SAFE Network (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was speedily deleted because it was edited by a banned user. The article itself is already quite good and on an interesting topic and had sources. Fuelbottle (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fuelbottle: Why don't you try asking Yunshui to refund it first? – Joe (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I tried this now, not up to date on all the processes these days Fuelbottle (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't seem to have asked, but I suppose we can infer from Yunshui's silence that they decline to. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui was not asked for a refund, just why the article was deleted. Any silence here might simply be because Yunshui has a real life and is not a 24h Wikipedia addict. One should never make an inference from someone's absence of comment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has asked me to restore the article, so there's nothing for me to have declined. Please don't put words in my mouth/keyboard. Apologies for the radio silence; we have this thing called Christmas over here, maybe you've heard of it? Anyway, I do decline the (not-actually-made) request to restore the article; since it's a known target for a known paid editing ring (as far as I can tell from Upwork, they've already taken the money) I'm not inclined to believe that any attempt to restart the article is in good faith, especially so soon after its deletion. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but move to draft space for improvement. Fuelbottle is correct, it's a decent article, could use some trimming in my opinion. On the other hand, there was nothing wrong with the deletion. Most of the article's edits are by two sockpuppets of the same sockmaster. This is definitely a G5 deletion candidate, so it was deleted correctly. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose undeletion. The deletion was fine per G5, and usually I'd support if an editor in good standing wanted to take over responsibility for a deleted article and have it restored. But this looks like yet another cryptocurrency promotion, and this one is still only in its alpha test stage. And we have a number of socks involved in this one - see yet another blocked sock at User talk:NickKoteskey as well as User:HarryLeap and User:Wbrasp, the sock accounts used to develop this article. Cryptocurrencies are mostly scams, and we should not give their promoters a platform here. Also see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll retract my opposition to undeletion, but just leave my words as a comment, as people have provided evidence that this is not just another scam cryptocurrency. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but restore to userspace as a good-faith request for a WP:REFUND. I agree with Boing! that we should take a strong WP:DENY stance with the current wave of cryptocurrency spammers, but if Fuelbottle really wants to give them a BOGOF I think we have to respect that. The article would have to be thoroughly purged of any promotionalism before it's moved backed to mainspace, though. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:G5. Do not restore to userspace, per WP:DENY and WP:BOGOF. Also, fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, you are endorsing the deletion and not endorsing the undeletion request? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what "not endorsing the undeletion request" means, but yes, I want it to stay deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'd briefly forgotten the "Endorse/Overturn" jargon used at DRV and had forgotten what was being endorsed by "Endorse" - the deletion or this request for restoration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As for notability the SAFE Network is one of the inspirations for the last season of the TV series Silicon Valley[1]. Tim Berners-Lee has tweeted about it, as work is underway to integrate the SAFE Network as an alternative to servers on his new project Solid[2]. It's mentioned in the new Disney movie Wreck it Ralph breaks the Internet[3]. It's been featured in Tech Crunch for their new consensus algorithm[4]. This is some examples that shows that it's at least somewhat notable and being noticed. I agree that the company MaidSafe is not very notable in itself as of today, but I think the SAFE Network is definitely notable enough to have an article.Fuelbottle (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but list the possibly useful sources here. The reference list is not creative content and does not require attribution. Good luck to the editor in good standing who wants to start a clean new article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable plan. For the record, the refs in the deleted article were:

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}

• Permit restoration although we usually do delete articles by clocked users, there is almost always the option for an uninvolved contributor to edit the topic. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and I'd oppose restoring it as well. This was a perfectly valid G5 and I don't see why we should help block-evading paid editors by restoring and improving their contributions. If the topic is notable then there's nothing stopping another editor from writing an article about it. Hut 8.5 17:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing by wire (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Here are the sources I found about "managing by wire":

The AfD was closed at 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC) while I was looking for sources. I posted on the closing admin's talk page at 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC) to ask for a relist based on the sources I had found. The request for a relist was denied because it would have been a third relist. Had I posted my sources 21 minutes earlier, before the AfD closed, the AfD either would have been closed as "no consensus" or been relisted.[reply]

Link to Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_by_wire

The deleted article's content is neutrally written. Much of the deleted article's content can be sourced to the reliable sources I listed above. I therefore do not consider the deleted content to be so "pretty much worthless" that I am denied its restoration.

Cunard (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you need it restored? You have a copy of the old version handy if you need to use its bones, you have new sources, and you have permission to create a new article. Why not just write a new, better version of the article using the new sources? Why bring this to deletion review at all? SportingFlyer talk 06:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We are here because the closing admin refused my "Would you restore the article so I can add the sources?" request. I am asking the community to restore the article to give me the opportunity to add sources.

  This is a reasonable request since the article was not a copyright violation and did not violate the BLP policy. The closing admin said that a better article can be written. But that is not a valid reason to deny the request. A better article can always be written.

  The deleted article is neutrally written and gives a good overview of the subject. There is no reason to require a completely new article. The existing content is fine once sourced.

  Cunard (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw that. It's a terrible article as it stands, you have the text anyways, just be WP:BOLD and create a new article. The worst thing that could happen is this gets restored and no new sources are added, because that would just be a way to avoid a validly closed AfD. SportingFlyer talk 18:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources to add have already been identified. Cunard is an editor who's been around for a long time and has a lot of experience doing this kind of work. It would be an abrogation of WP:AGF to posit that if this were to be restored, the sources wouldn't get added. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words, RoySmith (talk · contribs). I have posted a draft of managing by wire below. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• restore to draft I understand the closer's thoughts, but sources look reasonable. And best to have the history so it can be used (even if bad) rather than a full rewrite. Once sources are added, just move it back. It won't be speedy eligible with the new sources and a new AfD is probably better than a relist given it will be unclear how to weigh the old !votes. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I will throw a bit of a TROUT to the closer. When an editor in good standing provides sources and asks for the article to be undeleted so that they can add them, you should never answer that the article was so bad they shouldn't use the old stuff. They are the one doing the work. Let them have what they think will help. There may well be other reasons to not restore it, but that's not a valid reason. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is bad editing practice to slap a bunch of sources onto existing unsourced text just in order to prevent an article's deletion. In doing so, one does not really engage with the text and verify that it matches the sources. Good editing practice is to read the sources and then to write the article based on them. If I were interested in the topic, that's what I would have done, drawing on the previously deleted content for inspiration. Sandstein 19:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's an admin's job to enforce good or bad editing practices like this. The mop, IMO, doesn't extend that far. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore I argued at the AfD, No prejudice against recreation if better sources ... were found. We've now got (ostensibly) better sources. On the one hand, I think Sandstein is right that starting from scratch would probably result in a better article. You start with the sources, figure out what they say, and then write an article which says that. On the other hand, we generally only refuse to restore something if there's a good reason why it can't exist in the encyclopedia; copyvio, WP:BLP violation, hoax, etc. Beyond that, I can't see any reason to deny the request. It may well turn out that the sources presented here still don't meet muster, but if somebody believes that to be the case, they can bring this back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objections to somebody restoring this to userspace or draftspace for further improvement and eventual restoration after it's different enough from the deleted version. But the AfD is over and relisting it, as is being requested here, would not be helpful, given that it already ran for three weeks. We need to draw the line somewhere. Sandstein 20:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy so that Cunard to add sources, demonstrate that the deletions reasons are overcome, and move it back to mainspace. Ask him to ping the AfD participants when he does that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the request to relist, that AfD discussion already exhausted. Better to have someone try to improve first, before a second AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here is what I would write for Managing by wire:

