to our policies. A couple of delete votes lacked argument. Clearly we have no doubt with regards to notability and importance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Seems a decent close, considering the strength and number of arguments presented. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's really hard for me to say if the article adhered to our policies without seeing it. Can we get it temp undeleted, please? Smartyllama (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Surya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I've created a new draft Draft:Rekha Surya that is basically an edited copy of the original article that was deleted. Kindly review this one. inam 10:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This was speedily deleted as blatantly promotional, although the article is simply a description of a career, with sources, rather than anything promotional. I tried to discuss this with the deleting admin but he seemed to be more interested in bad-faith assumptions about my identity than with the article in hand. This is no more 'an attempt to "get the copy up"' than any other Wikipedia article, and the award, though it contains the word "Noble", which is rather similar to "Nobel", seems perfectly respectable according to our article about it. Even ignoring that award the article subject seems notable, but, even if not, this is not blatant promotion so the issue should be discussed at AfD if this is to be deleted. There is a copy of the article at User:Inamabidi/Rekha Surya, but there is no reason why it should have been speedily deleted from mainspace. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Making a new version as a copy-paste clone is not a good idea, per WP:CUTPASTE. I've gone ahead and deleted the new draft. You are welcome to continue to work on User:Inamabidi/Rekha Surya, or even move (using the built-in page move function, not make another copy) it into draft space. Either of those will preserve the existing contribution history, which is immportant for enforcing our licensing requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by number of colors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am very reluctant to question other administrators' judgement calls as I fully appreciate that two reasonable people can often look at the same situation or set of facts and come to different conclusions. I also appreciate Steve Smith's very courteous reply on the AfD talk page to my concerns. That said, I do feel that there was a clear consensus in this AfD. Steve indicated he believed that both sides had made WP:PAG based arguments and that while the pro-deletionists had a bit more in !votes that it looked like a no consensus. I believe that absent obviously superior arguments from the minority, that a margin of 2:1 has almost always been viewed as constituting consensus. Per WP:not counting heads... If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.' I respectfully ask that the close be overturned in favor of Delete per the clear consensus in the discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin here - see my explanation for the close. Obviously, I take no offence to a fellow admin (or a non-admin, for that matter) questioning my close; that's what this page is for, and User:Ad Orientem has been nothing but gracious about it. Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This DRV is okay to carry on, but there is a misstatement above, the question is whether the close should be overturned in favor of Keep outright, rather than just the default. I came to the AFD after it had been running for a while and was pretty shocked at what I perceived to be poor quality arguments for "Delete", and I commented fairly strongly about that. I believe the closure by Steve was compromising and diplomatic, while a stronger call to explicitly "Keep" based on quality of arguments ... this is not supposed to be a count of votes ... would have been justified. Sorry not to be "gracious" myself; I was calling bad arguments what they are. Steve Smith was gracious enough in their noting the popularity of assertions that wp:INDISCRIMINATE applied, while they noted the situation was very different than the examples supplied in the actual wp:DISCRIMINATE essay/guideline/policy. --Doncram (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I believe Steve Smith did a very good job of balancing out all of the arguments in the AfD. The WP:not counting heads provides a guideline for how to close, but a no consensus result is also an entirely valid conclusion when, in this case, both Keeps and Deletes had arguments that weren't quite on point. SportingFlyer talk 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Deletion - As nominator. I do not fault the closing admin whatsoever, as the AfD was actually quite cluttered by textbook wp:bludgeoning and heckling. That being said, I think there is a clear consensus in support of deletion. Inparticular, I think there are strong policy arguments for deletion based in NOT and indiscriminate, etc, while the keep arguments, while valid, did to a degree equate to "there isn't that much harm in keeping this page and it can help children or other curious people." No one addressed the issue of OR or at the very least synthesis, and no one could provide evidence that the list's topic is encyclopedic or discussed in RS. I see no evidence that the keep votes had a stronger policy argument, or any policy argument. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No Consensus the delete arguments were perfunctory and incorrect labelling of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the keep votes may be criticised but a list of flag colours is not the type of article that requires proof of notability as the drv nominator seems to be implying that wp:bio types of sourcing arguments are the only arguments worth considering from a keep vote which is incorrect in the case of a flag list which is obviously notable and this drv is a waste of time as it was a very obvious no consensus IMHO Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC) 20:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion - The arguments on both sides boiled down to "it's useful" and "it's not useful". I don't see how one of those arguments is shockingly poor and the other is high quality (as suggested by Doncram). And the argument that WP:INDISCRIMINATE just doesn't apply has already been shot down, but I'll reiterate that the example in WP:INDISCRIMINATE that applies here is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", which is exactly what this list is. There is no explanation why the number of colors in a flag might be important or even a topic of interest. It's just a list of unexplained statistics with a 1 sentence lead and zero sources cited about the topic (rather than individual flag colors). The numerous delete votes that cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE were at least citing an actual policy. Regarding the consensus, there were 12 people in support of deleting and 6 opposed to deleting. In the absense of a clear policy issue, that should be enough of a margin to delete, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive listing at WP:INDISCRIMINATE states: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. " So how is a list of flags by number of colours confusing and needing context? Its a very simple list that needs no explanation and WP:NOT does not apply IMOAtlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete for full disclosure Ad Orientem asked for a second opinion on this from me before bringing it here, and also suggested I not comment, but I had been planning to do so if it was brought here. I have no strong opinion on the subject itself, and do my best to avoid list AfDs. I think that makes me independent, but the closer can do what they may.
  As I said at my talk page, there was a clear numerical consensus (yes, it matters, see WP:NHC which makes clear that numbers matter when established Wikipedians disagree on policy). Just because the keep !voters thought that the delete arguments were weak doesn't mean that they were, and they all tended to cite policy: to discount them because those arguing keep came at the end of the discussion and shouted louder (which is what discounting them amounts to, even if unintentional) is not in line with our policies and guidelines and not how we determine consensus. There was overwhelming support for deletion here. The reasons were policy based. The reasons to keep were policy-based too, but guess what, they were in the clear minority and weren't strong enough to overcome the delete position. DRV rarely overturns no consensus, but I think it should in this case because it was a close out of line with the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Relist. Arguments obviously haven't been thoroughly discussed. I'd propose, as crazy as it sounds, a Wikimedia Commons soft redirect to c:Category:Color combinations of flags. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have no criticism of admins who carry out WP:AFD closures, a difficult but very necessary task. However, their function is that of a court of first instance. WP:DRV is like a court of appeal, with the power of varying the original decision either way. There is no point at all in reiterating arguments which were made during the deletion discussion. (If you have a new policy-based argument, you're probably too late. That WP:AFD was well-attended.)

I set out my arguments at WP:AFD and will not repeat them, nor my !vote, here.

