2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It's the next season. Nearly all leagues which send teams to this are running. So it's already linked from many of those. In fact the first teams already have qualified (see updated article in user-space). Unrelated: Men's equivalent article exists a year now. -Koppapa (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userfication- nothing wrong with the close, consensus to delete was clear. But consensus at the AfD was also to allow re-creation at the proper time. The closing statement said "will userfy on request", so why did you not contact the closing administrator first instead of coming here? Reyk _YO! 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did contact him, got it userfyd, then expanded and waited. Contacted another admin to restore, who said I'd have to to through deletion review now. The article should be reinstated to main-space. -Koppapa (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Be Bold - if the first teams have qualified and a reliable source can be cited that they have qualified for this edition of the tournament, not just finished in the position that granted entry to this year's edition, then it seems the WP:CRYSTAL concerns from the AfD have been answered. Fenix down (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to Cryptic for notifying me of this discussion. As Koppapa stated, I userfied this article to them it back in July, see User:Koppapa/2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League. I can't imagine why the other admin recommended Deletion Review. You could have just asked me. All that is necessary IMO is for me to look at the new version, compare it to the previous article, and see if it is sufficiently improved that it won't be subject to WP:G4 deletion. If I find it is sufficiently different / improved, I will put a note on the talk page saying so, and the user will be free to move it to mainspace. I'll go do that now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that you have added six teams - four generic, only two with an actual team name and citation - and that is all. Otherwise it is the same article, right down to "Dates TBA". Can we not get a little more information than this, before moving it to mainspace? I am afraid this would be regarded as not sufficiently different from the deleted article, and I can't guarantee it wouldn't be speedy-deleted per G4. If you want to consult with someone more familiar with association football than I am, they might advise you differently. Maybe having two teams qualified is enough to satisfy WP:CRYSTAL, indicating that the process has started? Fenix down, what do you think about that? --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft, I would suggest it is not in a state to survive either G4 or another AfD. I accept that it is the premier European women's continental football tournament and is highly unlikely not to go ahead, but in its current state, I would expect to see at least the following:

1. The rules for the tournament properly referenced, currently they are essentially conjecture
2. For the two teams references that actually confirm their qualification for this tournament.

As far as I can see, these sources only confirm the clubs won their national titles, not that they have qualified for this tournament. It can reasonably be implied that they have, but it doesn't help that their are no sources in the article that mention this specific iteration of the tournament, as this makes it easy for someone to AfD as not receiving sufficient coverage yet.

If this could be done, I think there is sufficient to confirm that this tournament is definitely going ahead and that there is already a degree of coverage on it. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fenix. To Koppapa, I think the answer here is that the article is not yet ready for the encyclopedia. When you have added more information and more sources, covering the points mentioned by Fenix down, you can check with me again, or better yet, check with Fenix down for a more technically-informed opinion. Fenix is an administrator and can give you a perfectly valid clearance to restore, without even needing to check with me. Please understand: what we are trying to avoid here is, we don't want the article to be restored too early and get deleted a second time. That looks bad in the history, and if it happens too often it can even lead to a block on the article being restored at all. Don't give up, it will be restored when there is enough coverage, and enough confirmed information, to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i know how to proceed then. This review can be closed, if needed. -Koppapa (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Healy (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

before AfD there were reasons for Matthew Healy to have individual notability outside of The 1975.

• Speedy close as not complying with WP:DRVPURPOSE. The AfD was totally unambiguous, and the nom gives no policy-based reason to overturn it. Note: the nominator is Wasabi,the,one, with these edits. Unclear why User:SineBot didn't fix the unsigned post. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current Malaysian collaboration (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The WikiProject (WP:MY) was defunct before and now semi-revived. NgYShung ^huh? 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Nothing controversial about this.—S Marshall T/C 14:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• restore, seems like a no-brainer. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. not controversial. User:Wasabi,the,one (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear liquids (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

"Clear liquids" was redirected to Liquid_diet#Clear. "Clear liquids" is a very common medical term for a diet that consists of clear liquids. If you look at a g search.[1] the first term is from the NLM[2]. A book search also comes up with medical textbooks all the way down.[3]. Here is a recent RCT of the title "A randomized controlled trial comparing a low-residue diet versus clear liquids for colonoscopy preparation: impact on tolerance, procedure time, and adenoma detection rate."[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Very infrequently, at DRV, we overturn an XFD discussion on the basis that it was just horribly wrong. (I've observed that these are almost always something scholarly and not obvious to the lay person. Long term DRV participants might recall our discussion on Senior Wranglers.) This should be one of those times. There's no need to send it back to RfD for another discussion, just overturn, restore, and leave a pointer to this DRV in the log.—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO this falls under point #3, "new information came to light". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Clear liquids" is a vague phrase that does not necessarily refer to a clear liquid diet. Can it refer to a clear liquid diet? Sure. But I still think it's a WP:SURPRISE for someone to end up at a place that does not use the term "clear liquids." -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes the 44th link down in a google search does not refer to a diet when they use the term "clear liquids" so it is very rarely used in other ways. But it obviously nearly always refers to a diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to go through 57 medical links before I reach a non-medical (but still scientific) one. I understand that Google results vary a bit by location and language, but nobody seems to be finding this name in their top 10. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore (coming here from WPMED) am surprised that this is a redlink; in the medical/nursing/dietary world this is an extremely commonly used phrase. There are many terms of art in WP, and this one is widely used. — soupvector (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• All we need is a title that makes the meaning obvious obvious , eg Clear liquids (medicine). DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore — this has essentially no other uses, and the original argument for deletion was very poor indeed. It did not take at all into account the actual use of the term. The article it redirects to should indeed better mention the term and its use — but that is actually not related to this discussion whatsoever. DGG — that entirely defeats the purpose of a redirect, does it not? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 05:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - for pete's sake does no one remember being a kid and having the flu and being told to "drink clear liquids" until your stomach settles? (warm 7-up, anyone?) This redirect should exist, for sure. 158 articles in pubmed, 28 of them reviews. And look at all these hits in the public information section of the NIH website. In contrast, here is a search of WP with our internal search engine. Liquid diet is way down past the scroll. C'mon. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore If you don't understand why this is the obvious redirect, then put "clear liquids" (quoted phrase, plural) into your nearest search engine and see how far down you have to go to find results that aren't about colonoscopies and other medical uses.
  The DRV seemed to be talking about Clear liquid rather than clear liquids. Also, the rule cited in that discussion as justification is about what to put in disambiguation pages, not redirects: WP:PTM is Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. Furthermore, it is misapplied, because that section says to "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title" – which is exactly the situation here. Not only is it plausible to refer to a clear liquid diet as "clear liquids", but that's the most common use. If you give a typical English-speaking adult a generic sentence like, "He said I should try clear liquids", they're going to assume that the speaker is talking about a clear liquid diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• restore per nominators rationale --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I accept that "clear liquids" has a clear well-known meaning in a medical context. But this is not "Medipedia"—we can't myopically assume everyone would be thinking of the medical context when searching this term. There are other encyclopedic topics a reader could be seeking such as why many liquids are clear (Light scattering). We risk confusing them without some marker that we're talking about medicine. DGG's suggestion is worthwhile; WhatamIdoing has created Clear liquid diet, which is also helpful. I'm surprised to see a WikiProject that seems so strict about accuracy (cf. Myocardial infarction, Diabetes mellitus vs. WP:COMMONNAME) taking this position. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last part's a straw man. They're not advocating moving Liquid diet#Clear liquid diet to this title any more than they're saying to delete the redirects from Heart attack or Diabetes. —Cryptic 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not intended as a straw man. Maybe I didn't put it clearly enough. If "heart attack" and "diabetes" aren't precise enough to be suitable as titles, it seems strange to me to say that a generic phrase like "clear liquids", whose use is not exclusive to medicine, is suitable here. Apparently others don't find this strange at all. --BDD (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heart attack is a redirect, just like this page should be. You're missing the point of the entire discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a partial title match, as asserted in the nomination; it's a full common name. And it's not the same case as clear liquid or its other variants, also as asserted in the nomination. The "vague"ness the nominator backpedaled to above would have never passed muster at rfd: if someone wants to write a general article about tabun, methanol, cryogenic nitrogen, or what have you, the proper tool is either a disambiguation page or the hatnote generated by {{redirect}}, not deletion. Overturn. —Cryptic 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. Given how the RfD discussion went, there wasn't another way to close it besides how I closed it, but the nomination here is convincing that the original target is the best target we have. Based on this DRV, it seems that RfD would be improved if there was an automatic way of notifying WikiProjects about relevant discussions. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an automatic way of notifying WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Tools#Article_Alerts. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes we all do not watch that list that closely. WT:MED gets notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Article alerts only works when the redirect has been tagged with the WikiProject's template, which is not at all common for WPMED (or most other WikiProjects). WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A bot can easily tag all redirects that target an article that is tagged. That might be something to look into for future reference. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I can see no argument that contradicts the fact that one of the principal meanings of "clear liquids" is "clear liquid diet" (although the target article could do with expansion to make that explicit). It seems the only objection remaining is that there are other meanings in other fields. But that surely is not a rationale for deletion; it's a rationale for disambiguation - either by hatnote or dab page. Of course, that would only apply if other legitimate targets for the redirect were to be found. I've seen none yet. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appears to have reached an innocently ignorant conclusion, and those who understand the term's use and applicability are unanimous that it be restored. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note that per user page self-declarations there are two physicians, one physician assistant, one medical device engineer, and one medical student who have advocated that this be restored, while no one indicating any medical background whatsoever has opposed such restoration. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not really a clear and well known term unless you work in or are closely associated with the medical field. I wouldn't object to a link to liquid diet being included if this were a disambig page, but it's not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  For this to be a dab page, there would have to be more than one target within Wikipedia articles for the phrase. I wouldn't object to this being a dab page, rather than a redirect, if there there were multiple targets. But there aren't. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooh, we can play a game! Let's start naming clear liquids and see how many we can come up with. I'll start: Crystal Pepsi. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That could be the most extreme straw-man argument I've seen. For something to be linked from the dab it has to be commonly (or even ever, not just hypothetically) referred to as "clear liquids". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It would technically be a set index at that point, or more likely, a list (eg: list of clear liquids.) Not sure where the straw man is. I'll keep going though: ethanol. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The straw man is where you've argued that lots of articles are beverages. While it is true that each of them are clear liquids, not all uses of "clear liquids" refer to the beverages you mention. It's the difference between implication and equivalence. It would be appropriate in a dab page to write "Clear liquids may refer to: Liquid_diet#Clear". It would not be appropriate to write "Clear liquids may refer to: Water" (or ethanol or Crystal Pepsi). Neither of the articles ethanol and Crystal Pepsi even mention the phrase. Dab pages need more than one target. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is why it would technically be a list and not a dab. That doesn't negate the fact that "clear liquids" is an ambiguous phrase that doesn't necessarily refer to a clear liquid diet. Im trying to show you the idiomatic definition by providing examples of clear liquids. If you insist on a dab though, how about:

  Clear liquids may refer to:

  • Liquids that are clear
  • In medicine, a clear liquid diet

  I've also seen evidence of usage in Chemisty, but I don't think it's distinct from the idiomatic definition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The dab page you suggest won't work because WP:DABSTYLE requires one and only one blue link and no pipes per entry. If the article Liquid had a section Clear, you would have a point. But it doesn't. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I know. This is why a redlink would be best here, like I said in the beginning. You seem to want something at this title, so I'm trying to play along with that notion by saying that if we have something here, it would have to be a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @RexxS: I know, hence the endorsement of the current status quo. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: Standard Test Method for Color of Clear Liquids (Platinum-Cobalt Scale). --03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)
• Restore I'm normally the first to complain when medical usage encroaches on other scientific usage of the same term. But in this case it's very obvious that the medical usage is the only significant one. Nobody is using "clear liquids" as a search term when looking for information about light scattering, spectroscopy, etc. This appears to be a case where the original discussion participants were not aware of the term-of-art usage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been deleted back in 2009 because many Sonic fans have been attempting to create a hoax article regarding an non-existant film. Now, SEGA is officially creating a Sonic movie, due to be released in 2018. I would like to recreate the page as a redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog#Theatrical_film. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any evidence so far that Sonic the Hedgehog is the actual full, official title? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet, but many people are referring to it as just "Sonic the Hedgehog". Even when an official title is revealed, there will be several people searching the film as Sonic the Hedgehog (film). Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt- this is reasonable request. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion and salting, but a redirect to the newly announced film is a good idea. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kross Amsterdam (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an appeal to restore the deleted article "Kris Kross Amsterdam" because the page was deleted as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, despite I made this page notable. XPanettaa (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article to main space. There is a new assertion that the group has a gold-certified release in the UK that was not present at the time of the AfD. Recommend restoring the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:G4. I'm tempundeleted this for review. Diffing the version that was deleted at AfD and the version that was more recently deleted via G4, the text is similar, but there's a dozen references in the new version, while there weren't any in the old version. That's not G4 material. Will it pass AfD? Maybe not, but that's where the strength of the sources should be decided. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the original AfD had ony a single participant other than the nom. It really should have been closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore & relist, looks like a subject where the situation has genuinely changed since the AFD, as the group has had an actual hit since that time, Sex. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy overturn I think this is uncontroversial enough that there is no reason not to do this now. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per all the above. Why is this taking so long for an admin to do the obvious thing? Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It is taking so long because admins, like everybody else around here, are volunteers, and work at whatever speed they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a complicated decision, and the outcome contested fails on two different fronts (SOFTDELETE and G4 never applied in the first place). No one has objected to the restoration, and it's been a week. Failure to reverse obviously incorrect speedy deletion decisions, such as in this case, is a failing of DRV that prompts editors to object to any additional expansion of the speedy process. Volunteerism is not an adequate excuse for failure to do the right thing. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which "obvious thing" is it that you expect an admin to do? The article's already been undeleted, and it's not protected (as evidenced by XPanettaa immediately ignoring this discussion and reverting the temp-undelete template). About the only thing left to do is close the DRV, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that instead of complaining that no one else has. —Cryptic 23:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Ctllo (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Prologue This article represents a musical artist in the deleted page references to journalistic and some sources as the nomination for an award of independent music notes were made, to highlight its notability, but I do not see any arguments that are not only links support for that one is aware of what are the possible faults of Article.

Verification Artist Alberto Ctllo.
• 1)Selecion as an outstanding musician By Patricia Peñaloza (Spanish): http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/06/03/opinion/a10o1esp
• 2)Nominated for the category: Best Mexican artist (Spanish) - http://www.premiosdelamusicaindependiente.com/candidatura/alberto-ctllo
• 3)Albums created by the artist: https://www.amazon.com/Alberto-Ctllo-EP/dp/B01DNCHUVS
• 4)Authority control:https://musicbrainz.org/artist/578ad75b-8078-4e88-9763-fa05d0fe050d

All musicians are remarkable for their work, never listen to a music artist was just for appearing in Televison or notes of prestigious newspapers

previous debate (Reference Use): http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alberto_Ctllo/wiki_ph_id_0 }} OscarC12 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion At the Aft you said " I do not seek promotion, I want their fans and the general public more aware of that musical artist" But that is exactly what we mean by promotion. For that matter, it's exactly what anyone would normally mean by promotion. Further, you said there, that you are the artist himself. We very strongly discourage autobiographies, because no person is really able to properly judge their own importance. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article to main space, you've never made a mistake, DGG? by mistake if cite as the first person, but that does not mean that the promotion is looking for a article to learn more is that there are deserts fans who seek to know more as the real name of mapping the pseudonym and direct influences mentioned by the artist, this that mention does not belong as a promotion, my English is basic, but still needs to be restored when I meet several points WP: Music / Bio already mentioned. and I expound not be the artist and have no contact with him. OscarC12 (talk) 02:40pm, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The OP says that "All musicians are remarkable for their work", but Wikipedia is selective. The contributors to the AfD did not consider that the article demonstrated notability to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO, and the article creator did not, either there or here, present any convincing arguments to the contrary. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Cancel appeal Biography and music were sent to AllMusic & Rovi, it is no longer necessary to have an artist article mentions, thank you very much and sorry for making you waste your time, a cordial greeting.}} OscarC12 (talk) 03:04 p.m., 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Siri Rama (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please consider the new information included below

Prologue - I am a newbie and I posted this on the talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SpacemanSpiff as it seemed like he was the administrator responsible. Going to the talkpages of the commenters when this page was first set up, resulted in pages where there was no way to enter a request. SpacemeanSpiff directed me to this page to post a deletion review. So here goes:

Hi! I am a newbie user (but a very grateful and longtime reader!) of Wikipedia, and found it difficult to even navigate the user pages/talk pages etc. of the administrators who seem to have made a decision on speedy deletion of this page. But I finally found a source that said that this was the place (i.e. your talk page) I should write to if I wanted to request a review of the page for Siri Rama. The reasons for the speedy deletion seem to be outlined here:

http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siri_Rama

It only recently came to my attention that someone who recently arranged a TedX talk by Dr Siri Rama created a Wikipedia page for her (which the organizer wrote based on promotional materials for Dr Siri that had been requested) and that this page for Dr Siri has since been deleted (speedily too!) because of the “self-promotional” nature of the write-up and what the administrators not-so-kindly refer to as “non-notability.” While it is the prerogative of the administrators to determine notability, it is a little unfair to Dr Siri that for no fault of hers, there is now some publicly available and uncharitable discussion on whether her contributions have been notable. It is certainly possible that her achievements do not add up to the high standards that are required for a Wikipedia entry, but it is also possible that the well-intentioned initial page creator did not write the page appropriately – that the entry was not written in a strictly biographical manner, but in a promotional manner, and did not include enough independent references. Indeed the talk on the deletion page by the four commenters (administrators?) does suggest exactly those as the reasons for speedy deletion.