  Draft of managing by wire

  Managing by wire is a management strategy in which managers rely on their company's "information representation" generated by computers such as databases and software instead of on detailed commands. It was presented by Stephan H. Haeckel and Richard L. Nolan in a 1993 Harvard Business Review article. The authors chose the term "managing by wire" as an analogue to the fly-by-wire concept for jets. SAP SE, Mrs. Fields Cookies, and Brooklyn Union Gas have done "managing by wire". History The concept was presented in a Harvard Business Review article titled "Managing by Wire" in the September–October 1993 issue of Harvard Business Review by Stephan H. Haeckel and Richard L. Nolan.[1] When they wrote the article, Haeckel was the director of strategic studies at IBM's Advanced Business Institute and Nolan was a professor at the Harvard Business School.[1] In his 2003 book The New Ruthless Economy, Simon Head called the article "an important milestone in the intellectual gestation of the corporate panopticon".[1] Concept The authors selected "Managing by Wire" as the title because readers would relate to the comforting, modern scene in the cockpit of an aviator carefully flying the jet to its destination.[1] So as an analogue to "managing by wire", the authors presented a fly-by-wire concept for jets.[2] According to fly-by-wire, a pilot must focus on general flight parameters while information technologies control the plane and reacts to changing environment.[3] Instead of depending on what their senses as they did in the past, pilots now are "flying by wire" by depending on the plane's "informational representation" generated by a computer.[1] Likewise, when managers are "managing by wire", they are relying on their company's "informational representation",[1] which includes "expert systems, databases, software objects, and other technical components".[4] Rather than specifying step-by-step commands, managers would oversee their group through telling the software what their objectives are.[3] The ability of a firm to "manage by wire" is based on how large and complicated its operations are.[5] Industry applications In their 2004 book, Managing Customer Relationships, Don Peppers and Martha Rogers cited several companies and organizations as having successfully used the "managing by wire" in a limited fashion.[2] For example, Mrs. Fields Cookies is using a tiny number of employees in rural Utah to manage 800 stores, some of which are owned by the company and some of which are franchised. They have the ability to do this through the use of computer systems that reproduce how founder Debbi Fields oversaw her flagship Palo Alto, California, store.[2] In another example, to be able to resolve inquiries from their large number of customer in a speedy and efficient fashion, Brooklyn Union Gas "codified" a significant part of its customer service work such as the reading of meters and the collecting of due payments.[2] Aetna, an insurance company, made related changes in the hopes of enabling their account executives to field client inquiries about novel services and products.[2] In a 2007 article in Defense Acquisition University's Defense Acquisition Review Journal, Russell A. Vacante suggested using "managing by wire" in the military. He said that logistics resources "can be better exploited" if they were to completely combine "logistics with operations and intelligence assets". Vacante noted that this will "reduce risk and uncertainty of delivery and support as the redundant iron mountains of equipment and supplies give way to precisely tailored packages distributed by a transportation network that can transverse the full spectrum of the battle space".[6] According to Simon Head's 2003 book The New Ruthless Economy, the "Managing by Wire" article "clearly had a strong influence" on SAP SE, which created "its own real-life version of the 'management cockpit'" represented by a conference room. The room's four walls are papered in charts that give an overview of how the company is doing. The walls each have six rectangles, and each rectangle has six charts. In total, each wall has 36 charts which means the room has 144 charts. The charts display data about the "minute-by-minute activities of plants, offices, machines, assembly lines, managers, groups of employees, and even single employees". Each wall has a different color: a black wall displays the "main success factors and financial indicators", a red wall shows "market performance", a blue wall shows "the performance of internal processes and employees", and a white wall shows "the status of strategic projects". This allows the CEO and upper-level management to review the key performance indicators for the entire company, after which they can look into more precise information from enterprise resource planning software such as how well their employees are doing their work.[1] References ^ a b c d e f g Head, Simon (2003). The New Ruthless Economy: Work & Power in the Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 167–168. ISBN 0-19-516601-9. Retrieved 2018-12-25. ^ a b c d e Peppers, Don; Rogers, Martha (2004). Managing Customer Relationships: A Strategic Framework. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-0-471-65641-8. Retrieved 2018-12-25. ^ a b Davis, Emmett; Bennett, Bonnie Holt (1998). "Towards a Theory for a Sociable Software Architecture" (PDF). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) ^ Samli, A. Coskun (1996). Information-driven Marketing Decisions: Development of Strategic Information Systems. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. p. 26. ISBN 0-89930-976-3. Retrieved 2018-12-25. ^ Peters, Linda; Saidin, Hasannudin (April 2000). "IT and the mass customization of services: the challenge of implementation". International Journal of Information Management. 20 (2). Elsevier: 104, 106. doi:10.1016/S0268-4012(99)00059-6. Retrieved 2018-12-25. ^ Vacante, Russell A. (2007). "Sense and Respond: An Emerging DoD Concept for National Defense" (PDF). Defense Acquisition Review Journal. 14 (1). Defense Acquisition University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25. Further reading; Haeckel, Stephan H.; Nolan, Stephan H. (1993-10-13). "Managing by Wire". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 2018-12-25. Category:Management

  I have not posted this at managing by wire since this DRV has not been closed yet.

  Cunard (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse recreation with history restored since Cunard's draft is a good one, and the objections in the AFD are overcome; another trip to AFD can be taken if someone insists, but pretty clear it will be a keep. Endorse original AFD close based on information then available. Trout Sandstein for insisting on excessive bureaucracy afterwards; while technically justified, the procedural approach requested by Cunard, or the alternative proposals by Hobit or RoySmith, would all have been so much simpler and more AGF with very limited downside. Martinp (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC). Editing to add: I'm saying restore history even though I can't see the original deleted article; I gather it's poorly written and insufficiently sourced, but if it is not actively objectionable and Cunard feels it influenced his rewrite, than our approach to history and attribution should bias us to retaining it. Martinp (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal women's national futsal team (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Six years have passed since this article was deleted. The Portugal women's national futsal team is nowadays one of the best women's futsal national teams in the world (likely the second best in the world) and I think the team is, now, notable enough to have their own article, like other teams have. I didn't directly contact the admin who deleted it, because based on his contributions, he seems to be inactive or semi-active. Regards. SirEdimon (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation and speedy close. This one's really a no-brainer. The article was deleted six years ago as being not notable. Standard procedure is that anybody can recreate the article in such a situation if they believe the conditions of its deletion no longer apply. No need to come to DRV for that. As an aside, would it make sense to rename Portugal national futsal team to be Portugal men's national futsal team for symmetry? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All of this sounds good to me. SportingFlyer talk 07:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the only content in the deleted version was "Portugal has an average Women Futsal Team". Even if the subject is notable there is no benefit whatsoever in restoring that. I suggest the OP withdraw this and just write another article, which you don't need anyone's permission for. Hut 8.5 21:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 Thank you for the info. I didn't know that. I thought the article could have something useful. I think I'll have to write it from scratch. Thank you for all who came here to help me. You people can close this thread with you want. Thank you again.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup stadiums (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I fail to see why this got closed without allowing it to run, I believe I have a legitimate case against this article. Previous AfD has multitude of floors in my opinion and that's why I want this article to go through AfD again. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As closing admin in both instances, the first AfD was closed with an overwhelming consensus that the it was a notable list. Govvy was the only editor out of more than a dozen who felt it was not notable. I closed the second nomination on the basis that the first nomination was only five months ago, the consensus was absolutely clear and absolutely nothing has changed that could lead to a change in consensus. There is absolutely no need to go through such a bureaucratic process so soon again without any indication that there would be a change of opinion. Fenix down (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse Probably a different admin should have speedied it (just on general principles, clear WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply). But yeah, such a renom is probably disruptive. Wait another year (or just give up)--consensus isn't going to change that much this fast. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Technically this should be an overturn. The close doesn't fall under any of the categories found on WP:SKCRIT, and technically neither did the first close (should have been a snow close, not a speedy keep.) That being said, this AfD seems to me to be a complete waste of time - it was snow kept less than six months ago, almost unanimously, and at a decently attended AfD. I don't see a different outcome happening here, either - my preferred outcome would actually be a WP:IAR result which keeps this new AfD speedily kept or just ignored entirely, but technically an overturn is the correct result if we follow the rules. SportingFlyer talk 04:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this was nominated for deletion five months ago with the same rationale and overwhelmingly kept, the nomination was very premature. Hut 8.5 07:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for the precisely same reason as SportingFlyer. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Yes, it was speedy kept 5 months previously, and it's very likely we'd get the same result here. But, admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Speedy closing a discussion after 8 minutes, when you closed the last one on the same topic, isn't cool. This is a long way from abuse or misuse of the mop, but the general rule stated in WP:TOOLMISUSE is, Even when use of the tools appears reasonable, if doubt exists it is better to ask another independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This should have been left to run. If another admin came along and speedy closed it, that would have been more defensible. And, if it ran for a week, or even just long enough to declare another legitimate WP:SNOW closure, what harm would that have done? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - can you please explain how I am not independent here, as that seems to be the crux of your argument. I was completely uninvolved in the discussion offering no personal opinion on closing, simply performing a basic administrative action to recognise the overwhelming consensus agreed. I have not edited the article other than to recently move it to a clear list title in keeping with the original discussion. I'm confused by your comments, if this is a question of involvement I'm just not seeing it. If this is a question of running another AfD simply for the sake of it despite the current consensus, that seems to me to be needlessly bureaucratic, which WP is not. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the first AfD. As I said, the standard we're aiming for is avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That's a higher bar than, my actions can be justified. By opening the second AfD, the nom is saying, The first AfD came to the wrong conclusion. By speedy closing it, you're saying, I'm not going to even give you the chance to argue that my prior decision was wrong. If the 2nd AfD really was that egregious, somebody else would have come along and speedy closed it. And, if not, then it would have run for a week, and probably ended up with the same result. So what? The alternative is we're here for a week, and probably back at AfD for another week after that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unfortunately, there was a procedural error on the first AFD, in that it was closed as Speedy Keep and should have been closed as Snow Keep. Therefore the nominator has some justification in being a jerk about it. Just to shut the nominator up, I suggest that the result be:

Overturn and Relist with a required run of 7 days, but with a warning to the nominator that, if this results in a Keep, they really will get a Topic-Ban and Block. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this seems to be a case of semantics to me, the original close of "speedy" was meant to reflect the fact that the consensus was so overwhelming the afd did not need to run for 7 days. If we accept this was actually a "snow" close, surely this just underlines the consensus achieved. Why on earth would we then tolerate the sole dissenting editor another AfD only 5 months later? Please see my comments above about what WP is not. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't understands Robert McClenon's response, there is no reason what so ever to request I get a topic ban over one issue. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert McClenon is a notorious drama board lunkhead and IMO it would be a net benefit to Wikipedia if he were to receive the Tarage treatment. In this case he's badly jumping the gun in proposing a block. He's not completely in the wrong, though. There is a policy, WP:IDHT (I Didn't Hear That) that may become applicable in the future. The first AfD was nearly unanimously keep, with you being the only dissenter. The second one, whether the early close is determined to be appropriate or not, was heading the same way. If (when) it is closed as keep, should you continue advocating for the article's deletion against clear community consensus, it could become Disruptive and eventually lead to blocks. Of course, it is bad faith to assume you'd do that - I'm just attempting to clarify the position he was taking. Seth Kellerman (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Excuse me? Why would we determine a block based on the outcome of an AfD? I suggest you strike your personal attacks and vindictive threats against the nominator. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Close was totally out of process. It was neither a swift nomination nor 100% same as the earlier one. Nothing will be lost in 7 days. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This argument seems to be "process for process's sake". As noted earlier, please see my comments above on what WP is not. I'm happy for this to go back to AfD if that is what people want but I'm not seeing any arguments here that indicate there is a reasonable chance of a different outcome from the first AfD. If this is to be successful, people need to indicate why the original (not to mention very recent and current) consensus is likely to have been wrong. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist: the AfD does not fall under any of the six speedy keep criteria, nor is it a violation of common sense (six months is enough time before re-nominating a page for AfD). Re-open the AfD for either seven days or until a WP:SNOW close is appropriate (whichever comes first). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Five months is a long time after the first AfD and there's no need for rush to stop legitimate process. There's a whole host of reasons why we leave AfDs to run seven days instead of 24 hours. If there were a consensus to keep the article, the nominator could not have deleted it no matter how so he wished and had it resulted in deletion that's not without precedent. A lot of articles were deleted after AfD which was third or fourth instance for them . –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I feel the community would be better served by allowing the AfD to run for at least a few days. Consensus can change, and if it goes the same way as the first AfD I don't think there will be much resistance to a snow-close. Seth Kellerman (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeduc-cd (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear consensus and little participation after a week. Suggest relisting discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused. The AfD was closed as delete. You nominated it for deletion, isn't that the result you wanted? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I feel that I am responsible as an editor to ensure the deletion process is properly followed, I did this because if I did not do it, I would feel guilty akin to a sense of WP:ILIKEIT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I did a little searching. I'm having trouble with the AfD nom statement, could not find any hint of reliable sourced coverage anywhere, not even passing mentions in the specialized press, because I found plenty. The only solid WP:RS I found was Knoppix Hacks^[1], but there's plenty of other passing mentions, etc^[2][3]. It's worth noting that this is a French distro, so searching the English-language sources may not be the best way to find everything. All that being said, it seems like it's just one of zillions of non-notable linux distros. I'm inclined to say this should be added to List of Linux distributions and then redirected there, but the inclusion criteria of List of Linux distributions requires that entries be notable, and this fails that. On a more procedural note, endorse because objecting to a decision that went in accord with your nomination is just plain wikiwonkery. A relist would have been reasonable. Closing as soft-delete might have been better, but the actual close was fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but I'm not sure whether WP:REFUND should be available. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was a sound closure. Not every AFD needs 10 participants. ℯxplicit 01:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilblue Linux (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as redirect before consensus could be reached, redirection was only suggested by one editor, and the target doesn't seem appropriate IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse non-notable software, redirect target is appropriate.Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think again, this particular distribution is not mentioned at the target, and thus, even if people search for it, it won't the slightest be helpful. Also, by that logic, we may as well create 500+ redirects to the same article, none of which would be appropriate or helpful. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have sources that you think meet WP:N? If not, do you have a better suggestion for a redirect target? Hobit (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my nomination to delete it, and no, there does not seem to be an appropriate redirect target. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and close I understand why the nom came here, but we appear to have hit the right place. The redirect maybe shouldn't have happened, but it isn't unreasonable IMO. Could bring it to WP:RfD I suppose. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I agree that A) having a redirect to an article where the topic isn't mentioned doesn't make a lot of sense. And B) I agree that one !vote probably doesn't justify the redirection. I'm fine with a relist. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and close Nothing wrong with the reading of consensus or redirect result here. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer and Hobit: Please, once again, reconsider whether it is appropriate to have a redirect pointing to somewhere that does not help any readers searching for the term, (and should not be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT anyway). I used to be a frequent poster at WP:RFD and redirects like these where there is no mention of the topic at the target article are almost always unanimously deleted, regardless of whether it is notable or not (otherwise the topic is added to the article if it is worth mentioning, but it certainly isn't in this case), so that would be a waste of time. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn-ish to delete or relist. It's really hard for me to argue that the close was incorrect per-se. When I close an AfD, if the consensus is pretty much delete, but there's a reasonable redirect target suggested, I'll usually go with the redirect because WP:ATD. But, in this case, since the topic is not mentioned in the redirect target, and the inclusion criteria there do not allow this to be added, the redirect is inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Isaiah Saw (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A9 I ask for the undeletion of the entry based on extended guidelines for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs The song is performed by a large number of choirs in the United States, has numerous independent recording (as noted in Notable Performances section), mentions in the media, and is only gaining in popularity for this type of music. It is a modern day classical chorus music masterpiece that is a stand alone notable song regardless of composer and poet achievements. It happens that both the composer and the poet are very famous and accomplished in their respective spheres. I intend to write articles on both, one is already is draft (Thomas H. Troeger). The article was written following all Wiki standards, especially in regard to citations making sure that credible sources are cited. I addressed the issue with three different administrators, and as a new editor feel that Wikipedia is akin Kafka's Castle. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A9 There is currently no article on the song's writer (I know you've created it in draft, but it doesn't exist in article space yet), plus the deleted article had two references, one of which was a primary source (a book listing the writer's works) and the other returns a 404 error - so it would almost certainly be deleted at AfD anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I largely agree with Black Kite, but looking on-line, I think this *might* have a chance of being able to meet WP:N. [5] isn't a great source and neither are the local sources that have covered some of the performances [6]. But it has been done by a number of notable choirs, so maybe? Worth an AfD IMO, though I suspect it won't make it. That said, the A9 was reasonable. Call this an endorse A9, but list per IAR. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would stand more chance if the writer's article made it into mainspace first (and at least it could always be merged there), but ... Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to a poet's book is unrelated to a song. A composer found the poet hence there is no inherent conflict of interest. Since choir music isn't exactly the hottest thing in the culture, chances of any of us knowing these poets and composers are slim to none in a secular culture. I went to a concert and stumbled upon a song. It was clear on only one hearing that it is a great song for me to start looking for info on it. I found almost nothing and what I found was not very credible and not clear to a lay secular listener like myself. Hence I thought of writing an article. The song is a cultural phenomenon without the fame of its authors. Whatever references disappeared, I can restore (I am pretty confident they are still there). I put an awful amount of time finding references that have some credibility as this song gets the most coverage in blogs, not in official sources of any kind. I repeat that so many choirs perform it, it is famous. There are enough recordings by the best choirs in the US. They are now putting it on par with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel) as indicated by a concert where the song was included in the oratorio, which is an uncontested holiday performance MtUllaHistorian (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I think this is at least borderline for A9, the article did contain an assertion that it has become a popular song for performance by choirs, along with a list of choirs which have performed it. We do have an article on one of those choirs so it does arguably meet the A9 standard (which is better targeted at popular music than classical music). It did also contain two citations to third party sources, which are best evaluated at AfD instead of through speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 23:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hut 8.5; it did have an assertion of importance: "The Dream Isaiah Saw has become a popular song in many choir performances at Christmas in the United States." Notability is for AfD to decide. Sandstein 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Cucciniello (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have no love for this page or its subject, but during the course of an ANI thread I opened to combat autobiographical editing and sockpuppetry, Nyttend speedy deleted the page based on A7. This doesn't seem appropriate given that New Jersey Monthly published a pretty in-depth article about the guy, in addition to the various other sources that were cited. I'm not saying that deletion is totally unwarranted, just that there's enough evidence of notability that this warrants community input through an AfD. The deletion also interferes with the pending ANI, as non-admins can't review the article history to evaluate the conduct issues that were raised. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List. The article contained a credible claim of significance and significant coverage in at least one reliable source, New Jersey Monthly. I agree with Ahrtoodeetoo that criterion A7 for speedy deletion should not apply, even if the article is deleted after discussion because the subject is determined not to be notable. --Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-endorse. Ahrtoodeetoo hasn't even made an argument why this didn't qualify for A7, and moreover there weren't any reliable secondary sources: everything's primary sources and/or fluff like the linked magazine article (this is not a specialist publication, it's totally unsourced, and the author is a specialist on golf news). Articles must be based on secondary sources with reputations for reliability, and this had nothing. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, I think the issue is that, even assuming you're right about a lack of reliable sources in the article, A7 is only about whether the article has a credible claim of significance. WP:A7 says: "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources". Speaking for myself, and assuming the same of Ahrtoodeetoo, the coverage in New Jersey Monthly is mentioned only as evidence of the credible claim of significance, not of notability. But, regardless, sources aren't necessary to assert a credible claim of significance, and the article seems to contain that. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as a non-admin it's impossible for me to determine whether this was proper since I can't see the history. SportingFlyer talk 19:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp-restored for review. —Cryptic 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! SportingFlyer talk
• Restore, send to AfD Per WP:CCOS: "If the references within the article discuss the subject or provide a possible claim of significance as discussed in #1 above, then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied." There's a reference which covers the subject significantly, and while I'm a clear AfD delete vote, AfD would be the proper process here. SportingFlyer talk 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7, send to AfD. Saying the sources were not reliable, or were primary, is an argument to delete at AfD. WP:A7 requires that the article make no credible claim as to why the subject is notable. The article said he was a US diplomat and a spokesman for the US embassy. It cited several sources in major news media. Maybe you don't think the sources are reliable, but A7 specifically says it's not about reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7, send to AfD maybe the article should be deleted, but it doesn't seem to meet the A7 or for that matter any other speedy deletion requirements Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 Credible claims made, might even meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7, send to AfD: claim(s) of notability present. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 the text made claims of significance and cited press coverage. A7 shouldn't be applied based on the standards of sourcing, unless it's something very obvious. If an article contains something which even might be seen as significant coverage in reliable sources then it should go through AfD or PROD. Hut 8.5 07:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dealornodealaus2006.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The new logo was tagged as "no permission", let's use the old one first. B dash (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you be more specific? What is "the new logo"? What is "the old one"? It's not clear what action you're requesting. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume the OP is referring to the fact that the logo image currently in the article was uploaded to Commons as File:DONDRebootLogo2.jpg under a false claim of a free licence and is now tagged for deletion there because we have no evidence of permission for the free licence. In which case the solution is to upload the Commons image here and mark it as fair use. The image linked above is a historical logo, the use of which under fair use is not allowed under WP:NFC (see footnote 2). Hut 8.5 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting administrator comment. Again, B dash made no attempt to discuss the issue with me and did not notify me of this listing. File:Dealornodealaus2006.JPG was deleted under WP:CSD#F5, which does not qualify for listing here at DRV unless I refused to restore it, but no discussion was had to begin with. At this point, I'd simply suggest uploading the Commons file locally on the English Wikipedia under fair use. ℯxplicit 00:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan administered Kashmir (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed as redirect [which I believe should have been Keep or No Consensus/ or relist]^updated. And since then I have discussed the close with the closer at User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_administered_Kashmir.