Because this bad argument keeps coming up: WP:AFD does not in any way involve head-counting. It is a judgment, not a majority vote. A single well-reasoned argument on one side can outweigh any number of !votes on the other. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: actually, "well-attendance" is not a substitute for substantive debate with regards to WP:RELIST. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete (disclosure: I did !vote delete at the original AfD) Consensus is not a majority vote, and this discussion is indeed particularly challenging on that point, but closing as "no consensus" when clearly there is a strong majority (2/3) for delete would require that the "keep" arguments be either stellar or that the "delete" arguments be utter bollocks. However, per the closing admin, "both sides have made coherent, policy-based arguments here". It is therefore hard to justify that the (policy-wise "equivalent") less numerous keep !votes justify a "no consensus" close. Also, TonyBallioni above is particularly convincing with the reasoning based on WP:NHC. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete the keepers had several "it's popular" or "it's useful" arguments; which are vacuous and lack policy basing; discounting "votes" that have no policy behind them demonstrates as much consensus as is the norm in AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse policy in this area is pretty vague and largely consists of general principles, there isn't much in the way of concrete tests to be applied to the existence of pages like this one. The arguments here basically boil down to "this is an encyclopedic list" versus "this isn't an encyclopedic list", and there isn't much the closer can do to weight these. The only way to really settle this on one side or the other is if one side has a lot more support than the other. This AfD ran 2:1 in favour of deletion, which is getting towards the point where it would be justifiable to close as Delete on those grounds, but I don't think it quite got there. Hut 8.5 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete- as per explanation of WP:NHC by TonyBallioni. If the closer believes that both sides presented legit policy-based arguments then yes you must consider the actual numerical vote which was overwhelmingly delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer's summary is a good summary of the issue here, "the difference of opinion over this list is likely grounded in difference of opinion on more fundamental questions as to what Wikipedia should or should not include". As such, and with it noted that it is unclear whether INDISCRIMINATE applies here, due to it lacking this example, Steve is correct that it is a clear no consensus. There certainly isn't the overwhelming lead for one or other side that would represent a consensus, where policy arguments are equally valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I voted last after reviewing it to close and just deciding to vote instead. My impression was that it was no consensus based on the quality of the discussion, not the count of !votes. My goal in voting was to add a slightly different perspective and perhaps generate some additional discussion, but it was closed before others could opine. Since no consensus seemed reasonable before I voted to keep, I can't help but think it was still valid after my single vote. Policy isn't crystal clear and there were a few decent points made on both sides with no clear consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that I wouldn't be against letting it run another week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to deletion also, ironically, on the quality of discussion. Per my talk page content comment (reflected in some of the remarks above), summarised. "...even if it was a 50/50, there is still, per WP:NOTVOTE, the arguments themselves to consider. Far from being—imho, of course—"coherent, policy-based arguments," most of the "Keep" !votes tended to be based on various arguments to avoid, predominently revolving around whether they like it or personally find it useful or just harmless. Compared with this, most (not all—there are certainly some that are mildly cringeworthy) "Deletes" were based on WP:NOT, which is policy." —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete- I think it's clear that the closer gave too much weight to "I like it" and "It's useful" votes, and not enough weight to votes that referred to policies such as WP:NOT. I also wonder if the bludgeoning of the debate by some on the keep side made the discussion seem like more of a vigorous debate than it actually was. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - The arguments consideration point would have been easier for if people hadn't just cited their previous AfD argument and had actually re-given it. The base !vote count was 6:11, then you get anywhere between 3:6 and 5:9 when considering specifically made arguments (Additionally, obviously delete had quite a few duplicates, so determining level of reasoned argument vs pile-on is a little tricky there) In any case, I think there is sufficient weight of reasoned arguments to Overturn. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It is in general not productive to appeal a non-consensus decision. But in this case there was no other possible closing: there was in fact no consensus , as the arguments were basic on mutually incompatible interpretation of policy none of which were decisive. The vote count is irrelevant one way or another. What matters was the lack of any basis for decision. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looking at the AFD the arguments of the deleters was simply "it's not useful delete it", not exactly a convincing reason for deletion.Egaoblai (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are looking at the right comments? It's the keep !votes which are simply "it's useful" while the delete !votes were mostly "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" or some other variant of WP:NOT 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There simply was no consensus to delete in the AfD discussion, and so a NC close was proper, indeed called for. I would probably have opined delete had I encountered the AfD, but DRV reviews the deletion discussion as it occurred, not the possible views not raised there, nor those of editors who did not comment. After aq suitable time, anyone can renominate this in the normal way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good arguments on both sides, but there was no consensus to delete. --RAN (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there were "good arguments on both sides", then there was a consensus to delete by a 2:1 margin.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but the outcome should be no consensus solely no mention of keep. The sentence is a little worrying. Quek157 (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse to no consensus default to keep. certainly there was no consensus to delete. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete !voters repeatedly cited irrelevant policies and failed to advance a strong argument. It would be one thing if this closed as keep, but a no consensus is reasonable even with a 2-to-1 margin for delete. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: have you ever actually read NOT? Your claim that those arguments are irrelevant—when WP:NOT is policy—suggests otherwise. Still, thanks for at least giving us an object lesson in what "failing to advance a strong argument" is :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how WP:NOT is relevant? Yes, it's a policy, but so are a lot of other things that aren't remotely relevant. Have you read WP:NOT? That you and others are repeatedly citing it suggests otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's WP:AGF. Yes, obviously, both of you have read WP:NOT. In which case, how it is relevant should be rather clear - just to be sure - the second sentence: "Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not." According to the delete !voters, this list is either "an indiscriminate collection of information" or some other content which is not encyclopedic (various policies/sub-policies are cited). The !keep voters however think a different policy applies. This is where the disagreement ensues, and where it was the job of the closing admin to determine which said had the stronger arguments, or, failing that, stronger support. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, and what of the WP:ITSUSEFUL keep !voters? Anyway, the closing admin judged that both sides' arguments where equivalent... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Y. Katz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think we should take a second look at this. The discussion was closed a keep, while more people voted keep than any other option, it was not a majority of the votes. There were 6 keep votes, 4 delete votes, and 3 redirect votes. Given that the result of a redirect is closer to delete than keep and a redirect vote indicates that the subject doesn't have independent notability. Also, it should be noted that two of the "keep" votes indicated that it was a "borderline keep". My point being that the keep arguments were admittedly weak. I believe the result should be overturned to redirect. Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I voted in the AfD and my thoughts are known there, especially where I went through all the sources which then existed on the article, so I will be abstaining. Even after reviewing some new sources I still think the sourcing's really weak on this article and doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within discretion although I would have preferred no consensus. I don't think "redirect" would have been a fair statement of any consensus in this AFD. From an editorial point of view, sometimes information on a notable topic is best presented as part of a broader topic rather than in an article by itself. A possibly thoughtful position of redirect should not be taken as a delete vote in a doctrinaire battle between "keep" and "delete". Thincat (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep I believe the nominator is mistaken as to how a AfD works. His argument is based purely on the number of votes, not the quality of the arguments. - Galatz^Talk 12:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't read what I wrote. The keep votes were weak.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but spread some trout around. I probably would have closed this as NC, but there's no real difference between NC and Keep, so meh. I probably would have argued to delete had I participated in the AfD, but I don't see any way this could have been closed as redirect or delete with the given discussion. There's some reasonable sources presented, and while I don't agree that they're as good as some people are saying, that's a judgement call which people get to make at AfD. It's not DRV's job to second-guess judgement calls. As for the trout, at least one person seems to have gotten distracted from the task at hand and wandered into personal attacks. Not good. Also, Teaneck is next door to Leonia, which has dinosaurs, which is cool. That's got to count for something. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer a no consensus over a keep, though, because a no consensus makes it easier to go back and take another look at the sources once things have died down at the AfD process. A keep implies WP:GNG is met. Otherwise completely agree with you. SportingFlyer talk 20:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, though a "no consensus" would be appropriate given that arguments on both sides seem to be based, to a varying extent, on policy of some kind (and the arguments do not seem to be obvious misinterpretations or misquotations), and there is no clear cut majority. Agree with Thincat and RoySmith. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The alternative would have been non-consensus. There is no clear policy question here, just a difference of opinion on whee the line should be drawn for mayor of municipalities. 9 or 10 years ago it was generally accepted as 100,000, 2 or 3 years ago as 50,000, but many decisions have closed keep with lower. Whether 40,000 is close enough is a matter to be decided by the AfD, and I think that is what was decided here. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really what's being discussed with this article, though: it's whether GNG is met for this particular mayor. There's no actual population guideline for cities in order for mayors to get a pass or not - they have to meet WP:GNG, and of course if the city is large enough WP:GNG will always be met. As noted above, I'd personally prefer an overturn to a no consensus so we can look at this article again in the years to come. SportingFlyer talk 01:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to non consensus. I cannot see this discussion as establishing any sort of consensus. It doesn't matter much, as a no-consensus close does not result in deletion, but may matter a little should this be re-nominated, although a keep result is no bar to such a re-listing as consensus can change. A keep is not forever binding. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I probably would have closed NC, but it isn't unreasonable to conclude KEEP is consensus based on the claims of sufficient RSs, which is a strong argument. This particular AFD straddles the fence between NC and KEEP, so the call was within reason. I can't see how anyone could conclude that DELETE was the consensus, so the end result is the same regardless: the article is kept. And for the record, turning an article into a redirect isn't the same as delete since all the history is still kept, so it is very distinct from DELETE. I don't think you can just lump them together and call a REDIRECT vote the same as a Delete vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Almost a tie between keep and no-consensus, the outcome is the same. --RAN (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I would have called no-consensus but that doesn't change anything. If editors think a redirect or other editorial action would be appropriate, they can perform it in line with WP:BB or discuss it on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Maybe it's a no consensus, but it's definitely not a delete, so this is a waste of everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Rusf refers to the "number count". There were three Delete, eight Keep, and three Redirects. That's a majority keep, and that's not even accounting for the fact that redirect does not equal delete, and AfD is not a numbers vote. Enigma^msg 04:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were four delete votes, the person nominating the article counts as a vote. Being that you've closed other discussions, you should know that. Redirect votes are basically delete votes because the article ceases to exist in its current form. And its hard to argue that the keep arguments were strong when two of them refered to it as "borderline". Redirect would have been a reasonable outcome.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again and what I wrote is correct as stated. Enigma^msg 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you don't know how to count.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Enigma isn't referring to the correctness of the vote count but to the spirit of their statement (i.e. see Letter and spirit of the law) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to count, thanks. It appears you not only are unfamiliar with how the AfD process is handled, but also with basic counting. "6 keep votes, 4 delete votes, and 3 redirect votes." is obviously wrong, and anyone else can confirm that as well if they actually read the AfD. Enigma^msg 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to both. Enigma^msg 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again, there's three delete votes (SportingFlyer,Bearcat, & John Pack Lambert ) plus mine. 3+1=4. Therefore there are four delete votes, not three as you claim. What's really unbelievable is that you're an admin who closes AfDs and you don't know this.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as many admins can tell you, that is not how AfD works, but let's move on to keep votes. How exactly are there six? If you can't read or count, what is left? Enigma^msg 23:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake there are seven keep votes, but you are mistaken that the nominator's vote doesn't count. Every other admin I've ever encountered has always considered the nominator to have a vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are eight. A majority no matter how you want to count other categories. Enigma^msg 00:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This was a reasonable decision per absolute majority (i.e. not plurality) for one outcome and the rest spread out, as well as per direction of the discussion. The count was 8 keep (and not as claimed), 3 delete (with the nominator 4), and 3 redirect. Also after improvements in the article, there were no more delete sayers: 6 keeps at the end with no deletes whatsoever. At this stage in the discussion, Gregory changed his opinion from redirect to keep. Criticism was staged by DJflem and Enigma that the nomination failed WP:BEFORE. Which explains the direction part. The nomination seemed to be based on insufficient references in the article for which we have other remedies. Why do we need to waste our time again on this, now with a frivolous deletion review? Please draw conclusions instead on AFDing. gidonb (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Review can be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty boy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There was even no deletion dicussion on this page It is discriminatory when heterosexual variety gets deleted like that while gay/bisexual variety can remain. Just see the Google hits and Google Books hits, it's a widely used term in sexuology. Deleting it is like deleting Twink (gay slang). Miacek (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, allow WP:TNT. The article was in the form of a dictionary definition, and thus belonged on Wiktionary, where it can still be found. It was also totally unreferenced so WP:OR and failed WP:V. On the other hand, I don't see any reason you can't write a new article on the topic, provided it's backed up by WP:RS and in the form of an encyclopedia article. The existing text is worthless as a starting point, and has a possible WP:BLP problem, so I wouldn't recommend restoring it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pretty Boy per Cryptic's comment below. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Suggest this be speedy closed. Miacek's block is an ArbCom action which includes an indef topic ban on any gender-related dispute or controversy, which this clearly is. So let's not waste any more time on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to a close on that ground. If this is undeleted, it would in no way be restricted to being edited by Miacek, although I would argue that this article is not inherently a gender-related dispute or controversy in any case. If it is draftified, or userfied to a different user, again it is not restricted to being edited by that user. And if the deletion is endorsed but with permission to create a valid article of the same title, should sources be found, (as I would prefer) again there is no reason to think that only Miacek would edit it. This discussion should proceed to a consensus, so that the status of the article, not the user, may be clarified, and so that other editors will know if such an article is or is not permitted.. A speedy close because of the block or the topic ban would be out of process, and should be promptly reverted. Now a SNOW close might be warranted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles about terms are expected to give the reader more than just a definition of the term. This article didn't, so it was moved to Wiktionary which is happy to take dictionary entries. Twink (gay slang) goes beyond a dictionary definition of the subject so it can't be deleted for this reason. This has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. You are welcome to write a new article about the topic, as long as it isn't a dictionary definition. Hut 8.5 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could anyone undelete the deleted article to my personal space so that I could see what we're talking about? I'll try to create a better article, but I'm not a magician, either.Miacek (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, there's something in the deleted text which could be construed as a WP:BLP violation and/or a personal attack. I might be paranoid about that, but erring on the side of caution seems wise. Trust me, there's really nothing in the deleted text that would make a good starting point for a new article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been trying to find sources for a new article, but sadly, I've failed. If the consensus is endorse undeletion, just undelete it into my sandbox, in the mainspace it would get deleted immediately again, I couldn't find sources that other editors would accept.Miacek (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but permit creation of a sourced, policy-compliant version, should that be possible. There is one 5-word sentence that seems to refer to a specific individual, otherwise there is no possible BLP issue in the last deleted version. Should this close as endorse, I would be willing to userfy the page with that sentence removed. But honestly, there is nothing here likely to be of use in creating a valid article. It would be better to start from any valid sources found, and if one can't find any, not to start. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that one sentence is what I was talking about. I have no objection to userfication with that one sentence removed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This version, corresponding to the 28 June 2010 deletion, is closer to being a useful start to an article than the most recent revision. Mind you, it's still totally unsourced, and I'd still vote TNT even if it were sourced and it were nominated for deletion in that state.
  The first revision was a redirect to Pretty Boy, and that should either be restored or recreated regardless of whatever else happens here. —Cryptic 20:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect The first deletion itself was flawed because there was a non-A5 version (the redirect) the first deleting admin should have reverted to instead of deleting. The second deletion was flawed because it ignored WP:ATD which said to redirect instead of deletion. That said, I think the best way forward is to restore the redirect only per above and if someone wants to create a new article, they can always do so later. The text of the deleted article is completely useless for this though, if I may say so. Regards SoWhy 16:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the deletion decision in June 2017, Cook has continued to be reported in reliable sources. He has been the leading scorer in the National League (the feeder league to the Football League) in the 2017/18 season - here - and scored in the final that saw his side promoted to EFL League Two for the 2018/19 season - here and here. Independent sources include here and here. There is also an anomaly in that no fewer than 23 other players in the Tranmere Rovers F.C. squad have articles, but not the player who is not only the team's leading scorer, but the entire league's leading scorer - included in the league's team of the season here. The reason given, per the guidance at WP:NFOOTY, is that unlike the other players he has so far not played at Football League level. In my view that guideline should not be imposed inflexibly in exceptional cases, and discretion should be used to recreate the article in this case (and any similar cases in future). Further, it is clear that (per criterion 3) "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". To put it bluntly, we are here to provide information on notable individuals, not hide it. This has been discussed with the original closing administrator and others at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990), with no consensus and the suggestion that it be raised here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Although the original AfD closer interpreted consensus correctly, it is clear from new sources that he now passes GNG. No need to reinvent the wheel - just restore the previously deleted article. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Still fails WP:NFOOTY. Being the top scorer in a league that isn't fully-professional isn't a reason for having an article. Contrary to the comment above, I think the consensus at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) was pretty clear (i.e. with myself, @GiantSnowman and Fenix down: all stating that the article shouldn't be restored). Number 57 13:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No need to overturn at this time: Still fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, there is no evidence to pass WP:GNG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sources provided are merely local news reporting or routine match reporting which does not deal with the subject in significant detail. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify if his team has been promoted to a fully professional league with effect from next season then he will almost certainly play in a match in that league shortly after the season starts, which will make him notable. Hut 8.5 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Deletion was correct at the time, but new information has come to light. Whereas Tranmere has been promoted to League Two it is effectively inevitable that Andy Cook will play in a professional league in August, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I want to argue for a restore, but I can't. Typically with footballers we treat WP:NFOOTY as a sacred bright-line test. I think Cook is close to notability. There are several articles written about him, and he was one of the best players on what I believe is a fully professional team in a technically semi-pro league. Even though I think it's fine, these articles could also be attacked as WP:MILL as they're about his form or his new contract. That being said, we are probably within a two or three month span of knowing if he passes WP:NFOOTY which would put this debate to bed. Maybe slightly too soon to restore, but not by much. SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the underlying reasons for the deletion still apply. Cook still does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of labouring the point - that is a guideline..."...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convergencia Sindical (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted under section G11. The page was created as a stub by myself in 2006 as one of several hundred articles on national trade union organizations around the world in an effort to increase international labour presence on W. In speaking with the editor who tagged the page for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Largoplazo#Re:_Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Convergencia_Sindical) – the page had apparently devolved into a promotional page. This does not seem to be a reason for G11, but rather a need for editing or rollback of inappropriate edits. The Admin who executed the deletion entered the conversation but seemed to opine that if G11 was not appropriate then A7 would suffice. I’ve been away from W for a good number of years (although I still have the watchlist… :), but I am confident that national labour organizations qualify as notable.

