Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February

Rashidah De Vore (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted in 2015. Since then, the person has started several media companies, including X On Demand [1], a social media and video on demand streaming hybrid with a focus on Black entertainment - the first of its kind, it's sister company X Marks The Black Productions, and parent company X Marks The Black Holdings [2] with press features in Uptown Magazine [3], The Network Journal [4], Black Girl Nerds [5], Authority Magazine [6] and more. Rara2538 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, none of the notability guidelines mention anything about quantity of media companies formed as a metric. Given nothing more specific has the subject themself been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable third party reliable sources? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think the subject is notable then you can just write another article about them. The deleted one is not going to be of any help to you there. It was very short and only contained the subject's full name, date of birth, nationality, place of residence (New York City) and occupation (TV actress). It cited no sources other than IMDB, which is not usually considered reliable here. Hut 8.5 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted back in 2014 and later salted. Since then, the person has received substantial coverage. This includes multiple articles in MusicRadar (owned by Future plc) [7] [8] [9], an hour-long interview with Guitar Player [10], an in-depth article with Australian music magazine Mixdown [11], a concert review in Metal Injection [12]. I think it's safe to allow recreation of this article. feminist (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally DRV asks for a draft before unsalting. (Before you ask, Draft:Plini is unlikely to convince anyone; the only things I see salvageable in it are the image and the by-now out-of-date discography.) —Cryptic 11:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft started and can be expanded by others. feminist (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks to me like a lot's changed since the 2014 deletion. I'm going to go ahead and say that if an article with those sources came up at AfD, I would be in the "keep" camp.—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support an unsalt if a good draft were proposed. Until then this is essentially moot. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the content currently at Draft:Plini not enough? feminist (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt this hasn't been considered at AfD in five years and an experienced editor thinks a new version can demonstrate notability. The bar to unsalting should be low in that situation. Hut 8.5 20:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt. I don't know if the current Draft:Plini and the other sources noted in this AfD are enough to meet WP:N, but they're certainly good enough to support unsalting. If somebody brings it to AfD, that's the place to get into the quality of the sources. Actually, given our pathetically lax standards for contemporary musicians, I expect this would survive AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rewrote article (now in user space: here) to address issues in AfD, including substantial coverage of subject in NYTimes. RobP (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RobP, your draft is WP:Reference bombed. Please tell us the two or three best sources for demonstrating the subject's notability.

Looking at the 1st three references:

1. Does not mention the subject "Biddle"

2. Facebook. Not a reliable source, cannot be used to show notability.

3. An interview, advertising the subject's workshop. Not an independent source. Cannot be used to demonstrate notability.

Usually, if the top three are no good, the rest are only worse. Skimming them, I think this is no exception. The onus is on you to name the best sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times Magazine (note:- not the newspaper) article is maybe over the threshold? It's not about Kenny Biddle, but it includes arguably non-trivial coverage of him if you take a charitable view?—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6? [13]. It mentions Biddle 10 times. The article is not about Biddle, it doesn't really comment on Biddle, unless you are being charitable. It quotes Biddle talking to the author. This is not an independent source. URL "psychics-skeptics-facebook" is a red flag. Leading text: "setting up fake Facebook pages... tips for her team’s latest sting operation — this one focused on infiltrating the audience of a psychic ... Facebook sock puppets — those fake online profiles". "Collectively, the group, which has swelled to 144 members, has researched, written or revised almost 900 Wikipedia pages". Lots of flags. Although now a skeptic, Biddle was previously a paranormal enthusiast, this topic remains very much Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Refer to that guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe Fringe? Flags? What flags? Seriously? I do not see how you could have read the NYT article and gotten the impression you did. This is the summary of the NYT article as it currently appears in my sandbox: "Biddle has frequently criticized claims of psychic powers,[26] and in March 2017, he participated in "Operation Pizza Roll", a sting operation against purported psychic medium Matt Frasier. Sting organizer Susan Gerbic and fellow skeptics created false identities on Facebook for Biddle, as well as for his wife and four others he recruited for the operation. Biddle and his team attended a Matt Frasier show in Philadelphia, assuming the identities detailed in the false accounts, in an attempt to determine if Frasier was doing hot readings.[31][6]" The entire point of the article is a group of science-mined individuals, Biddle included, performed a sting on Fringe people. This sting has been making massive news and praised in the skeptical movement on social media. And how is a NYT reporter not an independent source? I am flabbergasted. RobP (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flabbergasted? Calm down a little. NB. we are sort of running an anti-AfD discussion here, and I am talking about AfD-proofing your draft. I am very critically evaluating your draft references, and not prepared to say "yes" or "no". When the topic is WP:FRINGE related, I call that a red flag. When I see "facebook" written, I see another red flag. It was previously deleted at AfD, which is a bad sign, but the AfD was highly contested, so it is difficult. Your draft is WP:Reference bombed, that is a red flag.

The NYT *Magazine* article is interesting. It is reference number 6, so i didn't originally even look at it. It is a challenging source to evaluate. I call the reporter, Jack Hitt, and his article, not independent of Kenny Biddle because Hitt and Biddle obviously worked together to create this article. That's not a final decision, but a consideration.

It is not reasonable for you to ask me to review all 33 sources at this level. I found the first 3 to definitely fail. The sixth is interesting. The onus is on you to tell us the best three.

We also should have pinged the deleting admin, User:Spartaz, upfront. Did you already ask Spartaz? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Calming down. I went through the process, which led me to a page which said that the closing admin was no longer active. I asked in the teahouse what to do now. They told me to specify that the closing admin is unavailable, and I did that. Then I was chastized that I misread something and got the wrong closer. My bad I guess, but I do not know why that happened and cannot follow the trail backwards. This process is anything but user-friendly is my conclusion.

*I get you point about the sources being a big hill to climb - and in fact consented to cut the article down (see below). I was then told not to do that and just give a list.. and include new ones. So I was in the process of mulling that over when you posted.

*Calling this a fringe topic, as several have done apparently triggered by "red flags" in the NYT article, strikes me as extremely puzzling. The sting reported on in the Times was anti-Fringe. And Biddle's career post-ghost hunting is all anti-fringe. The fact that he had been fringe, and did a 180 to become a skeptical activist lauded by that community is what this article is fundamentally about. It is pro-science and unquestionably anti-fringe.

*I also want to point out that some of the AfD delete votes were due to perceptions of the article being too promotional. To address those concerns, as I was too close to the material, I asked User:LuckyLouie to help out, and as you can see in the edit history he did a massive rewrite and restructuring which I really appreciated. Although it was hard to see so much of the material I wrote deleted or redone, it did improve the article.

*Now the big problem: the big changes since last published is that Biddle was referenced multiple times in a book by Ben Radford and I am about to add that info. But the best boost regarding notability (or so I thought) was the NYT coverage of a sting he participated in. You and others here seem to have shot that down under very mistaken assumptions. Jack Hit is a staff NYT writer and has no connection to Biddle. The assertion that they "obviously" worked together to create the article, or that Biddle had anything at all to do with its generation, is completely without merit. RobP (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Spartaz does not look very inactive. Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care. You sort of talk like a newcomer, but you are actually an pretty experienced Wikipedian. Do you know that if in your considered opinion the draft now overcomes the reasons for deletion voiced in the AfD, you may put it in mainspace and wait for someone to send it to AfD? In anticipation of that, I strongly recommend that you follow WP:THREE, and get those three best references at the top. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Spartaz was inactive. I said the process led me (perhaps through my error) to a page saying that the closing admin (not Spartaz but I do not recall the name) was inactive. And yes, I will try to determine a selection of the best sources. But this article resurrection is sort of hinging on the NYT article being one of those, and if you folks cannot see it that way, there may be no point in going forward. Also, though not new, I have not been in this situation before (resurrecting a deleted article) and am finding it extremely difficult to understand the intricacies. To what you asked above, the answer is NO. I did not know I could do that. I tried to re-publish it from the beginning, and could not (due to the AfD I presumed) and was forced into this path. What has changed that I could publish it again now? RobP (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are seeking to argue that is changed is that you have WP:THREE new good sources that were not considered at the AfD in January 2018.

Your options, I would have said, are: Boldly recreate the article having confidence that you have overcome the deletion reason; or ask the deleting admin; or submit the new draft at WP:AfC (but read WP:DUD); or come here to DRV. Here, you are usually supposed to be making the article that the AfD was mis-closed. Alternatively, come to DRV after the deleting admin or the AfC process denies your request to recreate. The NYT magazine article is not enough, choose the three best. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just now notice the Kenny Biddle deletion log. This was at DRV before, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_January_21. User:Coffee was the last to delete, and now he is inactive. Also, he create-protected Kenny Biddle, which means you need to come here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is as I said when folks here asked why I had not followed the process correctly. (Which BTW: It was easy for me to accept that I screwed-up due to the convoluted instructions on WP and this being the first time through this for me). It is most unfortunate that I keep getting told things that are not correct. First that I didn't follow the process and I missed going to the closing admin first. Then that the NYT article is fringe. Then that Biddle helped write the NYT article. RobP (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used a large number of references to write an article fully documenting the subject. (Not my fault that the order placed the less notable ones in the top three.) As a large number of sources to document different things is seen as a bad thing, I will slash the article to the bone and leave just the material from the best sources. If the article is approved and published, I can always restore this "extraneous" information following approval. And note that the NYT Magazine uses the same editorial control as they do for the newspaper as I understand it, they just print longer form articles. So I do not know why that distinction was even pointed out above. In any case, give me a few days to trim it so notability is easier to determine. Oh... the first ref was broken because the URL was a homepage which had changed, but the archive I made and included was OK, so I changed this citation to be just to that archived URL. RobP (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, RobP, don't do that. Or at least, that is not an efficient way to move forwards from here. Instead, tell us the best notability-demonstrating three sources. In terms of the article, it is best to get those three sources into the lede, so that they are the at the top of the reference list.

The many many other sources may be overkill, and may need reduction for that reason, but they don't detract from notability, and they may actually be good sources for very specific content. But that is not the current question, the current question is whether multiple independent others have written about Biddle, and thus whether he can have an article at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:THREE, which is a decent guideline. Also, if you could post the best three sources that are new between the AfD and this version, that would be very helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 02:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need more then one source to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Inclusion-See, I think we have that. @SmokeyJoe:,@SportingFlyer: I think we meet WP:THREE: (1)-The NYT Article, (2)-This Local News Segment, and (3)-The Popular Mechanics Article.

We have three bona fide WP:RS (and probably one or two more) that have more than a passing mention of Mr. Biddle. Is that not enough? I think the editors here are getting bogged down in the fact that this article is reference bombed (and boy, is it), and failing to see the forest through the trees. Does the article need significant further editing to remove ref bombs? Yes. Does it probably merit inclusion in the wiki? Also yes.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge the many editors here to, in general, help guide users like RobP to make quality articles, rather than negating the work they've done...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are trying to help. In any case, I disagree with your assessment of the sources - I don't think any of them convey notability. I can't watch the news segment, but he's only mentioned quickly in an interview blurb at the end. The Popular Mechanics article is that as well, just a quick interview with him at the end. Same with the New York Times article. They all mention him briefly as an expert or use him as a character in the general narrative without really going into detail on him. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sorry to say, I don't think you're reading WP:THREE very closely... Case in point: They have more than a passing mention of the subject. I don't think GNG or NBIO or anywhere else states that the sources need to have coverage of the subject as a main element of the source. That would be a very high bar indeed, and many many articles on the wiki wouldn't pass it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then to be absolutely clear, I consider all three of those passing mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:THREE sources have been offered.

1. "I met Zoe and Ed on a cold winter morning in Cheltenham, Pa., at the home of Donna and Kenny Biddle." Not an independent source. There is some evidence of notability here, but it is diminished by the author being this close to the subject. I want more.

Jack Hit is an investigative journalist assigned to this story, and he met and interviewed all of the participants of the sting for this story. That makes him "not an independent source"? Amazing logic there. RobP (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC) That's right. It makes him a second party, not third party, source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not convinced that we should have an article in Wikipedia on this person, accusing a profile published in the New York Times of being not independent solely because the reporter is embedded would not normally past the muster here. Under those types of arguments, many of the sources we use documenting occurrences in the Iraq War, for example, would have to be removed as many of them were written by journalists embedded into military units in very close fashion, for example. jps (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jps, you are misunderstand the distinction between using a source to demonstrate notability, and using a source to support content. Here, we are only talking about 2-3 sources demonstrating notability, because the question is whether Biddle is even notable. That requires independent sources. Once notable, any reliable source may be used to support content. Unless you seek to contend that the Iraq War is not a notable topic, you’ve made an irrelevant comparison. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the one misunderstanding here. There are not two standards for independent sources (one for notability and one for citations). There is only the one and it is intimately tied to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Either a source is independent of the subject or it is not. If it is independent for the purposes of sourcing, it is independent for the purposes of notability. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. No. A converstion with Kenny Biddle is not an independent source on Kenny Biddle.

An interview/conversation recorded and played most certainly is independent in the sense of WP:Independent sources because it was published by someone independent of Biddle. Whether this source is enough to confer notability, however, is another matter. jps (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely about notability, nothing else. If not independence, how do you suggest this source fails to demonstrate notability? Publishing a non-independent source does not make that source independent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has always been a means for Wikipedia editors to figure out whether or not a particular topic has been noticed enough to be included here. It is absolutely tied in with a consideration of whether it is possible to write a neutral, verifiable article based on reliable sources. It is not an arbitrary litmus test. When a third party publishes something about a person, they are automatically independent of that person unless you can show that there is a personal relationship (family or close friend), financial relationship (e.g., vanity publisher), or other reason to think that the source is acting as a promotion rather than a notice of the person. jps (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your query about why this source may fail to demonstrate notability: local media is parochial in the sense that it often isn't very high-quality. Sourcing to establish notability should indicate a level of notice that a local TV interview might not provide. This isn't a hard and fast standard, it is absolutely possible for local media to do a great job profiling a little-noticed point and start the ball rolling for a notable topic, but in such cases you usually see other sources mention the local media story. TLDR: local TV interviews are often not high quality sources even if they're perfectly independent. I do not know whether this particular source is a high-enough-quality interview or not. It's borderline for me. jps (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that this source may be discarded as attesting notability due to being a parachail low quality source. On source independence: If you meet me, interview me, and then write a story based on what I told and showed you, that story would not be independent of me. That failure of independence is not negated by you getting it published somewhere or anywhere. Mere repetition, including mere publication, verbatim, does not change the nature of the source. You might argue the decision to publish is evidence of notability, but that is a different argument to that of independence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not sure we agree. It is a borderline source in my estimation. Secondly, you seem to sorely misunderstand what is meant by "independence". An interview is essentially by definition independent of the interviewee as long as the outlet that is publishing it or the interviewer is not somehow conflicted with respect to the interviewee. Finally, it absolutely is the case that republication can change the nature of a source. This is actually a very vital point for people to understand. For example, I can point to a review that was first published as a blogpost on a personal website that was later republished with minor edits by The New Republic. At that point, the third party publication has now done the work for us of vetting the work and it is not longer considered a problem per WP:BLOGS. jps (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do agree on the source being borderline as a parochial source. I actually would not be rejecting it as DRV due to its parochial source quality, that should be an AfD question.

I do not misunderstand "Independence". I use the term in the historiographical sense, noting that Wikipedia is an historiographical document and should always be treated in that sense. I challenge you to substantiate your "interview is essentially by definition", as I think you mare mixing concepts of "reliable source" and "independent source" A blog story is not reliable, but when republished verbatim in a reliable source, the story is now reliably sourced. Independence of the progenity of the information is unchanged. Independence is not a question of vetting. Vetting is a process of reliability of the publication, not independence. Go back to the article. David Schechter investigates and writes a story on ghost hunting. It is a great source on ghost hunting. In the investigation, Schechter skyped with Biddle. Information on ghost hunting attributed to Biddle is included. In passing, there is some information revealed on Biddle. Is this information independent of Biddle? Does this information satisfy the independence test for a WP:STUB? Go sentence by sentence, every occurrence of "Kenny" (the source calls him by first name). What is that information, and where did it come from? It came from Biddle. Is it reliable? Yes, it is pedestrian, not likely to be be challenged. "He’s a skeptic who writes about paranormal investigations"? Sure. Did he laugh about the science of voices coming through radio frequencies? Who cares. Is the science of ghost hunting Biddle's "biggest problem" with it? Well, he says it is. Does Biddle say "ghost hunters don't use technology in a scientific way"? Schechter has reliably published that he does say this. Is fact independently sourced? No. Does the GNG, does WP:THREE call for independence for attesting Wikipedia-notability? Yes, it does. An investigator who involved Biddle in a story on ghost hunting does not make Biddle sufficiently notable for his own biography. It does warrant explicit mention of Biddle in the article ghost hunting, which is currently the case.

I suspect that you mix the scientific concept of independence with the scientific concept of reliability. In that field they mix. In historiography, they do not.