I am not the original creator of the entry, but clearly I am not a disinterested party either, or else I would not be writing to you.

I would like to ask if • that discussion can be deleted from the Wikipedia pages, as otherwise, there is unnecessary harm potentially to her reputation (that some anonymous commenters have publicly assessed her many contributions as non-notable), for no fault of hers (since she did not instigate or create this page), OR, • could you reconsider a new page for her with better references and written in a more objective fashion. Please do consider the facts and sources below.

Dr Siri Rama is not “just” a dancer – she is a choreographer, dance scholar, dance teacher (who has graduated many students through to a debut performance in India and in Singapore), has performed worldwide, has collaborated with award-winning artistes from many different genres, and has been given many awards, including a lifetime achievement award. Recently, her dance institution celebrated its 35th anniversary. Now all of this could well be written up in a factual manner, backed up by independent sources, on the web and off-the-web (through publication references).

While one of your administrators disparages the Hindu newspaper as a source, you might note that it is the only national newspaper in India that has substantial coverage of Indian classical dance. Also the leading Indian dance site is Narthaki.com, and the leading Indian classical music and dance magazine is Sruti. Dr Siri Rama’s work has been covered in all three of these media vehicles (and in several city editions of the Hindu). She is also currently serving her third consecutive term as elected President of the Singapore chapter of the World Dance Alliance.

A few important (but not comprehensive list of) Web references to the dance, choreography and scholarship work of Dr Siri Rama (as Indian dance operates in what may be termed as the “informal sector,” not every detail is captured in easily-citeable web references – and some are in the regional press, which do not maintain very comprehensive websites).

• http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2005/08/19/stories/2005081901670200.htm Aug 2005, Delhi (review of a dance production in the Hindu the only Indian newspaper that reviews Indian classical music and dance)

• http://www.narthaki.com/info/intervw/intrvw60.html Jan 2004, Chennai (interview by the editor of the leading Indian classical dance website, Narthaki)

• http://www.natyakalaconference.com/news_letter_30th_dec.pdf, Dec 2009, Chennai (report about panel presentation at the leading annual Indian classical dance conference)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/experiments-with-expressions/article505966.ece July 2010, Chennai (interview by a Hindu journalist)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/dialogue-through-dance/article6267954.ece July 2014, Trivandrum (another interview by a Hindu journalist)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/siri-ramas-recent-dance-production-silk-roots-traces-the-route-of-the-material/article8253053.ece (feature in the Hindu about recent production) Feb, 2016, Chennai

• Siri Rama’s TedX talk: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Physics-and-Physicality-Dr-Siri;search%3Asiri%20rama Jul 2016, Mumbai

Other web references:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Schiemer (collaborator’s site)

• http://www.sruti.com/download/content1/A%20Dancer's%20Diary%20-%20A%20dream%20community%20for%20artists%20(Reproduced%20from%20Sruti%20337).pdf October 2012, (self-report on a dance tour of Taiwan in Sruti, the leading Indian classical music and dance magazine)

• http://www.deccanherald.com/content/214394/twin-dancers-singapore.html December, 2011 (review of students’ performance in the Deccan Herald, Bengaluru)

• http://www.wda-ap.org/executive-board/ (verification of service as President, World Dance Alliance, Singapore)

• https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=s-ffCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=sanskrit+conference+siri+rama&source=bl&ots=AbR1qzJ3ys&sig=jzDkwgSAHhtmw1rLc0-DrDz_dac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG2vfdqMrOAhXJr48KHZyKAsEQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20conference%20siri%20rama&f=false (chapter authored by Siri Rama in a book on Singapore dance)

• http://www.worldcat.org/title/sanskrit-in-asia-unity-in-diversity-an-international-conference-on-the-auspiciuos-golden-jubilee-birth-anniversary-of-hrh-princess-maha-chakri-sirindhorn-souvenir-and-abstract-book/oclc/945083295 (reference to presentation at a conference on Sanskrit, in Bangkok, 2005)

• http://en.krishna.deltoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/213_ACM_Conference_Programme_1718_July.pdf (reference to a presentation on the Ramayana in Singapore, 2010)

• http://iawm.org/stef/articles_html/hinkleturner_icmc_hongkong.html (reference to a dance performance set to computer music in Hong Kong, 1996)

Please let me know if you could either delete the discussion, or consider a new page for her, written with a more neutral tone and better referenced with independent sources (these above and others)

Amarapriya (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. SpacemanSpiff's speedy delete was in order. The article that he deleted on 4 July was substantially equivalent to the article that was deleted as a result of the AfD process, so CSD G4 applies. I'm not convinced A7 or G11 apply. It was also tagged G5...more on that later.
  There is nothing inherent in the deletion process to prevent a new draft of the article at Draft:Siri Rama, especially if there are multiple new sources to be added. However, the draft should be reviewed by veteran editors before it goes into the main space.
  The most recent version of the article was also tagged G5, created by a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban. This DRV was opened by a brand new editor. This raises the possibility that the person requesting the DRV is also the blocked user—and a blocked user cannot edit at all, especially not to start a new draft article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpharock (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator Nakon wrote, "The result was delete." However, I have found enough sources to make the page notable enough. XPanettaa (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume you mean you've found these sources after the AfD was over? If so, could you list them here? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Close of the AfD was in order. New sources discovered after the fact are a reason to create a new draft of the article, not to challenge the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think that @Rizhopper: can help by making this article notable. But first, it needs to be restored to main space. XPanettaa (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator wrote, "The result was no consensus. Numerically, we're at 22 delete to 12 keep, which is a substantial majority but not quite consensus. The arguments boil down to "it's reliably sourced" vs. "it's a synthesized fringe coatrack." These are all valid opinions within the range of editorial judgment usually applied to articles of this type, so I can't determine whose arguments ought to carry more weight." That an article is reliably sourced is not adequate to keep an article. It must also be notable. And a "substantial majority" is adequate for consensus. TFD (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: The user requesting review mistakes a majority for consensus. When assessing consensus, both the number of opinions expressed and the strength of argument as determined by the opinions' basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are taken into account. In this case, I found that I can't determine on the basis of policies and guidelines whose arguments are stronger, and that given this, the majority of "delete" opinions isn't so substantial as to amount to rough consensus by itself, given the relatively great number of defensible "keep" opinions. For these reasons, I maintain the view expressed in my closure.  Sandstein  17:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that the existence of sources is a sufficient policy-based reason not to delete? TFD (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Relist [Full Disclosure: I voted to Keep] In general I think the closer is not far off the mark. We need to remember that AfDs are not resolved by vote counting but by the strength of the argument and both sides have made compelling cases citing policy and guidelines. That said, I think that rather than renominating the article as suggested in the closing statement let's relist it and see if we can gain a clearer consensus over the next week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm of the view that discussions should only be relisted if there have been relatively few contributions. This AfD was much more frequented than usual, and there's no indication that more discussion might result in a clearer consensus.  Sandstein  19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse each presidential election season there area a few (or more) debates where perceived political leanings of the article in question seem to trump (ha, ha) our policies and dispassionate reasoning. I think Sandstein called this one correctly. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - The odd part of the close to me was a close as no consensus after heavy participation and no relistings, with an explicit suggestion: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." I would expect to see that if there were little participation, or if something had changed significantly over the course of the AfD, but there was pretty steady discussion throughout the week. It's not a totally outside the box close, of course, but in this case I don't know why a quick renomination would lead to a more definitive outcome when compared to relisting (unless we're just hoping something changes in the interim?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I disagree with the nominator's basic point; not an adequate reason to keep is just a total misreading of how Wikipedian deletion processes work. What's needed is an adequate reason to delete. That particular onus is on the "delete" camp and they simply failed to convince the other participants. I also disagree with Rhododendrites' point about relisting, and I would like to applaud the closer for closing the debate after sufficient participation. People chickenheartedly relisting AfDs several times has become the norm on Wikipedia and it needs not to be.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @S Marshall: Why "chickenheartedly"? We're not talking about several times, we're talking about one time, and suggesting a quick renomination despite no relistings and heavy participation. If any of those were different (if it had already been relisted, if there were no suggestion for a quick renomination, or if it saw little participation) I wouldn't have the position that I do. What is the benefit of ending one discussion without relisting only to start a new discussion? It's effectively a relisting, but makes everybody go through all the same arguments again and discounts those who have already participated but who will not see the renomination. What am I not seeing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason provided for the nomination, which for some reason Sandstein failed to notice in his summary, was lack of notability. That is certainly an adequate reason, because no articles should be created unless notability has been established. TFD (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you contend that the conspiracy theories about the US election haven't attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources, but you've had the chance to make that point to other editors and I'm afraid you simply haven't convinced very many of them. We won't re-hash that here. This is not AfD round 2.—S Marshall T/C 19:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, this is deletion review where we do not re-hash the reasons for deletion but determine whether the closing administrator made a correct decision. I don't know what you mean that not very many editors were persuaded, apparently 22 out of 34 were and the closing administrator did not say that any of the 12 keepers challenged lack of notability, but instead relied on a "but it's sourced" argument. What is at issue here is whether or not the "but it's sourced" argument is a sufficient policy based reason for keeping. TFD (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, you see, none of that holds much water. The fractions, 22/34 and 12/34, just aren't important. When you say something's not notable, as you did then, there's only one counter for someone who says "keep", which is to point out some reliable sources that have noted it. But when an editor does point out some sources, then the notability argument is duly countered.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The actual question here is whether the close should have been no-consdnensus, or keep. I think an excellent case for keeping was made in the discussion. There are an umber of such theories. Some of them have been widely discussed, and as we get closer to the election, this will naturally increase. It is appropriate to have a general article to bring an umber of related smaller topics together. The arguments in this direction seem so obviously correct, and the ones for deletion a misuse of the notability standards, that I would have closed as keep, but I see the non-consnsus close as also defensible, in order to avoid the more difficult judgment of which side of the argument is rational. -- DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Some random comments. I haven't read the full AfD in enough detail to form a real endorse vs overturn opinion, but I do want to toss out a few thoughts.

1. I'm pretty far out on the chickenhearted end of the spectrum when it comes to relisting. I'll often put a discussion out there for another week hoping to get clarity, but to be honest, I find it rarely works. In this case, however, even I wouldn't have relisted it. There were so many people who commented, in great detail, with spirited debate, and analysis of specific sources, that I just don't see how anything useful could have come from another week.
2. Given the logic above about not relisting, I have to admit I'm baffled at the idea that starting a new debate immediately would be useful. If people couldn't agree this week, I don't see why they would agree next week. Nothing is going to change, except possibly a slight shuffling of who shows up for the debate.
3. Like I said, I haven't studied the AfD enough to form my own opinion of how I would have closed it, but from my quick reading, the NC close is not unreasonable. I'm loathe to make any statement which sounds like I'm in any way condoning or supporting nose-counting, but 22 to 12 isn't even quite 2:1. Unfortunately for whoever gets the jobs of closing, that's sort of on that ragged line where you can't just rely on numbers and have to use some mix of deep analysis, intuition, and experience. Sandstein is one of our most experienced closers, so I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to close calls like this.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse Some arguments for deletion were, mostly, fairly weak (not meeting the GNG? Really? At the least that needs an explanation). IMO deletion arguments are heading toward IAR arguments, and you need a much stronger numeric consensus for an IAR argument. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse While I agree that the article should be deleted that matter is neither here no there in this discussion. There is no reasonable discussion as to why the consensus was interpreted incorrectly, majority is not consensus, consensus is not a vote, wikipedia is not a democracy. There is nothing wrong with Sanstein's close.

Quote from the close for TFD: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, and I have no problem with a close like this. We already relist too many AfDs, and I agree with Sandstein that a relist is generally not a good option for a discussion that's already had heavy participation. The closer is supposed to read and check strength of argument, not just count hands, so nothing wrong with that either. I see nothing to indicate this wasn't a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All the endorse votes concentrate on whether the closing administrator was right to determine that a 22 to 12 vote was no consensus. But that is not the issue. It is whether the argument that it has sources is a sufficient reason for keeping. Does that mean, as in this case, that anyone is free to write an article on a topic that has no notability provided they give sources? If notability is not a requirement for articles, should we remove it as a policy? TFD (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your confused about how Wikipedia works. Notability is not and has never been a policy, although it's a requirement for articles. If there are reliable sources about the topic, then it's always notable, because that's the definition of notability on Wikipedia. "Sufficient reason for keeping" simply doesn't arise ---- the editor wanting the material to be deleted must show sufficient reason to delete. It's not for the "keep" side to prove their case.