Convergencia Sindical is a trade union centre in Panama. Ave Peru Final, Casa Np. 3936, Apartdao 10536, Zone 4, Panama City. Phone 507.225.6642 (from Trade Unions of the Word, ICTUR, John Harper) Bookandcoffee (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I've tempundeleted part of the history; right up to the point when somebody came along and turned it into Spanish, introduced the copyvio text, and turned it into a promotion. Up to that point, it was a stub, and possibly wouldn't have survived a pass through WP:AFD, but it certainly wasn't something that needed WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take long to turn up a few decent sources:

• https://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/sociedad/Convergencia-Sindical-ERE-Gobierno-Canarias_0_228877965.html
• http://www.pre-textos.com/escaparate/product_info.php?products_id=1463
• https://books.google.com/books?id=Sz9A1ZL4sToC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309
• https://books.google.com/books?id=ZAdZaqTetVsC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322
• http://cntpaldia.org/convergencia-sindical-en-reunion-regional-sindical

Maybe not good enough to pass WP:NCORP, but maybe so. Certainly good enough to get past WP:A7 by a longshot. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The original version of the article is "It's a...", pretty much the archetypal A7. However, it's my understanding that a discussion directly with the deleting admin is encouraged if not required before DRV. I would have no issue putting the non-spam versions of this in userspace or draft. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the spam/copyvio/Spanish issue could have been fixed by reverting to an earlier version, and I don't think that earlier version qualifies for speedy deletion. It doesn't say the subject is a trade union, it says it's a National trade union center, meaning a national-level federation of trade unions - something like the Trades Union Congress in the UK. That suggests it may well be one of the larger labour organisations in Panama, and I think it's enough to avoid A7. Hut 8.5 18:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Clearly far from being a case for either WP:G11 or WP:A7, or, for that matter, any other speedy deletion criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arif Butt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin has probably interpreted the consensus incorrectly by discarding keep votes completely while giving too much weightage to delete votes. The keep votes, which were based on relevant Wikipedia guidelines, were sidelined by delete votes that basically said fails WP:RS, WP:GNG were considered better arguments. The article is supported by these Dawn References, Brecorder Sources, TheNews, PakObserver,etc. In addition it is also supported by Urdu sources like this Jang_Source, Nawa_i_Waqt and Daily_Pakistan. I believe all these sources are reliable sources (in addition to many other sources mentioned in the deleted article) are sufficient to support WP:GNG. The result could have been no consensus or relist but it was not certainly a delete in haste. I also tried to take the matter to closing admin’s talkpage twice.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• talk page discussion 1 , talk page discussion 2. Essentially the sources were refuted and the balance of discussion after was delete. The only way I could have closed otherwise would be to ignore the voters and substitute a supervote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No new sources were added that were refuted by delete voters. Those who voted keep judged the same references.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I've looked through the first bunch you've listed here as the article is supported by, and they utterly trivial, none of them address the subject directly and in detail, they are mostly (if not entirely) mentioning in relation to his "job" or things he's said as part of his duties in his "job". i.e. the same coverage anyone in the same role would get, unless that role is inherently notable - it isn't - then these don't do anything to establish notability. This looks like you are just rehashing the failed arguments of the AFD something DRV is not for. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those mentions in Dawn,Brecorder,etc. are trivial by any means. Those sources are related almost entirely to subject, and his role/roles are notable. Dean, Director, VC, Professor_Emeritus.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we are here to reargue the afd as already noted, but I'm happy to be humored. Take the dawn reference you mention as supporting the article [4] or the one your specify here [5]. I'd be fascinated if you can point out any biographical at all in those which are about the subject, let alone covering him, directly and in detail - you know as the GNG requires. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These references [6], [7], Brecorder does address the subject, infact he is mentioned in the main topic. I don't get the super-skepticism over these sources and the strict interpretation of GNG.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it then in the two refrences I mention which you've previously stood by you can't point out any biographical information addressing the subject directly and in detail. Let's try the same with Brecorder you just mention. Can you show me 3 sentences in that which are in some way biographical about the subject of the article? There is no super-skepticism or strict interpretation, it's the standard interpretation as laid out, it's no one else fault the sources are all trivial and are not *about* the subject. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact let's not be super-strict, forget three sentences, how about two sentences in that source which are biographical, addressing the subject directly and in detail? ---81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, adresses the subject, more than a trivial mention and infact doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material (which is also mentioned in main topic here). Now if you are to impose your super-strict interpretation on GNG, then we may play semantics all day long.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be shy the GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", I haven't asked you for these articles to be the main topic, I've aske you for two sentences which cover the subject - that's a huge leap to suggest any article which covers one subject in two sentences of it has then become the main topic. But ok, I'm a reasonable person, take that same article again Brecorder and give me even one sentence, which address the subject here with some level of detail (i.e. more than just staging the job title), you know something which tells me about the person themselves, not about something the person has said. No doubt you'll see that as some super strict interpretation, "what GNG wants the articles to actually talk about the subject of the article?". I'l note the example of a trivial mention given by WP:GNG and I don't think what you've shown here even reaches that level --81.108.53.238 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But these references [8], [9], [10] do give significant coverage to the article and these sources are almost entirely related to him, infact the subject is mentioned in the main heading. Significant coverage means, more than a trivial mention. WP:Trivial mention;

A footnote indicates the meaning of trivial mention using an example: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