There is nothing in this source to support a stand alone biography on Biddle. In simpler language: Schechter is not a third party source on Biddle. And yes, Schechter is the source of the information. kare11.com is the publisher, not the source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are way overcomplicating things and going out on a limb that is essentially of your own invention. This interview is of Biddle. Whether it is in-depth enough or of the sort that we would want to establish notability of Biddle as the subject of a standalone article is a matter that is unrelated to the independence of the source. Let's be clear: Concern about source independence is only something we care about because sources that lack independence are not really showing external notice (which is what notability is all about). Lacking independence also may indicate that the source is not reliable. In the case of this source, I agree that the notice of Biddle is somewhat incidental, but he is being referred to as an expert by a third-party source. That's notice, but it may not be as in-depth and serious as we would like. After all, WP:BLPs should be sourced a bit more stringently. jps (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make the point that the interview is evidence that he is regarded as a ghost skeptic expert, I can agree with that. Maybe this is worth a week or more at AfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. No. This is just a mere mention of Biddle in relation and to end of Ghost Hunters, talking about Ghost Hunting Gadgets. Kenny Biddle is worth a mention at Ghost_hunting#Skepticism.

Weaken to weak "Endorse". Keep deleted with prejudice. Leave salted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Biddle is not an academic per se. but the field of scientific skepticism is similar as "research" and "investigations" are done and reported internally in support of science... but are generally ignored by mass media sources. Biddle is a converted paranormal enthusiast, now published widely and frequently by important organizations (JREF, CSI...), and embraced as an expert in what he does by his former adversaries. And his investigations are used by others in the field to back-up there own analyses (Radford, Hill...) Find another in this category. You can't. It irks me to no end to come across articles on soccer players and the like who are a dime a dozen... who played in a single pro game (maybe), and have an article - with minimal refs that they did that. (One random example.) And yet they are WP:notable. Something is very wrong with this system. RobP (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're preaching to the choir here about Wikipedia's overcoverage in sport, popular culture, games, and geographical trivia (to name a few problem areas). What has happened over the years is that editors who collaborate in those subjects have worked on developing subject-specific notability rules that enable them to have much looser ideas for who/what is notable than they would otherwise enjoy. Occasionally, some of us curmudgeons wander into their WP:GARDENs and make a stink, but Wikipedia is ultimately a volunteer enterprise run by consensus and unless/until we get people to identify the systematic problems and what to do about overcoverage, it is something we have to live with. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the classic link people will post. In the meantime, I think the problem with the idea that someone who is simply unusual should be considered notable is WP:SENSATION -- which is to say that focusing on unusual things can end up causing Wikipedia to become lopsided in coverage. Match that to WP:BLP concerns and suddenly you've got some very scary precedent if being unusual is a standard for inclusion.

I really do think this case is borderline so I might just say that we should see if this current flurry of interest on the part of the media in hot readings continues and Biddle is picked up as an expert more and more. That could push him over the edge with a clarity that would satisfy the most strident critics here. Remember WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. I would say, keep the draft, turn on a newsalert for your favorite aglomerator, and see what kind of media notice is generated. Maybe in a few months it will be obvious he is notable according to WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or WP:CELEBRITY.

jps (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! RobP (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Taheri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason for its deletion was that it was not a notable subject and did not have reliable references. new sources have arisen, making it a notable subject. He has received extended prison sentences and a death sentence which was overturned for his promotion of what is variably described across news sources as 'medical practice', 'creating a cult' and faith healing. I believe the perma-locked deletion of the article to be in error although i acknowledge that the article was previously poorly written and lacking in substance and relevance. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies if i have difficulty with the markup for this page a it is unfamiliar to me. i provide the following references to demonstrate that he is a noteworthy person. The reason for my interest in this article is that Taheri was recently mentioned in a UNSC emergency meeting and it was difficult to find english information on the subject. He has been described internationally as a political prisoner.^[1] The UN has described him as a 'medical doctor.'^[2] although he seems to be a cult leader or faith healer.^{[3] [4]} His supporters claimed he had been tortured to death in 2015 and the death sentence was a form of elaborate conspiracy to cover this up. His lawyer denied these claims and maintains that he is alive in Evin Prison.^[5]Iranian state television aired a documentary on his mystical teachings titled, "Halgheye Sheitan"(Satan's ring).^[6][7] Taheri advocates that mental illness is contagious through a mechanism involving the radiation of psychic energy through which it is possible to transfer genetic information between individuals.^[8] Nejat Az Halghe(The ring rescue organisation) was established to help 'survivors' of Taheri's teachings.^[9]Abbas Ali Allahyari, head of Psychology and Counselling Organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran(PCOIRI) and associate professor of Tarbiat Modares University has described the teachings as dangerous, predatory and exploitative, especially towards mentally ill people. ^[10]

his supporters and official websites claim he has been awarded many many honorary doctorates and international awards. I have been unable to verify any of these claimed awards. english readers performing a cursory look at the official websites might be confused and believe those awards were actually given in recognition of contributions toward medical science which is possibly why the UN reported that he is a medical doctor. although i cant find a source to explain this error.

I have just reviewed the archive for the page and cannot understand the reason for its deletion. the talk page for its deletion states, "According to the Wikipedia deletion policy this article does not meet the notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) nor what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)criterion.", referring to a 2013 revision and has been subsequently repeatedly deleted on the basis of this 6 year old discussion. the 2016 version of the page was not so bad but was deleted for the same reason.

• A look at the history shows this was recently G4'd for speedy deletion. Anyone want to temp undelete the history for me to see if this was a proper G4? (Asking more clearly this time!) SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. For quick reference, the version deleted at AFD, the most recent re-creation, and the most recent revision. —Cryptic 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cryptic: Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A pseudoscientific crackpot who may have had a spammy article in life but, subsequent to the the six-year-old deletion discussion, was tortured by the Iranian authorities and starved himself to death in prison after a show-trial, attracting attention from serious sources in the process. Those sources certainly add up to an article, although in my view the encyclopaedic topic would probably be Death of Mohammad Ali Taheri and his name should probably be a redirect to that.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for future reference he is still alive and was imprisoned in 2011. I acknowledge that his contributions toward the field of medicine are questionable. I further understand that the page is likely to be frequently subject to revertible good faith edits. In the interest of documenting him as a notable political prisoner and a part of international human rights debates and Iran I think it's worthy of an article. My opinion doesnt have any weight in the matter but i agree with you that he's a crackpot mystic however the death penalty for writing nonsense on the internet seems a bit severe. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 The new article is not substantially similar to the one written six years ago. No other comment on the subject's notability, or what we should do with it, or if it meets any other speedy characteristics, just that the most recent G4 was improper. SportingFlyer T·C 03:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. An abundance of new sources since the November 2013 AfD deletion for not enough sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions says "Before listing a review request, please: Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first. If you and the closer cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review." I was the administrator who performed the speedy deletion, and no attempt to discuss the matter with me was made. Looking at the history of the article, it is clear that my speedy deletion was a mistake, as the latest version was indeed significantly different from that deleted as a result of the deletion discussion. Had I been consulted in the first place, I would therefore have apologised, and restored all revisions of the most recently created article, which I mistakenly speedily deleted two months ago, leaving the older versions deleted; that would have restored the situation as it was before I did the speedy deletion, and as it would still have been without that deletion. It seems to me the best thing is for me to restore that situation now, so I shall do so, and I hope that is a satisfactory solution. If anyone for any reason thinks that is not the best thing to do, please contact me, so that I can consider your reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted as a unilateral Arbitration Enforcement action by GoldenRing, per WP:POLEMIC, during an AE discussion. I opened an appeal and was advised to open a Deletion Review. Here's my argument from AE:

"I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD."

The page was also meant to provide supporting evidence for an opinion piece which I've submitted to Signpost. As I stated at AE, I would like to work to find a way to share my views with the community without running afoul of our policies and guidelines. I realize that this is a sensitive topic and would be open to modifying the content or finding a different way to present it. –dlthewave ☎ 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree that the subpage violates POLEMIC. Interestingly, this distinction is currently under discussion at WT:UP. In any case, POLEMIC is not a CSD criterion. The log says “Arbitration enforcement action under gun control DS.”. Invite User:GoldenRing to explain or provide a link. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment: This DRV should be closed as out of process. Per WP:AC/DS#Appeals, arbitration enforcement actions (including deletions) can only be reviewed at WP:ARCA, at WP:AN or at WP:AE, where an appeal has already been made. Sandstein 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree as previously with Sandstein about DRV being scope-limited from anything ArbCom/DS. It is far from clear that this deletion was ArbCom authorised. ArbCom and ANI need to respect community consensus, and DRV is a very important part of community self-management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Disagree that the subpage violates POLEMIC. The relevant part there requires "if they will not be imminently used". Not only not very old, and continuously worked on, but as Dlthewave explained, directly related to his/her writing on the matter. Some matters that involve long time frames, many articles, or many editors require a lot of work to compile evidence and present information, and I don't agree that that should always be done in off-wiki secrecy. If Dlthewave can articulate a rough timeline for use of this material, I don't see any reason not to allow it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Defer to WP:AE. The warning issued was, against misusing Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia. The page in question, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles was clearly related to Wikipedia. It was a collection of quotes and statements regarding specific Wikipedia articles. Hence, not a violation of the warning. If we wanted to ban User:Dlthewave from all topics related to firearms, we could have used the standard, ... broadly construed language. We didn't. So there was no reason to delete the page. Bring it to MfD if you must, but WP:CSD is was not warranted. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my use of, we, above, is intended to mean, the community. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now under discussion at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Gun control. As noted there by User:SilkTork, it is not useful to be having two parallel discussions. Since ArbCom is a higher authority than DRV, I suggest this discussion be closed and let ArbCom sort it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy for now If there is some criteria related to AE I'm unaware of, or if there is a great IAR case, I'm open to it. But on the face of it, I don't see what rule this page was violating. I'll admit I can't even figure out what case the quotes are trying to make. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:POLEMIC Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. You have several diffs and each section has link to a talk page where the quotes are from, even if you do not directly mention user names. Per your statement "has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern" - Wikipedia user pages are not for documenting long-term patterns generally. If you are going to use these in a timely manner somwhere, mind if I ask you where and when? And remember that when these kind of laundry lists are used at ANI/ARCA/AE, they should be removed afterwards. --Pudeo (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A few points about this:

1. Sandstein is correct above, this forum is not the place to review arbitration enforcement actions. The arbitration committee has authorised standard discretionary sanctions for the gun control topic. Standard discretionary sanctions include "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" and it is under this provision that I deleted the page. Arbitration enforcement actions can be appealed only at WP:AE, WP:AN and WP:ARCA. Any administrator who undeleted the page as a result of this discussion would be overturning an arbitration enforcement action out of process, which can (potentially) lead to desysopping.
2. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated that the purpose of this page is to document the long-term whitewashing of articles, ie problematic editing by other editors. WP:User pages states "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." That is, this page would be allowed if it were intended for legitimate dispute resolution and were to be used in a timely manner. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated, most recently here, that it is not intended for dispute resolution but as background material for an opinion piece in The Signpost.
3. If Dlthewave wishes to use the material for dispute resolution and can outline a timeline for using it (on-wiki or privately by email, if they wish) then I will undelete the page. GoldenRing (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. @SmokeyJoe: See above for the explanation you requested; my apologies for not pinging you when I posted it. @RoySmith: I'm not sure what warning you are referring to - the deletion was not in relation to any warning or ban, but because the page is a violation of policy in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. @Hobit: See the explanation above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GoldenRing, I am not completely clear (i) what DS is being referred to and (ii) how it was decided that this subpage violated what. As for DS authorising this, I dispute that ANI ever had the authority to delegate speedy deletion to DS AE enforcing admins. Go back to that authorising ANI, a few days, a few participants, and no mention of deletion. Did ArbCom write a motion that speaks to this page? We had this fight several months ago over a cryptocurrency article, and thankfully the DS enforcing admins have backed off Speedy deletions. Why is this different, why was MfD not the appropriate deletion process? The argument that DRV is not entitled to review all deletions is offensive, although the purpose of the review of ArbCom deletions should be understood to be whether it was really an ArbCom deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: (i) I linked to the authorisation of discretionary sanctions in my statement above. What is not clear about that? (ii) I have explained above my reasoning for deciding that the subpage violates WP:UP - do you have any specific questions about that reasoning? As for the rest of your comment here: I don't know why you repeatedly refer to ANI - what has ANI to do with any of this? I am sorry that you find an argument offensive, but nonetheless it is correct; see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify. Sanctions placed by administrators may not be modified without the consent of the enforcing administrator or a successful appeal at one of AE, AN or ARCA; "Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi GoldenRing. (i) You mean this link? OK thanks. (ii) Yes, and the validity of that reasoning is in dispute. The subpage does not violate anything at WP:UP. (iii) ANI? Sorry, mean AN. These discretionary sanctions each individually arise at WP:AN, is that correct? For example, blockchain, the one in dispute last year. WP:AN does not have the standing to expand WP:CSD to unilateral AE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Enforcement contains no mention of deletion. Your deletion violated the opening sentence of WP:CSD. The conflict between the usersubpage and WP:UP gets decided at WP:MFD. Unilateral speedy deletion as an AE "sanction" is overreach, and to argue that "deletion review" cannot review your deletion is offensive, yes. WP:AC/DS does not authorize deletions. A reasonable argument is that they add leeway to a more generous interpretation of the CSD criteria, G11 for blockchain articles for example, but endlessly expansive unilateral deletions in the name of AE, no. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. No, these sanctions are not authorised by a community consensus at AN but by the arbitration committee. You are correct that there are some similar sanctions (usually referred to as general sanctions) that are authorised by the community at AN, but this is not one of them. If you think that my interpretation of the sanctions is wrong and that deletion is not authorised under the sanctions, then the place to make that argument is WP:ARCA. Otherwise, the plain language of the sanctions includes "any other reasonable measure" and deletion is one of them. GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, thank you, yes you have uncovered some of my confusion. Asking "Is deletion is a reasonable measure" at WP:ARCA looks like the way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clear that Arbcom is a "higher court" than DRV. But as a matter of principle, we can't just allow a sysop's claim that a page was deleted under Arbitration Enforcement to inoculate his action against DRV. If that was what we did, then it would, potentially, be open to some forms of abuse.

  On the other hand, it's important that sysops who're willing to work in the AE environment have confidence that they can do their work with the community's support. And that means that once a sysop labels their action as "AE", the final decision about whether it's appropriate has to be reserved to Arbcom. I imagine that Arbcom will expect and insist on higher standards than the community as a whole. But that doesn't mean we have to wash our hands of it:- Arbcom is a small body with a lot to do, and it will be helped by our advice and analysis.

  So all in all, while I don't feel it's open to us to overturn an AE action, I feel that it's for us to decide whether, under DRV rules, the page should have been deleted and then refer the matter back to Arbcom.