• Some of the users at AfD had suggested Delete/Redirect used WP:POVFORK as reason. This comment i believe was just carried over from the older AfD about a duplicate article with a POV title due to the word "occupied". The current title did not had "occupied" word, and yet no explanation was given how it is POVFORK? and whose POV? Because it is a term used be neutral third party RS, mainstream media, books and The UN.
• Currently there is no existing article, that is about the geographical, political and historical entity referred to as "Pakistan administered Kashmir". There were multiple RS and strong policy based justifications by several users to 'Keep' as discussed in the 'table' at RoySmith's talk.
• In addition, as one can expect, this AfD was disrupted by SOCK and canvassing. User:The Donkey King has been blocked as a sock after he !voted. I believe this should also should be taken into account while deciding the weight of arguments.
• The article was started at the current location as there was a need felt to provide internal links about the article on this unique entity. A redirect to Kashmir does not serve the purpose
• The article is currently redirected to Kashmir which is a much broader topic area article with a size of 79KB. So as per WP:SPINOFF, WP:SIZERULE and notability criteria WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG a separate article is justified for this notable geographical entity.DBigXrayᗙ 22:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse that was about as well-explained of a close as you could see for a contentious AfD, and one that accurately reflects consensus. Furthermore, I don't know what we're reviewing here as I don't see any of these claims fitting into any of the acceptable purposes found at WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 covers it. I have now added it in line 1 to clarify this DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that, but I still don't see how this could have been closed as a keep or no consensus, especially given the well-reasoned close. SportingFlyer talk 22:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may have an issue where political partisans have overrun the discussion and so we aren't getting a fair one. I'm personally struggling with how have an article for the area, under the name used by the UN, is a POVFORK. I can see how such an article *could* be a POVFORK, but I'm not seeing with how the name *is* one. While I fully understand why it was closed the way it was, I just don't see how the outcome makes sense. I'm hoping that some folks not involved in the underlying dispute can either explain why this *name* is a POVFORK or agree it is not. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that would be grounds for possibly overturning the result, I don't see any pattern with the non-keep votes which would suggest any political slant against keeping the article. Users who work on Pakistani articles, users who work on Indian articles, and users who work on completely different articles all voted delete/redirect on this one. SportingFlyer talk 07:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest point to overturn the closure is about the quality of input provided by the Keep voters and that provided by Delete voters were rather different. Knowing that WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE or a counting of noses. As Hobit rightly notes this, The POVFORK rationale was never justified by explaining what POV there was. Even when folks (like User:Gotitbro and myself) questioned what POV there was in the article, there were no explanations forthcoming. Understandably so, as there was no justification. The strategy here by (Quoting Hobit) "Political partisans (who) have overrun the discussion" was about WP:Stuffing the ballot box with a factually incorrect reasoning. And to answer to SportingFlyer it is quite easy to spot some of these offline canvassed voters who can be seen returning from long breaks to stuff the ballot, a recent eg.[7],MRV,[8]. I will elaborate more on this in my comment below. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting WP:NOTAVOTE as a license to enforce POV no matter others agree or don't agree with you. 202.69.15.88 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will explain below why I would close the AfD as no consensus.