Now comparing this with the sources mentioned related to the article, if somebody think those are trivial, then I think that's wrong. I think, there's no point quarreling over this further, lets agree to disagree and humbly respect each other's opinions. Lets allow others to participate as well.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this, they are trivial, they do not address the subject directly and in detail - you have been asked across multiple of your sources to show even 1 sentence which covers the subject to some level of detail, not just mentioning there name and job title. That you apparently can't do that, should be telling you that these do not cover the subject directly and in detail. So yes you are right this is telling you exactly what's wrong, your ability to actually comprehend the article tell you absolutely nothing about this subject. Your are right there is no point in debating this further since you just stick your fingers in your ears and apparently refuse to listen. "lets agree to disagree and humbly respect each other's opinions" -Huh? isn't that why we are here in the first place, you couldn't respect the consensus of opinions at AFD who told you what you are being told here? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are entirely related to the subject, the sources even record 2 or 3 paragraphs addressed by the subject. I don't think these are trivial mentions. And about not respecting consensus; I brought this up at DRV because the arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"related to the subect" "addressed by the subject" - how about address the subject directly and in detail, which as we've discussed in the actual standard. And why not quote directly one of those sentences here showing that it addresses the in some level of detail, i.e. not just mentioning their name and job title? As you've been repeatedly asked to do. It's not a vote count and wikipedia works to a standard of rough consensus, arguments which are weak etc. get given lower or even no weight in the discussion. So if I say had !voted for "keep - well known jazz pianist", then I would expect it to be challenged and when I failed to produce any sources given no weight - or quite likely given little to no weight because it's not what the article says at all. Likewise if someone keeps on claiming the sources help him meet WP:GNG when challenged about them just keeps blustering and failing to produce anything to show that the sources cover him directly and in detail, then those arguments are likely to be given little or no weight. At this stage absent you actually producing some new sources which do cover the subject directly and in detail and you being able to quote a sentence which is about the subject not merely saying their job title and mentioning their name, there is little point in me continuing to engage in this debate, it should be totally apparent to you what I'm asking so anything else will be seen by whoever closes this for what it is. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think that those sources discuss the subject directly, as he is even mentioned in the main heading of news. Talking about significant coverage, I think the issue is coverage here. I think coverage can mean any coverage related to the subject. There's no specificity attached in GNG. Also the entire line reads that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. I don't think that the sources I shared in this thread are non-trivial as there are paragrapghs attributed or related to subject. So, in a nutshell, we basically have a difference of opinion on this, no big issue. That's healthy, as it may be good for better making of wikipedia rules in the future and better explaining of some terms. I was thinking about discussing this issue on some forum, but i think it was possible if this issue was brought up before the article was AFDed as now it would seem to disrupt this DRV.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do not discuss the subject, since they say pretty much nothing about him, there is no discussion. (You might want to look that word up in the the dictionary, since you apparently don't understand it). Being mentioned in the title isn't discussion, being in the title isn't talking about someone or something in detail. The specificity in GNG for the nth time "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" - where is the detail? If the GNG meant any old mention of the persons name, it would say that, if it meant any coverage even vaguely related to the subject, then it would say that. You know if doesn't say that, it says addressed the subject directly and in detail. So for the nth time, show me even one sentence in those which discuss the subject directly and in detail, not just mention his name and job title. You are still struggling to do that and still just responding with bluster. You interpret the GNG against the plain and simple meaning, you interpret the GNG against what everyone is telling you. Please continue to delude yourself on this until the DRV is closed giving your opinion on the matter no weight. Either that or actually accept what people are telling you here and have been telling you and find the sources which actually will help establish notability. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bring it to ANI or COIN - Ma'az has failed to link the discussion he had with Spartaz, and Ma'az has shown perfect example of WP:IDHT during the discussion. The creation of this article was itself very suspicious. Ma'az registered on 7 Novmeber and already created this article. On 8 November, David.moreno72 had declined AFC of Ma'az, Draft:Arif Butt,[11] but it was soon recreated by Ma'az and accepted by Samee.[12] Samee had re-activated his account after 6 months of inactivity and accepted a few non-notable articles of Ma'az through AFCs.

Ma'az has no idea how AfD works and it has been seen before as well.[13] I am seeing this to be either an issue of WP:CIR or deep WP:COI that Ma'az is frequently attempting to prove this non-notable subject a notable with his forumshopping. This matter needs to be better solved out at ANI or COIN. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite bizarre to say the least. I see no point of such a comment on this forum. If you want to go to other noticeboards, then you would've gone there. I think, the point of such comments is probably to sway the conversation on another tangent, so that the purpose of this review is lost. Also, it could be a way of intimidating me, i.e an indirect way of saying that "if you don't follow wikipedia the way I want you to follow, I'll try to impose sanctions upon you,etc." This is absolutely terrible, and the way of sugar-coating it with Wikipedia terms like IDHT, providing diffs as if trying to show that we are v.clever and we are only following wikipedia rules,etc. Here, we are talking about WP:GNG, and just an article. This is an absolute abnormal reaction. No normal wikipedian thinks or behaves like this. When a normal wikipedian sees an article in which he finds mistakes, he just corrects it, or on an AFD/DRV, he just gives his opinion relating to the article and moves on. No wikipedian thinks like this. This is all stemming from the fact that I were invloved with some AFDs and content dispute in some Pakistan-Indian related articles [14] [15] [16]. And that's the exact reason, I was trying to tell the admin on his talkpage, that the content dispute may have a factor on this AfD. Anyways, I actually didn't want to get involve in this too much but, the same people with which you had content dispute, their votes coming in at the 11th hour of the AfD one after another, I think, even if somebody is least skeptic would think that there could be something going on like sabotage, WP:Votestacking,etc. So I also had some reasons of bringing these things to noticeboard but I believe in assuming good faith and ignored these things. Not to mention, that the same user took me to SPI before on more or less of the same reason [17]. Why can't he say in simple words that he want me to be blocked. Coming to his evidences related to my article. Yes, i created the draft of the article; is creating a draft a crime on wikipedia? Is defending an article, DRV,etc. a crime on Wikipedia? If you think, its a crime, than you can take me to ANI as many times as you like. If you think my article is not notable,etc. you can easily AfD,CSD it,etc. Wikipedian is a free encyclopedia and the policies are user friendly. You should try to target edits instead of targetting users. Exaggerated reactions against users is seen as harassment, which is infact a crime on wikipedia.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have again failed to address why you are being obsessed with a non-notable subject. DRV is not for repeating AFD's argument and trying your luck for rescuing a totally redundant article. "normal wikipedian" do get over the clear outcome and drops the stick. But that's not you. You have been disruptive in AFDs for a long time now which is becoming concerning. That was the point. You think that we edit same articles yet you are sbocked when we edit same AFD. Makes no sense. Same can be said for you that you canvassed "keep" voters but they were contrary to policy and looked disruptive, while "delete" votes were opposite. AGF is not a suicide pact, using "AGF" as a scapegoat for your disruptive attitude is not even a good idea. Your above bludgeoning shows you are fighting tooth and nail over a non-notable article. Such battleground mentality is not going to help you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, same can be said about you; why are you being so obsessed by this article? And I'm not obsessed by this article, I just think that its notable. These are just all the Dawn References (atleast 12) [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] there are also brecorder,thenews,pakobserver sources,etc. And i brough it to DRV because the arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus. And your allegations are feeling quite personal now. First it was SPI, then you intimidated of ANI, COI,etc. now making absolute baseless allegations about disruptive AfDs and canvassing, also using emotionally loaded wikipedia terms like battleground mentality, all this is equivalent of saying Don't involve yourself in content dispute with Indian-related articles otherwise I will disparage you, intimidate and threaten you by imposing sanctions upon you, and will try to make wikipedia extremely unpleasant for you. This is all so wrong, and I hope sanity prevails in the end. I'm all for things like truth, justice,objectivity ASSUMING GOOD FAITH,etc. and against injustice,assuming bad faith and deception.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse based on the reading of the AfD, the closer's decision was proper and reasoned. Several of the Keep votes did not argue properly, and Delete arguments had the ability to look through the provided sourcing to influence their vote. SportingFlyer talk 21:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus. Honestly, don't you think relist or No consensus is a better option.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I have stated my position - my reading of the AfD would have been the same as the closer's, and I have no interest in arguing about it any further. Wikipedia is not a democracy. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse fair reading of the discussion. The argument that the subject meets the GNG has been pretty thoroughly rebutted, and the sources linked above are clearly not examples of significant coverage of the subject. Some people tried to argue that "professor emeritus" constitutes a distinguished professor appointment, when in fact it just means he's retired. That leaves the argument that he meets WP:PROF as the vice-chancellor of a university, which is rather dubious as it appears to be an acting position. Given that I don't see how a close other than Delete is possible. Hut 8.5 18:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are atleast 12 DAWN references that i found [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] which i think are sufficient for passing GNG in addition to pakobserver,brecorder sources,etc. And about criteria 5 of Academic, the Emeritus thing, it reads an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Emeritus is not common in Pakistan and that's the exact argument that @ElKevbo: made on the AfD. About criteria 6, it was discussed in detail in talkpage of article, which is deleted now, the general standards, newly appointed post on vacant seat, PU system, etc. all suggested that it should be simply referred to as VC and that was also the final long-standing version of the article. Anyways, I'm sticking to GNG for now to avoid taking the discussion on another tangent, as I think GNG is a strong argument for this article in itself.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG requires that at least one or two sources have to cover the subject directly and in detail. It must be more than a passing mention and it must devote a substantial amount of text to the subject himself - I'd say at least a few paragraphs. Take [42] which is in your list above. The only coverage of the subject there is "chemical engineering and technology Prof Arif Butt...briefed the governor on the development of their faculties". That's not significant coverage of the subject, his name is only mentioned in passing as part of a long list of other people. Or take [43]. This only reported that the subject attended funeral prayers, along with a long list of other people. That's not significant coverage of the subject either. Or take [44] where he's mentioned as part of a long list of people who attended a meeting. Or take [45] where he's namechecked as the person who authorised some offices to be sealed. I could go on but I don't think that any of those sources is enough to qualify, even if Dawn is a reliable source. To meet the GNG you need to find a source which covers the subject in more depth.
If you think that being a professor emeritus in Pakistan is equivalent to being a named professor in other countries then you'll need to provide evidence. Judging from [46] it appears to have a similar status to other places, and it's possible that just by being an acting vice-chancellor who was a professor before appointment he gets the title anyway. Hut 8.5 10:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt some of the sources i shared have trivial mentions. But there are also those that have non-trivial mentions like: [47] (the main news attirbuted to the subject), [48] (3 or 4 paragraphs related to subject), [49] (entire news related to subject), [50] (2-3 paragraphs), [51] (all news related to subject, also mentioned in main heading). I think these are significant and subject should pass GNG. And about the second point, yes, you shared the "HEC" source. I think HEC is the same body that nominates VCs and Emeritus, so its a reliable source. The subject is Professor Emeritus, and I think you and this discussion seems to imply that the subject passes criteria 5, therefore he passes subject specific guidelines and passes WP:N. So, would you not reconsider?  M A A Z   T A L K  20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source has to actually be about the subject or devote substantial coverage to the subject, not just mentioning him prominently. [52] is about a decision to announce some new programmes at the university, it mentions in passing that the subject announced it. This is not significant coverage of the subject. [53] is again a report of something the subject announced. [54] just reports that the subject was at a meeting and was part of a delegation, which isn't significant coverage either. [55] is a very brief report of something else the subject said. This newspaper's willingness to report minor administrative announcements at the university makes me think they may well be recycled press releases in which case they'd be effectively worthless. [56] also looks like this. I don't see how the link I posted demonstrates that "professor emeritus" is equivalent to a named chair or distinguished professor appointment, and you haven't offered any further reasoning as to why. Hut 8.5 20:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that mention them together and my reading of these sources do suggest an equivalent position. [57] [58] [59]. Anyways, I think we can forget about this issue now, as its obvious where this DRV is heading, and I might be blamed of Bludgeoning again. No further comments by me here.  M A A Z   T A L K  15:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Smells like WP:BLUDGEON from the contesting editor. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if you see it that way. Actually, the DRV was becoming a little personal, so I sort of had to reply something. And as far as discussing guidelines are concerned, I think, it was a healthy discussion and adds to our knowledge and experience. Happy Editing :)  M A A Z   T A L K  15:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A correct reading of the debate, after a valid discounting of those parts of the keep !votes that were based on a misreading of guidelines. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated for deletion and merged over one year ago. However, the subject has received an additional wave of press coverage because a second bust of Cristiano Ronaldo was created by the same artist. There are now two original works of art that have received significant secondary press coverage. I've tried expanding the article further, and asked one particular editor for help getting the community to reassess notability, but the article keeps getting redirected, and I don't know what other options I have. I'd be fine with someone renominating the article again for deletion, but Number 57 seems to prefer redirecting and advising me to "[do] something productive". See Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Merge and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Public_Art#Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo for related discussions. If this is not the correct use of this venue, I do apologize, but I don't know what else to do at this point. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse merge This was recently discussed at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport#Update 2 (a discussion conveniently not mentioned above) and there was clearly no consensus to reinstate the article. Number 57 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Honung (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I think this deletion was done in error since Rosa Honung is one of the more known indie labels, not just because their production[60] that includes artists such as Asta Kask, Mob 47, Strebers, Radioaktiva räker, Livin' Sacrifice, Incest Brothers and The Troggs among others. Rosa Honung is also notable for their controversial business practices such as registering a band name as a trademark and refusing the band to use it.[61][62] The admin deleting the article also claimed "all references are dead links" and that I believe is incorrect. Wikipedia defines an important indie label as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" and Rosa Honung matches that. // Liftarn (talk)