  As anyone with even a hint of experience at DRV can tell, if this wasn't an AE action, then as a speedy deletion it would have been far out of process. I think we should go back to Arbcom, tell them so, and leave it at that.—S Marshall T/C 09:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall: I do not contest that this would be an invalid speedy deletion; it was not deleted under the speedy deletion rules. GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, but Bishonen's told the claimant to file here, and I'm immensely reluctant to undermine her by closing the filing without any action on our part. We don't have jurisdiction over AE actions. So we've got to review it on the basis of the rules that are within our ambit. I can well imagine how strange that might look from your point of view.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall: I don't know why Bishonen advised them to request review here; I've asked her this morning but haven't received a response yet. GoldenRing (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure she'll respond promptly. The matter does raise interesting questions about procedure and jurisdiction. To me, it seems right that deletion review is the right venue to discuss a deletion, but I feel there should be a strong presumption to support a sysop who's willing to wade into AE matters. I was appalled to see that there's a form of deletion that can be overturned at AN but not at DRV. AN is certainly not the preferable venue.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Goldenring's second point is irrelevant because WP:UP is, unfortunately, applied in an extremely inconsistent manner when such pages are brought to WP:MFD. Traditionally, that is the only route to seek the deletion of such pages. If deletion is going used as a form of discretionary sanction, then WP:DRV should be added to the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.appeals because it is by far the best venue to handle matters regarding the appropriateness of deletion; a new speedy deletion criterion would then also be due … No. That is too ill-defined and too much leeway when it comes to deletion. If a page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and one thinks it should be deletion due to discretionary sanctions, they can make that case at WP:MFD. Deletion outside the already well-established channels is not a reasonable measure in all but perhaps the most extreme cases, which this is not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for now as not meeting the original deleton reason—WP:POLEMIC—while the DS discussion continues at AE. ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It isn't a polemic, and it did communicate information relevant and significant to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - while I have a great deal of respect for GoldenRing, this was a poor decision. I don't see how a case can be made that the page violates WP:POLEMIC in any way, as it appears that its intent is for criticism of Wikipedia, not of specific editors, and to that end it addresses the goals of the project. I share the view expressed elsewhere in this thread that the standard discretionary sanctions do not permit unilateral deletion of content. WP:AC/DS lists ways that administrators are empowered to use extraordinary measures to resolve conflicts between editors, describing editing sanctions (directed at specific editors) or page restrictions (directed at specific pages) and may block as an enforcement action if users violate these restrictions. The document does not mention deletion of content anywhere, nor is content management mentioned in the gun control case specifically, and it is longstanding convention that Arbitration does not consider content disputes. Thus I believe this deletion cannot be considered an AE action: it is out of scope. It follows that this deletion must be considered an administrator unilaterally speedy deleting a page, where no speedy deletion criteria apply (neither POLEMIC nor Arbitration enforcement are listed as available speedy criteria). It should therefore be overturned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Please note that I have requested review of my actions from the arbitration committee at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per Sandstein and a review of the AE rules, I believe this DRV has been created outside of process and as such will not be participating. That being said, I do not expect the article to remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sandstein is correct. This is the wrong venue to overturn AE actions. Any admin who restores this article risks getting desysopped. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn discretionary sanctions aren't normally interpreted as allowing administrators to delete any page within the topic area which they believe violates a policy (or in this case a guideline). If I write an article about a non-notable person who has some connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that fact alone doesn't justify the page being speedily deleted for being non-notable. The only part of the discretionary sanctions criteria which could possibly apply here is "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project", and I don't see why speedily deleting this page was necessary for the smooth running of the project, even if it is a violation of POLEMIC. That purpose would have been served just as adequately by sending it to MfD as normal. Hut 8.5 20:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – The deletion of this page should be discussed at MfD. I see nothing on the page that would require, e.g., revdel or oversighting, or that meets any CSD criteria, or that otherwise provides any reason why this page shouldn't be discussed at MfD if someone wants it deleted. For example, whether it is or isn't POLEMIC is something that should be discussed by editors at MfD rather than decided by a single individual enforcing DS. Perhaps the result at MfD will be delete, but that should be decided through the normal process. Leviv ich 20:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Edelstein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Ritchie333 closed this AFD after the normal one-week discussion period with "The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." bassed on WP:SOFTDELETE. The discussion had only one vote, but both the nominator and the voter pointed out that this had a likely conflict of interest origin. Today, Ritchie333 restored the article based on an email from an undiscussed person requesting its undeletion. In my view, this AFD should have been relisted at the time to garner more participation, but barring that, then the request for undeletion should have been filed and reviewed formally rather than allowed via direct email request. Essentially, without that type of review, we're left with a situation where an anonymous, and potential COI, has been able to veto this deletion. I'm not satisfied with Ritchie333's suggestion to request another AfD, as I think his initial closing and response is procedurally flawed. -- Netoholic @ 22:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work. A soft deletion means it can be restored on request (like a PROD). No formal review is required. It is perfectly possible to re-nominate the restored article for deletion, but it would be appropriate to wait a few days and see if the requester is going to improve the article. It they don't - in other words it is the same article that was deleted - it might qualify for G4 speedy deletion without the need for a second AfD. But it should not be tagged as G4 until people have had a chance to improve it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The close was "WP:REFUND applies". I don't see anywhere on that page that says to email the initial closer for a direct restoration (it says you can request a copy via email). If someone wants this article back, they should have posted on WP:REFUND per the closing, and the closer should have refused to restore it and instead referred them to WP:REFUND. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not how I handle that kind of situation. If someone asks me to restore something I soft-deleted, I do it. Referring to REFUND would add nothing except a layer of bureaucracy. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this close DID refer to REFUND. Does that mean that you do not endorse this close and would have done something different than direct them to REFUND? Perhaps a relist? -- Netoholic @ 23:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With two delete !votes (counting the nominator) and no supports, I would have done exactly as Ritchie did: soft-delete it with a notice that it will be restored upon request. REFUND in this context is shorthand for "requesting an undeletion". The actual WP:REFUND page is not the only way to request undeletion and not necessarily the best. Note that the introduction at REFUND says it is intended to assist users looking for an uncontroversial undeletion. Directly requesting the soft-deleting administrator is a perfectly acceptable way to do it - and quite possibly preferable. Look, the process is proceeding, and unless somebody can perform a miracle rescue, the page will be gone in a few days. There's no reason to make a federal case out of this. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this seem like an "uncontroversial undeletion" due to the likely COI aspect? By what process do you think this page is likely to get deleted in a few days? -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment here. Undeletion is uncontroversial because Ritchie said, in his close, that it could be undeleted on request. I have already explained how the page can be deleted in a few days, if it doesn't get improved: tag it for G4. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: but WP:G4 cannot be applied here because: This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via ... deletion discussions closed as "soft delete"). --Netoholic @ 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that. I never was good about reading the fine print. I guess it will have to be a second AfD. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Netoholic: I spoke with Richie333 about it but this he did not have the details of the requestor of the restore either. It was odd nobody came to defend this article in the AfD (which is why I didn't bother editing it), but knew how to go to Richie333 immediately after, which does not reflect well on the requestor.

I think Richie333 is just following the rules here.

I have started to go through the article and take out references that don't make any reference to Howard Edelstein (a lot). I think when I have done that, I'm going to take out any text that is then unreferenced (this is a BLP). Then we should wait a while to see if the "mystery" requestor re-appears. If they can fix this, then lets see it. If we get nothing, then it can be re-AfD'ed as a smaller article, and maybe it will get more engagement at AfD. Either way, this process will resolve it? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have finished the job of removing the references that make no reference to him, and removing statements that are both unsupported and are promotional. I have still left in basic statements of positions he is believed to have held but are still unsupported by references to at least leave the "bones" of an article for an AfD (maybe the editor who requested the relist might make an appearance)? Britishfinance (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Personally I would have relisted it, but this was within the reviewing admin's discretion. IMO the OP is making a big deal out of something that is minor, bordering on trivial. A "soft delete" is just that. Requesting it be undeleted is the equivalent of vetoing a PROD. Anyone can do it, for any reason, or no reason at all. COI is neither here nor there with REFUND. It is perfectly normal for a deleting admin to be approached either on their talk or via email with such requests. I have received and handled multiple such requests. This is a waste of time. I suggest the DRV be withdrawn and the article be speedily renominated at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear failure of WP:CORP and thus is promotion. Six references: 1, 3, 4. These three are not independent sources, being, for example, interview sources of the CEO himself. Ref 2 I can't read, but is only being used to cite "Warburg Pincus made Edelstein CEO of NYFIX, a newly invested portfolio company." References 5 & 6 do not contain comment on the subject and so do not support Wikipedia-notability. Could the article have been redirect? "He is currently the CEO of BioCatch, a start-up technology company." BioCatch is not notable, so no. At the AfD, but the nominator and one !voter provided solid textbook reasons for deletion. The closer was over-cautious. Overturn (to "Delete"). The refund due to an anonymous off-wiki request irks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer has a wide discretion when dealing with "no quorum" discussions and "softdelete" seems easily justified to me. I agree the nomination and delete argument were both persuasive, and I would not have thought a close of full "delete" definitely wrong, but at the end of the day the matter was of subjective judgement. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing wrong with the close itself, though I would have preferred a relist to gain more consensus. I think the course of action set out by Ad Orientem seems reasonable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and relist at will Maybe not the best close, but one well within discretion. Hobit (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While the refund was perhaps defensible (although this gives a very easy way for article creators to circumvent AfD: just keep quiet and hope not a lot of people vote), the advice Ritchie then gave on his talk page was not: "I think renominating it immediately will cause rancour; try and improve the article first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" WTF? So when you AfD an article and no one but the article creator disagrees (and then only sneakily through email, not even onwiki), then renominating that page for AfD would "cause rancour" and the nominator has to "improve the article first"? That's nuts. If a soft delete is treating an AfD like a prod, then a prod removed by the article creator (or by anyone for that matter) can be taken straight to AfD, and very often is. No one will claim that the nominator should wait between the ProD and the AfD or "try to improve the article" inbetween. If the prod (or in this case first AfD) had sound reasoning, and the deprodder did nothing to show the error of the reasoning (like providing better sources or additional facts), then you shouldn't advice someone not to nominate it at AfD because that would "cause rancour". Brushing of an editor with "Well don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" when you own ill-thought out actions and comments have caused that reaction is not good. Next time, refund the article and reopen the AfD instead, or tell people who contact you offwiki and "wish to remain anonymous" that they should find someone else to do their dirty work. Fram (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I told other people to file the AfD because they've got more of an idea of what the appropriate arguments should be; I would just say "I closed this as soft delete and refunded it but have had objections. I am neutral. Have at it." And yes, people were over-reacting a bit. I was expecting the next AfD to appear at some point but it was not a life or death situation that needed be resolved immediately like a G12 speedy. And BritishFinance has improved the article, using the advice I gave him on my talk (ie: "get rid of all unsourced or unverified content per WP:BLPSOURCES, then see what you've got left") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article had already been at AfD, you didn't need to come up with arguments, you could have reopened or reused it. More importantly, there was no reason at all for you to indicate that immediately starting a new AfD would be a bad idea, and it's that kind of remarks that cause people to get agitated at your talk page. If you had just said "I restored it per policy (link), you are free to renominate it", you would have been helpful both to the anonymous offwiki (assuming one has to be helpful there), and to the people who actually edit here. "Improving" an article before nominating it for deletion is usually a bad idea though (if you know upfront that you will nomainte it, not if you decide to nominate it based on what you learn during your edits): your edits will all be deleted anyway if you have your way, and the one wanting to keep the pages may well point to the edits as "obstruction", "manipulation", "deceit", ... since you first deleted loads of sources and information, and then nominate it for deletion. Basically, no one was overreacting until you started to sprout your bad advice (which wasted a lot of time for many people). Obviously it was not a speedy situation, that's why we have AfD, as you should know as an admin. But I guess making a caricature of things is the last line of defense you have left here. Fram (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was 10:30pm on Saturday and I wanted to get to the pub before last orders, with the basic idea that I would set the AfD up when I woke up next morning. If you have a problem with me having a life outside Wikipedia and socialising with real people, then ..... too bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either reply or hat, don't do both at the same time, as it is a rather aggressive way of having the last word. Your excuses now are not convincing at all though, you now claim that you would set up the AfD the next morning, even though you claimed "I think renominating it immediately will cause rancour; try and improve the article first.", "I haven't a clue what to do with the article", and "If you really can't bear the existence of its article and it's keeping you awake at night, file another AfD. " (three posts, spread over more than 1 hour; you continued to edit for 2 hours after this). I have no problem with you having a life outside Wikipedia, great strawman argument though. I have a problem with admins who have trouble admitting that they might have dropped the ball on this, and instead reply like you do here or with "You need to stop getting angry and upset at people who disagree with you, or have different priorities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)" You didn't give any indication that you had any plans to set up the AfD, in fact you didn't even reply at this DRV until I showed up two days later either. WP:ADMINACCT stretches to explaining an undeletion at the DRV, and giving correct advice to people instead of what you did should be part of it as well. Fram (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right about the diffs, the pub trip was between this edit and this one. However, I stand by my facts that I was going to set up an AfD the next morning; only by that time, events had overtaken themselves and this discussion had opened. It just didn't seem urgent and I don't believe WP:ADMINACCT says you have to address concerns immediately and without delay. I didn't feel the need to reply here because MelanieN had already pretty much made my case for me and I didn't think just saying "I agree with Melanie" was worth writing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, letting people know that you have read a discussion about an admin action you have taken and your position on the subject, is just a waste of time. Apparently a policy-required waste of your time is something you don't need to do, but wasting everyone else's time is perfectly alright. Looking at this and the TRM / Johnbod ANi discussion, you seem to be very good at using your admin hat to take a minimal action, but not having the time or inclination to do the most basic necessary things afterwards to avoid a lot of drama and timewasting by many other editors. Fram (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Let's agree to close this discussion and just re-list the article for AfD. Apart from my editing, nobody has come forward to improve/upgrade the article which reflects poorly on the editor who made the request to Ritchie333. Now that the article is a lot "slimmer", it might attract more interest/debate at AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was meticulously sourced using predominately scholarly sources, was neutral and gave due weight to the information contained in sources. Deleting administrator has been notified repeatedly a nd failed to take action. Nominating administrator appears, to me at least, to have deleted the article to influence to outcome of a related AfD. Please see relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DGG_is_engaging_in_disruptive_editing_wrt_Moderation_Management_and_Death_of_Amanda_Froistad and on User_talk:RHaworth. Scarpy (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is the second deletion of Moderation Management (MM). I do not think MM meets the notability guidelines for an organization; it has always been a small organization, and more noted for its failures (attacking people who reported the murder of a five-year-old girl; having its founder kill two people in a drunk driving accident) than its successes (which, as per a 2001 paper, are dubious: Most members drank 4+ times a week and over half had 5+ drinks per drinking day, which is not moderate drinking by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) Defendingaa (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingman Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted without proper consensus Skirts⁸⁹ 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist There was no consensus so I would like to relist this entry so we can get some more constructive discussion. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close-- Where did you discuss this with the sysop who deleted it? Anyways, that was sheer speediable spam and it was deleted, accordingly. ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Nick deleted page despite consensus in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox. Page is my sandbox that I am using to work on an article. User:RhinosF1 said I violated copyvio. Red marquis (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Advised at MfD, you can't copy text exactly in to Wikipedia. That makes it a copyvio. Did you get the offline editor working? RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'm still challenging the decision, which strikes me as unilaterally done and, as User:Alfie pointed out, what I did was nowhere near as egregiously harmful as made out to be. -Red marquis (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long look at the page to see if there was any alternative to deletion and couldn't see any alternative, but I've asked a couple of my fellow administrators for a second opinion, to see if there's any way we can remove the offending material and restore your sandbox. I think such a possibility is remote, so don't get your hopes up, but we will do what we can do. As I said elsewhere, we take no pleasure in deleting material being used to write high quality encyclopedic content, particularly for technical reasons such as copyright issues. Nick (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I have to agree, deleting as a copyvio is not something we want to see. Especially when it's obvious you put hard work into it. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Copyright violations are copyright violations, and can be deleted unilaterally and whether egregious or not. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I took a look at the deleted User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox page and compared that to https://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Dead_to_the_World_(tour). There's no doubt that it's a copy. Whole paragraphs are virtually word-for-word identical, and looking at the history logs, their page predates ours. The next question is whether that material is copyrighted. I found their copyright statement. I'm not an expert on copyright law and licenses, but it looks to me like it's compatable with ours, so I'm thinking WP:G12 may not apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Manson wiki was not one of the 8 URLs I requested a copyright review for violations of due to their copyright policy and the fact users ponited out they may have copied from wikipedia instead of the other way round. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the full history. Could you post that list of 8 URLs here. I'd be happy to look at those too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out at the MfD, Earwig's copyvio tool indicated an issue with a single Desert News source, which could have been easily removed. had already been removed by Oshwah. The other 7 sources listed were in the 30% range (copyvio unlikely). Further examination revealed those 7 sources to have been flagged primarily as a result of brief direct quotations, which isn't copyvio according to policy. The fact that the sandbox was deleted before the copyvio team even had a chance to investigate it and against consensus is a massive red flag for me, especially when the legitimacy of the copyvio claim regarding those 7 other sources had already been questioned. Homqeostasis07 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019_February_12 for the list all were in Earwig's Red Range as 'Violation Likely' not in the 30% range as claimed above. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked during the MfD, and the Desert News source was the only one in the red range. Everything else was triggered by either random sentence fragments, album, song and other associated titles, or bits of direct quotes, none of which could be claimed as copyvio. A review by the copyvio team would've confirmed this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow the admin team to review this. Nick obviously believed this but I'll let other admins decide. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Nick’s explanation on his talk. There was simply too much to sort through to make revdel and individual excision feasible, making wholesale deletion the only option. Whether it’s G12 or IAR “This is the only way to get an outcome clearly needed under policy”, the end result was necessary, and is not subject to consensus at XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one genuine copyvio source had already been excised prior to deletion. Any other alleged instances are disputed. Meaning that the overriding issue here is that the draft was deleted prior to a review by the copyvio team being completed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Nick. Blatant G12 violations cannot be overturned at a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no confirmed G12 violation at the time of this sandbox's deletion. If you're intent on basing your endorsement of this deletion on a response left by an involved user on their own talk page, then I feel as though I have no choice but to recreate the draft on one of my own sandboxes—with the sole confirmed copyvio removed, of course. We could then discuss the veracity of each individual copyvio claim, step by step, as needed, since no-one here has given any regard to the competence of the copyvio team by allowing them sufficient time to respond to the disputed, unconfirmed claims of copyright violation. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My brain hurts. I'm having a really hard time tracing the history of this. It looks like somebody has undeleted the page and moved it back into mainspace. Right now, if I go to Dead to the World Tour, I see a history of 1210 revisions that goes back to June 2007, but I don't see the actual move in the logs. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create Dead to the World Tour, I'm simply expanding on it. I used my sandbox (the one in question here) to work on it. -Red marquis (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [14] is what you want. Nick (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait, there's two copies of this, with overlapping timelines? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are two copies - the live copy and the sandbox (and I've no idea if there are additional issues with cross-attribution being absent). There's also another slew of copyright issues at User:Red marquis/sandbox including a recreation of another G12'd sandbox (User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals Tour sandbox) which I'll need to leave another group of uninvolved editors to investigate. Nick (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick What copyright issues? I reused User:Red marquis/sandbox/Mechanical Animals Tour sandbox but have different material. None of which were what was tagged as copyvio. Don't tell me I'm suddenly prohibited from ever using that sandbox again? -Red marquis (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - User:Red marquis was blocked in 2008 for repeated copyvios https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARed+marquis and apart from 2011 has made few edits since until the last few months. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RhinosF1 I don't even remember that block... I checked my archives, apparently it was for uploading factory-produced pictures of a car before I even knew about Wikipedia's rules on that matter. But if you feel the need to bring up something from more than a decade ago to establish, I don't know, some imagined behavioral pattern, be my guest. -Red marquis (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to do with image policy, I don't care then as I find that confusing. I just thought it was best admins had a full picture. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: User talk:Red marquis/Archive 1#Blocked -Red marquis (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A full picture for what? The link you provided did not even provide said full picture as it did not mention what I was blocked for (which has nothing to do with what is being disputed here). I hope you're not taking me challenging the deletion personally. -Red marquis (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking it. -Red marquis (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Red marquis previous difficulties in understanding our copyright policies, this is useful to know. I also note that their current ongoing difficulties with our copyright policies has manifested itself in another sandbox being deleted, unfortunately. I would suggest it may be sensible for Red marquis to be mentored or gain assistance from an editor experienced with copyright policy before they generate additional content. It's really not good to see so much of their effort being deleted when a more nuanced approach may allow their work to be retained. Nick (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these experiences have been instructive enough but I'll be happy to learn. -Red marquis (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will put on record that I disagree with Nick's characterisation of a 10-year-old incident. The user did not have "difficulties […] understanding" copyright policy. The user was brand-new to Wikipedia, lacking an expert knowledge of our policy, uploading before the File Upload Wizard, uploading before they appeared to know what a talk page was, and uploading when our guidance to uploaders was unusable. (Indeed, unsuable the guidance still is – why do we still bury the warning in "Steps for adding an image"?) This decision to delete needs judging on its merits and does well enough without lazy argumentation of that sort. AGK ■ 22:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking a gander at this and I am currently looking at if Red marquis cut and pasted a copy of what was the current mainspace article to a userspace sandbox to perform some trial edits with the intention of cut and pasting improvements back into mainspace; which is a valid editing technique. I am further assuming that the (potential) copyright issues existed in the article previously and that new edits in the sandbox did not introduce further issues. So I am wondering if the issues are mainly with existing mainspace articles rather than his sandbox copies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. I recreated the article in my sand box so that I can expand upon it. The mainspace article was effectively a stub with a few paragraphs on it before I started working on it. I've been hearing about some issues related to material on the mainspace article that was a word per word match with a similar article in Mansonwiki. I took a look at it and it looks like they copied it from Wikipedia. The material copied though had nothing to do with me (I didn't write it). In fact I've been actively trying to cut out that portion (the part about the stage show/stage design) by rewriting it and folding it into my own work. -Red marquis (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at this I'm uncomfortable with both endorse and overturn (action do nothing or ...). As far as I can tell most things flagged as copy violations were quotes ... with possible overuse per WP:QUOTE not helping and the offensive nature of the quoted material not helping and identical text pieces with MansonWiki not helping. Red marquis did a little mainspace article editing on the article in April 2018 when it was about 20K bytes and restarted on 30 December 2019 bringing it to 60K bytes by early February and up to about 140k bytes during this last week or so. I would suggest most of the what was in the sandbox content is likely now in the article, possibly with some hard work. Luckily about 60 copies of the sandbox are on an internet archive from 11/12 Feb 2019 - though these would not give reference markup. There is a work around for deleting contentious material and placing it under talk/temp ... in this case simply cut/pasting the mainspace article as a new version of the sandbox keeping the old version underneath should have also cleared the problem without losing content. I'd currently be more concerned about copyright violations in the mainspace article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards your last point (the mainspace article currently containing potential copyvio), Earwig's tool showed only one potential issue with this source. It would take a smarter person than I to work out if a judge's publicly-disseminated summation statement to a court case can be deemed copyrightable at all, though. I doubt it, but am willing to be corrected. Their Terms were no help, and their Copyright Policy merely links back to their general disclaimer. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto User:Homeostasis07 on the Judge's statement. User:Djm-leighpark with regards to overuse of quotations per WP:QUOTE that can always be trimmed down during peer review process for the mainspace article. It already feels like it's being peer reviewed here. As for the offensive nature of the quoted material, the article talks about the highly contentious concert tour of the rock band Marilyn Manson. They've never been known to be wholesome. In fact their frontman made his name partly by being overtly blasphemous - as noted in the lede. Offensive or not though is no justification. If I remember correctly, Wikipedia is not in the censorship business. I agree with the MansonWiki material but I had nothing to do with that nor do I have any control over what they pilfer from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, I am not quite done. The topic of the article was a concert tour that lasted for more than a year with a lot of notable occurrences - lots of resistance from political and religious community leaders, etc. I haven't even been able to write up the successful cancellation of the Columbia, SC show before my sandbox got flagged and deleted. A lot of the other sections are also still missing important info. I've only been working on the thing for 1 1/2 months before this all happened. -Red marquis (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red marquis To put it bluntly in a complex cloud of red mist I think I see marginal reasons to overturn and and marginal reasons to endorse but I am far from confident in those deliberations and they might rely on balances of probabilities rather than fact. Pragmatically it is perhaps more important you are able to continue development of your article. Did you create an archive of you sandbox or are you aware of the location of the one in the webarchive? I am minded access to that archive or your own enables you to continue mainstream article development albeit with some degradation and some potential loss of reference markup and avoids others effort needed in organising a recovery.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark I was able to save the last revision to a word document on my PC before the deletion with the intent of using an offline editor to work on it however every single one of those offline editors have been nothing but problematic which makes working on the article too much of a hassle/not worth it. I have a life outside of this too. Working on it in a personal sandbox (which I believe was the intent of Wikipedia sandboxes in the first place) helps me out immensely hence why I am asking for the decision to be overturned. -Red marquis (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:G12. I've come back to this a few times over the past couple of days, and have finally come to the conclusion that the user sandbox page violated our policies around copyright. I'm looking specifically at User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox#Jan_11_Concert_Day (as of 12 February 2019, at 09:56). This looks like a collection of notes taken from various sources, with the intent of eventually distilling them down into original text. More specifically, I'm looking at