  To put it very simply, once FourViolas had made this edit, the only way to get the article deleted would be to go through those sources one by one and show that they were either unreliable or not about the subject.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To me the question here is not whether this article meet notability criteria but whether or not that case was made in that deletion discussion. Respectfully your case seems to be rhetoric to me. To me you haven't presented any justification that Sandstein did not determine the consensus correctly. You are instead arguing that the article has no notability. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't feel this is the forum for that. Here you need to show that the case for deletion was made and that there is a clear consensus for deletion is my understanding.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. Notability is a guideline not a policy. It says, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia." Sandstein said that the argument the article lacked notability had been made, but thought the argument that it was sourced made up for that defect. Sources alone do not make a topic notable unless they are about the topic. None of the sources provided were about "conspiracy theories." Each source described an individual theory and none provided any connection between them. We can provide sources for articles such as Republican sex offenders, Democratic child molestors, liberal prostitutes, conservative bank robbers, etc. Each of them can be made up of sourced examples, yet the there are no sources for the topics themselves. Serialjoepsycho, the closing administrator did not say an argument for notability existed, just that he thought the "but it's sourced" was sufficient to make up for the lack of notability. TFD (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are saying that the article should be deleted because it lacks notability. They are saying that there is no consensus. You are suggesting they incorrectly determined the consensus. You haven't made a case. This is a deletion review. If there is a clear consensus the point it out. Instead of doing that you are trying to re-argue the AFD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While I !voted for deletion on GNG grounds (There are zero sources supporting the topic of the page, just sources describing individual conspiracy theories, and the article is a coatrack for those conspiracy theories that don't have sources) none of that matters in a deletion review. I failed to convince enough people at the AfD, and so there was no consensus, the closer did a good job, and I simply have to accept WP:NOPONY. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD proponents must convince the community that there are solid grounds to delete, and those arguments were ultimately countered by solid grounds to keep. Closer was diplomatic in assessing no consensus; others have pointed out that closing as keep would have been reasonable too. Closing as delete was simply not on the table. Contrary to TFD's opinion, notability of the contents is well established; whether one enjoys or laments the situation is another debate. — JFG ^talk 21:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I !voted for deletion, but there was no consensus for my preferred outcome, and the close was good and thoughtful. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Deletion guidelines for administrators, specifically: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. I think BLP is applicable here as this article contains reckless speculation about living individuals and also believe this is especially relevant in an article in the contentious topic area of American Politics. At least 3 editors expressed concern about BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as a person who !voted to deleted the page for exactly those reasons, I have to say that there was no consensus to delete among the editors who !voted, and the closing admin appears to have considered the above argument and rejected it, concluding that no policy was broken. Which is exactly what he/she was supposed to do. The above is simply not a valid reason to overturn. It is, however, a valid reason to post a request on the closer's talk page asking him/her to reconsider. I have done this twice and had good experiences both times; one time the close was overturned, and the other time the closer did not agree with my argument but I felt that my request to overturn was given proper consideration and thought. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I agree with Sandstein's decision and the above endorsements. Let's just move on from this. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article is a mess, but that's largely a reflection of the real-world mess. The admin made a reasonable call, even if it wasn't the one I'd have made. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I happen to think the article is quite poor and the topic is not suitable, but this is DRV so that doesn't matter. Looking at the arguments that were made, I think that this was well within the administrators's discretion. Also, I would like to wholeheartedly congratulate them on actually taking action on a discussion with 34 comments rather than just kicking the can down the road and relisting; AFD needs closers who will make difficult calls rather than just leaving the hard work for others. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Sean Gannon (footballer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While subject does not pass WP:NFOOTY (he is a full-time professional player but not playing in a fully professional league), I believe the significant coverage in national and international media that this player has received means that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. I realise the deletion debate was only recently but unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to highlight numerous articles to the participants of the deletion debate which they otherwise seem to have missed and which I feel would have changed the outcome of the debate. See: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. They are just an example of some of the articles relating to Gannon showing broad coverage. In addition to the links, I feel it only fair to highlight that Gannon is a 3-time league winner of the top tier league in Ireland, has twice been named in the end-of-season Premier Division Team of the Year, was a member of the first ever Irish side to reach the group stage of European competition with Shamrock Rovers in 2011 (notable in itself), and will again play in the group stages of the Europa League this season with Dundalk. I would appreciate if this was reviewed for further discussion. --IrishTennis (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• relist Sports people are always tricky, but I'd claim the articles listed more than meet the GNG (very much focused on the person, his life, etc.), though some might argue about local coverage issues. The claim at the AfD was that he didn't meet the GNG, and given we now have evidence that may not be true, it's worth trying again. That said, I'm going to ping @GiantSnowman: to get his take as he tends to have a pretty good feeling for how sports-related AfDs will tend to go and he !voted in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - none of the coverage is significant, most of it is tabloid and arguably it's all related to one event. This is a semi-professional player who has got a little bit of limelight cos his little team have a little bit of success on a bigger stage - it happens every year in the FA Cup in England, where some builder or something who plays part-time scores a winning goal against a professional club and the some of the papers do a little profile. Everyone forgets about him a week later. No current notability, and certainly no lasting notability. GiantSnowman 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You demonstrate an extremely dismissive attitude by belittling the significant achievements and success of this full-time professional player (he is not semi-professional) and his "little team". They are currently aiming to complete 3 league titles in-a-row, something which has not been achieved for over 30 years, and are only the second Irish team ever to be represented in the group stage of European competition. While you may regard this as a "little bit of success", thankfully the national media in Ireland don't and have given it great coverage in addition to increasing popularity of the league. It's also simply untrue to say that "everyone will forget about him a week later" given the coverage (in newspapers, radio interviews and television interviews on primetime shows (see [12])) and the scarcity with which an Irish team does indeed qualify for the group stage of European competition. There are certainly more than a handful of members of the team who will have lasting notability, including Gannon. Please could you inform me as to how "none of the coverage is significant"? Also what exactly is your issue with using an editorially-controlled and fact-checked tabloid article as a source for a sports subject (I can assure you these articles haven't been found in the showbiz or entertainment section)? I can't find anything relating to that in WP:GNG. Many thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Any further clarification on this please? @GiantSnowman:. Thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've covered it all in my earlier comment. This is routine sports journalism in non-RS tabloid papers and not indicative of any reliability. GiantSnowman 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I'm not sure you've really dealt with any of my points sorry. I'll paste the last 2 again here in case you've missed them: "Please could you inform me as to how "none of the coverage is significant"? Also what exactly is your issue with using an editorially-controlled and fact-checked tabloid article as a source for a sports subject?" I'm guessing the tabloid source you're referring to must be the Irish Sun, so I would draw your attention to the articles from The Herald, Irish Independent, The Examiner, and appearances on 98FM and RTÉ television. Do you accept that your comparison of a full-time professional player playing in the group stage of the Europa League with "some builder or something who plays part-time scores a winning goal against a professional club" is wide of the mark? --IrishTennis (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - So, looking at the arguments above, I am presuming IrishTennis is contesting this around point 3 - that significant new information has come to light since the AfD. As such, let's look at the sources presented:

1. 1 - a substantial article from a reliable source which deals with the player's career in detail. Useful in asserting GNG but insufficient on its own.
2. 2 - a substantial article from a reliable source, which does in part deal with the career of the player but quickly drifts off into quotes about Dundalk the club. To my mind adds useful content, but not something to build a GNG argument on.
3. 3 - Can't check this one where I am right now.
4. 4 - Although this is an interview with Gannon, the focus is on his club and their performance in Europe. It's not clear what of significance is there that could be used in an article about the player, not useful for GNG
5. 5 - The title speaks volumes, this is not an article on Gannon, but on Dundalk, not useful in establishing GNG for the player.
6. 6 - same as the previous source, this is about Dundalk, not Gannon.
7. 7 - same as the previous two sources, this is about Dundalk, not Gannon.

The important thing to take from this is that we mustn't confuse the notability of the achievements of a club with the notability of players involved in those achievements per WP:NOTINHERITED. Whilst it is clear that the club's achievements have led to some coverage of the player, it is also clear from what has been presented above that the player is a source used by Irish papers for opinion on his club, this does not make him notable as the slant of the articles and the quotes he provides are not about himself but his club.

Finally, I would observe that the contesting editor's rationale also falls into this trap, beginning by talking about the player and then moving on to asserting the player's notability by discussing the achievements of his club. I would like to see four or five other articles like number 1 above, which would ideally cover a time period outside of the European competition qualifying rounds of this season before I was convinced this player has received significant coverage as an individual sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what was _in_ the article before. But #1, as a new source, is very strong and is a fine reason to see if, combined with older sources, we've met the GNG. Clearly the AfD was closed correctly, but the bar for a relist/recreation is if there is enough new material to be above to overcome a WP:CSD#G4. That seems to be pretty easily met. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that source 1 is a decent one and would definitely support a recreation if a bit more could be found in addition. In general ROI league players are just not notable, but this guy is relatively close to GNG comparably. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue 1, 2 and 3 together meet the GNG (3 is fairly short btw, but focused on the topic). Assuming there were sources in the article at deletion, at the least it's got a solid chance at AfD. Again, the call here is if it's enough to overcome G4, and given that there is a reasonable case the new sources meet the GNG, I think we're well past that, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the helpful and constructive input, much appreciated. I take your point about mixing up the club's broader notability with the player's, although I suppose that can be difficult on occasion when the player has partly achieved notability through their significant achievements with the club. And I agree that not many League of Ireland players will meet WP:GNG , however I feel Gannon is one of the exceptions to the rule. I see the page has been recreated in the meantime? I am not sure if it's a restoration of a previous version, or a completely new article (in which case may be missing the references from before). Maybe you guys could check please? On the subject of a few additional sources, a quick search gave me these [13] and [14], but I can have a better look later on. Thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source looks good to me from a GNG perspective, though I'm not familiar with the website - but have not reason to doubt its credibility. The second less so from a GNG perspective as it is partly routine transfer / contract talk, which generally doesn't count towards GNG and secondly because it veers off into a discussion of his hopes for Dundalk rather than himself, though it does have content that could be used in an article. I'd recommend you try to put something together in your userspace using the first three sources you mentioned earlier and the first one you just mentioned and see how it looks on its own, then build on it using the other sources that are more tangentially related to Gannon. I'm happy to restore the deleted article to your userspace if you want to use that as a starting point rather than go through recreating the infobox, lead and bits like that, but I would advise you to remove all the main prose and start from scratch to ensure you get the right focus on the notable sources. Let me know what you think. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the tips. Yeah if you restore it to my userspace that'd be great, thanks. Will get a chance to work on it in the next couple of days, cheers. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should find it restored here for you to work on. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataCore Software (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, which is preferable to deletion. Article was being worked on by multiple Admins to get the article to NPOV. Please review this article and see if it was properly deleted. Tried working out the issue with the Administrator who deleted the article, who just says that the article was "promotional." All information in the article was supported by references. A new draft has already been submitted but seems that this process is backlogged. Would be much more efficient to all involved to have the article that was deleted fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58b:100:4b0b:a0fa:8e04:e366:7dc3 (talk • contribs)

• Looks like the draft has been reviewed and declined. I'm afraid that admins have wide latitude to delete promotional material on sight and we don't restore advertisments. There are all kinds of reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers, so we've had to develop ironclad defence mechanisms. If we didn't have them, then you'd never find anything useful in Wikipedia because it would be drowning in spam and hype.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Plenty of (non-recent) deleted versions at DataCore Software Corporation, too. —Cryptic 08:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11, list at AfD Endorse. I hate to say it (because the article really is horrible, and apparently there's a history of recreating this several times under different titles) but the Forbes reference is a pretty good source. There's a plausible argument that this could pass muster at AfD, if the current text was blown up and rewritten from scratch. That's enough to disqualify using the WP:CSD stick. To be fair, given the current text and the history, I really can't blame User:Seraphimblade for nuking this on sight, but it deserves a closer look. Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed there's already a copy of this in draft space. That's good enough. It can be worked on (i.e. blown up) there and resubmitted for review when it's in better shape. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another problem is the draft is apparently a copy-and-paste fork (and, I'm guessing there's more copies lurking in user space somewhere). Please, folks, don't do that. It is important for our licensing to be able to trace the history of every edit, and you can't do that when the history gets forked. If you want to continue to work on a deleted article as a draft, please contact an admin (perhaps the one who deleted it in the first place) and ask for it to be restored to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of this crap. Given the conversation at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DataCore Software (Part II: Resurrection), I'm now of the opinion that we should delete and salt both the mainspace and draft titles. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Draft copy was rejected. This article has been on Wikipedia since 2011. Surely there is an earlier version that it can be restored to rather than deleted. Or current version can be rewritten
• Potentially this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DataCore_Software&diff=695381675&oldid=695381034 please review: has valid references: npov in my opinion. Valid references including Forbes article and NY Times. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/datacore-lands-30-million-from-vcs/?_r=1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2015/12/09/the-rebirth-of-parallel-io/#7e8959defa88 2601:58B:100:4B0B:A0FA:8E04:E366:7DC3 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Whole referenced article sounds like a copy-paste from a press release, and it links to SPC tests and playing with the numbers, something I believe resulted us all ending here. If somebody can pay to Forbes resident IT reviewer to act as a voice it doesn't mean he can go and buy WP. We should be neutral, and PR noise tolerant. NISMO1968 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirm deletion & work on the draft. I've edited the article recently to remove promotional / weekly sourced material (primary sources, industry awards, etc), ant the Draft:DataCore Software reflects the most recent version of the article. I believe it was correctly rejected as a draft as it was still non-neutral and overly promotional, without real depth. The main editor working on the article was a paid editor, with some back and forth going on re declaring COI: see COI & SPA (that's how I became aware of the article). In this situation, I believe the deletion was the right decision. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see both sides: the company is notable, but can see the article was considered promotional. I would lean to reinstate being better than a re-creation of a cut-n-paste draft. At least drop the litany of partners and "awards" which usually mean they bought a blog-writer lunch. Probably the most notable event was the SPC-1 benchmark result, which would need to be added with neutral language. Not in the draft at all. W Nowicki (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Sock puppets, bully behaviour, canvassing, endless reverts, and bringing in paid account in a desperate hope to make the pill sweeter. There's COI and there's lack of notability. If somebody is walking dead for years it doesn't mean his or her company worth WP page or whatever. NISMO1968 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are comparing this company to someone that is walking dead? Im very confused here. The company does have notability and has been around since 1998. If DataCore does not deserve a page on WP, then neither do other companies, such as Starwind. DataCore does have reliable sources and references. Please be respectful and stop bashing. Your time may be better spent working on the draft of the company and contributing to the value that wikipedia has to offer instead of telling others that they don't know what they are talking about. Apparently others also believe the page has notability as stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:100:4B0B:D46A:8A41:A2A4:99A6 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have another case to report: IPv6 sock puppet & COI. Dully noted! NISMO1968 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you plan on reporting yourself as well considering the only article you have ever had any interest in editing is DataCore. I wonder the reason for this? You should probably state which company you are working for2601:58B:100:4B0B:D46A:8A41:A2A4:99A6 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CONFIRM DELETION and move on. New rejected draft isn't much better. Every sentence is a claim. Initially I though I could help with edits if needed, but after being reverted so many times I don't think I should. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Im going to agree with W Nowicki for Reinstate the article clearly has notability like other software companies on here. I was surprised to see the page deleted. Needs to be worked on for sure as it was promotional. Will work to add to the draft as well. JessicaH123 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— JessicaH123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I wasn't aware this had been started, but endorse my deletion, such as it is. The article was clearly intended to be promotional, and the draft can be resubmitted if those issues can be fixed. Clearly an AfC reviewer has already agreed that the article was unacceptably promotional as it stood. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree with RoySmith's earlier comments; DataCore definitely is a notable company but after having my first draft rejected by SwisterTwister I don't see how the article can get back on the main space unless new sources with considerable coverage on the company pop up. There's a second draft that was recently submitted but the wording and references are pretty much the same. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to wade into this one except to note that DataCore software (lower-case "s") exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anymore. —Cryptic 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having looked at this in the previous round on WP:COIN, I noted that there was some interesting technology there, but it wasn't unique to this company. See Talk:Storage_area_network#Hyperconverged_storage_area_networks.3F. The technology should be covered at Storage area network, with DataCore perhaps mentioned as one of the 13 or so vendors offering such a technology. So far, nobody has picked up the task at Storage area network. Anyone want to do that? As for DataCore, if it it stays, I'd suggest cutting it down to a stub of basic verifiable corporate info. John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the article was undeleted to allow the contents to be reviewed for this DRV. I've temporarily protected it to prevent continued restoration of the article text instead of the DRV template. Text restoration is subject to a consensus in this DRV, so let's await the close. Even though protected, the article text remains visible for review purposes, by checking the article history tab. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ick. Probably a notable company. And I hate to not have coverage on notable topics just because there are COI editors floating around--it is not part of our inclusion guidelines and I worry about a false flag thing by a competing company. But A) many of the sources, look like more paid advertising. B) these people are being real jerks. I'm reasonably knowledgeable in this area and would be willing to write a very short stub that we could put under some form of protection. So stubify and protect would be my first choice. Endorse deletion for now as my second choice. The SPC-1 record holder should probably have an article though... Hobit (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Healy (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no reason on the page that would not give Matthew Healy individual notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.49.58 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Obvious agreement excluding one person that the singer should not be spun out of the band. Protect the redirect until there is a consensus demonstrated at Talk:The 1975 is support of spinning out out the singer (an unlikely future event). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment/Endorse - Mr IP it would've been nice if you you know ... actually discussed it with me first ....., Anyway it was a snow-redirect and it clearly wasn't going to be closed any other way...., I suggest this be Speedy Closed as this is simply the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Davey2010^Talk 10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer Trail (tour) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is a copyvio, and I don't care what the automatic tool says. We're comparing a fixup of a machine translation of a copyvio against a free translation of the source text, so of course the tool isn't going to pick up the similarities. I'm afraid it's necessary to read, comprehend, and think. Overturn and relist. —S Marshall T/C 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging involved users @DGG:, @Shawn in Montreal:, @Kvng:, @Atlantic306: and @Dane2007:. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I know I'm missing something somewhere, but what is this a copyright violation of? Hobit (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The Pioneer Trail (tour) started out life as a translation, using the content translation tool, of a French Wikipedia article entitled fr:Voie des pionniers. The French Wikipedia article is a WP:CLOP of this Canadian website.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sent to WP:CV. I'm in no position to speedy it - my high school French is decades out of date and was never any good (here in the States, they only teach you enough to pass standardized written tests) - but another admin who can read more than about a quarter of the source and intermediary page might be willing to. This didn't necessarily need to come through DRV for the article's sake, since its content is orthogonal to its notability; nevertheless, it was a poor candidate for a non-admin closure, and the proper result should have been "defer to WP:CV", not "nose-count says 'keep'".
  @S Marshall: have you looked into getting the article on frwiki removed? —Cryptic 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I haven't. I speak French and German, and I translate from their Wikipedias into ours, but I have no edits to fr.wiki or de.wiki. They have very different rules and procedures compared to en.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • en.wikipedia should provide an example of best practice. Sometimes, Wikipedias in other languages appears to have lax adherence to rules, and generous admission of topics of dubious notability, but it would be very poor form for en.wikipedia editors to attempt exert control over the other projects' communities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Going off on a tangent here:) Well, that may be true of some wikis. Culturally, de.wiki has very strict (software-enforced) adherence to rules, a complete ban on fair use files for any purpose, and a disinclination to accept new articles, which are seen as adding to their incessant workload of flagged revisions patrolling. It's much less source-oriented because de.wiki doesn't trust sources, it trusts editors. (Some editors, that is.) It's also got a relentless focus on prose style and quality that we don't have here at all. Fr.wiki is also less source-oriented and more editor-trust-oriented.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have seen similar, and other cultural difference at yet other language Wikipedias. There are definitely cultural differences, and sensitivities should not be clumsily inflamed. I advise that anyone without an established presence at fr.wikipedia.org should not jump in and seek to management them according to our customs. I note that the "copyright violation" noted here is an extremely rigid definition, verging on paranoia (see meta:Avoid_copyright_paranoia). en.wikipedia.org might be more in error than them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be that frwiki wouldn't care about this degree of paraphrasing if they knew about it. It may even be that they already do know about it, and don't care. But the more likely case is that they don't know about it, and informing them could do no harm. —Cryptic 04:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Informing them on the article talk page seems a quite proper thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12. NB, in the fairly long edit history, there is only one substantive edit, and it was the edit introducing the copyright violation. Allow recreation using the Canadian source, other references, and the external links:

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As I am not an expert in french, I rely on the computer translations and copyvio detectors. My keep vote was entirely based on that. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll just say that my speedy keep !vote on the time was based on the original deletion rationale, which wrongly claimed that the article was an irreparably bad machine translation -- and seemed to call for its deletion as a sort of test case for a perceived problem with other machine translations in the backlog. I had looked through about eight or so French articles there and all but one was okay. I simply didn't see a valid deletion rationale at the time -- but didn't keep a watch on the Afd and was not aware that the nominator changed his argument later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Due to the language issue I can't evaluate the deletion argument. I'd suggest that AfD is probably the right place, with a notice sent to the appropriate wikiproject if one exists. So allow a relist with the new deletion argument (which I don't think DRV is needed for in any case, but if it helps...) Hobit (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? No I think the nominator is right, at least in this: a non-admin close is still a close. I don't see how it could "relisted" w/o a DRV? Anyway, this whole episode may be moot as there's a big fat COPYVIO template over what used to be the article... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen/Delete. The closer should have noted the copyright issue raised late in the discussion (and, at the least, undone the close when it was pointed out to them). Of course, if the copyright charge stands, the article could be G12 speedy deleted anyway.--regentspark (comment) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With multiple stories in both La Presse and Le Devoir, as well as the local Coaticook-area coverage, it's probably notable, but I just don't have the time or interest in stripping it back to a bare-bones referenced text. If this attraction actually sticks around, is expanded further or gets more English coverage, perhaps another editor will come along and recreate it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I guess "reopen/delete with no bar against rewriting/recreating a copyvio free article" is more accurate. Either way, we should reopen the debate to see if the article can remain after the copyvio infringements are taken care of. --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List at WP:CP, which is recommended practice for complex or non-obvious cases of copyright violation. And WP:TROUT the closer for thinking that copyvio can always be spotted by an automated text comparison tool. Hut 8.5 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• List at WP:CP just as Hut 8.5 said. the copyvio is not obvious, and there's a proper place to discuss it, which is not here. If it is substantial, still perhaps it can be fixed, in which case there is no argument for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not to repeat myself, but it is definitely fixable. We got the refs to create a neutrally worded article, easy, if anyone wished to. I really don't care to, I'm sorry. It's just not my thing I'm not convinced this won't become abandoned in a couple of years. I know notability is not temporary, but I have seen some wacky schemes come and go here in my home province! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and blow up the copyvio. The references are there, they just need to be applied correctly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've made a request on the French Wikipedia to determine the copyright status of the French article: fr:Discussion:Voie des pionniers/Droit d'auteur.  Sandstein  17:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete, and {{whale}} the closer. The unrebutted copyvio argument trumps the keeps, regardless of the headcount. WP:CP appears to be heavily backlogged, and I see no reason to send this there when there's no serious argument that this isn't a copyvio. T. Canens (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh, Tim, I didn't know you were still active! Could I persuade you to look at some of the articles on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review that have been tagged as translations from zh.wiki? We're desperately short of people who speak Asian languages.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. WP:CP is the established process for checking close paraphrasing, but the vast majority of their work is in English. I trust S Marshall's evaluation, and I second Timotheus Canens's point that no reader of French has argued against it. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Kraus (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an appeal to restore the delete article "Georg Kraus" because during the AFD, the admin SwisterTwister who later accepted the draft and published it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wynton1989 ) had clearly hinted during the AFD discussion that the article could recreated from scratch. I first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page (Hut 8.5) but I strongly believe that there could have been a misunderstanding. My explanation is displayed in section "Restoring the Georg Krauss page” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hut_8.5 Wynton1989 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pinged but I won't be commenting further than the long thread at user talk:Kudpung#Significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted. It was on my recommendation that Wynton brought the matter here. I'll be happy to accept any consensus for an outcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonna need a history restore to see the changes. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Everything said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Kraus appears correct. Sorry, Wikipedia is very firm with a high bar for accepting biographies of people associated with consulting companies. If he doesn't clearly meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, he will be judged against WP:CORP, and that is firmly held line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting admin it looks like this is what happened here:

• The article was nominated for deletion, and two people agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted.
• FakeGinger makes some improvements to the article, but does not comment at the AfD.
• Kudpung closes the debate as Delete (unsurprising as that was how everyone had !voted) and deletes the article. There were no comments on the debate since FakeGinger's improvements.
• Wynton1989 (who I suspect is the same person as FakeGinger) feels, not unreasonably, that the Delete conclusion did not apply to the version with his/her changes. Rather than contesting the result of the AfD s/he recreates the article in the same form as it was when it was deleted at the close of the AfD.
• The recreation is nominated for deletion under G4 and I delete it. As it was almost identical to the version which was deleted at the close of the AfD to do anything else would have amounted to overturning the close of the AfD, which I'm not supposed to do by myself.

• I think the best outcome here would have been if FakeGinger had posted a comment at the AfD noting that it had been improved during the course of the discussion, or if Wynton1989 had contacted Kudpung at the close of the AfD to ask for the debate to be relisted instead. If people feel there was a realistic chance that the improvements might have changed the outcome of the AfD then I suggest we relist it, otherwise the article can stay deleted. Hut 6.5 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear consensus from the afd. FakeGinger's "improvements" are, despite appearances from the refbombing, superficial. The history of paid editing, banned promoters and sockpuppetry tell us what's going on here. Promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hut's analysis above is very helpful. I think ideally the AFD would have been relisted with a note that substantial information had been added after the last AFD !vote. However, I wouldn't urge overturning the close. The speedy was made by considering the changes made from the version of the article that had been deleted – I accept that minimal changes had been made.[15] However, Hut and I agree that discretion may be needed about which versions should be compared.[16] I think the changes made between the last !vote and the close[17] would have been sufficient to avoid G4 but it seems to be undecided between the deleting admins whether this should have been enabled by appealing the AFD or the speedy. I think the "improved" article deserved reconsideration and should not have fallen between two stools. In my view, although the changes were substantial, the improved article still fails to meet our notability criteria because this is the only substantial reference about the subject (rather than by him). I don't rule out interviews per se but I think this one is insufficient. So, I don't mind whether this article is relisted or kept deleted. Thincat (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't think the AFC acceptance makes much difference except to support that the changes were substantial. The implication was merely one person's view that the article was likely to survive AFD. Thincat (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thank you all for your comments in finding a suitable solution to my request for undeletion. I respect your positions whatever they may be.
  Nevertheless, I would simply like to attract your attention on a little noticed and talke about important fact: SwisterTwister (who participated in the AFD process) reviewed, accepted and published live the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wynton1989. I am also surprised a little by the fact SwisterTwister still did not intervene in this debate where his/her voice would be so crucial. There should be some consistency and common sense in the Wikipedia environment. Wynton1989 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SwisterTwister didn't participate in the AfD, and the opinion of one person isn't decisive in these issues. Hut 8.5 21:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore to draftspce. When a draft is moved to articlespace by someone not involved in the drafting, then deleted in short order, that indicates that the move was premature/inappropriate, not that the content was unsuitable for draftspce. Poor judgment by soneone not previously involved with the draft article should not justify its outright deletion, rather than mere removal from articlespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draftspace. (I commented at length above). I agree with Hullaballoo. Thincat (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Raymonda van der Veen (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was a clear consensus that van der Veen did not satisfy any notability guidelines and the coverage found fell short of GNG. Everything else was irrelevant drama that should have been ignored. The only calls for keeping were adhoms. Ignoring all rules to keep a badly sourced contentious BLP is an exceedingly dumb idea.
Closer states "Deleting under those conditions would have created a very bad impression". I contend that the opposite is true. Not deleting under those conditions creates a very bad impression. What was a valid policy based afd was turned into something else by those opposed to deletion. It was disrupted with that drama to prevent removal. Closing like that rewards the creation of drama and encourages disruption. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; The discussion was, to a significant extent, quite appalling and it is right that it was closed. There was an extremely poor level of discussion on both sides which left no room for reasonable debate. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - But that doesn't prevent renomination. Given you were canvassed to the discussion by the now-blocked editor starting the drama, you might not be the ideal person to do so, however. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informing one single editor that holds you in contempt is not canvassing. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Why would he inform an editor that holds him in contempt unless he knew you would agree (i.e. your previous interaction, afaict, was when he didn't like that you wanted to delete something. Not so consequential here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Just like WP:TNT can apply to articles, so can it (I hereby declare) apply to discussions. I didn't read the entire discussion, but enough of it to figure out that two indef banned users and a WP:SPA took it over to such an extent that no rational discourse was possible. Start a new AfD from scratch and discuss the merits of the article, if you want, but trying to impose a different outcome on this mess is pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was no mere "drama." By his own admission, the nominator, a former long-time editor, created an article to win personal favor with a love interest (diff); after they had a bitter falling out, he conveniently reconsidered notability and brought the discussion below. We don't ordinarily inquire into the motivations of nominators, but, when a multitude of on-wiki evidence demonstrates the subversion of our processes to effect off-Project personal retaliation, the answer must be "No." Also, not that my view on it matters, but I suspect a second trip to AFD sponsored by the banned nominator's canvassed friend would be unsuccessful. Rebbing 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I agree this was a mess and there seemed to be a general sense that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. And I can see why having it closed like that could be frustrating. But as Roy says, it was a good application of WP:TNT. We couldn't delete with that discussion--it was too personal and had too many personal attacks on the subject. I suspect it will get renominated for deletion at some point in the future... Hobit (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the AfD nominator, original author, now blocked Dontreader (talk · contribs) made a bit of a mess, and the discussion really needed to be closed the way it was, "no consensus", to stop the ill advised, WP:BLP violating, commentating. Allow immediate relisting by an experienced editor who is better versed in AfD culture, User:Duffbeerforme for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User:Rhododendrites that User:Duffbeerforme is overly involved or in any way in poor standing.

    Support deletion of the AfD, although courtesy blanking is usually more than enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be clear, I wouldn't object if Duff renominated. I just said it's not ideal. And it's not. Having someone you're on bad terms with, who considers you some fashion of deletionist, leave you a message (and nobody else) when a nomination isn't going as planned is most definitely canvassing, and the invitation should've been suspect. Regardless, he obviously wasn't voting delete just because Dontreader supported deletion, but rather did his own evaluation. So no, not ideal, but I'm not going to claim "overly involved". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I admit to having skimmed quickly through the pointless interpersonal stuff, which I quickly determined to be out of proportion to the question of this fairly innocuous bio. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose deletion of the debate below as any BLP violations are adequately resolved by blanking and we do not ordinarily delete records of our process. Rebbing 08:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As stated in the closing, this is without prejudice to a new AfD started by another editor who does not have personal animosity against the article subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salimullah Khan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Salimullah Khan is a well-known public intellectual in Bangladesh. The issue that some (not most) of the links were referring to blogs can be easily addressed. It is not a sufficient ground to judge the 'notability' of the person as inadequate. The time lapse between nomination & voting for deletion and final deletion was insufficient for holding meaningful discussion or taking necessary steps over the question. I am not sure if the nomination and voting process was fair or whether it was coordinated. Wikipedia needs to have a procedure to check coordinated voting that may lead to quick deletion. Also, the contributors to the page should have a right to appeal so that painstaking work that went into creation and improvement of the article does not get destroyed by rapid deletion voting. Tahmidal Zami (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse- no argument made for overturning this close. Just a lot of accusations of "coordinated voting" (whatever that is) and irrelevant complaints that the seven days every AfD gets is somehow too "rapid". Reyk _YO! 07:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd prefer this stay open the normal amount of time though Reyk is correct--there is no policy-relevant reason given to overturn. @Tahmidal Zami:, do you have sources that cover this person (in any language)? Those need to be from reliable, independent, sources and meet our (badly named) notability requirements. If no such sources exist, we are unlikely to host this article. We do worry about "systematic bias" against folks like intellectuals from Bangladesh, but we need some meaningful evidence, again from reliable and independent sources that he is a well-known public intellectual. Hobit (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain that the sources below are enough to meet WP:N but given the large number and that I personally don't view interviews as problematic assuming the interview is published in a RS, I'd rather see a relist here so AfD can discuss the sources (hopefully with the input of someone who speaks Bengali). Hobit (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• evidence of notability @Hobit:, @Reyk:, I would like to present some secondary coverage of Salimullah Khan in national media along with some of his English language publications as evidence of notability. This is a fraction of available evidence but as the system demands presentation of evidence within a short notice, I had to compromise comprehensiveness.

List of articles published by Salimullah Khan in the largest circulated Bangladeshi English daily the Daily Star: = “Abdul Karim's discoveries - Origins of modernity in Bengali literature”, The Daily Star, October 10, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/abdul-karims-discoveries-origins-modernity-bengali-literature-154528

= “Reading Nazrul Islam after Walter Benjamin”, The Daily Star, August 29, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/in-focus/reading-nazrul-islam-after-walter-benjamin-134326

= “AHMED SOFA IN WEIMAR: A Bangali tribute to Goethe”, The Daily Star, July 28, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/op-ed/politics/ahmed-sofa-weimar-bangali-tribute-goethe-117586

= “Nazrul's passages from modernity”, The Daily Star, April 14, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/naboborsho-special-1422/nazruls-passages-modernity-77178

= “The Gaze as 'little object a': Bangladesh at the United Nations in 1971”, The Daily Star, March 26, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/independence-day-special-2015/the-gaza-little-object-bangladesh-the-united-nations-1971

= “Professor Abdur Razzaq on India’s Partition and Independence”, The Daily Star, December 30, 201, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/prof-abdur-razzaq-on-indias-partition-and-independence-57586

= “A Tribute to Jashimuddin”, the Daily Star, May 30, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/star-people/tribute-jasimuddin-71424

= “Spirit of Liberation War”, The Daily Star, November 18, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/spirit-of-liberation-war-50936

= “On the Allegorical Gaze of Meghmallar”, The Daily Star, December 14, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/on-the-allegorical-gaze-of-meghmallar-55178

= “Kamruddin Ahmad”, The Daily Star, February 6, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/kamruddin-ahmad-63474

= “Equity and participation in tertiary education”, The Daily Star, September 10, 2013, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news/equity-and-standards-in-tertiary-education

Interviews of Salimullah Khan published in The Daily Star:

= “The Origins of Communalism”, The Daily Star, January 24, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/the-origins-of-communalism-7950

Sample Book reviews for works by Salimullah Khan published in national newspapers:

= Taimur Reza, “Chandal guru’r hokikot”, Prothom Alo, Apr 16, 2010, url: http://archive.prothom-alo.com/print/news/56619

Some Articles of Salimullah Khan published in the second largest English language newspaper New Age: = “A poetic testimony of the liberation war”, New Age, March 26, 2016, url: http://newagebd.net/215197/a-poetic-testimony-of-the-liberation-war/

= “The Bangla question in Bangladesh”, New Age, February 21, 2016, url: http://newagebd.net/204932/the-bangla-question-in-bangladesh/

Some Articles of Salimullah Khan published in largest circulated Bengali Daily Prothom Alo:

= “Baje Jashimuddin”, Prothom Alo, March 18, 2011, url: http://archive.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-03-18/news/139291

Some Citations of speech or participation by Salimullah Khan published in national newspapers:

= “Film activists criticize children of war”, New Age, June 4, 2014, url: http://newagebd.net/17432/film-activists-criticise-children-of-war/