• The four sources in the article were [63], [64], [65], and youtube, and yes, the first three are all dead. The third was even still tagged {{Död länk}}. —Cryptic 14:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still available via Wayback Archive[66] and other sources are still alive like [67] and [68] and so on. They are used in the Swedish version of the article, sv:Rosa Honung. // Liftarn (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you decline to put them in the article? Deb (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some trigger happy admin deleted the article before I had time to do that. // Liftarn (talk)

• I have a hard time believing this is one of the better-known indie labels. Book searches are turning up very little. I'm having problems seeing the sources provided (pay wall?) Hobit (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish label so you would probably have to look at Swedish sources (but they did have an international subsidiary called Pink Honey Records that published both Swedish bands as well as some obscure US metal band called Kiss[69]). They pay wall can be bypassed by going via the Wayback Machine.[70][71][72] There is at least one book used as source.[73] // Liftarn (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think suggesting the link to Kiss is somewhat misleading. The other stuff published by Pink Honey seems pretty limited, i.e. they published one Kiss album, and according to discogs it was an unofficial release, according to the link you gave it's a bootleg... --81.108.53.238 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:A7. A7 says, If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. The article (which I've tempundeleted) says that the label has published records from a half-dozen bluelinked artists. I don't know if that's enough to get past AfD, but it should be enough to get past A7. This has been A7'd three times, but never gotten a real review at AfD, which it deserves. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just point out that it also says The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. The creator wasn't been able to make any credible claim or supply any helpful references when I asked, and none of the bluelinked articles except The Troggs contained any evidence of meeting the notability criteria for musicians. Glad to see that User:Liftarn has finally started making improvements to these articles in the last few days. Hopefully he will be able to clean up the main article as well - note that it was not I who protected it, nor did I request for that to be done. Deb (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not entirely true. // Liftarn (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion per RoySmith. Publishing records by one or more notable artists is a sufficient claim of significance. There is no reason to assume that this claim is clearly non-credible. The idea that "sources are dead" is a reason to delete is problematic when sources are not even required to pass A7. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that significant improvements have been made - both to this and to the linked articles - by the creator and others since this discussion started. We have moved well past the stage where "overturn" has any meaning. If the article had been in its present state when I deleted it, or if the creator had been willing to supply genuine references instead of expecting others to hunt for them on Swedish wikipedia, the course of events would have been completely different. Supplying misleading "references", as he did, is worse than not supplying any. Deb (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the deleted version showed that several notable artists was published by the label. // Liftarn (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it did not show any such thing. Deb (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and take to AfD The fact that the links are dead does not mean the claim is not credible. Is it enough for notability? Probably not, but it's enough to get past CSD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion and salting was wrong and violating WP:OZD , WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR

The salting is ridiculous as the reason cited repeated deletions from over a decade ago when he was not notable.

I created this article after discussing with the Administrator that deleted it after the 3rd AFD that the subject had become notable after that AFD. He agreed and I worked to recreate it. He is even more notable now.

Then this AFD happens. I heard about this AFD after the deletion was already done. From what I can see other people who worked on the article were not notified either. Nobody in the AFD process bothered to do WP:BEFORE and a discussion never took place. The article could easily have been improved but nobody bothered. When I spoke with the Administrator who deleted it and asked him to restore the AFD for a discussion he gave ridiculous answers. You can read them at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April#Article_Joseph_Steinberg.

This whole AFD is ridiculous. The article is about someone who clearly meets all 4 of the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR not just 1. Nobody did WP:BEFORE and looked how many times he is cited by peers and others, what books he wrote, or how many articles have been written about him and his work. All of this was left out of the AFD.

Here is from WP:AUTHOR:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. ¡This article is about someone who is extremely widely cited by peers and the media. There are probably millions of quotations from his articles in other articles. I provided the deleting Administrator the example of one of his articles that appears to have been quoted from over 12,000 times. A Google search, Google news search, on his name with various topics related to his field shows this clearly!

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. ¡His inventions are cited by other inventors in almost 200 patent filings as can be seen on his Google Scholar page!

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ¡He is the author of several books including the official textbook used by senior people in his field to study for certification exams that also goes back to point #1 above and he has written probably a thousand articles in his field that are frequently quoted!

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ¡His books are in every major library related to his field!

All of this can be seen in WP:RS. This deletion is ridiculous and the AFD was not handled right. It should be reversed or at least the AFD should be reopened for a discussion by people willing to actually look at the facts and work on the article. The people who worked on the article should be notified too. Thetechgirl (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn salting and permit recreation I think it is pretty clear that Steinberg is in fact notable, and the AfD result was mistaken. However, the AfD was procedurally correct, and on the discussion could not have been closed as anything other than keep. No WP:BEFORE search was described in the nom, but none was asked for, and I do not know what search was in fact done. But to salt based in large part on prior noms in 2007 and 2006 is not reasonable, and the salting should be overturned. The deleted version did not establish Steinberg's notability as clearly as it might have done. Permit the deleted version to be draftified for improvement, and moved back to mainspace once notability is more clearly established. Failing that, permit a new draft from scratch. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Keep – It does seem that the way that this AfD was conducted did violate WP:RULES, as WP:BEFORE is not optional (“Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: A. B. C. D.”), and, it seems pretty clear that that someone who properly performed the steps in WP:BEFORE would not have nominated this article for deletion due to a lack of notability, certainly not without providing some reason as to why the many reliable sources that result from a Google search do not establish notability. Either way, as both parties said above, it is pretty clear that the subject is notable (easily passes WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE for the reasons stated above). This article should be restored and improved. Also, it is wrong to SALT for repeated deletions based on eleven- and twelve-year-old AfDs about a living person whose notability appears to have been achieved in the last few years. Jersey92 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it interesting, that people who complain about people not doing WP:BEFORE don't seem to consider the fact that perhaps the person did do it but didn't find anything worthy of considering as being independent, and significant. I don't find anything from the google search that would count as being a source for GNG, and it is likely I wouldn't even address them because nothing significant is there to address - I would hope that say the linkedin and inc profiles are self-evidently non-independent, and hits in the byline are self-evidently non-significant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, for your certainly not without providing some reason as to why the many reliable sources that result from a Google search do not establish notability, this: Most of the sources seem to be articles that he himself wrote. Very little if any independent sources to support notability. from the nom covers it that I see Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about??? There are thousands of his peers citing his articles that show up in Google searches and many major media publications citing his articles as well. As a writer he is notable if he is "is widely cited by peers or successors" and IN LESS THAN 1 MINUTE OF DOING GOOGLE SEARCHES I FOUND MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS of citations like that. And as a writer of course most of the stuff that shows up on the first few pages is from him but a search with other keywords shows many people citing him. Did you bother to check? Here is one example: [74] Do you see 12,600 results? On the first pages there are mixed from him and citations after that they are almost all citations in articles, books and video. Please look into this again.--Thetechgirl (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see anything procedurally wrong with the AfD. Also, I don't always talk about a WP:BEFORE search when I nominate articles, but it does not mean I have not performed one. Furthermore, and I think this is off topic but since others have brought it up, my own WP:BEFORE search here brings up a LinkedIn page, his inc.com account, his own personal webpage, and several links to an urologist and a billionaire, so I may have nominated it had I come across it. I have no problems with allowing someone to create a new draft, though, but I have my doubts about WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do this search [75] or ANY others on ANY topics about which he has written? How many times does someone have to be cited to be considered "widely cited by his peers" per WP:AUTHOR? Did you check the links that you cited? His "inc.com account" as you called is a column which is what writers have not an account. Seriously??? You are ignoring evidence that is sitting on the Internet in plain site. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion- Ultimately, when you have two editors in good standing considering the available sources and finding them insufficient, on an article that's been deleted several times for the same problems previously, and without anyone arguing it should be kept-- I think it's very obvious that the correct close was performed. Also support salting; ordinarily I'd have no strong opinion about whether it should remain salted but, given the attacks on the closing admin, the wikilawyerish BEFORE-thumping, and the fact that all previous incarnations of this article were promotorials I do now strongly support salting it. Allowing it to be re-created would just lead to more disruption and wasted time. Reyk _YO! 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that we should ignore whether the article belongs in Wikipedia but decide based on the feelings of editors. Seriously??? This whole discussion is ridiculous. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't what I said. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, two people is not a huge consensus for an AfD, even if both are experienced users. You have experienced users here saying that Steinberg is in fact notable. Note that when notability is established via WP:CREATIVE, the sources may not be such as would fit the classic WP:GNG mode, but be of value noen the less. In that case the things that the subject has written (or drawn or painted or otherwise created) become very significant, provided that they have been cited or otherwise regarded as significant by reliable sources. I for one have been careful not to do BEFORE-thumping although i did raise the issue of what turned up in a BEFORE search. The results of a discussion such as this should not mdepend on they style of argument used, but on the facts displayed. Thetechgirl a bit less stridency here might be more persuasive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As closer, I stand by my closure, based on the unanimous AfD, the threee previous deletions, and the fact that even after the deletion, when asked to provide the best sources about the subject at User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April#Article Joseph Steinberg, the DRV nominator did not provide any references to any substantial coverage of the subject whatsoever. Sandstein 07:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did and you chose to ignore them and 3 even had his name in the headline. Also, as an WP:AUTHOR he needs to be widely cited, not have articles written about him. Read WP:AUTHOR. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and salting closure is of course fine, per Reyk. Endorse salting per there seems to be some tendentiousness here, promotion, and quite a bit of canvassing at the previous AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep I should’ve put these words in my original listing. Either reopen the AFD for discussion or keep the article and work to improve it. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, Keep, And Improve The Article