tour busses ... and hail

The pretentious prince ... another Book of Mormon.

stage antics ... gothic metal concert.

Manson did, however, ... stood on a monitor speaker.

The stage, ... Michael the archangel.

all of which are direct quotes from Scott Iwasaki (13 January 1997). "PRETENTIOUS MANSON PAYS THE DEVIL HIS DUE". DeseretNews.com. Retrieved 20 February 2019.. Taken outside the context of Wikipedia, this seems like an excellent writing process. Do your research, gather notes and quotes, then start writing your original prose using those notes as guidance. I wish all of our editors put that much effort into their writing. As a matter of copyright law, I'm reasonably sure this is well within the fair use guidelines.

The problem is, we don't just go by copyright law. We hold ourselves to a stricter standard than just complying with US copyright law. The bottom of every page says, Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. That includes not just pages in mainspace, but pages in userspace and user sandboxes. These unattributed notes and quotes are not compatible with that license, so they can't be hosted. I'm sure the intent here was 100% virtuous, but that doesn't change the fact that having this material visible on our servers is contrary to policy. And copyright policy is one of the places were there's very little wiggle room for interpretation.

It sounds like Red marquis has already found a work-around, i.e. editing the text off-line, and then uploading the final, clean, version back to our servers. That's not going to be as convenient as working with it in a user sandbox, but unfortunately, if the workflow is going to include, even transiently, text which cannot be licensed under CCA-SA, there's really no alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith If that's the only issue, it can be removed. I've reworked that particular section anyway. And I've tried to attribute as much quotations and fragments as I could by adding a ref to it. -Red marquis (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only issue that I put in the effort to document at this level of detail. My suspicion is that if I went through more of the page and compared it to more of the sources, I'd find more of these. I'm not willing to put in that amount of effort, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse WP:G12: Endorse: The sandbox version extant at 20190211:1842 snaps with this Desert news indicating a copy paste. Various edits of the sandbox through until the one before it was blanked may have addressed the section in question however a further issue existed with another Desert news article at January 19 with a couple of sentences copied has not been addressed. Section blanking by author or removal of all copy-pasted content may have saved a deletion but it was not in my opinion pragmatically reasonable for admins to do it. Concur with RoySmith comment above. I'd also note a cut/paste of the article from mainspace to sandbox and cut pasting into that from an offline editor should be fine providing very diligent care that no cut-pasted or copied material outside of quotes is brought in; however the style of editing means it is possibly quite easy to end up with a problem. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (uninvolved). I almost reached "Overturn" on the basis that the MfD explicitly discussed the copyright violation issue, and that it was disputed. I hold back because others here assert a blatant copyright violation in the history of the page. Wikipedia is arguably excessively super-cautious in deleting pages due to suspected copyright violation, or copyright violations in the history. Copyright violation is not illegal, it is a mere civil matter that only becomes serious when the copyright owner objects. I argue that it should be OK to leave alleged but disputed copyright violation in a page history while the community discusses it for seven days. Nevertheless, it is community practice to be super-cautious with copyright, and that is a good thing. Moving forwards, is it an option to email the deleted page to User:Red_marquis and allow him to recreate a copyrights-compliant version? Did the page have other authors, meaning that recreation might create new attribution problems? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before emailing, I support requiring User:Red_marquis confirm User:Nick's request "It would be useful if you would both please read our copyright violation policy before undertaking further edits to Wikipedia, so you can both make edits which we don't need to delete (none of us take pleasure in having to delete material in this way). Nick (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Further, I don't see the point of any of this. The MfD nomination also made a strong case that the sandbox is now redundant to Dead to the World Tour. What would be the purpose of re-creation but to re-create forked material? Much better for User:Red_marquis to work with the current mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because, honestly, I'm not done. As much as I've completed I'm only in the initial process of writing the article. I'm still digging around doing research and collecting articles from newspapers all over America around this time period. My intent was to distill all of the information I've researched down to original text in chronological fashion (which when complete would be too massive for mainspace)—and then rewrite it all down to a manageable size for wikipedia and again and again until I refine the article to a point I know it could pass at least GA. Then hopefully FA. -Red marquis (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that: you confirm your respect for Wikipedia:Copyright violations; request an emailed copy of the deleted page; and start fresh with respect to the current mainspace version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'm going to do that. Do I get a quiz? Write and sign a pledge? Click a EULA? Join a secret society hazing ritual? -Red marquis (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a quiz. Here’s a question: Generally, what is the maximum quote size that is considered fair use? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - Page was recreated without approval. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another that had been previously CSD'ed RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1 ... I don't think approval is needed to re-create the page. And I think you were involved in the CSD. I wish I had time to expand on this however I am wish you would state your exact involvements in this. I understand from deleted logs the deleted page breached copyright and if so I am perfectly happy with that. But I really would like open disclosure and evidence of what is going on and your entries at DRV and MfD may be disingenious compared to actions. Thankyou.20:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not simply "recreated", but recreated with the alleged copyvio removed. Without providing evidence that the recreation contained additional copyvio not yet referred to here before you deleted it, I'm afraid you're veering precariously close to harassment at this point, Rhino. Suggest you take a step back from this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1 So what did I copyvio now? I followed your rules this time. According to everyone here, I can copy the mainspace article to in my sadnbox so I can work on it. I brought back NONE of the contentious material. You just don't like that I thumbed my nose did you (and possibly, yeah, you don't like the subject matter)? Sorry, but you and your little ELITIST club of admins can close your ranks all you like I AM NOT GOING TO KISS THE RING. As far as the NEW material you just deleted. That was all from the mainspace. That means, IT VIOLATED SHIT. I'm done with civility. You assholes have gone too far. -Red marquis (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the points separately.

1. By approval, I meant this discussion has not overruled it yet therefore and any duplicate article qualifies for speedy under the appropriate criteria unless restored to allow editors to review it at agreement of the community.

2. It seemed to still have copyvio issues based on an Earwig's scan. The main one I checked was from Https://leagle.com

3. I suggest any aggressive language is removed or struck or separate behavioural investigations may be sought. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that potential issue against leagle may exist in mainspace and should be checked out there. I am doing RL(MOTD2).Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is clearly just circling the drain. The 'leagle' source has already been discussed above. A judge's summation is doubtful copyrightable, so isn't copyvio. Suggest closing this and RhinosF1 just step away from the dynamite (i.e., not delete anymore of Red marquis' sandboxes without consensus). There's obviously something else going on here that the rest of us aren't aware of. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RhinosF1, as noted in your talk page (but I want it recorded here for posterity) what you're doing can be construed as "following/stalking". Which is especially egregious since, by your own admission, you are NOT an admin. Nor has anyone deputized you. I've already added attributions to other sandboxes you deem violates copying within Wikipedia rules. By all means, you can delete this one now. You people have destroyed and mutilated it enough. However, as also noted in your talk page, I won't hesitate to strike back if you continue to VANDALIZE my sandboxes and HARASS me. You may have gotten used to other users simply lying down and taking the imagined power you lack in the real world but think you have here and exercise with impunity but I AM NOT THAT KIND OF USER. I FIGHT BACK. If you feel the need to continue your harassment, then bring it. -Red marquis (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contesting execution of CSD G6 delete of Aprimo on 05:01 1 February 2019 due to fail to follow procedure for deleting a page with major history for the purpose of mooving in a replacement page. Note reason for deletion given at Special:Log/delete specified reason (G6: Deleted to make room for an uncontroversial page move, leaving it to taggers to perform the move) My reading of WP:G6 requires for Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves where the blocking page has a non-trivial page history the administrator is to be aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving_procedures. These moving procedures explicitly state a page that has a major history it should never be simply deleted (As was done here). The Show collapsed box for redirects with with major histories give 3 options and I believe the only viable option here is the third one to move the page to be replaced as a subpage of the article talk page. I believe this would remedy the issue. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a number of comments which may give some background:Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This was previously discussed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 but closed inconclusively in my opinion, in particular there being no Endorse or Overturn !Votes in that discussion and I had discussion with the closer and the only way forward for me is to a further DRV. I bear some responsibility in how that discussion was raised and that discussion was I believe ultimately usefully due to some very helpful inputs which I acknowledge thanks and have used in this resubmission which I hope is more specific.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also suggest the G6 request was not uncontroversial given the AfC request over a redirect with major history with apparently no audited reasoning of why either a cut and paste or a direction to the submitting author to do a request edit over the existing redirect.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I request a temporary undelete of the page. However while I do wish to examine the page and history I cannot justify it as necessary for the this DRV unless something arises.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe there are 3 pragmatically possible !votes here, but I also am open to other viewpoints/amendments. Endorse implies my interpretation of G6 is invalid and additionally the request was uncontroversial, Overturn with no further action would imply the decision not to restore the history was incorrect however there is no benefit to do the restore here; Overturn with Action to restore the page as a subpage of talk is my suggestion as Original Poster.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, how's this for a bolded vote: No administrator has been willing to restore those revisions, and continuing to agitate against everybody telling you why it's a bad idea will not end well. —Cryptic 19:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crowder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The people that reviewed and nominated this case, mentioned that it didn't pass the WP:NGRIDIRON requirement of having appeared in at least one regular season in the National Football League, but I argue that this same requirement also mentions: "or any other top-level professional league".

Because this american football player, also played 8 games in the NFL Europe league (https://www.justsportsstats.com/footballstatsindex.php?player_id=crowdtom001) which was a professional football league, this article shouldn't have been deleted with that argument Tecmo (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was a G4 from an eight-year-old AfD, can an admin confirm they were substantially similar? Also, NFL Europe doesn't/shouldn't satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON as I believe it was a developmental league. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I put on the right pair of glasses and squint real hard, that looks like, "Can somebody please tempundelete this?". Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't necessarily, but it's appreciated! SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist A G4 was inappropriate in this case. The original article was bare bones and the new article had been substantially expanded. I would relist the AfD nomination speedily closed here and let it run the whole week: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Crowder_(2nd_nomination). That being said, I don't think it will pass the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per the inappropriate G4. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus is for deletion not for moving the page elsewhere. DrKay (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend no consideration of DrKay's vote per violation of WP:DRVPURPOSE, section 2 of DRV should not be used (no prior discussion with administrator). Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC) User blocked as meatpuppet of Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk · contribs). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was prior discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The link above your post is red. The article no longer exists in mainspace, nor is it in draft space or portal space or any other public-facing space. There is no rule prohibiting a closing administrator from archiving deleted material and preserving its edit history in a namespace appropriate to this purpose. If the existence of that content displeases you, feel free to blank the page (except for the tag and my comment at the top). bd2412 T 13:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is daft. There have been two AfDs for this content, both resulting in clear consensus for delete. Keeping it Will only prolong the agony.Holotony (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tepid endorse Endorse deletion, and delete from talk-space. To save people some confusion, the page is now at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender. This is an unusual way to make a deleted page's contents available for content repurposing. I might have put in my close an offer to userfy the page if anybody wanted it. I don't think archiving it in this manner was necessary, but I can't find any real fault in it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I've come to agree that since nobody actually asked for the deleted page to be restored somewhere, there was no reason to do so, and it should be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it properly The result was delete, not merge. The topic is already covered in Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Retirement and there is no consensus to expand that. We shouldn't set a precedent for squirrelling away deleted pages in unusual places without any community agreement.--Pontificalibus 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have drafts of proposed language with references and all made on talk pages all the time. They get archived, like all other talk page content. I considered copying the text to a talk page section for discussion (which any editor can do), but chose to preserve the edit history in case any attribution issues should arise. If I had not specifically noted on the article talk page that I had moved the content to that space, it seems unlikely that anyone would even care that it exists. bd2412 T 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::I support BD2412's explanation over Pontificalibus as more logical and helpful for WP. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Sockpuppet comment stricken. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse and Allow recreation "of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation". A decision of "allow recreation" is not a gift but should be standard procedure for most non-joke articles. Even many of the "delete" votes seem to support recreation IF additional developments occur. A decision of "allow recreation of the page if..." (quoted from the Deletion Review page) is a no brainer.