= “Muktijuddhe Shohid-er Shonkhya Niye Ohetuk Bitorko Kora Hocchee”, Prothom Alo, January 16, 2016, url: http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/741115/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%95

= “Do not show audacity”, New Age, January 22, 2016, url: http://newagebd.net/195637/do-not-show-audacity/

= “Ahmed Sofa Shopno dekhten shopno dekhaten”, Prothom Alo, June 28, 2014, url: http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/252985

= “Pulish-ke aro shocchho o kholamela howar poramorsho”, Jugantor, April 3, 2016, url: http://www.jugantor.com/last-page/2016/04/03/22629/print

= “Sector Commander Nuruzzaman remembered”, New Age, May 11, 2014, url: http://newagebd.net/10237/sector-commander-nuruzzaman-remembered/

= “Abul Mansur Ahmad yet to get proper recognition”, New Age, March 19, 2015, url: http://newagebd.net/104298/abul-mansur-ahmad-yet-to-get-proper-recognition/

= “Ahmed Sofa wrote for the underprivileged”, The Daily Star, November 1, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/ahmed-sofa-wrote-for-underprivileged-48350

= “A legacy we tend to ignore”, The Daily Star, January 17, 2003, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news/a-legacy-we-tend-to-ignore

= “A fiesta of Art”, The Daily Star, September 7, 2015, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/arts-entertainment/arts/fiesta-art-139126

= “Professor Razzaq stirred students’ hunger for knowledge”, The Daily Star, December 21, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/prof-razzaq-stirred-students-hunger-for-knowledge-56331

= “Communal terror continues”, The Daily Star, January 17, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/communal-terror-continues-7006

= “Looking at Sultan beyond his art”, The Daily Star, July 14, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/looking-at-sultan-beyond-his-art-33165

= “Documentary screening and conversation on SM Sultan”, The Daily Star, July 10, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/documentary-screening-and-conversation-on-sm-sultan-32606

= “Reading in Translation”, The Daily Star, February 18, 2005, url: http://archive.thedailystar.net/magazine/2005/02/03/cover.htm

= “Non-citizen status of Rohingyas in Myanmar criticized”, The Daily Star, October 13, 2012, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-253645

= “Cultural struggle and Akhtaruzzaman Elias”, The Daily Star, February 15, 2008, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-23366

= “Ahmed Sofa was voice for the deprived”, The Daily Star, July 28, 2012, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-243803

= “Publications of two books on works of Ahmed Sofa”, The Daily Star, February 9, 2009, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75103

= “Non-uniform primary education discriminatory”, The Daily Star, May 11, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/non-uniform-primary-education-discriminatory-23623

= “Bangla should be language of higher court”, The Daily Star, February 17, 2013, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-269358

= “Introduce inclusive education to modernize education system”, The Daily Star, June 14, 2009, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-92533

One voter advocating deletion mentioned h-index which is mainly focused on scholarly papers mainly in European languages. Salimullah Khan's writings are chiefly in Bengali and are respectable Bengali publications which are unavailable in the internet.

Tahmidal Zami (talk) 9:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Tahmidal, it would be useful for you to read WP:N and WP:RS, to get a better idea of the kind of sources we're looking for. For example, the first set of sources you cite above are articles by the subject. These don't really contribute to an establishment of notability, by our rules. What we're looking for are things that other people have written about the subject. Also, I see that the vast majority of the sources you present are from a single publication, The Daily Star. We prefer to see sources from a variety of places. The other problem (and I know this doesn't sound like a problem at first) is that you've presented too many sources. I doubt anybody is going to invest the time to read all of those. So, my suggestion to you would be to carefully read WP:N and WP:RS, then come back here and list the threee, and no more than three sources which you believe best meet our requirements. That will make it a lot easier for people to evaluate. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith, @RoySmith: here I provide three sources according to your requirement. The three are not produced by the subject, i.e. are independent third-party sources, written by other people, not from the same publication, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Since sources from any language is acceptable, I have included Bengali sources. This is justified as we are speaking of a Bengali-speaking Bangladeshi intellectual who writes in Bengali and English.

Interview of the Subject published in the leading English Language newspaper The Daily Star: “The Origins of Communalism”, The Daily Star, January 24, 2014, url: http://www.thedailystar.net/the-origins-of-communalism-7950

A report in the largest Bengali newspaper Prothom Alo on speech by Salimullah Khan on Bangladesh liberation war: = “Muktijuddhe Shohid-er Shonkhya Niye Ohetuk Bitorko Kora Hocchee”, Prothom Alo, January 16, 2016, url: http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/741115/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%95

An interview of Salimullah Khan published in Samakal, one of the most circulated Bengali daily newspaper: “Ekhane Dhormiyo Choromopontha Kokhonoi Bijoyi Hoy ni”, Samakal, April 17, 2013, url: http://archive.samakal.net/print_edition/details.php?news=23&action=main&option=single&news_id=340101&pub_no=1381&view=archiev&y=2013&m=04&d=17

As I have requested the deletion review, I am responding in short notice to comply with the evidentiary requirements. If you require further specifications or other kinds of additional evidence, please let me know.

Tahmidal Zami (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for supplying those, Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm going to have to endorse the deletion based on these sources. The first and third are interviews, which we generally don't consider to be good sources. While you are correct that non-English sources are allowed, as a practical matter, since I don't read Bengali, I had to rely on the auto-translation available in Chrome, which is not perfect. Given that, however, I'd have to say the second source is a very short article and doesn't meet our requirement for significant coverage. As an alternative to deletion, I would suggest that this could be restored to draft space, where you can work on researching additional, and better, sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my opinion; I'm still not terribly impressed with the sources presented here, but enough of them are plausible that sending this back to AfD is a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, The general notability guideline or reliability guideline do not mention that interviews are unacceptable sources.

Please see WP:INTERVIEW -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, as for non-interview sources, I have presented in my 'evidence of notability' post numerous articles which are not written by Salimullah Khan and which mention him. Most of these articles contain around 50/100 words or more dedicated to him. You said no one would invest as much time as needed to look into each of the articles and also that these should not be mostly from one newspaper/source. I can provide similar sources from other newspapers as well. Tahmidal Zami (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment As the deleting admin it is not appropriate to post a !vote here. But I will point out firstly, that this article was posted in AfD for the statutory seven day period; secondly, that is received four delete opinions and of course the delete nomination, with no dissenting opinion; thirdly, the impressively long argument on this page in favour of re-listing is posted by the author of the article. The validity of the references now presented, which were not presented in the article or in the AfD discussion, are for the community to decide. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Send back to AfD, per RoySmith, for the newly presented sources to be considered. No criticism of the AfD closer, it couldn't have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: the close was fairly straightforward (all policy-backed deletes). The article can be recreated if better sources are found, but the outcome should not be overturned.

I would be OK with a WP:IAR "send back to AfD", but I disagree with the argument that because sources are presented here it should be overturned. The consensus, right or wrong, was clearly that the sources were insufficient, and the closing admin is not supposed to re-evaluate statements of fact. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and userify for the editor/author of the article to put together an appropriate article, which can be AfD'ed without prejudice once put back into mainspace. That is, you get the poor article back with which to work to upgrade it using all these sources you provided here, and if anyone disputes your work in the future, a new AfD can take a fresh look at it. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Thanks for Sandstein and Casliber‘s review and talk. When the editor received the deletion warning, it is for the reason: G6. Technical deletions

Editors are under editing to add more convincing links from different websites and from different time. While the page deleted before the work completed. Here are part of our reference links we want to revise to add in the page.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodyzou (talk • contribs) 07:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is "our" and "we"? —Cryptic 10:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• People who edit the page deepin. (users of deepin and employees of deepin) —Melodyzou 10:27, 19 August 2016 (GMT+8)
  • Which of those categories are you, and how do you know what the others want to do? —Cryptic 03:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cryptic:Most of the people who commented on the AfD are COI or SPA. User:Melodyzou appears to be a COI creating promotional material ([18][19] [20]). Regards, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm capable of reading the afd and using Google myself, thanks. I was giving "them" a chance to come clean. —Cryptic 00:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the name "melodyzou" appears twice in the References for the Italian Wikipedia Deepin article, as an author for material cited to deepin.org.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate close and relist existing debate. There are certainly serious WP:COI issues. But, I find the closing statement , Nobody actually advocates anything other than deletion, a little disingenuous. Sure, nobody put the word keep in bold with a bullet in front of it, but there were clearly people who were making arguments why we should keep the article. Some of them had obvious COI and should be discounted, but some were established editors making reasonable arguments. I know it's already run for two relists, so maybe just close it at NC. I wouldn't even mind somebody else reclosing this now and ending up with a delete decision, as long as their closing statement explained how they considered and weighed all the comments in their entirely, and not just counting keywords. To be fair, having read many closes by Sandstein, I'm pretty sure he did give careful consideration to all the comments, but the actual wording of the closing statement doesn't make it sound that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given Mackensen's comment below, I'll withdraw my suggestion to vacate the close, but would still suggest that the closing statement be updated to go into a bit more detail about how the decision was reached. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was perhaps a bit brief, but my thinking went like this: AlickDeepin is obviously a COI account and has to be discounted, Mackensen has been around long enough to write "keep" when they mean "keep", and Wcam has likewise contributed to and even started AfDs. So, yes, there are zero "keep" opinions to be taken into account because all non-COI editors did not want to express one.  Sandstein  16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That I have (knew this looked familiar). I'd declined the G4 and noted a possible source but I didn't have an opinion on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The close doesn't "discount" the spa, it characterizes the viewpoint as "Nobody".  I see no rationale to "discount" the Italian Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:BEFORE B6 reveals 23 Wikipedias with articles on this topic.  The nomination, a WP:DEL7 (WP:V) argument, attempted to repeat a two-year old argument from the earlier AfD, but the argument was refuted within two hours of being posted.  WP:DEL8 is not valid given the WP:ATD. 

  Where is the responsibility of relisters to see that the discussion has been closed?  AfD discussions left open without an argument for deletion are violations of the policy WP:AGF.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close I actually did a pretty thorough search before !voting delete. I'm familiar with tech and it is very easy to create "news" about Linux distros - there are literally hundred of them and almost every single one of them will be reviewed. What needs to be proven is that it stands out of the crowd. The coverage, of a linux distro must be considered relative to the coverage of other linux distros to understand if the distro is notable (otherwise we are continuing our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as tech related topics attract more news). I tend to look for multiple factors: diversity of sources, if mainstream media has noticed it, frequency of discussions on forums (to find out if people are actually using it). I looked at everything and I found it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. Now looking at this deletion review as well as other posts by the editors, I am beginning to realise that the company is trying to lead a coordinated effort to somehow "get the article up" on Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone writing on the Afd "we have initiated a plan to encourage international deepin users to help us editting this article". Oh, and they tried to argue that it is mentioned in the distrowatch rankings - heck, anyone familiar would know how easy to game the distrowatch rankings. Bottomline, I don't see notability and now I see a blatant violation of WP:PROMO. That's an additional reason for deletion now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is one thing what our WP:NOT policy says in the section WP:PROMO.  It is another when editors are influenced by promotional activities to fail to support our policies and guidelines.  In the description you've given above, your viewpoint is being influenced by the promotional activity toward under-representation of the topic on Wikipedia.  Note that WP:NPOV is a core content policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Here is a new reliable source, [21].  This interview claims 10,000,000 downloads before the major 2014 release.  The AboutUs page claims the number is now 40,000,000.  Puffery?  I haven't verified one way or the other, but there are a billion people in China.  The AboutUs page states, "Its operating system product has been on the central centralized procurement catalog of National Government Offices Administration with the safe operating system certification of the Ministry of Public Security and domestic operating system adaption certification of the Ministry of Industry and information Technology; and widely used in the party, government, military, finance, operators and education."  [22] is an in-depth reliable source.  [23] states in an article written in 2016 that the latest release has more than 30 languages.  One of the points that these sources make is that the US is at the end of the distribution chain as far as this software distribution has been concerned.  We know from several sources that while the company was founded in 2011, the Open Source project began in 2004.  While perhaps not a topic that the US has noticed, the world at large has noticed over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly, I'm normally on board with User:Sandstein's reading of consensus, but I think I've got to disagree here. Bolding isn't a requirement of a contributor at AfD. Wcam indicated that the topic met the GNG, which is _the_ argument for keeping an article. Plus we've got sources that look to meet WP:N and no one has explained why they don't. Overturn to NC or relist. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, bolding is not required in AfDs, but it is a convention. Therefore, if reasonably experienced editors choose not to submit an opinion with a bolded keyword, I interpret that as them not wanting to express a clear preference about what to do with the article, as Mackensen has confirmed above. As to the sources, I am not interested in them in this forum, because this is deletion review, not AfD round 2, and the place to examine sources is (or would have been) at AfD. If an article about this topic can be written that addresses the sourcing concerns expressed in the AfD, anybody is free to do so.  Sandstein  20:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wcam supplied a source and said the topic met the GNG, that's a keep !vote with or without the word "keep". And yes, the AfD was the right place to question the source provided. No one directly did. Which makes their !vote stronger, not weaker. If you continue to have doubts about their intent, you could ask. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Return discussion to closing-administrator's talk page  The OP states that there has been some kind of "review and talk" involving Sandstein, but the only thing I've found on the closing administrator's talk page is, this diff.  IMO, this diff is deeply relevant, as it expresses exact issues I have independently noted here with leaving open an AfD whose argument for deletion has been resolved.  Yet the post was quickly removed, for reasons that are unclear. 

  There are many issues in this deletion review and directions to take, but further analysis might not be as helpful as returning the discussion to the closing administrator's talk page.  Naturally, there is no guarantee that @Melodyzou: will respond, but that also is a path that leads forward from here.  Meanwhile, melodyzou is advised of WP:DELREVD point 1, which reads, "Discuss the matter with the closing-administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrome Tripoli (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn The creator of the page was not informed of as to its nomination for deletion and further more evidence can be and is being provided as per the subject's notability Masterknighted (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should list the evidence for notability here so people can review it. Also, for reference the information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." As far as I am aware there is no other guidelines or policies stating that the page creator must be notified. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah the Brooklyn Rail article which talks about his work critically discussed this article was dismissed in the deletion discussion but it from a reputable independent source[24]

Related notability updates not in original article

1. Coverage of his work at McNeil Gallery on ArtNet [25] and again 2004 on artnet in 2004 [26]

2. Internationally exhibited - Italy [27]

3, Museum exhibition at the Bergen Museum of Art & Science (before the museum went online only during renovation) [28]

4. Notice of exhibition at Brooklyn Bridge Park on NYC Parks website [29]

5. Coverage of the artist in the Bushwick Daily [30]

I should at least get a chance to make my caseMasterknighted (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, notifying the original creator of a page is a courtesy but not an absolute requirement (remember, the original creator doesn't WP:OWN the page). Anyway, AFD result was unanimous and couldn't have been correctly closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Nothing cited above would meet WP:CREATIVE. (the ref (1) is a mere mention in an article about the studio in which he works.) Notifying the ed. is almost always done except when the ed. is apparently not in good faith, but it wouldn't have made any difference. No objection to trying to write an article in Draftspace. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 museum exhibitiins

• endorse The additional sources do not change notability
  notices of exhibitions are primary sources and do not establish third party coverage. Artnet as an art industry website isn't a third party source. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Masterknighted's reasonable protest. Relist, notify the creator, and leave open for at least 168 hours.

Notifying the creator is more than a courtesy, but even as just a courtesy, the discussion was discourteous, and there is little cost to rectifying that with a seven day relist. Notifying the nominator is not an absolute requirement, no, it is not required for trolls, banned users, etc. Is that being alleged?

Discussion was unanimous? Asserting unanimity for poorly attended discussions is unacceptably disingenuous.

No criticism of the closer. No one alerted the fact that notifications were not made, as the discussion as it stood looks like a clear case was made for deletion.

Advise the AfD nominator to please always notify the article creator, barring good reason not to (as above). It really isn't hard, if you enable Wikipedia:Twinkle and this very nice tool for deletion nominations, creator notification will be done by default.