Hi. I haven’t edited in a while, but I did work on this piece a while back. Thank you for notifying me about this discussion.

It appears to me as if there are two groups involved in this discussion: One is quickly saying delete because the AfD procedure was correct and the article was deleted 3x in the past, and the other which is actually spending time to look into the details of the matter and saying not to delete because the procedure was improper and/or Steinberg is clearly notable.

I just spent an hour looking into this. (I have a little guilt for using Wikipedia and not volunteering for a long time.)

Here are my conclusions:

Steinberg is clearly notable. If you look into the matter there is zero question about this.

If you look at criteria #1 listed above for authors it is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

1) If you do a recent Google News search on Steinberg’s name 1 you will see that his opinion column on his personal website is carried ->as news<- by Google News. This is an example of being cited and his opinion being regarded as important as Google News rarely cites opinion columns and does so only when they are of importance.

2) If you search you will find that all of his social media accounts are verified by the major social media companies. It is obvious from this that others in the technology field regard him with importance. Looking at his Twitter I see that he has 112,000 followers which is another sign. 2

3) Google searches turn up a lot of Wikipedia Reliable Sources quoting him multiple times as an "expert", including BBC, Newsweek, Reuters, CNBC, Fox, CNN, USA Today, Business Insider, Forbes, Inc. and many technical publications and blogs. This also points to "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I am listing a few examples here but there are many more: 3 4 5 4 67

4) His articles are quoted in research papers from known institutes. For example: 8

5) Some more search information: A search on Joseph Steinberg turns up 416,000 results 9, of course not all are about him and some are from his own site, but many are major Wikipedia Reliable Sources quoting him as an expert (and they describe him as an expert), news reports of him being appointed to the boards of several companies (example: 10), sites listing him as a top cybersecurity expert to follow on social media (example: 11) and announcements by various cybersecurity and other shows of his speaking there (example 12 13). Of course there are also many pieces written by him but that is not a problem because it is exactly what we should expect would happen for a writer.

6) A search on his name and cybersecurity turns up many results, including an IBM website that has him as a guest writer and states that he is an expert. 14 15

7) As described earlier in this discussion, a search on his name and heartbleed shows over 12,000 results. 16

8) A search on his name and smartgun shows his writing quoted in the media and government documents about 100 times. 17

9) Steinberg’s name also appears in the headlines of several pieces including one in Forbes.18

10) A Google Scholar search shows him cited 199 times! 19 (That on its own probably meets criteria #2 above (" The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.") combined with the others this should be obvious notability.)

11) I did a bunch of other such searches on topics that he wrote about and he is cited the same way there.

If we all agree that being cited tens or hundreds of thousands of times is "widely cited" then it is an objective fact that he is widely cited. This is not open to debate unless you consider tens or even hundreds of thousands of times cited not to be widely cited and I think that would fit the word of the nominator of "ridiculous".

So:

He obviously meets the Wikipedia standard for WP:AUTHOR notability. And those who say otherwise seem to be basing their opinions on false claims about search results.

Also, this discussion should not be a personal fight between editors or about deletions from 11/12 years ago, or about whether editors did the right thing. The questions now are: I)) Does the article that was there belong in Wikipedia II)) If the article was bad and does not belong should Wikipedia prevent any article from being created about Steinberg or should a new one be written

I feel the answer to #1 is Yes.

Even if the answer to #1 is No, the answer to #2 is for sure No.

So:

Overturn And Keep and for sure Do Not Salt but if the piece was not good enough as is let’s fix it.

One more note on this topic:

You are entitled to disagree with my opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. If you are writing that a Google search turns up just pages that Steinberg wrote or anything similar then you are saying something that is ->objectively false<- and your opinion based on false information should be ignored by the Administrator who closes out this discussion. It's not good faith if someone provides you with sources and you ignore them. DoctorBob3 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The most recent afd had relatively few comments, but the earlier ones had abundant discussion. The decisions was rational: being quoted is not enough for notability . Writing a column can be, if there is substantial discussion of it, rather than just reprinting it, but I do not think this has been demonstrated. I doubt there's any other probable notability--WP:PROF is not remotely met--there's one technical book only. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted is not enough, but being "widely cited by peers or successors" is. It is the first thing listed in WP:AUTHOR as two people pointed out above, and, as was pointed out by the user DoctorBob3, it is not debatable that he is widely cited. People cite him because they care what he thinks. They do not write about him personally because they do not care what he wears or who he dates. He is a writer who produces influential pieces, not a Kardashian going to the Met Gala.--Jersey92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But he is Kim Kardashian's cybersecurity adviser![76] [77]. These are also more sources about him. Thetechgirl (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse deletion and salting- As the nominator, of the XfD I support the result. Not even sure where to begin here, as there are a lot of things claimed in this discussion that are simply not true. First, the claim by User:Thetechgirl "I heard about this AFD after the deletion was already done." That's simply not true. She was notified on April 13 when the AfD opened [78]. Between that time and April 29 when the discussion was closed she logged in at least twice and participated in another AfD [79]. Being that the notice was on her talk page, she should have known, why she chose not to participate, I do not know. Perhaps, because she planned on recreating the article after it was deleted just like last time? That's why the salting was requested, the subject was already determined to be not notable three times and yet the articles lives on.
  

Second, a BEFORE search was performed and I determined that everything on this guy is either self-published or just articles where they have a few quotes from him. He was quoted by Forbes (or CNN, or fill in the blank) is not notability. As per WP:BASIC, there needs to be in-depth coverage of him, he has to be the subject of multiple articles and this was not met. A lot of the keep arguments above a based on Google hits, that is not an indicator of notability eithier.

Third, there seems to be a canvassing effort going on here: [80] [81] [82]--Rusf10 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rusf10's opinion seems to be based on false accusations that he made against another editor - I am starting to see why Thetechgirl called this discussion ridiculous. You accused Thetechgirl of lying, and it is clear from the logs that you are the one not telling the truth. There is no record of her doing anything during the AfD process, and no record of her participating in another AfD during the AfD process. You accused her of canvassing, but the accounts that were canvassed were all editors who worked on the article. WP:PEOPLE states:

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:

Adding the cleanup biography template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.