Suggested draft decision language by Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC). Endorse. In Wikipedia, except with the weakest articles, Allow recreation...IF should always be allowed. This article is no different. There was clearly a closure of the AFD and another user, against process, reopened it. Such actions should not be condoned. For this reason, a technical Overturn is declared. However, for the sake of streamlining events, the decision by BD2412 may be considered as if another AFD was subsequently run. This streamlining should NOT be routinely done because it undermines Wikipedia and encourages unauthorized reverting of closed AFD's. The "subsequent AFD" by BD2412 is considered to be an endorse. It is so ordered _________ (signature)Sockpuppet comment stricken. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely speechless. Where on earth did you come from?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::From earth where I have a deep understanding of process and fairness. I see the fundamental unfairness of BD2412 tacit approval of an IP reverting an AFD closure but also the logic of it. Since we cannot condone bad behavior, I seek to have BD2412's actions explained as a streamlining measure, as if BD2412's actions were as a separate, subsequent AFD even though there should have been a clear process for it, not just letting an IP reverting a closed AFD go. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment stricken. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in its entirety. I admire BD2412's attempt to try and please everyone who voted in the AfD, but I suspect (a bit like brexit), the outcome has pleased noone. I have tried to understand why BD2412 decided it may be a good idea to preserve the article content (and acknowledge the reasons given), but the logic is fundamentally flawed, as the article had gone through two lengthy AfDs, both of which were overwhelming for the deletion of the article and it's nature; the incident itself has essentially ceased to be relevant now given no further action is expected beyond what was not even a significant incident itself. Moving it anywhere, be it draft, userspace, sandbox or as was the case, a subpage of a talk page, has in fact given those who supported retention a reason to believe that the closing administrator was sympathetic towards the article's nature and could be referenced in any future recreation attempt (for which there is already a precedent). Any potential for a future case to reinstate ceased to be viable upon the news reports suggesting that there is not expected to be further developments. We can assume the article creator has already kept a copy of the page themself, as perhaps has Cheesesteak1, both of whom show intentions towards trying to circumvent the process to suit their own agenda. Rather than offer any opportunity to allow this to drag on indefinitely, there needs to be some closure and a definitive action that indisputably respects the outcome of the two deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible show of bad faith by Bungle, who is bungling it. "...Cheesesteak1, both of whom show intentions towards trying to circumvent the process to suit their own agenda". Inflammatory. My agenda is to uphold Wikipedia. I merely object to allowing an AFD closure to be reverted by the whim of an IP user. As I have written, I have no skin in the article. Bungle, on the other hand, writes "Delete", which shows a profound misunderstanding of Deletion Review. It is not a keep or delete rehash of AFD. I recommend ignoring Bungle's input as it does not address the fundamental issues of Deletion Review. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment stricken. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was actually started because of the moving of the article to talk space, and I express my view that it needs to be deleted in its entirety. Secondly, you HAVE shown intentions to cirvumvent process by trying to close an AfD regarding an article and initial AfD you clearly were involved with, and against what was an obvious consensus (to delete). I'm sorry if you took issue with my manner of expression, but in that AfD you acted against procedure which was identified by other editors. However, this should not be a matter of personal views and your suggestion that my own view should not count is indeed a show of bad faith on your part. This is not the AfD or a rehash, as you rightly identify, but expressions of view on the outcome. My view is that it should be deleted in entirety, as per the AfD outcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, delete talk space page We're here because of pure disruption and a lack of understanding of a WP:BADNAC close by a user who just rage-quit. Delete the talk space page and close this like a normal XfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The above is an endorse vote and a new AFD of a talk page hidden in a Deletion Review matter. Very inappropriate. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, WP:NOTNEWS applies, and delete duplicate page as an attempted end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and no further action. Do not micromanage the administrator like Stifle requests. I do not like the original delete but it is better than bookburning and destroying the information (AFD are not suppose to be a bookburning mob). There is no Wikipedia policy calling for what Stifle wants. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeaky Rubber Duck: With respect, you're suggesting that you are satisfied with the decision to move to the user talk space, which I find surprising. Given this is now neither an article nor forming part of sub-section of an article, why would you be happy leaving it as it is? Afterall, you will already have a copy of the article pre-deletion. BD2412's reasoning was that selective contents could be moved into Philip's main article and serve to retain the attribution history. As you're the original creator, you could probably just do this and then accept deletion of the redundant talk page "article". Right now, you have endorsed a state of limbo but have not confirmed you will not seek recreation of the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of the article, and delete the copy. I sympathise with the closer's efforts to preserve content that might be suitable for merging, and in many cases would agree that that is the best approach, but in this case the consensus to delete rather than merge was perfectly clear, and the extent of coverage of this incident in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has been discussed at length in both these AfD discussions and at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. And then we have the issue of the disruption that we have seen in the deletion discussions, which can only be expected to continue if this content is preserved. The benefits of all-out deletion clearly outweigh the costs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheesesteak1 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) per WP:CIR, and was identified as a likely meatpuppet of Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk · contribs), who has been indefinitely blocked by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs). Both sock and master participated in this discussion, I struck the sock comments. Squeaky Rubber Duck maintains his innocence on his talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but delete. I agree with the original deletion, but I don't see consensus for preservation of the material. Regular deletion discussion participants are quite capable of !voting userfy/draftify and the like when that is their opinion, and there is a perfectly reasonable means for any editor to request the material if needed for a permissible article. Though well intentioned, the retention of this material was against the expressed consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erroneously deleted as CSD A7 despite third party reliable sources. Undeletion refused by deleting admin User:Bbb23 following a request at User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_47#Undelete_Kartridge - hahnchen 11:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Maybe this was a marginal WP:A7, but I can't see any hope of this being kept at AfD. New website, launched all of three months ago. References are two links to the company's own blog, and three press release reprints. That doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Beyond that, WP:A7 applies, if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and a good argument could be made that these (non) sources fit that.

Looking closer, half the text of the article is copy-pasted from a press release, so if WP:A7 doesn't fit, then WP:G12 certainly does.

One thing that's curious about the history is that this was created (as a redirect) six months before the site even launched. I assume there was some early notice in the industry press which prompted that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text from A7 - "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you want to argue against the credibility of those sources, you should do so at AFD, CSD offers no forum for argument. CSD is not a place for unilateral deletions based on notability, which is an explicitly defined CSD non-criteria). In this case, the admin deleted it under A7, and then refused to delete it for notability reasons. This is a double standard. - hahnchen 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of this article, User:GregLoire was never notified. I received a notification, despite being inactive, because I think I created the original redirect months ago. - hahnchen 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not everyone has enough sources but it also doesn't mean that he is not notable. He is the current commissioner of Federal Maritime Commission (official link). If his failure at 24th Congressional District of Florida as a Republican political candidate doesn't makes him notable but his role at United States Federal Maritime Commission as a commissioner does makes him notable. XFD took place on December 2017, re-direct result seems valid however his appointment as a commissioner on Nov 16, 2018 can be now considered and page can be restored now. Robwilsons (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This was endorsed as a delete just over a week ago. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 30 SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus at the AfD discussion was that he is not notable, despite his role at United States Federal Maritime Commission as a commissioner which was, as far as I remember, in the article when it was being discussed. That consensus was read correctly by the closer. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. It seems that my memory was incorrect, and it was the previous deletion review rather than the original deletion discussion that I remembered, but my opinion still stands. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural endorse. DRV is only necessary when you believe you believe the XfD result is invalid. Else, if it now meets requirements, just recreate it. Note that the appointment might not guarantee notability, so it may be wise to evaluate the sources and ask at the AfC help desk to ensure it meets the inclusion criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering this was just at DRV one week ago, was closed as a clear endorse because the requirements were not met, and the nominator's only contribution to Wikipedia at this point has been this deletion review, I'm leaning much more towards a possible sock/COI issue than encouraging recreation of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to get the facts straight, Sola is not the commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission, but one of the commissioners. This really has no bearing on the decision, which was based on the consensus reached in the discussion, but if you're going to challenge a decision it's best to be truthful. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was correctly determined by the closer. Only one keep vote, who merely asserted that the sources were sufficient, which was denied by other participants. Only disagreement between most participants was whether the article should be redirected or deleted. --Enos733 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm creating this on behalf of User:Band1301. It looks like they tried to create this but accidentally put it in the wrong place. This is an administrative action only; I am neutral. Original statement from User:Band1301 follows. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schedules of networks for saturday mornings can't be deleted, that's awful!

GET RID OF THIS RULE QUICKLY!

A tag has been placed on 2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus seemed clear and there was not some Policy or guideline consideration from the editors who expressed keep to suggest that this was closed incorrectly. 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse One keep vote was WP:USEFUL, the other led to some good discussion, but an easy endorse based on the consensus of the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Well-attended debate with a clear consensus to delete, both in number of !votes and strength of the arguments presented. No other way it could have been closed. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AfD We should base a major decision not just on G4, but should discuss the issue again.--especially as it is possible that it will be used as a precedent for other deletions. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse definite consensus for deletion in the AfD. While one keep !voter did have a reasonable argument it didn't get a very good reception. The last discussion was closed two months ago and was well attended, I don't think there's any need to revisit the issue yet. Hut 8.5 18:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AFD correctly identified that Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I stumbled upon this page due to a discussion at ANI. I looked at the page, and the scope of this list. It looked expansive and indiscriminate. The talk page showed two deletion discussions, so I checked them. When I checked the second one, I saw the result was "keep" with no further explanation given. The discussion had numbers for both so I looked a little closer. There were about three more keep votes at first sight, but some of them were based on invalid arguments(one, for example, based on personal experience). I then thought about contacting the administrator, but that administrator has not yet edited in this year and has very likely no idea why they closed this discussion in that manner. Based on what I researched, the decision to close the deletion discussion with "keep" and no further explanation was not good. And I think that the discussion does not support "keep". Lurking shadow (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV isn't going to overturn a twelve-year-old discussion to delete on strength-of-argument grounds. Renominate it. —Cryptic 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• He he... the injustice that was done! In 2007! As Cryptic says, renominate it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Phelps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus to delete; "at least a few of those recommending keep put forward reasonable arguments that were not fully refuted."The lorax (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dismiss Filer has made no effort to discuss this with the closing admin per instructions. And of course, endorse the close in any case  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse An excellent closing rationale from Tony. I'm all for improving / rescuing articles wherever practically possible, but in this case the arguments from R8R, DGG and Ca2james (none of which were refuted) were pretty much impossible to ignore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closers’ comment I wrote such a long rationale because I knew this would be coming, so I’m not going to say much more. Both from a pure numerical standpoint and an argument standpoint this was pretty easy to close. The keeps were weak (see close) and the deletes were strong. I don’t see how anyone could have closed this as no consensus: deletion was clearly called for by policy and the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per Ritchie. Please don't waste yet another week. ∯WBG^converse 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing statement is clear, well-written, and explains exactly why there is a consensus to delete, when observed through the lens of policy. I'm as enthusiastic about redressing systemic bias and promoting articles about minorities as anyone else. But that doesn't mean we should have articles on particular subjects just because they tick those boxes, even though they fairly clearly don't meet either the subject-specific or the general notability guidelines. This was a good close, Tony.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I stayed out of the AfD because I was honestly torn — I think she's probably notable enough to have an article on, but the sourcing wasn't there. I suppose I was hoping for a no consensus outcome, but that is not what happened at the AfD: there was a clear consensus to delete. The participants advocating for deletion presented stronger arguments with significantly more backing. Tony's close correctly identifies this fact, as well as that many of the keep !votes were not based on policy. This was a good close. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This was a difficult AfD, but not a difficult close. Very well reasoned. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I don't yet know whether I endorse it or not, but I do want to intervene right now to say that anyone who can read that discussion and think it wasn't a difficult close, might benefit from more reflection on the issues. WP:N has never been policy on Wikipedia. Which means that per policy, WP:N is subject to local consensus -- N doesn't overcome a local consensus, and can't.—S Marshall T/C 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True User:S Marshall. Not so interesting along the lines that the AfD displays a local consensus that this article should be deleted as failing the WP:GNG criterion (my reading). What is very interesting is that this AfD is an extreme example of a subject with a lot of WP:V verifiable material from multiple WP:RS-es, showing that the en.wikipedia community requires multiple independent sources, not just 2RS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's extreme in that and several other respects; the whole debate is an outlier for all sorts of reasons. The hell of it is that by the way Wikipedia normally judges these things, TonyBallioni isn't wrong. But this outcome does stink. Imagine you're having a conversation with an intelligent and thoughtful person who's unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and you're trying to explain to them why we have to delete this article about a researcher, achiever and educator but we're not allowed to delete articles about porn stars, individual TV episodes, or the list of Crayola crayon colours. I couldn't do that without making our whole culture sound really badly thought out. Could you?