Masterknighted makes a strong prima facie case that there is room for further discussion, and that discussion belongs at AfD not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Artnet has a magazne in which these articles appeared which in fact was the first major online art magazine and set tbe standard in the genre the website is not exactly in the same form as it was at the time these articles were published Masterknighted (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- There is no way this discussion could have been closed differently. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To start a stealth AFD is understandable when a new editor does it by mistake, but I take a dim view of it from a Wikipedian as experienced as Libstar. The AfD was hardly well-attended; let's not pretend this was a strong and unassailable consensus to delete. Relist and do it properly.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• relist I'm assuming this was a tool error and Libstar intented to notify the creator and it just didn't happen. The creator makes a reasonable case here, so should get a chance to make that case at AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but relist, or draftify. The close was reasonable given the existing discussion. But, yeah, if the article's creator didn't get notified, that's kind of wrong. I'm not optimistic the final result will be any different, but they do deserve a chance to make their argument. There's very little downside here. At worst, we spend another week talking about the article and end up in the same place. The encyclopedia will survive that. Alternatively, restoring to draft space pending the addition of better sources would be good too, and perhaps even preferable to an immediate re-run of the AfD, since without better sourcing, it's unlikely to have any different outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per DGG above. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Work commissioned for CalTrans instillation commissioned piece for major public agency - [31]

There is enough stuff of which wiki articles are made here to establish notability he is a well exhibited artist who is written about... This editor was blind-sighted. This is not the way to operate. A case cannot be heard in court without even a public defender that is no contest but the accused or litigated against would at least be informed of the charges, this is not the rule of lawMasterknighted (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masterknighted this is not a court and no charges have been brought against you. If an article you have created is found to be not notable and is deleted, it is nothing personal against you. Articles for Deletion is primarily about the article subject, the creator or main contributors are only ever brought up if there is a clear conflict of interest or maybe if the editor has since been blocked for some reason, which is not the case here. In the interest of fairness I agree that the article creator should be notified, I know I would want to be if it was me. However the creator doesn't own the article and I don't think they should have any special right above other editors to have their argument heard, nor should that argument hold any more weight. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes comparison to a court is far fetched. Trying to plead for special treatment as article creator as Sarah says has no basis. The basis of a deletion review is if the afd closure does not accurately reflect actual discussion. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that argument more actually reflects the initial non disclosure which is indeed made up for by having this vital discussion here , but, that said the previous argument just reinforces my argument here... The trial reference might be better stated as any contested issue it is just a matter of of jurisprudence for any proceeding.Masterknighted (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate like a court of law or necessarily jurisprudence applies. Read WP:NOTLAW. trying to say you're like operating in a court doesn't work here. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is the rule by which any forum operates in the sense of fair discourseMasterknighted (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as I concur there's still nothing close to suggesting a substantial article. The basis of this nomination has also not been convincing regarding actually showing how it's better now. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can you improve an article which is currently deleted?Masterknighted (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse not notable and nothing wrong with the prior discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mariposa Trust (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was initially reviewed by multiple experienced editors after it was mentioned on the Village Pump as a good example of where a notable article was deleted prematurely (another administrator on the creator's talk page said "this is now a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article" following improvements and sourcing), which was later listed on the front page per Template:Did you know nominations/The Mariposa Trust. A quick perusal though WT:DYK will show that poor / non-notable hooks are quickly picked up on and criticised, so to pass through the process without comment is significant. The original deleting administrator DGG filed an AfD months later when everyone forgot about it and only notified the article's creator, who has probably now been permanently scared away from Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close- hmm, I get what you're saying, but when you have a well-attended AfD that's a unanimous delete with plenty of evidence that everyone's looked at the sources, there's really no way to close the AfD differently. Reyk _YO! 09:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two !votes are WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, one is "maybe", none of the participants match the views of experienced editors a year ago. This is more what I'd consider a well-attended AfD, personally. What's changed in the meantime? I think a relist is probably the best bet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AFD was unanimous, and I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the concept of a year-old DYK nominatorion somehow trumping an AFD consensus. Besides, only one person commented on the DYK nomination back then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more editors than that - to clear an article through DYK you need at least one person to pass the review, one to put it into the prep area, and an administrator to put it on the queue. Add that to the comment above, that makes four editors, two of whom are admins, who could have tossed the review out, but didn't. If we included their options in the AfD, perhaps we'd get a "no consensus" result. We do get DYKs that subsequently get deleted at AfD, but I think in every other situation I've seen it, the two have been closely correlated and been roughly in the timeframe and accompanied by a screaming row on WT:DYK. Yes, due process was followed, and I can't disagree with anyone who says it was, but per WP:IAR I think it's worth looking at the whole picture and checking if process didn't get it right this time, as a few other people have said. I reiterate : not many people showed up for this AfD and it raises concern of what else are we "getting wrong" because of who happened to show up for the debate? Paging @MelanieN: (who wrote the above comment I linked to), @Peridon: (who also commented), @Michael Barera: (passed DYK review), @97198: (put in prep) and @Casliber: (put in queue). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It must be horrendous to be the parent of a dead child. My heart goes out to them, I can't imagine what it's like. There are some notable charities in the UK that support parents in this awful situation. I work in a UK local authority, and social worker colleagues of mine have mentioned SANDS or TCF as organisations they refer to in these cases. I've not heard of the Mariposa Trust, so I would tend to think that they're pretty obscure, although it's arguable that they're technically notable from the sources presented. As Reyk says, it's very hard to fault the closer given that the AfD was unanimous.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because due process was followed. I rather think deletions like this do more harm than good. Sure, the article had a promotional intent but its style was not so bad and its intent was to inform, not to deceive. And people are upset by deletions like this. Indeed, I think we would be better off with this article than without it but most people at AFD want to apply WP:GNG as rules which are to be obeyed and I think they should be entitled to be obedient. Idealistically we would have high level articles such as Parental support for child death in the United Kingdom but our guidelines and attitudes make this almost unachievable. Thincat (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist - article quality is not a reason to delete. Overly promotional material should be removed. It appears to have enough sources to pass GNG guidelines (just), which were present when the article was deleted. The deletion reasoning was not given by closing admin Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close I hear what you are saying, Ritchie, but deletion review is for reviewing the process, not re-litigating the AfD. The AfD discussion ran its full time, and there were four "delete" !votes plus the nominator; there is no other way this could have been closed other than "delete". If I had been !voting as an editor on this AfD I might well have said "keep", but as a patrolling administrator faced with that discussion I would have deleted it without hesitation. IMO the only way this article can be rescued would be to write a completely new article on the subject, sufficiently different to avoid G4. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, despite no criticism of the close or the process. Ritchie333 appears to have substantive input worthy of inclusion in the deletion discussion. Normally, this would be best achieved by asking the closer, User:MBisanz to reopen it (Richie, did you ask Matt?). I presume that Ritchie was distracted by his over 1000 mainspace edits during the period of the AfD. It would be a WP:BURO failure to deny Ritchie input because he missed the deadline. It would be a collegiate courtesy to relist to allow Ritchie to make his input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might've sent him here, so I don't mind that he came here first. I'm ok if the result of the DRV is a relist. MBisanz ^talk 11:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have pinged MBisanz into the discussion, but I didn't have a problem with the way he closed the AfD per se, rather the DRV was more a general question of whether process was a good fit in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugger process; the subject clearly meets GNG. Apply WP:IAR and restore the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the article very clearly DOES NOT meet GNG (or WP:Notability (organizations), or even more specifically, WP:NONPROFIT). I've just spend 20 minutes looking at it, AfD, and related sources, and it boils down to no in-depth coverage of the organization. Now, I said it before - our notability policy may be to harsh on NGOs. Few NGOs have works about themselves. But as things stands, this organization (and likely thousands of others with articles on wiki) fail our policies. Unless someone can point to a single source which is about the organization (rather than its activities), or that clearly states this organization is significant, I will side with the éndorse deletion camp. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your problem there is that the organisation is covered by reliable sources, but not necessarily under the name "Mariposa Trust". For example, This BBC news report is (AFAIK) entirely about the organisation but doesn't actually mention that name anywhere in it. Anyway, this is more a question for AfD round 2 (if consensus is to relist). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • An organization is its activities to a great extent. We have articles on singers and authors because of their work, even if they have never been interviewed and we know nothing about them personally. Same with sport stars. I don't see how this is different. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Adelle Clark-Coates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist this is more of an IAR/AfD !vote, but the sources seem to support the existence of the article and so we've got the wrong result IMO. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there was a procedural error in the close. The closing user did not participate in this particular discussion, however they did simultaneously contribute to other AFD discussions, unequivocally arguing for deletion of 17 similar pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 Hereford United F.C. season. As such, the appearance of uninvolvement is missing.

In addition, if the debate is re-opened, I'd like to point out that the primary argument was for deletion was that WP:NSEASONS wasn't met, however during the debate, I failed to point out that WP:NSEASONS simply says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Is this league professional - yes. Is the team fully-professional - yes. Is it a top league - yes, it's national. Personally, I think that Tier 5 teams all meet WP:NSEASONS as written - and this positions was supported in some older AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season. Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Seems to be a sensible reading of the discussion. NC would have been possible too, but really the arguments for deletion were stronger. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• undo close and let another admin close the discussion while the closer may well have the right close, having already !voted in very similar cases is enough to create at least the appearance of a problem. Hobit (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I know it's generally a bit tiresome for AfD participants to have their say again at DRV, but given the opening statement here, I think it should be made clear that whilst there have been a small number of no consensus results for these AfDs, the vast majority have resulted in the conclusion that this league does not meet the requirement for WP:NSEASONS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). In addition, two of the three keep !votes were from accounts whose only contributions were to the debate and were presumably discounted. Number 57 07:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Closing Admin - I agree with Hobit's comment above that there might be the potential for the appearance of a problem, and am happy for consensus or another admin to determine that the AfD should be reclosed. However, I would note that the appearance of a problem does not mean that there is one and in this case, I do not believe there is for the following reasons:

1. As I noted in my closing statement, I made my decision based on the strength of the arguments presented over the course of the 18 days the AfD was open: Of the keep votes presented, none attempt to deal either with NSEASONS or GNG, The first is an other stuff exists arguement, the second is a combination of WP:INTERESTING / WP:MERCY. The final keep vote is clearly refuted with reference to prior deletion discussions.
2. Whilst I have been involved in discussion in various AfDs on similar subjects, my views have always been aligned to established consensus. This consensus was clearly highlighted in comments in the AfD linking to previous discussions which found 12 AfDs on fifth level season articles that resulted in delete (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) and only three as no consensus (1, 2, 3, the third of which was nominated for a second time and was deleted). (Also noted above as I was writing this).
3. I made it quite clear that whilst I felt consensus in the AfD itself was clearly for delete, that this did not preclude the article from being recreated at a later date were an editor to feel that there were sufficient sources to satisfy GNG. This is fundamental to the argument to close as delete. The article in question is not about an historic season where there are numerous sources to be judged, this is about a season, which at the time of close had not even started and at this point is only three games old. As such, NSEASONS is irrelevant, as GNG cannot be satisfied by definition at this time.

With these three points in mind, I honestly don't see how another admin would have come to a different conclusion. That being said, I will obviously stand by any decision here and am happy to receive instruction not to close similar AfDs in future. Fenix down (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Yes, it's better to not close debates on a topic which you've been particularly involved in. On the other hand, it's hard to see how any other close is possible in this particular instance. I wouldn't be opposed to having another admin re-close this, but I can't argue for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one of those cases where we have to decide whether it falls under DRVPURPOSE, item #5 (substantial procedural error) or things DRV should not be used for, item #6 (technicality). A substantial procedural error should be overturned but a technicality may be disregarded under WP:BURO, so is this "substantial"? In case of doubt our default position should be (and usually has been) that it's better to relist the discussion than to allow a mistake through. So where does this fall?

  Wikipedia procedures aren't law, but when it comes to procedures, R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy is really instructive. In that case everyone was agreed (and the presiding justices later swore) that the clerk to the justices did absolutely nothing wrong. But the slightest hint of involvement was enough to overturn the conviction. In other words, it's not enough to be right (and the closer in this case certainly was right) ---- you have to be right and uninvolved. I'm with Hobit. I think that for the sake of form only the discussion should be re-closed by another admin, who will undoubtedly take the same view, but then it will be obvious to all that we're reaching our decisions fairly and impartially.—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, unclosing a discussion just to have someone else re-close it again with the same result would be the height of pointless time-wasting process wank. Besaides, simply participating in other discussions within the same field does not somehow taint a closer from that entire field. If we take that logic far enough, no active user would ever be clean enough to close anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are overlapping (in time) discussions that could easily have been bundled together. They were, in my opinion, basically the same discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - clear consensus, no other admin would have found differently. GiantSnowman 07:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No redirect conditional (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant new information has come to light since the discussion that would justify undoing the merge: Checking whether a page is a redirect is expensive. Some pages have hundreds of calls to Template:No redirect, and they're now all ending up in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. Although the conditional variant is often the preferred method, cases like this mean that the unconditional variant has its uses as well. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closer: It would have been nice if this had been discussed with me prior to filing a deletion review. My close was "merge if possible", as the technical aspects of the merge hadn't been fully investigated. This new information makes it obvious that a merge is not possible without significant unintended consequences, ergo, don't merge. The "if possible" bit already covers this issue, and a deletion review is unnecessary in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NIKSUN, Inc. (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Doesn't seem to meet the criteria for "unambiguous promotion" based on Wikipedia's guidelines for a speedy deletion which says an article that is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

Sorry if I did this wrong by the way - new to this editing thing :) Please let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks. Cyber defend (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily undeleted for review. I can't blame zat Guy too much for speedying the article as it was ("the father of packet capture"? Really?), but there's neutrally-written revisions that it could've been reverted to, like this one. —Cryptic 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A spammy article whose editors are almost exclusively SPAs. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Also note the many, many deletions at Niksun and the handful at NIKSUN, which make me much less favorably-inclined toward restoration. There's (very short) neutral revisions at the latter too, but for many years this article has been consistently and almost immediately replaced with promotion whenever it's been created. —Cryptic 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah sorry, I hope I didn't make any edits that sounded promotional, stuff like "father of packet capture" was there before I decided to help edit it - but I would be more than happy to help you guys clean it up. Cyber defend (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article was very promotional at the time of deletion, to the point where deleting it under G11 was an entirely reasonable call. While it was technically possible to revert to a neutral version, those versions date back to less than two weeks after the article was created back in October 2014, and the history of the article since has largely consisted of SPAs adding more spam. Given this I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. Hut 8.5 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and salt. I'm heartily sick of these people using our encyclopaedia for their marketing.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• restore and revert The article at the time of deletion needed to go, but [32] isn't spammy at all. Semiprotect if needed. Hobit (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and salt In the earlier version referred to, ref 1 is a press release in conjunction with their exhibit at a show, , ref 2 is "emerging" = NOTYETNOTABLE.. 3 is a mention in a list.. There is no foundation for a non promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Spock (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion by David.moreno72 at around 10:57 yesterday, which was about half an hour after it was moved from userspace. I've restored it in userspace at User:Miyagawa/sandbox2, so you can see it is around 50kb in size and fully cited (but by no means comprehensive yet, as I have further sources to add yet before considering a WP:GAN run). It was nominated per WP:A10 as it was claimed that it was a duplication of Spock. It was not a duplication, it was a content split per WP:SIZESPLIT. Spock itself is already at around 50kb, so if I'd placed the content from the new Development of Spock into it then it would have immediately qualified for a split. So I skipped the unnecessary step and created it as a new article, linking to it from within the Development section at Spock. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page per that reason - indeed A10 states specifically that the criteria "does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." Expecting that to be the end of it, I didn't check it again until after 9pm last night - only to find it had been deleted just under three hours earlier at 18:02 by RHaworth. I left a message on their page, but they haven't been online since. I hold my hands up as I've never needed to contest a speedy deletion before, I'm impatient and should probably wait longer for RHaworth to be active once more. But as I see it, this is a straight forward error in qualification for A10. Miyagawa (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete not a valid A10 for the reasons given. But, IMO this also isn't a good spinout at the moment. The lede is very similar to the main article and other parts are too. I think it could use some more work before going to mainspace. As it is, I'd support deletion at AfD on the theory that the spinout doesn't help the encyclopedia. But I think a good spinout could exist, and while this isn't one yet, I think it could be a start. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete and list at AfD userfy and discuss at talk:spock. I pretty much agree with everything Hobit said. I don't think the A10 call was unreasonable, but Miyagawa provides a plausible argument why this article is legitimate, and in my mind, that's enough to disqualify A10. Like Hobit, I doubt this would survive AfD, but I'm also not convinced AfD is the right forum to discuss this. Seems like Talk:Spock is the right place. But that's a detail; the main point is that A10 just doesn't feel like the right thing here. Let the broader community decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed about Talk:Spock. And I'd prefer the creator just agree to a move to userspace until agreement at Talk:Spock concludes that this spinout is both wise and ready to go. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to agree to that - it can remain in userspace for the foreeseeable while the conversation can take place at Talk:Spock. Miyagawa (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As a reasonable contest of a CSD#A10 deletion, it should be undeleted and sent to AfD. An RfC at talk:spock is another option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As an administrative point, I don't understand how this got moved from userspace to mainspace, and back. I don't see any renames in the article histories. Were these just copy-and-paste deals? If so, that forks the article history and isn't what we want to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always copy-paste move from userspace. I use the same four sandboxes, usually over a protracted period of time without the involvement of other editors. The article wasn't moved back to userspace as such, I simply undid the edit that deleted the draft. Miyagawa (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You shouldn't be doing that. You should be using the Move function, under the More menu near the top of every page. Copy-paste moves destroy the history chain. We need the history to comply with our licensing requirements. See Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need when it's just his own edits that he's moving. And, especially, getting an admin to history-split the many hundreds of revisions in his sandbox would be overkill. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you start each new article as a new page, there's no history splitting involved. And, now we've got a case where the article spent some time in mainspace, and that history is lost. Granted, there wasn't much in the way of history to lose in this case, but it's still just simpler, cleaner, and less confusing to other people who are trying to follow the history, to move instead of copy-paste. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A10 is for duplicate articles, with nothing to merge, whose titles would be speedyable if they had been created as redirects directly. This was none of the three. The only legitimate avenue for its deletion is afd. Overturn, and don't even procedurally list there; leave that for someone who believes this material should be deleted outright with nothing at all being merged, and who somehow thinks that will be the outcome there. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Should be discussed in AfD. I will watch for it there.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the authors willingness to have it in main userspace, I think userfying would be a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to user space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify, and consider as a replacement for the existing article. This version is better. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and trout the admin for improper endorsement of A10. After that... mainspace, AfD, or userspace are all reasonable options. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete If someone feels it merits deletion, they can AFD it or propose a merge on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no reason for these pages to have been deleted. There was no consensus, not even a second vote for deletion, just a comment on a mistake. Given Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Chiyao, it's clear that anyone could add a single sentence to each page and they would be kept so I suggest that it be relisted or reversed to restoration so people can add lede sentences and keep them. Sulky mulky (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close – Filer of this DRV is a sock puppet of the banned 166.* IP user (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#Range block needed for details). --MuZemike 03:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Fitzpatrick (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• User who deleted page and closed the discussion did not objectively weigh arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Multiple relevant sources meet sufficient coverage to meet GNG and article should be relisted:

^{[1] [2] [3]}

• Closer's note: I've not previously been contacted about this and recommend declining this request, as it is an attempt to re-argue the AfD, rather than reviewing any procedural errors. After two relists, a third is normally not done. Also it's a bit weird that the nominator's only edits are about this DRV request.  Sandstein  14:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Procedural errors: 2nd AFD had quick and thorough [[33]]Master Editor III speedy keep response, then the AFD was re-listed twice, both delete votes that followed have procedural errors.

  The first: "There's another Blake Fitzpatrick in the Documentary Media department at Ryerson." Not valid argument for deletion under [[34]]WP:UNFAMILIAR and [[35]]WP:NTEMP

  Second procedural error for deletion follows same: "Sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG."

This is a false statement under [[36]]WP:OBS and [[37]]WP:NTEMP, as pointed out in depth above. The article has multiple reliable sources.

This leaves significant debate about the restoration of the page.Filmfan655321 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Deletion review is not for making an argument to keep if you missed the discussion before it was closed. The closure was not based on WP:OBS, nor were any of the opinions expressed. Some sources exist, indeed, but they're not enough. That's why three of the four participants in the discussion thought the article should be deleted. It doesn't mean Fitzpatrick isn't important and/or talented, but it does mean that coverage of him is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. I don't think the sources you're linking to here change anything. Regardless, the point of deletion review is not to say "I don't think this should be deleted because this person is notable" -- it is to ask whether the person who closed the discussion properly assessed consensus among the participants therein, weighing arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The first step, if you disagree, is not to run here but to discuss it with [in this case, Sandstein]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Response "it is to ask whether the person who closed the discussion properly assessed consensus among the participants therein, weighing arguments against Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I argue that they did not. All sources are reliable and adhere with wiki policies for an article.

  "but they are not enough." What is enough? They were enough to overturn the first AFD that had five deletes and one keep. I think the article should be edited, no doubt, but not deleted. Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reasonable close given the participation. The 2008 AfD wasn't closed with an actual outcome and shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the subject's notability; a "speedy keep" isn't valid in this case and in any event wasn't pursued. Absent the dubious withdrawal in 2008 the article might well have been deleted. Also, Filmfan655321 (talk · contribs), who are you and how is it that your first edits are to challenge the outcome of a low-traffic AfD? Assume good faith and all that, but it's an odd way to start one's editing career and there were accusations of COI during the 2008 discussion. Mackensen (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  response What participation? All that was there were people using WP:OBS as a reason to delete the page. Were there accusations of COI in the 2008 discussion? I saw some in the 2nd afd, but do not remember seeing any in the first. My name is Daniel. I like coming to see if this person is doing anything new every once in a while. I happened to visit it today and found it was deleted and decided to contribute my two cents after further research on all that has happened. Is my editing not the reason of wikipedia? What is your name? What is your address? Kidding do not care. Filmfan655321 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Temporarily restored for discussion at this Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and close as I was also not notified of this, but fortunately I'm always watching; there was enough for deleting and I still confirm. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologized for not notifying you as i did not know how to do this Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Non-arguments were not looked at and discarded upon closing. There is nothing according to wiki rules to confirm article deletion other than certain changes that were made that can be fixed without page deletion: i.e. bias or COI interpretation. If those are removed or fixed to public liking the article will be fine. Filmfan655321 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- DRV is not to simply re-argue the AfD. I don't see any procedural errors in the way this AfD was closed- after several relists the consensus was indisputably to delete it. Reyk _YO! 08:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• response Both delete votes are non-arguments. That is a procedural error on the closer for not noticing this. Users Rhododendrites and K.e.coffman both did not give a valid reason to delete the page. Both of their calls for deletion fall under WP:OBS Filmfan655321 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything worthy of note. I found the same interview as used in the article, with Rogue Cinema. I also located a professor in the School of Image Arts, Ryerson University, also Blake Fitzpatrick. I'm not sure if the Ryerson Fitzpatrick is not more notable than the one under discussion, as he appears to be a photographer of some renown. The director Fitzpatrick received a somewhat obscure award (link). In summary, the coverage is insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia entry in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  [[38]]WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The delete arguments are all ignoring this wikipedia guideline Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposing opinions do not become "non-arguments" just because you disagree with them. Reyk _YO! 11:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, stop badgering everyone. You've replied to everyone with the same repetitious (and false) claim about WP:OBS. If you haven't convinced anyone with that routine before, why would you imagine it will start working now? Reyk _YO! 11:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a matter of convincing or badgering so please relax sir, it is a matter of fact. My claim is not false. You do not agree with facts. "As long as proof of its existence can be given with a reliable source" is what WP:OBS says. Now you mean to tell me that a kid making movies at the turn of the twenty first century and being featured in a publication that Ernest Hemingway worked for is not sufficient coverage of note? As I said before, delete the stuff that is not needed or COI. Shady award? Delete it! It wasn't even added until after the 2nd AFD. Hell, delete all of the awards, that's not what I think the article should be about per the references. Filmfan655321 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the best close of a poor AfD. Ignoring the first part of the "speedy keep" !vote (which was almost word-for-word taken from WP:LASTTIME), the question was whether the sourcing was enough. Was it really? One said "yes" and two said "no" with little if any discussion. Ironically, I think Tokyogirl79's "not arguing delete yet" comment was the most convincing argument to delete. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If those articles are all about the same person then I think we've got something best closed as No Consensus. If they aren't, then delete is almost certainly the right call. Can anyone provide evidence of this one way or the other? Hobit (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Both AfDs are for a film director, and going by MichaelQSChmidt's speedy keep !votes it is the same person, yes. But consensus can change, especially after 8 years, so I do not think the former AfD is all that convincing. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD wasn't well attended, but it ran for multiple weeks and the close certainly represents the consensus of the discussion. If an established editor came along with these sources, I would be inclined to consider their case more carefully, but based on their contribution history and the types of arguments they are making, Filmfan655321 is almost certainly a sock of somebody who has been around a while, and socks have no standing here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD closure was correct.. All the sources brought up in this DRV were either in the article at the time of the AfD or already published online and discoverable at the time. So with the nom, two delete !votes, and a neutral, leaning delete !vote all mentioning their inability to find sources that demonstrate notability, set against one !vote that the sources do demonstrate notability, this was a reasonable close. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sole keep !vote was long on rhetoric and short on actual guideline-based analysis, and deserved little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• More Citations Adam Ginsberg (13 June 2015). "Out of my Head Radio" (Podcast). Retrieved 13 August 2016.

Michael Knox-Smith (July 17, 2016). "Trilogie De Tragedie (2016): Pseudo Art House in Three Acts (Review)". mikesfilmtalk.com. Filmfan655321 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per notability "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.
  • A kid making films doing everything himself in 1999 is remarkable, significant, interesting, and unusual enough to deserve attention per above wiki explanation of notability as well as according to major news sources.
  • The kind of work that this kid makes is so unusual that it is also notable under above guidelines.
  • Making video games, writing books, putting out musical albums, and doing multiple feature films entirely by himself is prolific and remarkable per above wiki explanation of notability. Filmfan655321 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per the procedural error of closer counting heads rather than evaluating arguments. One of the two delete votes was based upon "here's another Blake Fitzpatrick in the Documentary Media department at Ryerson" which has nothing to do with the Blake Fitzpatrick being discussed. And second delete vote was vased upon "Sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG." The closer should have evaluated better than he did, as tte article had multiple reliable sources. Though in the minority here, I'd still suggest the AFD be overturned per my own research prior to my vote at the AFD showing the topic notable per guideline and adjudged as suitably notable at the last AFD. I believe it was returned to AFD again because WP:BEFORE was either overlooked, ignored, or forgotten. And yes, the two delete visitors to that discussion did not make policy or guideline supported opinions and should not have been given too much weight. As the article now belongs to Wiki and fluff was removed, it became a nice and well-sourced stub to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. And even with it being deconstructed since the first AFD's keep, it can and should stay. My own quick look at Google News for "Blake Fitzpatrick, director", showed numerous articles about this young director... multiple in-depth and extensive coverage in reliable sources. He has the coverage. The notability is most definitely there through, at minimum, the Kansas City Star, and the Wichita Eagle, and lots of others. No topic "must" have world-wide coverage, and it expected that the major newspapers in his area might choose to cover him. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your argument is that you did a "quick look", linked to google hits (in which I see almost nothing), assumed bad faith on the part of every other participant, and view your own opinion as greater than all others. ...but it's those of us who searched for sources and based our !votes on notability guidelines that "did not make policy or guideline supported opinions". You have selectively quoted my own !vote to omit the part where I concluded he fails WP:BIO, pointing only to where I draw a distinction between the Blake Fitzpatricks. My saying that was in part a response to your linking of google hits, where most of the hits that would lend to notability are about the other Fitzpatrick. What is also not compelling at all as repeatedly claiming that the previous AfD is meaningful at all, much less supportive of keeping. It was nominated, 4 other people supported deletion, you alone supported keeping, and then the nominator withdrew the nomination. That would obviously be reverted as an entirely illegitimate close today. You've done nothing to support a case for notability other than lawyer that the other people's contributions being somehow invalid for reasons you leave it to us to do the research for (i.e. linking to google hits). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NTEMP disqualifies your argument Rhododendrites. There are reliable newspaper sources. Just because they are not recent does not mean they are not reliable. Filmfan655321 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ....... Nearly all of your comments here are to badger or misrepresent what others are saying, tossing out references to irrelevant pages. There's nothing in my comment that could even be misinterpreted as relevant to NTEMP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I'm finding almost nothing about this subject" - your words. Major newspaper articles from fifteen years ago that were nortable at the time but are hard to find currently is NTEMP. Filmfan655321 (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The Afd has four arguments. Those !voting to overturn seem to be misunderstanding all of them.

• The nominator, SwisterTwister, states none of his films have articles, nothing convincing at IMDb and "none of the listed sources are actual coverage and my own searches have found none." Insufficient coverage is a valid argument.
• MichaelQSchmidt !votes speedy keep without a valid speedy keep reason. Citing WP:NOTAGAIN is well off the mark as the explanation given is essentially that it survived before (specifically spelled out as a bad reason at WP:NOTAGAIN) and the bad faith assumption that "WP:BEFORE was either overlooked, ignored, or forgotten" (the nominator directly states they looked for sources and the assumption they otherwise failed to follow WP:BEFORE is baseless). Schmidt then states the article is "a nice and well-sourced stub to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO." Really? EVERY source in the article was for one sentence. WP:BASIC calls for "significant coverage". We don't have cites for his birth date, laudry list of occupations (that missed his stint at McDonalds but managed to include multiple occupations not even hinted at elsewhere) and list of non-notable awards from non-notable organizations. WP:ANYBIO seeks subjects who have "received a well-known and significant award or honor", which I cannot see as applying, or has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Maybe his beret will one day be in the Smithsonian between to Archie Bunker's chair and Satchmo's trumpet, but I don't see any indication of that yet.
• Yes, Rhododendrites does say there is someone else with the same name. Were that the only argument presented, it would be invalid, as repeatedly claimed here. However, they also state, "I'm finding almost nothing about this subject (i.e. fails WP:BIO)." That is a valid argument.
• K.e.coffman's argument that "sourcing does not suggest sufficient coverage to meet GNG" would have been better if it had included comments about trying to find sources. WP:OBS, however, is about "I haven't heard of it", which is not what they said.
• Filmfan655321 apparently disagrees with the deletion discussion's outcome, which is fine but not relevant here. Their argument that the closer failed to weigh the !votes' explanations against policy does not seem to hold water. And yes, it is weird for someone to register an account specifically to revive a fairly obscure article at DRV, notify several dozen editors and show several signs of specific familiarity with editing Wikipedia. The article has been edited by numerous SPAs and disposable IPs, including Authenticpublicity, Monumentalpictures, Bukowskismother, Lpjeeves, Toratzos, Nobudgetluver, etc. The editors notified by Filfan655321 seem to be a selection of recent editors of the article, but do not include any of these SPAs. Very curious. But you are "new to Wikipedia".[39] - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Summer i first clicked on a bot who worked on this article and just about posted to their talk page. If you would like me to contact users who contributed to the article from the history that do not have talk pages I will be more than happy to. i do not think they will respond. Filmfan655321 (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC Arguments that don't detail why the sources aren't sufficient. No one on the delete side discussed a single source, they just expressed their overall opinion. We've got 3 deletes (including the nom) and 1 keep, which would be more than enough numerically if there was some commentary on the sources that are actually available. Saying things like "none of the listed sources are actual coverage" when, well, they do have coverage of the topic, makes it hard to give that comment with any weight. MQS provides some sources but other than TokyoGirl79, I'm not seeing anyone actually discussing those sources or the ones in the article. I think TokyoGirl79 nailed the situation (sources are on the subject, but the quality of the sources is questionable) but she stayed on the fence. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you seeing MQS provide any sources at all? Everybody looked for sources (I presume). Nobody at the AfD linked to any. I didn't discuss any because I didn't find any worth discussing. MQS made some vague gesture by linking us to Google searches we would have all already done, linked to wikipedia articles about newspapers (searching KC Star's website for "blake fitzpatrick" returns zero hits, and usually when there are good sources people don't link to a wikipedia article), and he used more words than others. That's the extent of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, sorry. "He pointed out the sources that were in the article" is more accurate. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's discuss the sources Rhododendrites or delete the page. You have dodged every attempt to discuss the sources with a bunch of meaningless words. Filmfan655321 (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse too much vandalism has been added to this page by special interests recently. (Ryerson University and Debra Heyward are obvious.) A revert would make sense, but it already got a mind boggling 2nd AFD passed. Filmfan655321 (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no actual, legitimate evidence given that the White House saying this was public domain was wrong. Base specdulation with no evuidence whatsoever behind it on ways that it might not be {{PD-USGov}} is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Any claim it is is an assault on the public domain. You can't just deete files, propperlyu tagged, with the US Federal Government saying they're public domain, because of conspiracy theories. I haven't seen the contracts, but the people making unfounded speculations about them haven't seen them either. "Because I made some shit up" cannot be a deletion reason.