  The closing admin wrote:

  I didn't see any arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored, so the weight of numbers ruled the day here. Depending on how you count some of the more nuanced comments, things are running about 2:1 against keeping.

  Since "the weight of numbers ruled the day here", to uphold a "redirect" close, it is crucial that the editors from the "delete or redirect" side are established editors, not new users. From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry:

  In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

  The subject of India–Pakistan has been the subject of contentious disputes and sockpuppetry in the past. In a 2007 Arbitration case, there was a "Principle" about sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets. The AfD under review here has been affected by sockpuppetry according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital, which resulted in the block of The Donkey King (talk · contribs), who had supported deletion. The "India-Pakistan" logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log show that the topic remains contentious with many editors being blocked and topic banned, as well several articles being put under Wikipedia:Extended confirmed protection and WP:1RR restrictions.

  I have reviewed the edit histories of the editors on each side of the AfD.

  Editors who supported deletion or redirection:

  1. Qualitist (talk · contribs) – first edit made 18 October 2018; 751 edits
  2. Satpal Dandiwal (talk · contribs) – admin on the Punjabi Wikipedia with 9,219 edits on the Punjabi Wikipedia; 165 edits on the English Wikipedia
  3. 123sarangi (talk · contribs) – account created in 2010; 646 edits
  4. Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) – established editor
  5. The Donkey King (talk · contribs) – blocked sockpuppet
  6. शिव साहिल (talk · contribs) – first edit made 5 September 2017; 1,021 edits
  7. Farooqahmadbhat (talk · contribs) – first edit made 10 October 2018; 1,697 edits
  8. Umar shahid (talk · contribs) – first edit made 24 July 2018; 148 edits
  9. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk · contribs) – first edit 6 November 2018 6 November 2017; 290 edits
  10. DreamLinker (talk · contribs) – first edit 4 July 2017; 1,343 edits
  11. 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) – established editor
  12. Srkamal (talk · contribs) – established editor

  Editors who supported retention:

  1. DBigXray (talk · contribs) – established editor
  2. Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) – established editor
  3. Spinningspark (talk · contribs) – established editor
  4. AKS.9955 (talk · contribs) – established editor
  5. power~enwiki (talk · contribs) – established editor
  6. Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) – established editor
  7. Gotitbro (talk · contribs) – established editor

  Of the editors who supported deletion or redirection, I would per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry "disregar[d] or giv[e] significantly less weight" to the comments made by:

  1. Qualitist (talk · contribs) – new account created 50 days before the AfD's start
  2. The Donkey King (talk · contribs) – blocked sockpuppet
  3. Farooqahmadbhat (talk · contribs) – new account created 58 days before the AfD's start
  4. Umar shahid (talk · contribs) – new account with only 148 edits

  Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk · contribs) – new account created 31 days before the AfD's start

  Although Satpal Dandiwal (talk · contribs), who supported deletion or redirection, has few edits on the English Wikipedia, I am not giving less weight to his comment because he is an established editor and admin on the Punjabi Wikipedia. I am also not giving less weight to 123sarangi (talk · contribs), who has 646 edits, because the account was created in 2010 and has consistently edited over the years.

  I would not give less weight to any of the "keep" editors because all of them are established editors.

  After this review, I have a new count of 7 established editors supporting retention and 8 established editors supporting deletion or redirection.

  I agree with the closing admin that there were no "arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored so the weight of numbers ruled the day here". Since the established editors were divided on this issue, I would close the AfD as "no consensus".

  This was a difficult AfD to close. Thank you, RoySmith, for providing an extensive closing rationale and further expanding on your talk page about how you closed the AfD. Had the AfD participants all been established editors with a count of 12–7 saying the article's content is a WP:POVFORK, I would have reached the same conclusion that there is a rough consensus against a standalone article.

  Cunard (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, Reyk and 123sarangi. I have revised my above comment about Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk · contribs)'s account creation history and am no longer discounting that vote. Cunard (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the AfD closer, I'm going to remain officially neutral here, but I do want to comment on the concept of vetting discussants. Once you've hung around AfD for a while, you get to recognize the regulars. When I see new names, I'll often look at their contribution as a quick WP:SPA filter. I don't have any hard criteria; I'm looking for some vague mix of account age, edit count, and diversity of topics edited. I just went back and checked the users identified above as likely puppets. I don't recall doing so when I was working on this AfD, but based on what I see now, I'm pretty sure all would have passed my screen and been given full weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying up here to everyone since there is a lot of discussion below.)

Like many geopolitical disputes, the India–Pakistan topic area is deeply affected by sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. The four accounts I gave less weight to either were created fewer than two months before the AfD's start or had fewer than 150 edits. Reyk noted below that "Accounts almost two months old with hundreds of edits can't be dismissed as single purpose meatpuppets." 123sarangi noted below that "If an editor is new but made dozens of edits across Wiki then they could be no longer considered as meat or SPA." This is true. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets know this too. It therefore is difficult to determine whether an account created two months ago with hundreds of edits is truly a new editor or is really a puppet.

Like you, RoySmith (talk · contribs), I don't have any hard criteria for whether to give less weight to an account. But for a subjective issue like whether an article in a contentious geopolitical dispute is a WP:POVFORK, I would not give accounts created two months ago the same weight as accounts with established editing histories when "the weight of numbers rul[e] the day here". I don't know whether these accounts are truly new editors or puppets. I gave them less weight in my evaluation of the arguments because I just don't know. When I don't know, I follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, which says, "When in doubt, don't delete." (Or don't redirect in this case.)

In a contentious geopolitical dispute AfD, it is reasonable and within discretion for an admin to weigh the editing histories differently. This is why I am only commenting as "I would close the AfD as no consensus" instead of "overturn to no consensus".

DBigXray, the many concerns you have raised below about various accounts likely will not help your case with WP:DRV. I recommend that if you solid evidence of impropriety, you take your concerns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The more acrimony and accusations that are generated here, the less likely that more uninvolved editors like SportingFlyer, Hobit, Reyk, and me will participate in the DRV.

Cunard (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment- The only !vote you could legitimately throw out is the sockpuppet. Accounts almost two months old with hundreds of edits can't be dismissed as single purpose meatpuppets. It's not OK to draw an arbitrary age line like this to throw out opinions you don't like, particularly if you're not going to dispute any of the content of them. Besides which, Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari has been around for over a year. They registered in November 2017. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cunard: Even "no consensus" would still result in restoration of long term redirect since article was created by DBigXray against consensus long term consensus. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari registered in 6 November 2017. That is more than 1 year ago not 31 days. You are also incorrect about the guideline on WP:MEAT which talks about the overall contributions of the editor and if they had edited outside the AFD page. If an editor is new but made dozens of edits across Wiki then they could be no longer considered as meat or SPA. You have absolutely missed the part where it says: "Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion". Accounts you are naming fail that requirement and none of the users, including that blocked editor could be ever tagged or considered a meat puppet for the same reason. I recommend you to modify your assessment. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Cunard for your detailed analysis of the user votes here. Although I believe we all should follow the weight of the strong arguements instead of counting of noses, (as "WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE"). As Cunard noted above Since "the weight of numbers ruled the day here" I am elaborating more on the disruption by offline canvassing here. Frankly, no one should be surprised here, that an India-Pak related AfD has been overrun by Canvassed voters. In the AE Log [9] one can see several of these nationalistic editors SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), NadirAli (talk · contribs), JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs), D4iNa4 (talk · contribs), MapSGV (talk · contribs), TripWire (talk · contribs), Mar4d (talk · contribs), MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs), Raymond3023 (talk · contribs) and Sdmarathe (talk · contribs) "all indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan", So they cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom. It is quite easy to spot the same set of editors, suddenly appearing at AfDs, RfCs and Talk page discussions to vote in a same manner. I will add the diff of some of those examples that I found recently in this list of editors who supported deletion or redirection prepared by Cunard.