      There are times when this encyclopaedia makes me proud -- we piss off the Daily Mail fairly badly so we've got to be doing something right. But there are other times when I analyse one of our decisions and I come away feeling let down. Like this time.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see how that could be closed any other way and the closing statement expresses it well. The main attempt to show that the subject meets the GNG rested on profiles of her put out by her employer, and I'm not surprised that wasn't very successful. Nor was there a convincing argument that she met any of the various SNGs, especially the argument that cited the introductory explanation of WP:BIO rather than the actual criteria. On top of that there were various arguments about the general significance of the topic area, the desire to improve coverage of science, the desire to have more biographies of women, accusations of sexism and attacks on the notability guidelines in general, all of which is at best not very relevant. If there had been a solid consensus in that discussion that the subject should be exempted from the usual notability guidelines then there might have been something to that, but there wasn't. Hut 8.5 19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to further comment on something that's been raised below - I don't think it would be a great idea to modify the notability guidelines to allow us to have an article on this person. Comparisons to low notability standards for other subjects would be better addressed by raising those standards. Hut 8.5 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A clear policy based decision, clearly explained and well argued. Despite the fact it contradicts my own contribution I could not argue an appeal against the closure on policy grounds. Time to drop the stick methinks. WCM_email 20:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't like the idea of editors !voting in an AfD and then also !voting in the delrev, so I'm not voting here. The closing statement was thorough and clearly the closer put a lot of time and thought into it (just reading the damn thread alone). I echo Hut's statement that the only chance for that article to be kept was if there had been consensus "that the subject should be exempted from the usual notability guidelines"–specifically, whether this article and other articles/videos from the subject's employer could be considered to establish notability despite it being a non-independent source. I was sad to see the canvassing issue eclipse the debate, and I don't think the rewrite of the article during the AfD was noticed by everyone who voted on the earlier version of the article. In a perfect world, I would have liked to see the discussion relisted and editors taking a second look and focusing on the "independence exception" rather than the other side issues, or have the AfD closed as a "no consensus without prejudice for immediate refiling" to offer a "clean-start" AfD. But even if one of those two things had happened, it's not at all clear that a different result would have been achieved, because the independence exception got some but not a lot of support in the discussion (and clearly didn't sway the closer or anybody voting here). Other than calling my arguments weak (they were brilliant, damn it!), I find no fault with the closer in making this close. Levivich 21:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On declaring a status of involved, consider commenting at WT:DRV here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for letting me know about that discussion, and per that let me unambiguously disclose I !voted keep in the AfD (about ten times). Levivich 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, the canvassing issue didn't really impact my reading of the consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, your closing statement was impressive in that it addressed almost all the arguments raised, rather succinctly, which makes clear you went through it carefully and picked through all the weeds. But I think the canvassing accusations (and the at times personal back-and-forth) polluted the discussion itself. I don't think it really matters, though, because the "clean start" AfD discussion that I want to have about an "independent coverage exception" for things like astronauts and gov't nuclear scientists can be had at another article's AfD; it doesn't have to be this one. Levivich 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sad Endorse. (Uninvolved with the AfD and topic.) Very good closing statement that reflects and distills the discussion. I note a simple explanation: No independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth. The word "independent" is the key challenge in this case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modify to "sad endorse". It (google cache) looked like a good article. I am very surprised at lack of independent coverage, but it seems to be true. Even local newspapers discussing her mentoring of local women and school students would help a lot. I see one , this single paragraph bio, which I would count as one of the 2 to 3 minimal independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as delete. A straightforward application of policy based on consensus. This is not to denigrate the shrewdness of the closer who cut through the flim-flam to the essence. (I was a participant in the Afd and voted delete). Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Reluctant endorse, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in an RfC. (I did not participate in the AfD.) There is no question that, in terms of current policy and practice, this AfD was correctly closed. But I can't help but echo S Marshall's sentiment above: "Imagine you're having a conversation with an intelligent and thoughtful person who's unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and you're trying to explain to them why we have to delete this article about a researcher, achiever and educator but we're not allowed to delete articles about porn stars, individual TV episodes, or the list of Crayola crayon colours. I couldn't do that without making our whole culture sound really badly thought out. Could you?" The application of our rules leads us, in this instance, to delete an article that has much more merit as part of an encyclopedia than many other articles routinely created or kept at AfD. This indicates that the rules are, in this case, preventing us from improving the encyclopedia – a textbook case in which WP:IAR should apply. I'm still not calling for overturning the closure on the basis of IAR, because I strongly believe that Wikipedia should work based on broadly accepted, predictable rules, and that if these are found to be deficient, they should preferably be amended rather than ignored. I'm not sure what, if any, amendment to academic notability standards would be appropriate to solve this problem – the standards are reasonably strict for good reasons, in order to keep out self-published cranks and fringe figures – but I would welcome proposals by other experienced editors in the course of an RfC. Sandstein 17:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer made sound evaluation of the consensus present in the AfD discussion, giving appropriate weight to the strength of argument and applicable policies. I also think we need to be alive to the harm that can be caused by biographies of people of marginal notability, to which inappropriate editing can often go unspotted and unreverted for too long. Whilst I appreciate the points made by Sandstein and S Marshall above, I think they point towards consideration needing to be given to whether tougher notability standards ought to apply elsewhere, rather than giving me pause that we may have got the result wrong in relation to this particular article. WJBscribe (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Sandstein and S Marshall. Clearly closed correctly by the rules we have. And maybe any reasonable set of objective rules would have gotten us to the same point. I tend to be a fan of articles on things like individual TV episodes, or the list of Crayola crayon colors. I don't even have an objection to articles on porn stars. But academics should see more coverage here IMO. It would be nice to have this article. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (I argued to delete in the AfD). Based on our current rules, the decision was clear. There may be a need to revisit our rules that currently make us have articles on many unremarkable footballers but lack articles on many outstanding scientists. However, our notability and verifiability rules are there for very good reasons, and relaxing them for certain classes of articles should not be done lightly. We might end up with articles about every single scientist who ever had their institution write about them, or list everyone who has more than a handful of publications. It might actually be more useful for the future than our collection of sports statistics. However, I find it difficult to argue against WJBscribe's point that we should be very careful before relaxing our standards for BLPs. —Kusma (t·c) 20:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Sad Endorse After reading over the discussion, the closing admin read the discussion correctly. Closing it as a keep or no consensus would be super voting. At the same time, this sad episode in Wikipedia's history shows just how slanted our notability guidelines are. WP:NFOOTY and WP:NPORN are well known to be laughably low bars for inclusion, while WP:NPROF seems to be a bar that takes a lifetime to cross. I think that we need to have a wider discussion about if our current special notablity guidelines are doing what they are suposed to do. I understand WJBscribe's point as a former OSer, but there has to be a better way than what we are doing right now. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, more as a meta point than anything else; but NPROF is generally not seen as a hard guideline to pass. It is objective and provides one of the clearest standards of notability that we have, while also making it easier for those who are notable and don’t have coverage in independent sources to demonstrate that they are significant enough in their fields to be included. Unfortunately, Clarice Phelps did not meet any of these standards. The next option would be the GNG, which does require independent sourcing. She had none. While I did not have an opinion before closing this, upon reflection of the discussion here it seems to me this AfD is working exactly like our policies and guidelines should be working: preventing someone who is a relatively minor researcher and is not by any measure a standout in her field from having an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went looking and had to narrow the categories, but in my first shot I found these (a) Dutch (b) football (c) defenders (d) born in 1988 (e) with 1 professional game (f) who have a Wikipedia article: 1, 2, 3. We also have every TV episode ever, every model of every car ever manufactured, porn stars, train stations, and five million more, but we can't find room for a nuclear chemist at a top gov't laboratory because she's too minor of a researcher (she's on their website front page now). I wouldn't describe this as working exactly like our policies and guidelines should be working. Count me among those saddened by the consensus reached at this AfD. Seems the need to adjust our notability guidelines in multiple areas is self-evident, whether it's done by loosening or tightening or some of each. Leviv ich 08:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some of this discussion should probably be moved wholesale to WT:BIO. In the meantime:
  • there are reasonable arguments that were not fully refuted. If there were reasonable arguments that weren't countered, then it would be nice if they were specified, but it's invalid anyway, since weighing of consensus in no way requires that one side's arguments are fully countered.
  • if Phelps were male that she wouldn't have been nominated for deletion (Twitter). Those working in the sciences, including those with stronger sourcing and claims than Phelps, do get nominated (example). The root problem here was that people (reasonably) believed the initial overstatement about her level of responsibility for the discovery of Ts.
  • NFOOTY is too lenient. Agreed, but there's a functional reason for having them as separate articles, because they normally appear on multiple pages (at one page you could merge/redirect; at two or more, you can normally only sensibly keep or delete), and there's a benefit to explicit interlinkage. There's a few other SNGs where this logic applies. I have an idea which I'll post sometime at WP:VPI; I expect it to have a broad range of unpopularity.
  • NPORN is too lenient. Either you've not seen nominations anytime recently, or appear to be in IDONTLIKEIT territory.
  • Those who have their organisations publicise them should receive an article despite not otherwise meeting GNG/ANYBIO/ACADEMIC. Scientists only? Why not administrators, attorneys, auditors, anaesthetists and accountants? Only government organisations? Why not non-governmental or private organisations of a similar function, repute and size?

(participant in the AFD) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (AfD nominator) NFOOTY may be ridiclous (but it may be based on the sport rags covering players - implied coverage). However, NPROF as it is already relaxes GNG by a wide margin. Academics who pass GNG by dint of their own publications often have no indepependent coverage on themselves. As for Phelps - a b.sc with few publications and a little bit of STEM PR from their employer - is not close to meeting NPROF. Such employee profiles and promotion are available in many occupations - and establishing a SNG allowing us to establish notability on such grounds would open the NOTSOAP gates. Finally - the BLP concern - our article on Phelps containd at least two wildly inaccurate assertions - we stated she was a PhD when she in fact holds a b.sc. In addition we stated she was the first African American woman to discover an element - which is possibly inaccurate in that there may be a prior such individual and it overstates Phelps role. Our rather severe bio falsification had ramifications outside of Wikipedia - a few non-Wikipedia people/orgs tweeted about a Dr. Phelps based on our false coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This was a blatant supervote. The closer acknowledged that there were different good faith views but rather than recording the lack of consensus, they enforced the view which they preferred, citing only guidelines but not a single policy. This manner of closing is contrary to the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." The outcome is especially outrageous when compared with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver – a parallel case of weak notability. The male footballer got the benefit of the doubt while the female scientist didn't. Andrew D. (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand this because it looked like a supervote to me at first as well, but then I read the discussion again with more care. Source-based arguments do carry a lot of weight at AfD, and aspirational commentary about the kind of articles we ought to have are generally defeated by close evaluation of sources. It's normally right to do that. I really do feel that Wikipedia has followed its own rules here. But I think we've followed them off a cliff.

  I think you're right to say NFOOTY is a very inclusionist guideline. There's a general issue with SNGs producing inconsistent results because some of them are more inclusionist than others, which is a matter we've discussed several times at DRV. That might be a useful basis for the RfC Sandstein mentions.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the rules were not followed. I explicitly cited 4 separate policies and they were ignored in the close just as WP:DGFA was ignored. The closer cited some guidelines but guidelines are weaker than policies, not stronger, and they specifically say that exceptions are permitted. This is exactly the sort of situation that WP:IAR was written for as the encyclopedia is clearly worse as a result of this action. Other action such as the RfC isn't going to put this right because the football fans are showing up in numbers to defeat it and, in any case, deleting more stuff would just make matters worse – annoying even more people to no useful purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They were quite roundly rebutted with policy - diff - the lack of independent reliable sources make an article meeting WP:V and WP:NPOV impossible (I'll note the rather laughable reply - of seeing no V problems - when the article at the time was falsely misrepresenting the subject as a PhD (holds, in fact, a b.sc and is apparently a m.sc student)). Given the subject is a WP:BLP, lack of sourcing is a serious issue. Furthermore, relying on the subject's employer's PR is a WP:NOTSOAP issue. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Icewhiz's points were just some of their overblown bludgeoning. The close was not based on any of that as the closer just cherry-picked his own favourites from the torrent of tendentious twaddle. Andrew D. (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SNG discussions underway: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO Leviv ich 02:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Without even looking at them, I can tell you how those will go; we've tried this before. All the people who've spent the last decade or more writing these minimally-sourced BLPs will all have their favourite SNG pages watchlisted, and they'll all line up to give you a hundred and one reasons why you can't delete all their work. The RfC will end, at best, in no consensus. That's why, for some years, there was a standoff situation where WP:NPORN was still an official Wikipedia guideline but DRV was completely refusing to enforce it.

  As an alternative, you could try relaxing the guidelines for scholars but I bet that doesn't get past all our BLP hawks.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I worry they were started too soon, but now that they're here, I hope everyone participates, including everyone who !voted at the Phelps AfD. As I understand it, a lot of things at Wikipedia never changed, until one day they did. Leviv ich 01:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would tend to suggest that there may have been insufficient preparation, and it may be wiser to withdraw them promptly and start a workshop to prepare for an RfC based on hard data. I mean, the way to show that NFOOTY is too inclusive is by counting the number of football-related BLPs and comparing it with the number of academic BLPs (and that would take someone with more technical knowledge than me, but for example there's probably a way to count the number of articles that are in both category:Living people and a subcategory of category:Footballers -- sounds like a job for a script). If we don't base the RfC on hard data then we'll get an RfC that's about opinions.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This came up during GiantSnowman's recent arbitration case. As of a few minutes ago, there are 895870 main namespace pages in Category:Living people, of which 138981 transclude {{Infobox football biography}}. About 1 in 6½. —Cryptic 22:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite an astonishing statistic. Comparing football counts with academic counts isn't in itself a good gauge of anything because we don't know the overall ratio of reliable source coverage between the two. But one in six is just crazy. Systemic bias in action.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the world's most popular sport, I estimate there's roughly 2,000 professional football teams worldwide (estimate based on a web search and rounded). If they each have 18 players, and each club receives significant coverage (not a bad assumption, either) that means there are approximately 36,000 professional footballers playing worldwide. Some won't be notable, but many teams will have more than 18 players, as well, and this doesn't include players notable for other reasons, for instance national team players. And that's just current players. I'm not surprised the number's that high, but it's also an apples-to-oranges comparison and doesn't imply anything about reliable source coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be an apples-to-apples comparison for football biographies? 1 out of 6 strikes me as obvious evidence of an imbalance. Leviv ich 03:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure numerical comparisons between occupations with completely different coverage levels can ever be comparable, honestly. I agree it shows an imbalance. It does not necessarily show a bias. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost all national team players play on a professional team. I am going to call bullshit on the coverage of many of the 2,000 teams - some of which receive less coverage than college teams in the US (whose athletes we generally exclude). 1st tier teams have coverage. 3rd and 4th tier teams (currently included) are probably mostly covered in very local papers - which would not ususally establish SIGCOV for other bios.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a conversation for a different place, but I disagree with your assumption - third and fourth-tier fully professional leagues tend receive very good coverage. (There's a couple on our list I raise my eyebrow at, but they're also not ones that cause this problem.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer made a fair discussion of the situation, and I would not have objected if it had led him to the opposite conclusion.Of course local consensus to keep or delete can override any guidelines--guidelines are called guidelines because they only give the usual or general way of dealing with things, and we can make whatever exceptions we have consensus for, and any reasoning that doing so will benefit the encyclopedia by IAR is a fair argument. We make our own rules, and we make our own exceptions. But there was not such consensus to override the general guidelines of GNG and WP:PROF here, so the deletion is valid. The question of whether we are too permissive in other areas is a separate issue -- differnet fields are not comparable. We have recently raised the bar for Pornbio, and perhaps we should raise it further, and conceivably we should raise it for athletes, but these are separate discussions. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't raise the bar for limbo dancers of course; that would make it too easy  :) ——SerialNumber54129

• Endorse because the closer was entitled to do as he did. However, along with DGG I think keep or no consensus would have also been within discretion. So far as I know we have no policy against bringing Wikipedia (further) into disrepute. WP:IAR does not really cover that because it can be (and I suppose is being) read in a way to give priority to abiding by the rules over benefiting the reader or the community. However, our guidelines were produced to guide our thoughts with advice intended to be wise, not to constrain us into making poor choices. Thincat (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll note that our SNGs cover most professional athletes but don't cover most professional researchers. I think there is an argument that one of those two things is broken. Now the reason for it is that we rely on coverage, and most professional athletes have coverage in spades while most professional researchers don't. Says something about our society I guess. But as long as we tie independent coverage to notability at all, we're going to be at the whims of society. What people are really suggesting is that our long-adopted measure of notability has serious problems. And I'm not sure an SNG change here or there is going to fix that. I'm a big fan of WP:N. It provides a fairly bright line for inclusion. But it isn't perfect. Hobit (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • –Researchers/scholars/academics are covered by the SNG WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Correct, my wording was poor. WP:ATHLETE would have us include almost all professional athletes. WP:PROF does not have us include most professional researchers. That was the point I was trying to make. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused by the comments that the closer could have properly closed the discussion as either a keep, or a delete, or a no consensus. How can consensus clearly support one outcome and also clearly support the opposite outcome? If a discussion could reasonably be closed as either keep or delete, isn't it, by definition, "no consensus"? Leviv ich 21:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since I made such a comment above I'll respond here. The AFD was largely a matter of our notability guidelines rather than any policy and some people rank guidelines as a lot less compelling than policies and others put them pretty much on a par. All guidelines say they admit of occasional exceptions and say that they are to be treated with common sense. To some (most?) people common sense is to abide by the rules of thumb given and to have scarcely any exceptions. Some people take guidelines to be descriptive of what has happened on previous discussions and other people take them to be prescriptive of how one ought to !vote. Some closers discount !votes that go against guidelines (even if a justification is given), others accept them unless they are clearly silly or malicious. Some people assess how "strong" an argument is (not by vehemence, but by persuasive power) others allow people an equal say even if they are not so eloquent. Subjectivity prevails throughout AFD voting and closing, and likewise at DRV. Now, if the close could have been made any way, why was it not necessarily "no consensus"? It is because the closer did not think that it could be closed any way other than "delete". He was certain. How nice to see things so clearly. Speaking personally, at DRV I endorse any close unless I find it highly aberrant and, for me, this one was not. Thincat (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus per Andrew Davidson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closer assessed consensus and the arguments made against our relevant policies and guidelines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the strength of arguments and the numerical vote count are clearly towards deletion. It's not unanimous, but unanimity is not required for consensus. Furthermore, the keep arguments are circular; they effectively say that the article should be kept because WP:N is not a policy, but give no reason other than WP:ILIKEIT to ignore that guideline here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with caveat – this is WP:BLP1E at best. Although I am with WIR in wanting more articles about Black women, I wonder how Clarice would feel if she were included on Wikipedia just for being a Black woman, while other members of the team that discovered 117 were excluded for lack of notability. Latching onto this one article when there are so many notable women of color to write about looks like tokenism. On the other hand, I want to start a general conversation about how our notability guidelines might result in the unintentional exclusion of women of color just because the wider media tends not to cover their accomplishments, and how we can address that within the constraints of notability (broadly construed). Qzekrom (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin Academy Preparatory School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was split exactly 50-50 between merge and keep, with extensive rationales for the !votes on both sides. @Ad Orientem: has closed it as "keep" with zero explanation as to why they ignored the significant number of people supporting a merge. Considering where it was at, it would have made most sense to relist it for wider feedback, and at worst, it was a "no consensus" - closing it as "keep" with no rationale amounts to just ignoring the responses made. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a 2nd look at this, I still think the weight of the argument comes down on the side of Keep. However, TDW is correct that purely in the vote count the discussion is closely divided. In deference to this (NOTAVOTE notwithstanding) and the fact that it has not been relisted previously, I am going to go ahead and relist this for another week. On a side note this probably could have been handled on my talk page with the same outcome... but moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi All, thank you for your replies regarding ThinkMarkets,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_30, The Forbes article is independently published by a contributor, here is another link from AFR https://www.afr.com/street-talk/citi-tapped-to-raise-for-online-broker-ahead-of-ipo-20181001-h162io. Due to the nature of the business, most of the publications are done by contributors within the same industry. FCA is not a directory, most of the financial companies are required to be regulated by FCA in order to operate in the UK. (I've reposted my reply as the previous conversation is archived) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddendigits (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be speedy closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. This was just discussed as WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 30; the current nomination adds nothing new to the discussion. Not to mention the nom is a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer appears to have failed to properly assess the strength of argument. When asked, the reason given by the closer is that the argument had "descended into name-calling", but did not address the issue of the strength of argument presented by those who wanted to keep the article [15]. None of the three who !voted for keep gave any reason founded in notability guidelines - one argued that the content is transcluded and it should have been tagged first (the article had already been redirected/reverted and prodded/deprodded before the AfD), one argued against notability guidelines, while the last argued that notability is contextual. The no-consensus result here is puzzling because the majority !vote for delete was ignored with no apparent consideration for strength of argument, merely that there were arguments. The closer also argued that a delete or keep argument is weak given that I thought redirect is a possible option, but the discussion is not about the opinion of one person and that is not how most have !voted. I don't normally challenge a closer's decision even if I disagreed and considered for some time whether starting this deletion review is worthwhile, but this result made redirect difficult because those who wanted to keep it can simply revert any redirect claiming that there is no consensus to redirect. Since there are 2-300 articles on audio productions by the same company that are largely in a worse state source-wise, this result sets a bad precedent for those who wants to keep those in any future AfDs to just keep arguing with little regard for notability guidelines (and it was essentially just a single IP editor who kept arguing) hoping for a non-consensus. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that discussion was a mess. Hard to call it much of anything other than NC, though delete wouldn't have been crazy. There appear to be only two sources in the article, one from the Radio Times (which is probably not independent?) and Digital Spy, which appears to be a reasonable source. Eh. My !vote would have been to merge back into the main article Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax. But for now I guess endorse as it's a reasonable closing of an unreasonable discussion. There are other sources [16], [17], etc. so it's not like there is nothing out there to build an article around. Hobit (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn That discussion was a mess and on one hand I entirely understand the no consensus close. That being said, I really don't see any good, consistent arguments to keep within the mess. Furthermore, no keep !votes occurred after any of the relistings, all of which were fails WP:GNG (including the merge !vote). I certainly understand where the nominator is coming from. I've oscillated between Endorse, Comment, and Overturn here and think overturning to a redirect or a merge would be the most sensible decision. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in a similar place. But a merge or redirect target isn't obvious (there are at least 2 and probably 3) and there was no meaningful discussion on that. As I said, I'd have !voted to merge back to Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax. The one !vote for merging picked a different location. IMO, it comes down to DRV's remit. I sometimes think it appropriate to go outside of the discussion to find the right solution, but only if it's really obvious. I don't think this one is. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly enough, my second comment on the AFD was noting that I, in fact, originally added the content at Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax, as well as linking the discussion where an editor disagreed with the location of the content, hence the editor removing it from there and another creating the separate article. If the article cannot exist, then I fully support merging it back there. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I agree there's no obvious solution here. I settled on overturn since I don't have a problem with "no consensus" since there's not a consensus on what to do with this article, but I also think there's consensus to "not keep," which is the point of an AfD, especially if you read the "merge" vote as a "not keep." SportingFlyer T·C 01:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't fault the close given the discussion; but what a horrible discussion it was. Relist with a semi-protected AfD so as to give the closer something less sock-tainted, at least.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide proof that the AF was "sock-tainted"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also already been relisted twice, I'm not sure how another relist would be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alex 21, I'm afraid that there are technical reasons why, on Wikipedia, you can never prove socking to a philosophical standard of proof. Certain users with special privileges called "Checkusers" can take additional steps to detect personation on Wikipedia, but I'm not one. Even checkusers can't achieve a philosophical standard of proof.

