Operation Tight Screw (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as keep, however those who voted keep did not give a single reference to back their claims that this is an ongoing military operation. Quite simply it is not, it was announced and then dropped. It is neither ongoing or is about to begin. Pakistan's interior minister has said this is not going to happen[1] background on it and “This is the most delayed campaign in the history of modern warfare.” Most recent report from just four days ago Earlier this year, around the time of Eidul Fitr, speculation was rife that Operation Tight Screw – the code name of Pakistan’s so-called planned offensive in North Waziristan – would commence soon after the holidays. Now another Eid is upon us, but no military operation in North Waziristan is on the horizon I asked the closer how he came to the keep conclusion and he believes there is a consensus to keep. I disagree as this operation has not actually happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- It was a non-admin close, just re-open the damn thing. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Fair reading of the discussion. Feel free to find any admin to re-close. Conside my advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Here is the state of the article at the time of the AfD closure.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but suggest a merger to War in North-West Pakistan is more appropriate as an outcome. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was strong consensus to keep, and the basic deletion reason, "Not actually happened" , was not a reason for deletion--if a political or military proposal is substantially discussed in RSs, it meets the standard. I'd be glad to reclose on that basis as an admin. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The source in the article saying that it is an ongoing operation was removed after filing this DRV. --SMS ^Talk 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I want to contest the delition of Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk. This Norwegian drummer is really one of the notable drummers in Norway. He has played a series conserts, festival performances and records, with musicians like Thorgeir Stubø, Frode Alnæs, Palle Mikkelborg, Art van Damme, Asmund Bjørken, Terje Bjørklund, Bjørn Alterhaug, Nils Petter Molvær, Knut Riisnæs, John Pål Inderberg, Henning Sommerro and Hans Rotmo.^[1][2] These references are serious sources of Information: Norsk Jazzarkiv/Juli 2005, wich is based on information at The Norwegian Jazz Forum and University profile at NTNU. Actually I thought the deletion propsal was a joke and forgot about it. "Mentoz86" have been bullying me at no:wiki, and I don't want to dicuss or accsept him deleting my work! Best wishes Knuand (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you ask the closer? Would you like this relisted so that you can respond seriously? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Where is the discussion with the closing admin?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him, see User_talk:Beeblebrox#Ernst-Wiggo_Sandbakk. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Sandbakk was/is a member of a notable band, he has collaborated with multiple notable Norwegian jazz personalities as a sideman, and is known as a jazz popularizer in Norway (director of the Trondheim Jazz Festival). The article is in good shape, well referenced. It is possible to find out more about him: [2], [3] for example. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - DRV is not AfD round two, and the discussion and the closure was after the book. Even though I failed to deliever a message to the OP about taking this article to AfD, he commented on the AfD and later edited the article a couple of times during the three weeks the discussion was open, so he had plenty of time to participate in the deletion discussion. I think the OP should learn to respect the outcome of AfD in general, instead of recreating the article and opening a DRV when he disagree with consensus, just like he did the last time one of "his" articles was deleted. As a sidenote: When my name is mentioned specifically in an discussion like this, I feel that I should have a message on my talk-page (just like the closing admin), but the OP failed to notify any of us. That I have been "bullying" or "campaigning" against Knuand has previously been discussed at ANI. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Knuand, @User:Mentoz86: We should focus on debating the subject and its notability, not individual editors. Please, put your personal disagreements aside and focus on the subject. I think this DRV is justified, as the initial AfD had two !votes to 'delete' (User:Mentoz86 (nominator) and User:Batard0) + two users contesting deletion (User:Bondegezou and User:Knuand, who did it rather indirectly and now continues here). Please, let others comment on this. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this DRV is justified, but I disagree that we should debate the subject and its notability, as that should be discussed in an AfD, while DRV is for discussing if anything was done wrong with the AfD and the closure. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV is not AfD round two. None of the specific concerns of the delete !voters was addressed (in particular the concern no"reliable sources independent of subject" was never countered) giving them considerable weight. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own close (I would note for the record that I was not afforded a chance to respond to questions on my talk page before this was brought here.) It was not my job to form my own opinion but rather to evaluate the arguments for keeping and deleting. If the person challenging that outcome did not wish to see the article deleted, they should have at least said so at the AFD. Thay participated in the form of asking why the person was not notable but offered no argument to keep the article. The only comment directed toward keeping the article was based on the fact that he has an article on another project, which is not a valid argument, and that he was a member of a notable band, which is not in and of itself sufficient. If there were other arguments that could have been made AFD was the time and place to make them, not here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At the moment the article is not deleted, because a re-creation at G4 was declined, presumably on the grounds that this version has additional information that might reasonably show notability. I could restore the deleted version, but it seems more reasonable to discuss what should be done on the basis of the present version, which is a little fuller in several respects. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Ok, I had assumed it had been restored for discussion here, as is normal. If it was recreated from scratch and improved then why are we even having this discussion at all? The users wishing to challenge the AFd close need to decide what it is they want. Do they want the previous version restored based on the idea that the AFD was improperly closed, or do they wish to see the new and apparently improved version retained? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  This is a pointless discussion.  It is a review of an article that has been deleted, and no one wants it restored.  There is a newer article that one editor wants to bring to DRV, but because of the confounding DRV nomination, this discussion is obfuscated, both on the closing admins talk page and here in the current DRV discussion.  There is a simple path forward, close this DRV with no prejudice to a speedy AfD nomination of the new article.  One of two things will happen, either someone wants to nominate it and will do so, or no one wants to nominate it.  Add that the DRV nominator should be reminded in the closing that Wikipedia is a community effort.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]