1. Qualitist (talk · contribs) (recently created accountdiff, diff who is taking up cudgels.) [10],MRV
2. Satpal Dandiwal (talk · contribs)165 edits on the English Wikipedia and yet voting alongside the same group at AfD [11] [12] and talk pages [13] [14] [15] [16]
3. 123sarangi (talk · contribs) – account created in 2010; 646 edits [17] His only edit [18] on a talk page in his 8 year history was in support of a group of editors. Same with his first AfD !vote [19] which was on this AfD to delete the article that he refers "a template" and in support the same group,
4. Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) – established editor seen voting alongside the same group [20][21] [22] [23] [24]
5. शिव साहिल (talk · contribs) – first edit made 5 September 2017; 1,021 edits [25] [26]
6. 1990'sguy (talk · contribs) – established editor not Indian but seen regularly voting on Indian topics in support of the group, [27] AfDs [28] [29] [30] and talk pages [31] [32] and in return the group supports 1990sGuy on his Christian topics AfD and RFCs. [33][34][35]
7. Umar shahid (talk · contribs) – first edit made 24 July 2018; 148 edits ond his first and only 1 AfD participation here [36].
8. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk · contribs) – first edit 6 November 20187; 290 edits And 3 Afd votes [37]
9. Srkamal (talk · contribs) only 2 AfDs till date [38]. Suspicious because he went directly to the talk page and voted Keep on talk page[39] and AfD[40] and then made a volte-face and changed his vote as Delete a few minutes later at both locations.
10. Farooqahmadbhat (talk · contribs) – first edit made 10 October 2018; 1,697 edits And first (out of 3) AfD vote here[41] [Now has been CU blocked as a sock.]^{updated --DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)}[reply]
11. The Donkey King (talk · contribs) – blocked sockpuppet with 2 AfD votes.

Because of these concerns on large scale Vote Stuffing on India-Pak topics, it becomes even more important to strictly follow WP:NOTAVOTE and focus on the weight and validity of the argument, and assigning appropriate weights to the arguements. Lot of folks mentioned POVFORK, but if that argument is factually incorrect and unjustified, and yet we start counting the heads of people who invoked POVFORK, then in a way we are actually encouraging disruption and more sock / meat puppetry and clique based voting. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be being malicious? I think your extreme bad faith assumption for justifying your apparent POV pushing is only boosting hostility. You should strike all your bad faith accusations right now. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 16:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- overturn argument hinges on one participant among dozens being a sockpuppet, a handful of others being unfairly mischaracterised as SPAs, and unfounded accusations of canvassing. That's no argument to overturn at all. Reading the discussion, the closing statement, and the discussion on RoySmith's talk page, I don't think he got this one wrong. Reyk _YO! 10:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• responded above with the evidence of clique based voting.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as AfD participant. DBigXray has been misleading others throughout AfD and during these post-AfD discussions which are complete waste of time. DBigXray has been denying established existence of multiple RfCs held before regarding this POVFORK,[42][43] and I had also linked some of those discussions in my comment.[44] There were indeed multiple RfCs that resulted in removal of POVFORK which DBigXray desperately wants to create.[45][46] I would recommend reading those past discussions to realize why the AfD close was 100% valid. Very few editors must have avoided verifying DBigXray's misleading claims but small number of editors dont form enough consensus for keeping a POVFORK when consensus has been always against creating it. Calling others a sock or canvassed editors won't ever help OP's case. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• regretful endorse While I don't think it makes any sense for a name, used by the UN, to be a POVFORK, this is where our processes have gotten us too. Normally I just don't comment in such a situation, but since I commented above, I felt I should be clear. Hobit (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POVFORK doesn't need to be about the title of an article, it can be (and most often is) about its content. We might disagree about the POV part, but the FORK bit still has clear merit: regardless of whether we believe an article ought to exist at this title, it's inevitable that almost all of it will duplicate content found elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I was about to close this in essentially the same way for the same reasons, but then my PC crashed and I lost the closing rationale. Both based on the numbers and the arguments submitted, and the need to avoid content forks especially in contested topic areas, I believe that the redirect (to this or some other appropriate location) best reflects consensus and policy. Sandstein 10:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It is impossible not to think that the creation was nothing more than clear attempt to enforce a petty nationalistic POV. The AfD participants did a good job by presenting their accurate arguments against the keeping the article. 202.69.15.88 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Today, as was suspected, a second AfD participant who voted Delete, Special:Contributions/Farooqahmadbhat has been CU blocked as a sock. After the Close of AfD The Donkey King (talk · contribs) and Farooqahmadbhat have been CU blocked. FYI, User:Cunard, Hobit, RoySmith --DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, the whole point of me starting this DRV was for requesting that the consensus be judged on the basis of weight of arguments of keep and Deletes, instead of vote counts. 2 Users being sock blocked just re-affirms my point. Closures, heavily influenced by vote counts will inadvertently encourage more meat and sockpuppetry. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Farooqahmadbhat was blocked as a sock master of a small irrelevant account[47], not "as a sock" and he didn't "voted Delete" but opposed deletion and only came to notify about his "merger proposal"[48]. Either you are very incompetent in English or just completely deceptive. Why we should not count Farooqahmadbhat's opinion but count your falsifications? It makes no sense. Suppose if you get blocked tomorrow, then will you prefer if we discount all your arguments? That's not how we work. Neither it would make any sense to accept your deceptive statements that are filled with nationalist POV. I am the IP who commented above as 202.69.15.88. 37.111.130.177 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about sock and more socks appear. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before the AfD close, editors were 12–7 against a standalone article. With two AfD participants blocked as sockpuppets, the count is now 10–7 against a standalone article.

This DRV will be closed as "endorse". But if more of the editors against a standalone article are blocked as sockpuppets in the future, it would be worthwhile to ask the DRV closer for permission to take this back to DRV to ask for a fresh AfD since the previous one was tainted by sockpuppetry.

Cunard (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cunard, due to the recent sock blocks and based on the comment posted above by you earlier, I see this as a strong reason to overturn the closure as "No Consensus". By suggesting numbers such as 10-7 without giving weightage to the actual arguments, we are only encouraging the Meat/Sock puppet masters that all they need is to mobilize a couple of accounts and the balance can be tilted in whatever way they like. This is in stark contrast of my understanding of WP:CONSENSUS.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good close. DBigXray didn't even know that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is the accurate title, yet he created a redundant fork against consensus. I had said on AFD that reliable sources and UN sources provide same description for both subjects then it also means that we should create article on both "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" and "Indian-administered Kashmir", or avoid creating any of them because we are not here for redundant content forking.[49] DBigXray's refuses to create "Indian-administered Kashmir" however he aggressively defends his creation of "Pakistan administered Kashmir" against consensus. There is Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, but existence of a "Pakistan administered Kashmir" would justify creation of a Human rights abuses in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and continue increasing the number of more redundant forks which are meant to be avoided. Together with bad knowledge of policies and IDHT, DBigXray's repeated false accusations constitute harassment. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Pakistan"-"administered Kashmir should have been the better title then WP:RM discussion is the way to do it not deletion. The "-" is really a trivial issue here, I am ready to add a "-" if it is so important for the title as you said in your opinion. FYI Indian-administered Kashmir is an "existing" article with a more appropriate name where as an article on Pakistan-administered Kashmir has just been deleted and redirected. I will not comment on WP:OSE examples of Human rights. but please see the map, Pak administered Kashmir is not the same as Azad Kashmir.