All the evidence it isn't public domain is literally imaginary: It's speculation about unlikely contracts and the White House making an error about it being a public domain file. The underlying musical work is definitely out of copyright, and we jut cannot, cannot have a policy of deleting files based on speculation as to how it might not really be public domain despite reliable sources stating it is, and no actual evidence to show otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here so that people know I am aware, seeing as I am the closing administrator. There were sound arguments raised in the deletion discussion, supported by a majority of the participants, that there are several copyrights in this file (a recorder one and a performer one, as well as a third copyright that wasn't discussed and wasn't the issue of the discussion) and that the PD-USGov claim most plausibly only applied to the recording-based copyright but not to the performance-based copyrights. Thus I interpreted the discussion as having a consensus for deletion - While commons:COM:PCP is properly a Commons policy and not a Wikipedia one, we want to be reasonably sure of freeness here as well, also for reusers of our content, and participants did also advocate deletion. Most participants did not agree that there is absolutely no reason to doubt a PD-USGov claim and mentioned examples of prior incorrect PD-USGov claims and other caveats, thus by my assessment the doubts have merit that must be considered when closing the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the undeletion request, I am not inclined to simply reverse the deletion unless something has been done to resolve the copyright concerns - such as sending a permission request email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, noone provided evidence for their theories as to how it was not in the public domain. Evidence is required, otherwise US Federal Government public domain is literally meaningless, because you can speculate the Government made a mistake in saying it was a work of theirs with anything. You coulæd literally apply the same logic made on that file to any file created after 1923, or even before by claiming the date's wrong. If "I think the reliable source saying it's public domain is wrong", in the absence of evidence, is a valid deletion argument, we can't host files, because everything is eeleteable by the same logic as that deletion discussion.

The deletion discussion sounds superficially sound, but no evidence is made on the deletion side, whereas the White House explicitly states it's public domain. There may be occasional errors in that - but claiming that the possibility of error means delete is madness. Utter madness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is not a forum for repeating the deletion discussion; Adam Cuerden's comments to that purpose, above, are inappropriate. The only thing we review here is whether the closure was made in accordance with deletion procedure. The closure is close enough to the consensus of the discussion to be within administrator discretion, even though "no consensus" would also have been possible (and perhaps preferable) given the many ambivalent comments. We should therefore endorse the closure, even though I myself believe the conclusion reached is likely wrong.  Sandstein  17:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also not opposed to a relist, although on the whole my view is the same as that of Hobit, below.  Sandstein  13:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - although I would have !voted "keep", the closer interpreted the consensus fairly. Thparkth (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant endorse a difficult close no doubt, but I can't see it as fundamentally incorrect based on the discussion. The problem with many copyright discussions like this one is that many times we simply don't know, the question really is how much diligence is enough to believe it's PD. In this case I suspect it was probably the wrong decision (noting DRV isn't here to substitute the opinion of editors here with the discussion), but resolving such items one by one does little to help the overall situation and probably still leaves our delete/keep on these somewhat lacking. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Since for some reason I missed it, whichever decision this DRV endorses should probably apply to File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv (alternative version) as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DRVPURPOSE is not a suicide pact. If a deletion debate is clearly wrong, we are not obligated to enforce it, and relisting the page for wider discussion is always an option. Endorsing a deletion solely because the participants all said "delete" means that we should be speedy closing just about everything brought up at WP:DRV that's had a deletion debate at all. Having some bias, even a strong bias, towards deferring to what the debate's participants decide is generally a good practice - if we don't, then there's no point in participating at any XFD process when the real decision will be made at DRV anyway - but turning DRV into a rubber stamp goes too far. Working with files in particular will very quickly predispose you too far towards deletion, even if you begin working with files specifically because you believe the predisposition toward deletion is too great; I had just this experience early last year. Send it back to FFD for a wider debate, and all three endorsals above this read like they'd think the community would benefit from this as well. —Cryptic 20:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Also noting that File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv should also be deleted, as it was part of the same discussion. Kelly ^hi! 20:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist When the consensus at a fodscussion is divided, and the question is over basic issues (as here) rather than the facts of a specific instance, then a no-consensuss is much safer. It was poor judgment not to use it. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. I don't want to endorse, because neither the discussion (a few of the "delete" comments aside) nor the close was well-informed. For example, the statement that "All Whitehouse.gov videos are PD" is plainly false. See [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. The three-copyright division is on target, though. Two of the three copyright issues are easy to resolve (under US law). The underlying pre-1923 composition is out of copyright. The recording, as the work of a federal govt. employee, is free of copyright. This leaves the performer's copyright. There is no evidence that White House performers are federal employees If they are non-employees, there is no evidence that the performers have agreed to work-made-for=hire arrangements (and it's not immediately evident to me that works-for-hire contracted by the US government are inherently free of copyright. There is no evidence that the performer herself has released the performance into the public domain. The copyright page on whitehouse.gov [47] is unhelpful; "government-produced" does not apply pre-existing musical compositions. The whitehouse.gov PD notations are clearly not reliable; they identify a number of Bacharach-David song performances as PD, even the songs are clearly still protected by copyright. It is certainly plausible that this particular recording is PD -- but we don't have the information to determine whether the file meets the WMF's definition of free content. Without more complete information, we cannot treat this as free content. And, frankly, this isn't close to being a matter where Wikipedia editors are even competent to resolve the substantive issues. Files like this shouldn't be kept without clearance from WMF legal, regardless of local consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close is an accurate reading of the concerns over performers' rights; i.e., per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. BethNaught (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In my experience it's absolutely typical of FfD that an explicit declaration, by the White House, that this file is in the public domain is not considered sufficient--even when that declaration was linked directly and unambiguously during the debate. Yet again FfD needlessly removes content that benefits the encyclopaedia. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was preposterous. Relist with instructions to FfD to reconsider this conclusion in a discussion that involves less amateur legal theorising and more will to build an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It is provable, as HW did above, that the White House's pronouncements on the copyright status of works are not always correct. Therefore to consider the full possibilities of the work's copyright status is legitimate. I despair that some people wish to circumvent our copyright policies and the law here, and paper over a problematic situation with comforting but untrustworthy pronouncements from people in authority. BethNaught (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from at FfD, in what other area of the encyclopaedia would Hullaballoo's original research prevail over an unambiguous declaration from a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You're begging the question by assuming that the White House is a reliable source on the question of the copyright of performances by non-governmental employees in government contexts (gawd, did I just write that). That's the specific issue which was challenged. It's legitimate source criticism, not original research. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't get me wrong, Mackensen. Hullaballoo talks a lot of sense sometimes. I don't mean to diss him personally. But when FfD starts declaring that it needs to delete featured sounds because it thinks individual Wikipedians are more reliable than the White House, it's time to bring FfD back into line with what the rest of us are doing. If the White House is mistaken then that is the White House's problem and not ours; it would be for the White House to compensate the injured party. We're entitled to rely on the US government's declarations insofar as they relate to US law.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  We're entitled to rely on the US government's declarations insofar as they relate to US law. Point to me where that is a defence in law against copyright infringement. BethNaught (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  "it would be for the White House to compensate the injured party. " You've complain about others engaging in what you believe is WP:OR in discussion (despite that being a content policy so largely irrelevant) and called for "less amateur legal theorising", perhaps you could take your own advice and provide me reliable citations to support that "interesting" legal theory, point me to one case where that has been the outcome. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You're asking me to prove that the White House has to take responsibility for what it says on its website? Seriously?—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're asking you to prove that Wikipedia would not be liable for repeating the White House's error. BethNaught (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)I think you mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and I think you should ask their legal counsel, who's User:Mpaulson (WMF), because you don't know whether I know what I'm talking about.  :) (I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an American, but I assure you that I do. About ten years ago, and unconnected with Wikipedia or the WMF, I released a file which a US firm said infringed their copyrights. The firm asked me to take down the file, and I refused. I asked an IP lawyer instead, and gave the firm her answer. The file's still up and the US firm haven't contacted me again.)

  The basic point here is that the White House have been hosting that music file, and labelling it as public domain, since 2009. We're allowed to rely on that. Really we are. I can't prove that to you; how would I prove it? All I can do is point you to our articles on laches and estoppel. But why would you believe me over Hullaballoo? You wouldn't -- and you shouldn't, because I could be lying or making it up. But you also don't need to decide which of us is right because, and this is the really key point here, it's not for FfD to worry about the WMF's legal position. FfD should be enforcing policy, not worrying about the law... and helping the rest of us to build an encyclopaedia, by not needlessly deleting content.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If User:Mpaulson (WMF) can provide a legal argument which sounds reasonable and is in your favour, I will believe her. However, you make two errors. It's not just the WMF's legal position. The individual editors who uploaded and added that file to articles could be made the target of legal action, as could any off-wiki reusers. Lastly, FfD should be... not worrying about the law. Quite frankly, I scoff. Obviously we, and FfD as a consequence, should care if Wikipedia is hosting something illegally. BethNaught (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear me, it seems pretty unambiguous you have made a statement that if we just assume their statement is correct, then it'll be them who is liable if it proves to not be the case. I want you to back your amateur legal theory on that point. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  [48] "If defendant's infringement was willful...; if, on the other hand, defendant's infringement was innocent, the court may reduce the award to an amount below the statutory minimum" & "Similarly, in order to establish innocent intent, the defendant must prove that it did not know and should not have known that its conduct constituted infringement." --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - keep in mind that Wikipedia tells content re-users that our work is available for commercial use. If someone took us at our word and offered this performance for sale, when the performer doesn't agree, it could cause problems. Kelly ^hi! 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an accurate reading of the discussion. The Delete proponents raised substantial concerns over the copyright status of the recording which were not convincingly rebutted. If we're going to host content which was not created by a Wikipedian then those supporting our hosting of that content need to be able to demonstrate that its copyright status is compatible with CC-BY-SA. That's not the case here, even if the file is in the public domain. Hut 8.5 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you saying that even if the file is in the public domain, the file isn't compatable with CC-BY-SA? I don't think that's what you are trying to say, but I can't figure out how to parse it otherwise. Help? Hobit (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying that even if the file is in the public domain then we would need proof of that before we can use it. It looks like the copyright status of the file will depend on the exact relationship between the US federal government and the performer (whether there was a contract, for instance), and we don't have that information. We shouldn't be hosting files unless we know they're compatible with CC-BY-SA. Hut 8.5 20:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes more sense. I disagree with what you say (I think the US government claiming it's in the public domain since 2009 is pretty solid proof), but I do understand it now. Thanks for clarifying. Hobit (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I respect the closer's intent but I can't bring myself to say "endorse" because in the US performers are not in a position to issue a copyright license or release their work into the public domain. All they can do is not give permission for a recording to be made at all. See Related rights#Performers and Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations. It is well worth uploading these recordings to Commons but I suggest preparing the way by raising the matter first at commons:Village pump/Copyright. See, for example, this discussion. However sometimes such recordings have been deleted on "moral", but not copyright, grounds – com:Deletion requests/File:Times Square percu.ogg where it was plausible the performers' permission had not been given to make a recording. The present files may well be able to be hosted on Commons on the presumption that it is unreasonable to suppose the performers did not give permission for the recording. Thincat (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  "All they can do is not give permission for a recording to be made at all." I can't see how you reach that conclusion given the links you provide. From Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations - "Such acts are: the broadcasting and the communication to the public of their live performance; the fixation of their live performance; the reproduction of such a fixation if the original fixation was made without their consent or if the reproduction is made for purposes different from those for which they gave their consent." - only one of those things is making the recording. The final one - "the reproduction of such a fixation ... or if the reproduction is made for purposes different from those for which they gave their consent" seems pretty broad to me. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oveerturn per S Marshall. If there's an assertion that the PD assertion is false, then that is something for those believing it to be false to take up with the Foundation's counsel. Else, any such statement by a government agency should be treated as presumptively reliable. Presumptively, of course, because if a performer (rather than an armchair Wikipedia lawyer) complains about the issue, we've got a very different conversation. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh If the US government is going to claim it's in the public domain and there have been no claims otherwise by the theoretic owners of the material, I think it's going a step too far to claim that we know better. But from a procedural viewpoint, I don't know what to do here. A relist will likely result in the same outcome... The solution is to fix FfD in some way or to update our policies to indicate that we trust the US government when they claim something is in the public domain... Hobit (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As someone commented above, they've made clearly erroneous claims in the past. I think we can do better than some White House intern (not a high bar to clear). Kelly ^hi! 20:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone makes mistakes. But we tend to trust reliable sources. As others have said, if we won't trust the US government when they call something public domain, who _should_ we trust? Hobit (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Diligent Wikipedia editors? Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's exactly the opposite of how we handle our articles. Is there a reason we should be walking down the path you propose rather than our standard way of doing things? Hobit (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it? As far as I am aware critically evaluating sources for their reliability is part of the "standard way of doing things" or are you doing something else? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We value reliable sources over original research in nearly every context. Here we have a reliable source saying something and others claiming that they know better (which is the definition of OR). Hobit (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing the point, we evaluate sources for reliability all the time, editors do this and you do not claim it to be OR. Here we have an assertion that it's the government so it must be reliable, on your basis since there is no cited reliable source that all branches of government are infallible that assessment of the source is OR so must be excluded? 94.31.43.36 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that we evaluate sources, not facts. The White House is a reliable source. The US government is reliable about what is in the public domain. To argue this specific case would, in general, require other sources that contradict this source. As far as I know, no such source exists. Instead we are relying on Wikipedia editors who claim to be experts in the field. That is exactly what we _don't_ do when editing an article. We go with the sources, not editors understanding of the material, when there is a dispute. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So where Kelly says "they've made clearly erroneous claims in the past. I think we can do better than some White House intern (not a high bar to clear)" you don't believe that she is evaluating the overall quality of the source? "The US government is reliable about what is in the public domain." - What on earth would make you believe or conclude that, the US government don't track or record every release into the public domain, the US government is a broad organisation and I would severely doubt have armies of lawyers clearing every single item published, no matter how trivial. I don't think even they would make such a claim. If you read Kelly's previously quoted statement as agreeing with your assertion that the government are somehow reliable, then we have very different understandings of it. Evaluation of reliability if based solely on other sources disagreeing with it (which is actually in most contexts completely different from it being unreliable), produces in many cases an impossibly high bar to disputing of reliability - the idea that someone else would be examining every copyright statementand then getting multiple other sources to publish different views on the licensing status is pretty much a nonsense idea. Ultimately when including other parties content we have a legal and perhaps more importantly moral obligation to by diligent about reuse of that content, arguing we should shut our eyes and hope, waiting for someone else to point out if an error has been made somewhere - as a content creator I would find pretty objectionable. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources make mistakes. The NYT, Washington Post, etc. And Kelly is guessing that an inter is making these calls (or at least I assume that is the case). As a content person, it's quite reasonable to say "I don't trust this fact, I'm not going to use it". It's _not_ acceptable to say "I know better than the source and I'm going to write what I know even if though the source contradicts it". Hobit (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The whitehouse.gov site lists all of these performances as public domain, even though the songs performed are still under copyright [49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Either the site is making systematic errors or what it means by "public domain" is not sufficient to satisfy the WMF's definition of "free content". In either case, we can't accept the label as determinative for our purposes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Romanovsky (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This person was an historical researcher and Soviet dissident. His contributions to the study of the Holocaust under German occupation of parts of the Soviet Union are recognized by a number of authors of scholarly books on the subject. The 8 keep votes recognized this. The 5 delete votes focused on his later career as a educator in Israel and consisted mainly of citing WP policy on the notability of academics, while not addressing his primary notability. (I wrote the original article.) Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore: I believe that the article should be restored, as I did not see a clear consensus to delete. Granted, some of the comments were “week keeps”, but additional sources were offered during the AfD process that could be used to beef up the article. The subject of the article has done important, and possibly unique, research “document[ing] how ordinary Soviet citizens understood, remembered, and spoke about [the Holocaust] in the mid-1980s” (Oxford Journals). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. The article needs work, no doubt about it. Parts of Romanovsky's biography were completely overlooked, thus giving a wrong impression of the lesser significance of his work under the Soviet system. However, this can be developed given the valuable feedback from User:K.e.coffman and I. Please see my comment at Talk:The Holocaust#AfD for Holocaust historian about the fact that Danila Romanovsky was a long-time Soviet dissident, politically active under the Soviet system. Seminars on history of Jews were held in his Leningrad apartment in the 1980s, which used to be a serious matter under the totalitarian rule.[56] Meanwhile, the AfD was closed with eight "keep" !votes and only five "delete" !votes. Poeticbent talk 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, request does not present new information and appears to simply re-argue points from the AFD debate (see Deletion Review should not be used: #5(not #6)", above). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by point 1 of when a review may be opened: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both K.e.coffman and I presented new info actually. The point #6" in WP:DRVPURPOSE says (quote): Review should not be used "to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early)". I don't believe my argument to be the case of mere technicality here, Poeticbent talk 20:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo, I meant #5, not #6. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]