Rewriting it yourself

Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You were supposed to go to those people and did not, so Thetechgirl did, and then you complain of canvassing and accuse her of lying? I normally assume good faith, but with the false claims made about the lack of sources and the false claims about Thetechgirl, I am starting to wonder. The result of this discussion should be to Overturn and Keep as those who actually present true facts and not false facts in their arguments are saying. Salting should be out of the question. Jersey92 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See response below--Rusf10 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AfD itself and the closure was fine. Although it was brief the article has been previously deleted three times at AfD, most recently in 2014 (which has hardly "over a decade ago" as claimed). That leaves whether significant information has some to light which justifies revisiting the issue, and I don't think it has. I don't see any evidence that the subject meets WP:BASIC, which is the main thing to consider. The sources cited in the deleted article were all either written by the subject himself or were cases where the subject was cited/quoted briefly in an article about something else. I'm not seeing anything substantially better presented here either (if there's some fantastic source I've missed then feel free to point it out). The other claim is that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. This isn't usually considered as important as meeting WP:BASIC (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included). Furthermore the evidence for meeting WP:AUTHOR is largely that the subject is frequently quoted in the news media on technology subjects, which is pretty thin. Given the repeated deletions on notability grounds I suggest any proponents come up with a draft which they think convincingly demonstrates the notability of the subject and bring it here for review. Hut 8.5 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What I said above was that But to salt based in large part on prior noms in 2007 and 2006 is not reasonable, and the salting should be overturned. The first two nominations were in 2006 and 2007, which is "over a decade ago". If those are discounted, there is only one previous nomination, which does not make a strong case for salting. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the editor who deleted after the third AfD agreed that the article could be recreated and he would not nominate for deletion, and most of the notability happened after that point anyway. User_talk:Nick/Archive15#Article:_"Joseph_Steinberg" Jersey92 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at it another way: it's been deleted twice at AfD in recent years. That would in itself be reasonable grounds for salting. Salting doesn't mean nobody can create another article, it just puts the burden of proof onto the people who think the article is appropriate, instead of having another discussion every few years because someone feels like it. We are generally pretty lax about letting people recreate deleted articles as long as they deal with the reason that the page is deleted, which didn't happen here. If an article is deleted too many times though people shouldn't be surprised if the title gets salted. Hut 8.5 06:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted 2 times 1 time when the Admin said it should be recreated and 1 time when the editors who worked on it were not notified.Thetechgirl (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Overturn and Keep: A. After seeing the AfD nominator Rusf10 make false accusations against about the creator of the article Thetechgirl, and seeing many false claims above about a lack of WP:RS, I changed this to strong as I am even more suspicious now that the AfD process was improper. B. I am not sure why people are having a hard time understanding WP:AUTHOR. Different kinds of people become notable with different criteria. For example. There can be zero sources about someone other than he served a state legislature 150 years ago and we consider the person notable, we don't need articles with significant coverage because he meets WP:POLITICIAN even without it, and we do not delete because of WP:GNG. There can be zero sources about someone other than general records that he played one game of fully professional baseball 100 years ago and he is considered notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE, and we do not delete because of WP:GNG. Authors become notable by the criteria in WP:AUTHOR, they don't need substantial coverage about them in addition, and if they meet WP:AUTHOR we don't delete because of WP:GNG. C. This article appears to have been deleted with some degree of bad faith and the subject is clearly notable. I apologize for bolding and italicizing this but I think it is very important for people to see these points. I am done with this discussion, as I am on a reduced Wikipedia schedule and whatever time I have for Wikipedia I will use for productive editing and not arguing. Jersey92 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jersey92:, the extended bold content is really obnoxious and unnecessary. I have not made any false accusations. Fact #1: TheTechGirl was notified of the AfD on the very same day the discussion started April 13[83] Fact #2: The discussion closed on April 29 Fact #3: Her contributions log prove she was active between those dates [84], so I'd have to believe she saw the red icon at the top of her screen telling her she had a message on her talk page Fact #4: Twice first on April 20 and again on April 24, she participated in another AfD. She received proper notification and btw when I nominate an article for AfD, I am not required to notify anyone, but I always do notify the creator as a courtesy. And about canvassing, if she was going to notify anyone else she should have at least notified myself (and the other participant in the AfD) about the DRV too, not just people who would support her position. I just happened to stumble across it when I went to DRV to look at something else. Your comments above accusing me of not telling the truth are clearly wrong, so please strike them.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not strike them because you did falsely accuse an editor of lying, and your proof that she was active during an AfD last month is a link to an AfD from last year. Please do not tag me or respond to me here. I am done with this discussion. I believe the AfD process was flawed from the start, and that you either have a WP:COI or were careless in doing the WP:BEFORE the same way you were careless in accusing her now. I am bolding to make sure this point is seen by all. Jersey92 (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jersey92:, my mistake with the dates, I apologize. When I saw the contribution log with April 24 and April 30 right next to each other, I did not realize the years were different. I have struck parts of my comments above.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. But now please put back the article because the deletion and salting was wrong and violating WP:OZD , WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR. Thetechgirl (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In spite of my vote above, it seems procedurally like there's only one answer: to endorse the closing. There was nothing wrong with Sandstein's judgment, and the closer was within their rights to not undelete the page. However, given the fact this has turned into an extension of an AfD, I wonder if the best thing to do is to have someone draftify it and have it go through the full review process from the beginning. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Salt and Overturn Delete. The subject is a textbook case of someone notable as an author or creative which is why we have relevant guidelines explained in WP:AUTHOR rather than just always applying broad general notability guidelines. Jersey92 explained this well above, even if Jersey92 should not have bolded paragraphs. Most of this discussion should have happened during the AfD, but if nobody that edited the article received notification by the AfD nom it seems reasonable that it is happening here. Everyone stop the mudslinging and assume good faith. Rusf10 was wrong to falsely accuse Thetechgirl of dishonesty, but I’d bet he messed up because he read 2017 as 2018, and not because of a WP:COI. He also messed up big time on WP:BEFORE and WP:DP which could have been brought up in the AfD if relevant editors were notified. The salt should obviously be removed as there is only one recent delete which the closing Admin stated the subject was borderline notable already and later agreed to a recreate after the subject's notability increased. The article should be kept as it is a textbook case of a notable author. At this point in the discussion with the sources listed above this should be obvious and it isn't borderline either. If you think the article is promotional go fix it. There are more than enough sources from which to do so. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I checked WP:BASIC and it clearly states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the section with WP:AUTHOR begins "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." The number of "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" in this case is very high so he meets WP:BASIC in addition to WP:AUTHOR. I wanted to remove myself from this conversation but I came across another WP:BASIC discussion today that reminded me to recheck the wording. I am sorry for overbolding before. Jersey92 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Process and Rome Criteria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Rome Process and Rome Criteria page that I was working on for many hours was deleted from my sandbox without any notice. It was content about a well-established internationally known process to develop diagnostic criteria (in the medical field) that's been around a long time but there's no information about it on Wikipedia. I provided multiple credible references. I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about--telling the history of processes etc, especially those that don't have a story that's told yet. The Rome Process/criteria helps diagnose people with functional gastrointestinal disorders, thus people with this condition would be very much interested in this information. I spent a long time writing this and would like to know: 1.) the reasons why it was deleted 2.) if there is anything that can be changed so that it would be accepted 3.) if I can at least have the content back that I worked on for many hours. Also I'm curious to know which of these expert Wikipedia administrators can answer these questions: 1.) Can you tell me why other medical conditions are accepted as appropriate content here and not this condition (as I have seen MANY other medical conditions included on Wikipedia)? 2.)Are functional GI disorders not considered as important as other conditions? 3.) Could you justify that it's not important to someone who actually suffers from functional GI disorders? 4.) Can you tell me why it's ok for other foundations and organizations to be represented on Wikipedia but not this one? I've seen MANY (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Heart Association just to name 2 of many) Please reconsider your deletion and reinstate these pages and/or please consider sending me back the material I worked on. Medwriter77 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 4:00 AM PST 10/31/2006 by Stephen Galloway , AP[reply]

• Speedy close, improper nom, as no page by this name has been deleted, or indeed has ever existed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Rome Foundation page that I was working on for many hours was deleted from my sandbox without any notice. It was content about a well-established internationally known foundation (in the medical world) that's been around a long time but there's no information about it on Wikipedia. I provided multiple credible references. I thought that was what Wikipedia was all about--telling the history of organizations etc, especially those that don't have a story that's told yet. The Rome Foundation helps diagnose people with functional gastrointestinal disorders, thus people with this condition would be very much interested in this information. I spent a long time writing this and would like to know: 1.) the reasons why it was deleted 2.) if there is anything that can be changed so that it would be accepted 3.) if I can at least have the content back that I worked on for many hours. Also I'm curious to know which of these expert Wikipedia administrators can answer these questions: 1.) Can you tell me why other medical conditions are accepted as appropriate content here and not this condition (as I have seen MANY other medical conditions included on Wikipedia)? 2.)Are functional GI disorders not considered as important as other conditions? 3.) Could you justify that it's not important to someone who actually suffers from functional GI disorders? 4.) Can you tell me why it's ok for other foundations and organizations to be represented on Wikipedia but not this one? I've seen MANY (Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Heart Association just to name 2 of many) Please reconsider your deletion and reinstate these pages and/or please consider sending me back the material I worked on. Medwriter77 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. This was deleted, back in 2013, as a copyright infringement. We are surely not going to overturn that deletion now. That is no bar to creating a proper, neutral non-infringing article now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Criteria and Rome Process (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (added by — RHaworth (talk · contribs))

My page was deleted. I spent a lot of time researching and providing this information. I was trying to provide educational material on the Rome Foundation because there is NO information about in Wikipedia. It is a well-established international organization that helps patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. It is not promotional and may actually help someone improve their lives by connecting them to an organization that could helping them identify difficult diagnoses. Please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwriter77 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross posted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Rome_Criteria_and_Rome_Process along with Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Rome_Foundation and Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Rome_Foundation. There is an existing article at Rome process which I suppose is deemed inadequate by poster here. I think this behavior is a mite COI.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Lest I forget, requester posted to deleting admin, but did not await a reply.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Page was deleted as a unambiguous advertising or promotion violation, and now the user is requesting the page be restored in order to promote the organization in question. Wikipedia is not a web host. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion pleaee take the promotional efforts off Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Compassionate727. SportingFlyer talk 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was some promotional tone in the draft, but much of it was factual and it did not nearly rise to the level of a G11 speedy. And one done without even a tag&bag -- that is, no separate editor had tagged this for speedy deletion, so this was a truly unilateral decision, which is not best practice. Whether this draft would have been an improvement on the existing article is a separate question, as that is not why this was deleted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment about tag&bag -- I somehow mis-read the history. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged by User:73.159.24.89 and deleted by User:RHaworth. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Maybe a marginal WP:G11, but also contains significant copy-paste from https://theromefoundation.org/working-teams-and-committees/rome-iv-committees/, so WP:G12 also applies. I assume there's also undisclosed WP:COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the author's very first edit indicates some history. Clearly a mix of sock/meat/coi/WP:NOTHERE going on. The nom is concerned about inaccuracies that may have been written in the past. That's squarely a content question, and should be worked out on the appropriate talk page in a collaborative fashion with other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Rome foundation as a redirect to Rome process. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse my deletion. Anything more that needs to be said on this topic should be said at Rome process and Medwriter77 is not the right person to be saying it. Quite apart from the obvious CoI, Medwriter's comments here indicate a totally unhealthy attitude to collaborative editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHaworth (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion. Medwriter's behaviour is fairly concerning to me as well; he's more-or-less spammed WP:Requests for undeletion demanding we restore the article, and isn't listening to the responding administrators when they tell him they won't do it as G11 deletions are not restored there. Given there is a (handwritten) copyvio warning on his talk page as well and the fact that he's not disclosed given he's so obviously associated with the subject, I would actually argue that Medwriter should be indeffed, or at the very least blocked until this DRV closes so that he can stop forum-shopping. As to the sandbox itself, neither it nor any of the pages deleted alongside it should be restored; at best they're POV forks and at worst they're a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• removed comment meant for the discussion below. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is an attempt to use WP as promotion, for material which belongs of the group's web page--I think it much more than only a marginal G11. There's an existing article, and even that is a little on the promotional side, not making any reference to any possible criticism.--I tagged it just now as a press release. Probably Medwrite should be blocked asa promotional-only editor, but I don't want to do it while this afd is in process. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikipedia notability is not determined by doing good deeds. Medwriter77 If you cannot establish notability from Wikipedia reliable sources or if you create an article that is promotional or use any other copyrighted material from an organization's website the article is going to be correctly deleted. Nothing in this discussion leads to the conclusion that your article is not a case of G11 and G12. Of course, we assume that you created it in good faith, and, as there was no salting, you can recreate the article with proper sources to show notability if they exist. Please do not waste your time to do so without the sources as the article will be deleted again.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion with the closer can be viewed at this t/p thread, where he declined to vacate his close and relist the XFD and at this t/p thread, whence he indirectly advised me against a speedy-renomination.My quasi-aggressive form of communication stems from my previous experiences with him which could be aptly summed as :--Asking him to vacate his close is an exercise in futility.