References to verify the images below:

• CNN: Kashmir Fast Facts
• "BBC: Kashmir profile". 3 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
• Pakistan Government map of Azad Kashmir on the official website gov.pk

• 
  Gilgit-Baltistan shown in Red
• 
  Azad Kashmir Shown in Red
• 
  Pakistan administered Kashmir Shown in Red
• 
  Pakistan Administered Kashmir shown light green and marked as Zona Ocupada per Paquistan

--DBigXrayᗙ 15:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqul Islam Masud (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have discussed this with the AfD closer User:Tone, see User_talk:Tone#Articles_for_deletion/Shafiqul_Islam_Masud_(2nd_nomination). I had the article open on my browser to consider, then realised the AfD had been closed. I don't think that the nom's claim of non-notability was done on the right criteria. This man's claim to notability is not in being an unelected politican, but in being a party leader imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years. He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines in the article indicate, as party leader he was the only one named. The sources given in the first AfD, including the Wall Street Journal [50], and The Guardian [51] and the arguments there (including WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success") resulted in a Keep, and the sources had not been included in the article. The nom for this 2nd AfD claimed that he was non-notable as an "unelected candidate", but in fact he has not stood for election until this year, when he is currently a candidate in an election to be held on 30 December 2018. (He was also arrested again this year [52], which is also not yet in the article.) While the article could have been improved, I believe that there are arguments and evidence not considered in this AfD, and I am rather suspicious of the nom's motives when the election is so close. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new arguments, I support relisting, possibly speedy, to generate further discussion. --Tone 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the AFD, so you can go ahead and do that at your discretion. There's no need to send it through DRV first, especially for one that you just closed yesterday. —Cryptic 18:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a relist here (now) would be fine. Sources listed above aren't great, but worth discussing. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I agree with Cryptic, if you believe your own close should be revisited, just go ahead, back out your close, and relist it. Quick, simple, no fuss. There's really no need for a heavyweight process like DRV in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisted, as suggested. My approach is usually to avoid reverting myself in such cases but since I got a clear go-ahead, I fixed it. --Tone 21:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had the approval of the admin who originally salted the article (David Gerard), but it was nonetheless speedily deleted for rule Db-G4 which the article did not break, as it was significantly different from both prior deletions. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I salted one of the previous incarnations. Allow draft, with prospect of recreation as an article - DRV use case 3: new information since deletion - that is, Dr-Bracket (and I) dredged up some RS coverage. Certainly it should be allowed to exist as a draft - the spammy deleted versions were notably RS-free, and if you look, you'll see this one isn't. It'll be a bit of a spam magnet, but not more than the rest of our our cryptocurrency-related coverage is, and there's a pile of editors of late working to keep this area up to RS standard - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which incarnation? It's not in your logs, unless it was years before any of the deletion discussions (AFD1, MFD1, MFD2). —Cryptic 17:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the log disagrees, then I'm misremembering, sorry! - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion part of the cleanup was me removing several incarnations of this topic from draft and userspace. I don't recall exactly how many as I also sought deletion on many other crypto pages. I do remember there were different capitalizations. This is a DS area full of promotion and undisclosed COI. I suggest finding a more useful topic. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no COI with Tron (never owned any, don't know anyone personally who owns any), and had that in some of the talk pages that were getting moved around. I decided to create this article because I knew I could fairly, and I knew I could fully meet WP:GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • The deleted content was not the typical promotional dreck that used to permeate this topic area - this one was a legitimate attempt to write an encyclopedia article. MER-C 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation as a draft per David Gerard. I, or some other admin, can slap ECP on it to keep the spam out if needed. MER-C 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ECP is a good idea here, actually - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:G4. I can think of many reasons why this is not an article we want, but WP:CSD lays out very specific requirements and it's one of the few places where I don't think WP:IAR should apply. G4 requires that the versions be substantially identical. If I'm following the history properly, the two versions in question are:
  • 1 December 2018, at 08:34 by BrownHairedGirl
  • 13 December 2018, at 04:39 by Robert McClenon

These clearly do not meet the substantially identical requirement. WP:ECP does, however, seem like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion following deletion discussion and create-protection following repeated re-creation. However:
• Comment – This Deletion Review is actually being used as the proper forum for a review of the create-protection (salting) of the title. I Oppose general lifting of the create-protection in article space. I also Oppose permitting creation of the page in draft space while it is create-protected in article space. It is NOT useful to permit creation of a page in draft space that cannot be accepted into article space. If the page exists in draft space but is blocked out of article space, it will be repeatedly and tendentiously resubmitted by spammers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite definitely different content, with actual sources. It's not a mainspace-ready article yet - but it's the precise sort of thing that, with proper review, warrants unsalting of a deservedly-salted article topic. I fully appreciate spammer-weariness ... but did you actually compare the old text to the new text, or did you just go by the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As noted below, I can't compare the old text with the new text, and I am very tired of the same topics being spammed over and over again. Is User:David Gerard saying that I just have to ignore the spammers because their old crud has been hidden from me and their new crud is still there? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, and I really don't get how you read that from what I wrote. The old text was a pile of bad refs and primary refs, and the text the person bringing the DRV is talking about is based on RS refs. You seem to be arguing vociferously about the merits of text that you now admit you've literally not read - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Dr-Bracket – When a new account shows up and starts submitting in a contentious area, many of us are inclined to suspect conflict of interest and sockpuppetry. You say that you have no special interest in Tron, but we had to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – However, I do not object to downgrading the create-protection in both article space and draft space to ECP, which will still provide reasonable protection against spamming. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - By the way, how is a nominator to know whether a page is substantially identical to a deleted page if they can't see the deleted page? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is not an admin, they can't, at least not officially. Unofficially, deleted pages are often still visible on various mirrors, Deletionpedia, search engine caches, etc. In any case, the admin who services the nomination should be checking. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Roy. Note: I've not been able to compare these two, but no one seems to be claiming the *are* substantially identical and in fact there seems to be general agreement that this one has much better sources. That's more than enough to overcome a G4. So this needs to be overturned unless we are going to rely on IAR (or someone claims that this is in fact basically the same article). Hobit (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It appears that the issue has become whether the create protection should be downgraded in both draft space and article space from admin protected to extended-confirmed protected. I concur with changing the level of create protection to ECP, which will allow an established editor to create a draft and to submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we ECP draft space? Hobit (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can almost guarantee if this stays in draft space without some sort of protection, it will turn into a pile of crap. Dr-Bracket (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest giving it a chance first, but I don't know the area as well as you do. Hobit (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - It has already been given its chances. We know that spammers want to put crud into article space, and that if article space is protected, they will try to put it into draft space and submit it. If draft space isn't protected, then the usual practice is to submit the crud repeatedly from draft space, requiring the reviewers to reject it repeatedly. (Reject was meant to deal with repeated resubmissions. It works against clueless users. It doesn't work against spammers, who use a patented bean-removing tool.) Once the spammers show up, giving another chance is a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mostly agree with you - but I'm not here to spam; I've presented article that does it the right way. The whole point of salting is getting the approval of the admin who salted it, as a way curb spammers from ever reaching here. And so I did; this is probably the best draft we'll ever see, in regards to it actually having someone committed to making it follow GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: unlikely to develop into a viable article, so best kept deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question - can you guys actually see the draft I created (as opposed to the previously hideous ones), or is this just based off assumptions? I think that might explain a lot. Dr-Bracket (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tempundeleted this, so that should resolve that issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User simple-N (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:User simple-1 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:User simple-2 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:User simple-3 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:User simple-4 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category:User simple-5 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As discussed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Babel#Category redirects and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#More populated category redirects, this eleven year old deletion has created problems with the Wikipedia:Babel system as the categories are automatically populated across all Wikipedias by the Babel system. Unfortunately this results in category redirects being populated for years and rigid enforcement of the 2008 discussion when anyone tries to restore them as categories. Formally allowing recreation seems the best solution. Due to the length of time since the discussion I have not gone to the closing admin (who also hasn't edited in a few weeks). Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation. To put this into context, there was a good deal of shouting about user categorization in early 2008. Without wishing to revisit that time and place, I think Tim's right to argue that this deletion is no longer relevant. Permitting re-creation of the categories is harmless, and will remove some minor sources of tension. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. Timrollpickering advances persuasive arguments about why this deletion decision in 2008 has created problems in the present day. An 11-year-old CfD should no longer be enforceable when the context and standards have changed since that time. A new consensus should be required if anyone wants to delete the categories in the present day.