        I can "prove" socking to a legal standard of proof, i.e. the standard that would convince a jury. After you've spent enough time analyzing AfDs you learn to see it. In this case the "jury" I need to convince is one person:- the closer of this DRV. I feel that anyone who's got sufficient experience to close a DRV will be able to read that discussion and see why I very strongly suspect that a degree of socking has taken place.

        SportingFlyer, the problem is that the discussion we've had is basically not closable with any conclusive outcome. I feel that a fresh discussion without the socking is much more likely to reach a decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said on my talk page, in Hzh's opening comment for the AfD, he suggested he had tried a redirect and been reverted. That suggests he had an alternative for deletion in mind, which makes deleting the article outright problematic. My recommendation is to wait a while, so the drama from this AfD has died down, then file a new AfD that will hopefully just stick to the issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (uninvolved). Fair reading of a mess. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and either send to draft or redirect/merge. I would say "overturn to delete" because there isn't a single decent Keep vote there (one is "it will be notable" and the other is "it's notable") but the inevitable fact is that it will gain actual sources as soon as it's released and reviewed so there doesn't seem a lot of point deleting it. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but draftify. Endorse because the AfD was a mess and the NC close was probably about as good as anybody could do with what they had to work with. But, given the poor state of sourcing, and the expectation that there will be more sources at some point in the future when it's released, incubating this in draft space seems like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Netcoins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Spoke with user RoySmith who filed for deletion. He's mistaken this article for spam. Netcoins is a notable publicly traded company, world first in the Bitcoin industry, widely cited in media and online. Nearly $100M in revenue. Others less notable are included in Wikipedia. RoySmith deleted this draft article in haste without understanding the industry. 70.68.198.124 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I would advise against putting words in RoySmiths mouth and refrain from attacking other users. Not once in his explanation to the IP user did RoySmith express a lack of understanding of the industry. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are currently in place to prevent editors and IPs who may have a conflict of interest from creating articles about their particular crypto and using Wikipedia as a promotional platform to increase the value and prestige of their particular coin. A Google News search brings up sources from crypto-related blogs, which would doubtfully pass WP:RS. Finally just because other stuff exists does not mean that your article gets a free pass. In fact, it shows us other candidates for deletion. Bkissin (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You must be mistaken: "...their particular coin". Netcoins offers no coin and is NOT a cryptocurrency. Your general industry/promotion concern aspect is valid in general, however it does not apply to this company. No words have been put in his mouth, he specifically used the phrase "Cryptocurrency spam" - as I've stated, it's neither. A google news search brings up a variety of print, radio and national media sources.

  Citing a well known, publicly traded company, is not spam. So far here it only seems to be rash industry bias (which indeed may be well founded if a company is offering an actual token/coin, however as stated this is NOT the case). I see no valid reason why a page on this company wouldn't be the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've corrected the DRV nomination page from Netcoins to Draft:Netcoins since the latter page was the deleted page based on the discussion here. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The text of Draft:Netcoins, which was created by 66.183.242.51 (talk · contribs), was:

  Netcoins is a cryptocurrency company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The company is in the business of developing software to facilitate the purchase and sale of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumers and businesses. Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, individual agents and directly to clients purchasing online.[1] In March 2018, Netcoins went public on the Canadian Securities Exchange, notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so.[2]

  [1]: https://thecse.com/en/listings/technology/netcoins-holdings-inc

  [2]: https://www.vancourier.com/news/turned-down-by-dragons-den-netcoins-hits-the-stock-exchange-1.23211328

  How does this text meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion, which applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION"?

  RoySmith's explanation for the deletion here was "Cryptocurrency spam". Perhaps the IP editor who created the page has a conflict of interest but I have not seen any evidence of this. I reviewed the page's text and do not find it promotional.

  Cunard (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It seems unambiguous to me based on the text posted above, especially given the fact it's on an incredibly spammy topic. Even if not, it clearly fails WP:NORG, though the fact it's in draft space is wrinkly there. Only links are to its listing on the CSE, which I believe is fairly easy to get on, and a community-driven newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 06:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how the draft is "exclusively promotional" (quote from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The draft neutrally presents factual information about the company. The only possibly promotional part is "notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so", which is not verified by the cited source. That the draft is "on an incredibly spammy topic" does not affect whether it meets the speedy deletion criteria.

  That the draft's sources fail to demonstrate compliance with WP:NORG does not support speedy deletion. From Wikipedia:Drafts#Miscellany for deletion, "It was determined in this RfC regarding the applicability of Wikipedia:Notability to drafts in the userspace or draftspace that 'notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.'" I agree that Canadian Securities Exchange is relatively easy to get on, compared to Toronto Stock Exchange for example. But that does not support speedy deletion of the draft.

  These are valid arguments to make in an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. But they do not support speedy deletion of a 17-hour-old draft under {{db-spam}}.

  Cunard (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We disagree then. It's written exactly like a press release. EDIT: never mind, just read the rest of the thread, apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleter. Being promotional is not just about using flowery language. Simply getting your name into a highly visible place is a form of promotion. For example, the Blue Man ad, taken from Advertising, reproduced here. It doesn't have to say, "Blue Man is wonderful", or exhort people to "Buy your Blue Man tickets NOW!". Just getting the name in view of lots of people is promotional enough to have justified Blue Man paying what I can only assume is a large sum of money to have it painted on the side of an airplane That's all this is; it's an attempt to get the company's name (and a link to their website) into the public view. The only difference between Blue Man and the current example under review is that we don't charge anybody money to use our site to promote their company or product. The fact that this was created by an IP which geolocates to Vancouver (where the company is located) is just another hint. And the fact that much of the text is almost word-for-word from a company press release (see, for example, About the Company) is yet another hint (and probably enough to justify WP:G12 by itself).  Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:G11 says, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The text does not use flowery language when it says what the company does so it attempts to describe the company from a neutral point of view. "Simply getting your name into a highly visible place is a form of promotion" because "it's an attempt to get the company's name (and a link to their website) into the public view" is not enough to qualify for speedy deletion under G11 because that is too broad and could be applied to nearly any company article regardless of how neutrally written the article is. I agree that this is likely a undisclosed conflict of interest. But an article qualifies for G11 based on the text, not on the author's intent or motivations. Previous RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61#Proposed new criterion, Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#New criteria, and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 69#ToU violation did not find consensus for adding a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing.

  This is a good find. That the text is "almost word-for-word from a company press release" is a solid reason for deletion under G12. Thank you for explaining your deletion rationale further. I support the deletion under G12.

  Cunard (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article which quotes extensively from a company press release can be said to describe its subject from a neutral point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before knowing some of the text came from a press release's description of the company, I found the text to be primarily factual and neutrally written. I now know that although written in a factual, neutrally worded manner, the text is not based on a neutral source. My view is that I should be able to tell whether WP:G11's "exclusively promotional" clause applies based only on the text of the article, so that I now know that some of the text came from a press release does not affect the WP:G11 analysis.

Analyzing each sentence of the draft:

1. "Netcoins is a cryptocurrency company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada." – this neutrally describes the company's industry and where it is based. This is not "exclusively promotional".
2. "The company is in the business of developing software to facilitate the purchase and sale of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for consumers and businesses." – this neutrally describes the company's product. This is not "exclusively promotional".
3. "Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, individual agents and directly to clients purchasing online.[1]" – this neutrally describes the company's product. This is not "exclusively promotional".
4. "In March 2018, Netcoins went public on the Canadian Securities Exchange, notably as the first Bitcoin exchange or Bitcoin ATM company in the world to do so.[2]" – disregarding the "notably as the first" part, this neutrally describes the company's IPO. This is not "exclusively promotional".

If the article quoted this paragraph from that same press release (bolding added to the "marketing speak):

Netcoins OTC (Over-The-Counter) business, also known as our private brokerage, continues to gain strength in the global market. Targeting cryptocurrency miners, institutional investors, crypto hedge fund operators, and high net worth individuals, the OTC business provides 3 distinct market advantages:

• Market Leading Service Fees
• Speed of Payment (often same day)
• Personalized Account Rep and an Always-on OTC platform for transactions at otc.gonetcoins.com

then WP:G11 would apply because this "marketing speak" is clearly "exclusively promotional". But because it quoted a part of the press release that had no "marketing speak" and contained only factual information, WP:G11 does not apply.

In the end, this is a good deletion. I just would have preferred a WP:G12 deletion over a WP:G11 deletion.

Cunard (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted for being a copyright violation of https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/globe-newswire-netcoins-provides-update-on-its-crypto-brokerage-services-business.html as RoySmith explained above. I do not think the text qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion since it is neutrally written. But it qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement.

  The press release says:

  The Company is in the business of developing software to better facilitate the purchase and sale of bitcoin for end-users. Netcoins enables the sale of bitcoin through its software at retail outlets, through individual agents and directly to clients purchasing in large quantities.

  The wording of the deleted draft is too close to the wording of the press release, so I recommend that the draft is kept deleted.

  Cunard (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the wording of the draft is changed, then it would be acceptable to undelete? Can the original draft be retrieved for editing and then subsequent review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - likely bad faith nomination. I have blocked 70.68.198.124 as an open proxy or VPN. Plus we don't undelete copyright violations, ever. MER-C 10:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The IP will soon be unblocked as it is/was(?) no longer a proxy. My comment about this being a bad faith nomination was based on a proxy/VPN being used, so I have retracted it. MER-C 22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggler (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rather than deleting the entire SMUGGLER page, language making it seem overly promotional could be edited and omitted.

Noting here that I attempted to resolve this matter with the article closer who directed me back to the articles for deletion page. Here is what I said to them:

Hi there - I just noticed that SMUGGLER was deleted due to not meeting relevancy guidelines. Could you please reconsider future deletions of the page? I agree that the tone taken in the initial article was overtly promotional, but that should be rectified without deleting the entire page. SMUGGLER produced the "Skittles Commercial" on Broadway in 2019^[1], the musical Once^[2], and received AdAge's Production Company of the Year Award in 2004^[3] and 2017^[4]. These may seem like "congratulatory" accolades but they are factual. It would be like deleting any other notable advertising production company with a Wikipedia page (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadicalMedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Content).

Gabbybrownnyc (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order for clarification: Gabbybrownnyc posted this to the nominator (K.e.coffman), not to the closer (myself). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: 78.26 I was confused as to who did what. May I ask you to respond to the point made above? Again, I agree that the initial tone of the article wwas overly promotional but think that the content is relevant and should stay. Gabbybrownnyc (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I closed that discussion per Wikipedia:Consensus based upon the participation. If you wish to re-create the article because you believe the topic meets notability standards, may I suggest using the WP:AFC process? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as correct reading of consensus. While no one specifically cited WP:NOTPROMO, it is policy. Additionally, I highly encourage Gabbybrownnyc to review WP:COI to see if any disclosures need to be made, and I second 78.26's suggestion to use AfC if attempting to recreate an article on this particular subject. Bakazaka (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you78.26 and Bakazaka for your input. I believe the topic meets notability standards if completed with no promotional language. Hopefully it will be recreated soon. Gabbybrownnyc (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD could not have been closed any other way. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Patrick Milling-Smith. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD was clearly a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletion of prior incarnation the page Aprimo on 05:01 01 February 2019 UTC may not have been compliant with CSD G6 there being (I suspect) history to the page. I suspect the page at that point was a redirect that had been converted from an underlying article. I understand he purpose of that deletion was so that replace with a draft incarnation going through AfC. This version warned If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move ...'. The the draft page at the time of the proposed article also indicated a merge may need to be considered. Additionally talk pages were not deleted/moved appropriately with their associated incarnations. These should have warned CSD G6 may be controversial. I have discussed with the deleting admin but have reached a good faith impasse on obtaining a copy of the deleted incarnation so at this point have chosen to ask for independent scrutiny. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Aprimo was a company that was independent and likely merited its own article, became part of Teradata for a number of years when it did not (and was I suspect properly was transformed to a redirect), and became an independent entity again and quite properly merited it's own article (subject to notability etc). The loss of the visibility of the pre-Teradata pages is to a degree unfortunate and the correct procedure in my opinion should probably have been to edit the redirect into an article. There is little question the current article content has now got to a fairly reasonable WP:NPOV, there being a COI aspect which is mostly irrelevant to DRV. The result of this review should not be simply to restore the deleted page replacing the current page. It may be to somehow perform a merge but that may now be worse than leaving as it. It is more to consider if CSD G6 and associated talk page handling was appropriately applied and documented and any lessons for the future. Please note I believe all involved have been acting in good faith. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the onus of this problem so will reserve making a comment, except to express regret for any issues I created. (Also, in fairness, I'm not entirely certain I understand what's being proposed, so am probably not qualified to comment in any case.) I approved the article at AfC through process of G6 move of a redirect, failing to note that, in 2009, actual content apparently existed at the page for 58 minutes before the page was speedily deleted. I, again, apologize for my oversight. Chetsford (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempting to clarify ... the 2009 incarnation and its deleteion is not relevant. The concern is the redirect page deleted on 05:01 February 2019 had history ( I have indirect evidence this was likely) and was possibly not eligible for CSD G6. My understanding of CSD G6 is if you did not check that history (if it existed), nor checked talk page of the candidate draft article, nor organised/check for talk pages to be handled in parallel with the associated article page it is possible due diligence on the deletion of 05:01 February 2019 and associated clean up was not performed. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Chetsford (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The G6 deletion was incorrect, there being a major history, but I can't bring myself to care. The previous article, which somehow managed to survive for nearly seven years before being redirected in March 2017, was vapid marketingspeak with a presumeably-exhaustive list of industry awards to break up the monotony, created by a painfully-obvious PR agent (it even says so in their username!) and sourced entirely to referencebombed routine and trivial coverage. No company was so "meriting" of an article that we should've put up with one that bad for so long. We're not going to gain anything by restoring the history, except maybe ammunition for a future AFD. In any event, the three revisions in August 2009 are copyvios and must not be restored; the 14 revisions in September 2018 and later interleave with the current history, never had any content to speak of, and shouldn't be histmerged either. —Cryptic 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is the purpose to this Deletion Review? Will it have any effect on whether the article is kept, or does it only have to do with how to preserve the history, or whether to identify lessons learned about drafts created by paid editors, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have raised the DRV because I was concerned the way the draft was introduced to mainspace was incorrect. Because there appears to be an existing redirect with significant history CSD G6 should not have been used to call for and effect the deletion, as seems to be confirmed by Cryptic; and but that rather a copy and paste move should have been executed to preserve edit history. Any lesson learned may be in the situation where a draft article is used to wipe a previous article possibly covered by a redirect, and possibly to remin that talk pages should be kept in sync. In terms of this DRV the result from this DRV may be that a histmerge should still be performed, or that it should have been performed but the benefit is not worth the work, or that the histmerge should not have been performed. COI/non-neutral editing is not technically relevant for Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures. It could be argued WP:G11 is relevant from COI/neutrality however criteria then says it alternative text is available (and it was), the text should be preferably be replaced rather than the article deleted. If anyone feels, or it may be the the outcome of DRV to suggest, the article be tested at WP:AFD though my feeling is the (current) article would survive such a process generally due to independent commentaries on the Teradata acquisition and sale price difference. Because I have become minded a histmerge is not a likely and because Cryptic has indicated Aprimo has been apparently subject to promotion by Aprimo Public Relations in the past I have referenced it from the article talk page ... however that is not relevant to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion, ongoing for a week or more in various locations, reminds me of something Charles Matthews said years ago (he's one of the co-authors of How Wikipedia Works):

"We have dialogues here in two languages. Let's for the purposes of discussion call them Wonkish and Arbish.