Basically, to repeat the arguments:-

I have no idea about how:--

• a self-admitted non-vote by an user (whose in-general activities have been well-described by a long-standing administrator in the Indian-circles at this t/p thread)

and

• a weak-keep vote based on a self-admitted PR source and vague thoughts ramblings, semblant to ILIKEIT, without providing any decent source,

manages to generate a keep outcome (which by the lack of any closing statement, seems to be more worse).

I am thus seeking either an entire vacating of the close, followed by a relisting or an overturning of the close to no Consensus with no bar on speedy renomination.

Obviously, I will like to hear the views of the community on the merits of the issue and I am here.Best,

~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse somewhat hypocritical to complain of uncivility when you question the competency of the closer on his talk page and call my comment vague ramblings, see WP:NPA. The fact that the site is referenced in over 500 articles and thus needs some explanation as to what it is for the reader is a valid argument. There were no votes for delete and it had a relist so a close was valid, it could have been no-consensus but keep is acceptable. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who the fuck is complaining of uncivility?! (Unless you can't distinguish between passive-agreesive behavior and the like with unpleasant questions....) And, I have an admiration for blunt-speak.
  • Anyways, please provide sources for the article, covering the subject nontrivially and in an enough-significant manner, which are not so pathetic, that you have to self-admit themselves to be PR-rubbish.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misinterpreted my comment at the AFD, I was trying to be helpful by showing what the dead link in the article was about and when I said it was pr I was discounting it from consideration. Also don't tell editors what to do, notability is not the only consideration at AFD and you know full well that finding sources for Koimoi and similar is extremely difficult because there is a mountain of trivial mentions in Indian press sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could not agree more when you say that notability is not the only consideration at AFD.Surely, notability is the most minimal' criterion that shall be evaluated at an AfD.Others like NOTPROMO et al surely exist.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd speedy this article in a heartbeat if I saw it in CAT:A7 and it hadn't inexplicably survived two afds. —Cryptic 15:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without bothering to do any hard work such as to look for sources, or noting its linked to over 500 pages so that speedy would also end up at deletion review, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't bother either. The difference is that I did not vote (and I use that word advisedly) at the afd without having bothered to. —Cryptic 15:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a search for at least an hour and got mired down in brief mentions so am not a hypocrite as you suggested in your edit summary Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you know that distance does not equal(s) displacement always and it is the latter that matters.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be useful to look at the two interactions I have had with Goderic about recent closes. The discussions are one after the other and can be seen here. The second one of them relates to this close. When I close an AFD I do not look at the article. I look at the discussion and try to judge discussion from the comments rather than just looking at the bits in bold. I'm also mindful of the poor state of activity at AFD in recent days and the impact that has on the quality of debate. There is no doubt that this was a rubbish discussion and I might have been better relisting rather than closing but people complain too if I relist. At the time I was undoubtedly in the mindset that it had a relist and neither of the substantive discussions contributors had agreed with the nomination. Neither contributor looks like a sock or spa and I see one around regularly at AFD and the opinions they offer are generally policy based if a bit further along the inclusion line than I am personally. NC or keep seem valid outcomes but there is not way I could have deleted it and relisting in the hope of getting some delete arguments is pretty much a supervote of its own and disrespectful to the editors who did make the effort to comment. When this was raised on my talk page by Goderic you will see that I was not afforded the option to reply before they made rude personal attacks and questioned my competency. The matter was then raised again here as a threat. Hence I asked for this to come to DRV. I have not made a bolded comment as I frankly have no personal opinion about the article but I would be grateful if editors could give Goderic some feedback about the tone and nature of their engagement with me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC) meaning clarified strike discussions add contributors. It was the overall state of the discussion that was in my mind when I was typing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do you see the irony when you simulataneously state There is no doubt that this was a rubbish discussion and ....relisting in the hope of getting some delete arguments is pretty much a supervote of its own and disrespectful to the editors who did make the effort to comment.....Sigh.....I suppose that you can at least try to do better than a head-count.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • And what do you mean by and neither of the substantive discussions had agreed with the nomination?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, I knew one new thing.As long as somebody is manifesting efforts, (irrespective of his/her competency), we can put up with rubbish outputs.How can we but otherwise encourage such over-eager folks?!..... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that NC or a relist would have been a better outcome. This was a very limited participation AfD, and the only editor other than the nominator who said anything about the state of the article left a tentative comment which isn't based on any policies and guidelines and doesn't rebut the nomination. AfDs which don't have enough participation for a definite outcome tend to get closed as No Consensus or relisted in the hopes of attracting more participation. There wasn't any way this could be closed as Delete. I do have to say, though, that "quasi-aggressive form of communications" is a more accurate description of the nominator's comments regarding the close than the closing admin's. Hut 8.5 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh!! That was my own characterization of my comments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I misread that, but nevertheless there's no excuse for you to be leaving aggressive comments and making personal attacks. Particularly over such a minor issue. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is small and they will have the same practical effect in this case. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm.... I don't have any idea about what you consider as personal attacks.At any case, NPSR clause is a typical outcome of these discussions which despite a count of heads is entirely worthless and if Spartaz is willing to grant that, I will be happy to pull off the DRV and laubch another AfD de novo. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously, with all the noise you have made about my supposed incompetence, this needs to run for a full review. This might be a good point to remind you about the point I raised about catching more flies with honey that you dismissed out of hand earlier. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know about conditional clauses.... Right?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, it is the only possible close based on the discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, NC with NPSR doesn't exists.... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-list. Even though it the discussion was open for 2 weeks, that clearly wasn't long enough for a meaningful consensus to develop. There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. A nonvote plus a weak vote from someone who admits to not having looked into it thoroughly and thus doubts their own vote does not equal a consensus to keep. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Overturn to no consensus I really don't see the issue here. Nobody voted delete other than nom in two weeks, so the article can't be deleted. I don't see any harm in changing to a no consensus vote without opening it back up for a speedy renomination. I don't really see anything wrong with the close, and this DV seems to be more of a personal issue with the closer than anything else. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist it. The consensus does not appear to be a clear keep.  samee  converse  11:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Incorrect close. A clear nomination for deletion, and one weak keep is not consensus to keep, since the nom itself is an opinion to delete. I reserve judgment on the merits--the argument that weshould have an article on an otherwise nonnotable "source that is used in at least 500 articles so the public would expect at least a brief explanation of what it is so they can judge whether it is reliable for themselves" does have some merit, but it would need strong support, since it would be an exception to our usual policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse I'd say NC was a more accurate reading of the (very limited) tea leaves, but given the very limited useful input, I'd say this is probably within discretion to say that the delete argument didn't hold water. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am disputing this close on the grounds that there were policy based reasons were given for deletion, yet no policy based reasons for keeping. I contended that the song fails both the SNG and GNG. I brought this up in the nomination statement. There were two other comments at the AFD. The first was more a continuation of a talk page discussion on whether we should just redirect good articles and was not really related to whether the article meets our notability criteria. The second comment refereed to 2012 deletion discussions as to why they were reluctant to !vote delete. In short no one disputed the SNG or demonstrated GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho and Szzuk: This has been discussed at the closers talk page and they have been linked here. AIRcorn (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearing in mind that this had been listed twice and two other editors had commented without supporting the nomination, I really cannot see how I could have found a deletion consensus without stretching my closing discretion into a supervote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There were no delete votes so we effectively had a talk page discussion not an AfD, I suggest you tag it with notability, send it to WP:GAR and renominate it in a couple of months. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not vote and would have preferred a larger comment, but even with relisting none were forthcoming. With that in mind I am happy to step back and let WP decide (i.e. no change). There are plenty of other song articles which of need deleting for failing WP:NSONG and too much effort has already been expended on this one. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see any policy argument being put forward that requires or even allows this article to be deleted. An overall reading of the WP:NSONGS guideline seems to recommend redirection to the article on the album. But if no one supports redirection that does not imply deletion. There was no suggestion as to how WP:GNG has been failed (the rationale referred to a criterion in NSONGS and not GNG). WP:Primary requires us to be cautious with our use of primary sources but how does that lead us into requiring the article to be deleted? Unless a speedy deletion criterion applied, an unsupported AFD nomination (even if unopposed) would need to be very carefully and persuasively argued to lead to a delete conclusion. Finally, after a rather clear (though outdated?) endorsed keep at WP:Articles for deletion/Run the World (song) a much more compelling case for deletion would be required here. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sure looks like NC to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if it were overturned to a delete, it'd be a pretty soft delete. Only one delete vote and after two relists. SportingFlyer talk 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Advise the nominator to read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. At worst, the article would be redirected to Love? (Love (Jennifer Lopez album)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there was plainly no consensus to delete. Amisom (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No consensus is exactly what there was. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse One nominator with no support is not a consensus to delete, however strong the arguments might be. The closer could have added a delete view and left it for a different closer, but did not choose to do so. Could not have rationally been closed as Delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expecting me to vote delete because discussion wasn't clear is presupposing that my purpose at AFD is to look for a delete consensus. I don't think that's a helpful mindset for a closing admin and I tend to only vote on close or weak discussions if its in an area I have personal interest in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus was the obvious close Atlantic306 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There does not seem to be anything wrong with the AfD and the NC result. It was relisted twice and no editors provided any reasons to delete other than the nom which is obviously insufficient. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aviva Group CEO Mark Wilson.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Permission from the photographer arrived in OTRS ticket:2017022810012613. Undeletion (even temporary) is necessary to validate the permission. Thanks. Ruthven (msg) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ruthven: This file was nominated for deletion by administrator and OTRS agent Ronhjones because it was, according to his rationale, never approved. Why was there no attempt made to communicate with him or myself regarding this file's deletion as instructed at WP:DELREVD? ℯxplicit 23:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Explicit: Haven't I just left a message in your talk page? The ticket received an update, so any OTRS agent can approve it now, but it's better to have a look at the file first. --Ruthven (msg) 23:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Restored and OTRS ticket applied. Amazing how a deletion gets the OTRS ticket moving again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @Ruthven: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review." As in, before coming to DRV, you should have discussed the matter with me. If the ticket received an update since its deletion four months ago, this still could have been look into by Ronhjones; ultimately, this can be addressed without deletion review. Case in point, this discussion is now moot. ℯxplicit 23:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]