"In Wonkish, discretion stands for certain vague and disreputable areas of policy where what should happen is not yet properly regulated. In Arbish, you have always to look behind applications of policy to see intention and the application to the mission of writing an encyclopedia."

I postulate that the original poster here has been speaking in Wonkish, while most admins and other experienced editors addressing these questions have been speaking in Arbish. – Athaenara ✉ 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As original poster I have been pleased to review the definitions of Wikt:wonkish and Wikt:wonk and how I am postulated upon. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A substandard article existed at Aprimo. The substandard article was converted to a redirect in March 2017. The redirect was deleted in February 2019 to make way for a move of Draft:Aprimo to Aprimo. Djm-leighpark wrote, "One issue that resulted from this is that the associated talk page was not deleted and has become associated with the current article, making references to the article before it was created."

  Cryptic noted that some of the revisions from the article interleave with the revisions from the September 2018 deleted version of the article. This means there are parallel versions. It would be inadvisable to do a history merge since interleaved revisions from both article versions would make the history difficult to read.

  To address Djm-leighpark's concerns about the missing history and to address the parallel versions concern, the deleted history (absent the three August 2009 revisions that are copyright violations) could be moved to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history. A link to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history could be added to Talk:Aprimo. See Talk:Fluffy bunny#Old article at this title, Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old history, and Talk:Fluffy bunny/Old talk page for one way this has been done.

  I cannot make a determination about whether the old content of Aprimo is worth retaining since I do not have access to the deleted content. Based on Cryptic's description of the content, it is likely that the old content of Aprimo is not that useful. But since Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs), a good faith experienced editor, thinks there is value in retaining the deleted revisions, I recommend implementing the Talk:Aprimo/Old article history approach I suggested above.

  Cunard (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to commend Cunard of his analysis and am supportive of his suggestion. While the usefulness of the restore likely minimal the history gives some insight (albeit biased) into the not totally straightforward history of Aprimo, some insight into previous promotional editing and compfort of no copyvio's. That said I estimate the chance I will use that is possibly less than one percent. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification of my own position: any admin could do what's being asked here if they felt it should be done. I don't and won't, but if another admin does I won't consider it wheel-warring and won't kick up a fuss. – Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thankyou for the comments and clarification, but may I point out that for my understanding of the DRV procedure people should make the view of the DRV clear not through comments ... though these have been useful in helping clarifying the situation, but by indicating their position on the validity of the deletion under CSD G6 and what action should be taken per WP:Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review. As original poster I am supporting overturn, action implement restore to Talk:Aprimo/Old article history per WP:Requested moves/Closing a page => Procedure for redirects with major histories (3) as suggested by a Cunard. (As original poster I cannot cannot !Vote.). Other options I see include oppose, action take no action .. I would read this as Cryptic's position above. Or another option would be to endorse the actions taken in terms of CSD G6 and that it was followed correctly. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of This Morning presenters and reporters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was proposed for merging into This Morning (TV programme)#Presenters, but the article was deleted anyway. Per WP:MAD, the page should have been redirected rather than deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: This was not previously discussed with me. The AfD nominator, Corkythehornetfan, wrote: " I've tried merging before, but it doesn't work. This is why I nominated if for deletion. ... It's either delete (which is what I'd like to see happen), or protect the page " This is why I understood this to be a nomination for deletion, not merging. Because nobody opposed the deletion request, I granted it. If there are substantial new reasons for keeping the article (such as sources showing notability of this particular topic), I'm not opposed to somebody else restoring the article. Sandstein 07:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. There was no rationale to delete. There was a request to protect the redirect. However, AfD is not articles for discussion, or proposals to merge, or requests for page protection. That was not a valid AfD. It should have been speedily closed. There was a recent discussion in this at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Has_AFD_become_"Articles_for_Discussion"_?. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. This was a redirect long ago (deleted revision here) which got overwritten. I've gone ahead and re-created the redirect, and protected the page. If people want to continue to dissect the AfD close, you can do that, but this seems like the obvious endpoint, so I'm saving some time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I have no strong opinion on whether the remaining history should be restored under the redirect I created. Given that there's no strong reason to delete it (WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc), I have no objection to it being restored, but neither can I get too excited about it if it's not. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People in control of the process (i.e. admins) are not too worried about the details of the process being adhered to? This goes to the old question: Is Wikipedia a community run project, or an Administrator run project? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone actually want to merge some more content from the deleted page? If so I don't see any harm in restoring the edit history, if not then there's nothing to discuss. The AfD participants did outline reasons for the deletion of the article instead of a merge, so I don't see anything wrong with the close. Hut 8.5 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The AfD participants did outline reasons for the deletion"? Did they? Corkythehornetfan 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC) said "I suggest this article 'be merged into ...". Noyster, 12:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) said "Looks to me like a merge proposal..." Corkythehornetfan 04:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC) said "@Noyster: I've tried merging before, but it doesn't work. This is why I nominated if for deletion." This is a rationale for semiprotection, and Corky has jumped to deletion without justification. I read zero rationales supporting deletion versus redirection with semiprotection. I read repeated reference to "merge" which demands careful consideration of WP:MAD before deleting any history. I think the history should be undeleted as a cautious precaution, and I think that AfD nominations that open with "I suggest this article 'be merged" should be speedy closed as not a deletion nomination, after noting that the rest of the nomination doesn't contain a deletion rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to the statement by the nominator that the content is already present in prose form at the target, which would mean there wasn't anything useful to merge. That statement isn't entirely true, as the deleted page also included a comprehensive list of everybody who has ever presented the programme (even briefly), as well as every reporter the programme has ever had, but I suspect that information wasn't considered worth retaining. The page consisted almost entirely of names and dates and there won't be any attribution issues. Unless you think that further information should be merged, or the page should continue to exist as a standalone article, then this discussion is entirely academic and there's no need to have it. Hut 8.5 07:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the information and attribution requirements probably aren’t important, but more important is that there was no good reason to delete. Deleting everything for which there is no need to have it is not a viable way to run AfD. There was no reason to delete, there was no consensus to delete, so don’t delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article's history under a redirect to This Morning (TV programme)#Presenters. No compelling reason (such as copyright violation or BLP violation) was advanced in the AfD about why the article should have been deleted instead of redirected with the history preserved under the redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Hut 8.5 notes that "the deleted page also included a comprehensive list of everybody who has ever presented the programme (even briefly), as well as every reporter the programme has ever had". This is useful information for editors interested in contributing to topics related to This Morning (TV programme). These editors can use the material for a selective merge to This Morning (TV programme)#Presenters or to contribute to articles of people affiliated with This Morning. Absent a compelling reason to delete the article's history, it should be retained so that non-admin editors have access to the material. I agree with SmokeyJoe, "There was no reason to delete, there was no consensus to delete, so don’t delete."

  Cunard (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason there was no consensus to delete is that neither of the AfD participants advanced a policy-based argument for deletion.

  The AfD nominator wrote, "The only people who edit this page are the I.P.s and they seem to not be able to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines". This is a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:NOTTVGUIDE that fails to explain how the list violates that policy or how the IPs' edits are violating that policy. Even if the IPs' edits were violating policy, that would still not be a policy-based argument for deletion.

  The AfD nominator wrote, "There is no sense in having this article when it's already in a different style format at the parent article". This does not explain why deletion is preferable to merging.

  The AfD participant wrote, "The redirection was announced on the article talk page and no-one stepped up to object or discuss, they just kept on reverting the redirect - so support delete". This does not explain what policy or guideline the article is violating. This is not a policy-based argument for deletion either.

  In the absence of a consensus to delete owing to a lack of policy-based arguments from any of the AfD participants, a close as WP:SOFTDELETE, "no consensus", or a redirect to This Morning (TV programme)#Presenters would have been preferable to "delete".

  Cunard (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree with my friends SmokeyJoe and Cunard on this point. When I look at that AfD, what I see is that there were two participants (Corkythehornetfan and Noyster), who discussed the matter and then unanimously agreed to delete. It seems a bit hard on Sandstein to say that there was "no consensus to delete". In the circumstances, I feel it would have been administrative overreach not to delete.

  The reason to delete was frustration with the difficulty of maintaining the list, which isn't something we normally give much weight to, so I can see the case for reversing the outcome (although I'm leery of the word "overturn" in this case because it contains implied criticism of the closer that I feel is inappropriate).

  This Morning is a completely vapid, vacuous piece of daytime TV fluff that's of very little importance and I can't imagine why an encyclopaedist would want to work on this considering how many serious and important topics still don't have articles, but if someone really has nothing better to do with their time than to work on it, then we should of course permit creation of a list (which could reasonably be semi-protected from the outset).

  I can't see any procedural reason to undelete the history. A list of This Morning personnel doesn't contain enough creativity to be copyrightable and anything that isn't such a list doesn't belong on the page.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• S'pose. The end all bold bit is a bit hard to follow. Did User:Noyster check the history and affirm that there were no attribution requirements. A temp undelete to allow User:Northamerica1000 to check for this fair concern seems pretty easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nb. I only performed deletion sorting and relisting for the AfD discussion. I did not contribute to the discussion itself. I may not become involved in this matter. Perhaps you meant to ping a different user? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry User:Northamerica1000, I meant User:GeoffreyT2000, the nominator of this DRV who raised the valid issue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point. The AfD nominator wrote, "I've tried merging before, but it doesn't work. This is why I nominated if for deletion." That a merge previously happened is a procedural reason the article's history should be retained to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.

  Cunard (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi S Marshall. It is good to see you back at WP:DRV as I haven't seen your thoughtful comments here in a while. I have expanded my statement above about why I find "no consensus" in the AfD. Putting aside procedural issues, the question I ask is: Does restoring the history under a protected redirect benefit or harm Wikipedia? No one has explained how there is a harm. There is a clear benefit: respecting a reasonable request from a good faith established editor, GeoffreyT2000, who thinks there is value in retaining the revisions and history. If DRV refuses to restore the history, GeoffreyT2000 is denied the opportunity to review and possibly reuse the content as he sees fit.

  Cunard (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this moot? A light but unopposed delete, the redirect has been restored, am I missing something or are we done here? SportingFlyer T·C 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, SportingFlyer, you have missed that this is about the deleted history behind the redirect. Was it used? Could it be used? Did the authors of the redirect target read the deleted article and then continue to edit the target article? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this was not a merge request, in spite of the awkward article nomination. I don't see any problem here, but I also don't understand the motivations for taking this to DRV in the first place. If the nominator is looking for the history of the article, I think granting access would be reasonable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read it as a request to enforce a merge, or a smerge, and maybe just a request to endorse a redirect. Awkward nomination, yes. I agree that access to the history should be allowed. I suspect it would have been given with a polite request, or a WP:REFUND request. I support undeletion of the history, with semi-protection of the redirect to satisfy the underlying problem. The gist of the close is certainly correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

insufficient time, had to move the work the User:Tony85poon/sandbox many thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what this is about since the OP has not made any attempt to discuss this with me. However after a quick reexamination of the AfD, I am satisfied that there is a pretty strong consensus to delete. As far as I can tell Tony85poon was the only one favoring retention out of the six editors participating in the discussion (including the AfD's op). But if there is a sense that I muffed the call on this I am happy to defer to the community's judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If those six editors are all doctors/surgeons, then deleting is fair enough. I do hope that (to have a diversity of opinion) a surgeon (or a surgical nurse who works at operating theater perhaps) or traumatologist comes along and opine "the article does not deserve to be in the regular Wikipedia". If that happens, I will feel comfortable to shut up. Diversity-importance. Tony85poon (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that the original poster / contributor / creator of the article must do something to keep the article alive? What if he/she dies, too old, has gone to jail, or moved to a remote area with no internet access? Tony85poon (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my feeling. Road Traffic Accidents are common. Let's say, person A's face is greatly damaged by RTA. He has recovered healthily but his social life is terrible because he is being labelled as a "monster". Somehow, Mr. Plastic Surgeon messed up his face. Person B (a female doctor) has sympathy for person A. She goes "I have got to learn how to fix his face". She looks up Wikipedia, because she is thirsty for surgical-training-information. She also got fed up with American politics, and wants to kill two birds with one stone:

1. An institution that have feasible solutions to fix his face.
2. That institution must be outside USA. Tony85poon (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused Endorse. What is User:Tony85poon/sandbox? The comment above, had to move the work... makes it sound like Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training was moved to User:Tony85poon/sandbox but the logs make it look like they're two distinct pages, but with similar content. A copy-paste fork, I guess. In any case, I think we're just getting our collective chains yanked here. The arguments are more of a rant about sexism in wikipedia and some sort of anti-USA bias than a coherent argument about the AfD result. As far as I can tell, User:Tony85poon/sandbox should be deleted under WP:G4 and this DRV speedy closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There's obvious consensus for deletion in the AfD and it was open for the required seven days. The OP hasn't given any vaguely convincing reason as to why we should change the AfD result. The main objection is WP:NOTDIR, which seems perfectly valid to me as the article is almost entirely a directory of external links to training programs. If the OP really wants us to have an article at this title then throw the directory away and try and write an article consisting of actual prose. Medical Scientist Training Program, which he mentioned as an analogy in the AfD, is more the sort of thing we'd accept. Hut 8.5 07:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Point 1. "I'm confused. What is User:Tony85poon/sandbox?" It is because the article got deleted in the regular Wikipedia, and in order to preserve what was deleted for future improvement purpose, I resorted to using my sandbox. Point 2. Anyone can edit my sandbox as an improvement to the article-draft. I have thrown away a lot of directory already. There are still (around) 22 direct-web-links left and reading all of them takes time. If I haven't read enough, I cannot come up with actual prose yet. Point 3. If I jump the gun and recreate the page, that would be speedily deleted (coz that defeats the purpose of allowing administrator to make the deletion decision). I understand that. I am waiting patiently. Point 4. "some sort of anti-USA" It can work the other way round: An Indian doctor who is fed up with Indian politics planning to move the USA and further his/her surgical education. Tony85poon (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the "consensus" point: it is true that, before the deletion, the vote was 6 v 1. I want to use the George W Bush analogy that even though Bush did not win the popular vote (Al Gore had more votes), Bush won the 2000-election. In Wikipedia, it is the reasoning that counts. Tony85poon (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory, as I hope you're aware by now. That means you have to either convince people that this article is not a directory or write another article which people don't think is a directory. You failed to do the first point in the AfD and you haven't come up with any compelling argument since. If you write a different article which isn't a directory and is acceptable (it will need to be sourced to reliable sources which devote significant coverage to the subject, for example) then the article can be recreated. But so far you've got a draft which is still a directory listing and no new arguments. Hut 8.5 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closing of the article. In response to the comment above regarding the credentials of the six who advocated deletion in the AfD (though our real-world credentials are irrelevant; what matters here is Wikipedia policy and community consensus) - as someone working in hospital administration, I feel this article does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Absolutely clear delete. I've also looked through the nominator's contributions - in only about three weeks, there's been several odd edit wars, including one where they removed referenced material because they arbitrarily considered it a "joke," being WP:BOLD and merging over 14,000 bytes of material without consensus, adding wiktionary links on random pages, and a bad AfD nomination. The user appears to have an WP:OWN mentality. I would urge them to be more constructive to the project in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did make that mistake. Luckily, the poorhistorian (whom I had edit-war with for a brief moment) instantly taught me a lesson. I gave an apology straight-up, then took a step further: added citations into the Chinese version of the article. Before that, the Chinese version of the article was not backed up with reliable source sufficiently. Now I refrain myself from edit-war. Tony85poon (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]