  Cunard (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation per User:Cunard. In the absence of a separate consensus to do so, or other reasons not to restore certain content, deletion discussions should never be "rigidly enforced" after even half a decade, let alone a full one. Modernponderer (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Forces (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, the page for Imaginary Forces was speedily deleted and later protected as the content was lacking in notability and noted as being blatant advertising. I have another working draft where the statements are of a more neutral tone to avoid sounding like an advertisement for the mentioned company.

For notability sources I have the following for review:

1. Interview with Michelle Dougherty of Imaginary Forces: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-10-28/whats-the-story-behind-the-nostalgic-80s-style-stranger-things-opening-titles/

2. Article about Imaginary Forces and their work on Title Design: http://brief.promaxbda.org/index.php/article/the-power-of-humble-title-design

3. Interview with Karin Fong regarding Imaginary Forces: https://www.fastcompany.com/video/all-your-favorite-opening-credits-may-have-been-made-by-the-same-company/EDDrQVow

4. Animation World Network review of Imaginary Forces: https://www.awn.com/blog/imaginary-forces-17-years-later

5. Art of the Title: http://www.artofthetitle.com/studio/imaginary-forces/

If the page doesn't qualify as a full wikipedia page, would it be possible to re-create it as a stub? I am also reviewing the requirements for a stub article in advance. Superseniors11 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted and salted. The page content was a subset of that deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary Forces and thus was a valid G4 deletion. We're not here to help you promote your client. MER-C 14:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted and salted- The original version was deleted as an advertisement, and the newer one did not address those issues while containing even less actual content. Clearly this advertising brochure is not not fit for the encyclopedia and is likely to keep getting re created if it's not salted. Reyk _YO! 15:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and salted, with 5 deletions in barely more than a year, this is clearly an attempt to brute-force an article onto Wikipedia. That doesn't work and never will. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've indef blocked Superseniors11 as WP:NOTHERE. Brand new account makes 10 random-ish edits in quick succession to get autoconfirmed, then socked away for future use. Said future use was to create this article. Not happening. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted appears to be a valid G4 deletion as per above. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can be kept with {{Non-free 3D art}} B dash (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The article Donald Trump baby balloon already has a fair use image of the same balloon being flown at the same event, apparently extracted from this deleted image. I don't think that adding a second, substantially identical fair use image would meet WP:NFCC. Sandstein 14:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on Sandstein's comments endorse. If there is something else to be discussed (been released into the public domain or CC/SA), great. Otherwise I don't think our fair use rules allow us to keep it. Hobit (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted It's not desirable to have many non free images in an article. The one there I think suffices per the size of the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing administrator comment. There was no attempt to discuss the matter with me, nor did I receive a notification of this discussion. Regardless, I'm not seeing any compelling reason to restore this file. ℯxplicit 00:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per Sandstein. I thought I'd disagree upon reading their statement, but this situation is clearly and specifically covered at WP:NFCC. SportingFlyer talk 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zorin OS (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

​ ​ ​ (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination) as well, also sorry if I double pinged) Now that the distro has been around for a while, there is much more than just distrowatch -- I have added several reviews, etc, to source the article. I started doing this to add it to List of Linux distributions after someone added it and it got reverted. If you look at this list, the length of this article is not unusual, the version history table is well sourced with release notes (coupled with more recent articles talking about it), etc. In my opinion, this article with the citations as is would fit notability requirements, even just with the 7 or so citations of third party articles (ignoring the official Zorin releases). It'd be helpful if we could see the article as it was when it was deleted to see exactly what citations they were talking about when it was deleted. Another thing to keep in mind is that Zorin OS was deleted back in '09 when it was in beta, and it's still around nearly 10 years later and of course has had time to gain notability. HarryKernow. Talk. 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for information. Other relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Zorin OS (permalink) and Draft:Zorin OS. SpinningSpark 20:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotect this was last sent to AfD five years ago and that version was a lot worse than the linked draft. The bar to reopening the issue should be low. Hut 8.5 21:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if this belongs here or not, but sure, it should be unsalted given the draft looks reasonable at first glance and it was approved at AfC. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt. This may or may not survive another AfD, but the draft looks reasonable, and has significantly better sourcing than the version that was deleted five years ago. That's all that should be required to accept the draft and move it to mainspace. If somebody objects, bring it back to AfD for another round of scrutiny. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Minihane (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

WP:NOTE Hello I noticed the article related to Minihane was deleted based on WP:NOTE and am unsure as tp why he has been the number one sports radio talk show in Boston before being removed from the air and has received more then enough national coverage to meet the significant coverage criteria.

It appears those that did put zero or very little thought into the decision.

From Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexreimer/2016/06/23/meet-kirk-minihane-perhaps-the-most-acerbic-man-in-sports-talk-radio/#3041dbea10cf

To the Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/11/15/entercom-made-right-call-with-kirk-minihane/mXcBuwoKxM3XmbAgOlgnVO/story.html

To Boston.com: https://www.boston.com/sports/media/2018/09/21/kirk-minihane-weei-update-im-still-working-through-stuff

Ny Post: https://nypost.com/2018/10/24/boston-station-wont-let-me-on-air-after-depression-leave-controversial-host/

To local TV appearances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BxuFc75uno 72.139.207.250 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but allow draft. The AfD was unanimous, so clearly endorse that. But, it was two and a half years ago, and there's more coverage now. Standard practice (but not, apparently, policy) is that in such cases, anybody can go ahead and create a new version of the page without needing to get DRV involved. I suggest you go through the WP:AfC process to get some review before creating this in mainspace. And, make sure you stick closely to the requirements of WP:BLP. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

I agree with RebeccaGreen that in the AfD there were strong policy-based arguments for retention that provide significant coverage in reliable sources such as:

1. "She is notable WP:GNG with articles in the Huffpost [53] and Independent [54], which I don't believe are sourced in the article. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [55]. She is notable for her age, which is another way of saying she is notable for her lifespan and reliable sources cover basic aspects of her lifespan. routine does not apply here because the reliable sources are about her and there is nothing routine about living to 115."
2. "As well as the articles found by I am One of Many, I find an article in National Geographic[56], in the Herald&Review from Illinois, about her being the oldest person on Twitter[57], in the Detroit Free Press, which says that she was also on Facebook[58], and in Metro US[59]. This is not routine coverage - she meets WP:SIGCOV; and it runs over several years, so WP:SUSTAINED. The article could certainly be improved to include these sources and the information in them, but that is not a reason for deletion WP:NEXIST"

Several of the "delete" arguments were very short and contained very little reasoning about why Bernice Madigan was not notable. It is untrue that "The delete side had better arguments".

"Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way" is a valid personal opinion to have, but there was no consensus in the discussion to implement that approach for this case.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see any new information above that was not already mentioned in the AfD. The close clearly was within admin discretion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a redirect was allowed and the OP should go write the minibio instead of wasting our time at DRV. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus or Relist - I'm not convinced that Spartaz considered whether there was biographical data that could be lost, based on his own statement on his talk page. I'm willing to reconsider this position upon further explanation from Spartaz. schetm (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• These old-age discussions kill me. I really really don't care if they are old. I really don't care if they are only notable for being old. I care if they have coverage that meets WP:N or if there is some extraordinary reason we should ignore WP:N. WP:DRV should be about just evaluating the discussion, but I don't feel AfD is capable of having a solid and fact-filled discussion on this topic. So I'll look at the underlying sources instead. The National Geographic one certainly looks to be above the bar needed for WP:N. The rest that I looked at are either local or barely touch on the subject. So WP:N is borderline. The discussion is also borderline and mostly useless IMO. overturn to no consensus is where I get to. There are no great arguments or numeric consensus in that discussion to do anything, including redirect IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree that I don't see any new information in overturn! votes that was not already mentioned in the AfD. The close was clearly within admin discretion, and the nominator should indeed go write the mini-bio if they feel the content is so valuable. The redirect made that opportunity easy. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closers comment. This fell squarely in closer's discretion. Only 1 really good source says it all. There is a long standing consensus to listify barely notable pages with a single shared characteristic and that is what I did here and have been doing for well over a decade. No biographical data will be lost as anyone can merge from the history. To be clear, I have not evaluated the sources or read the articlee myself as my job is to close according to the discussion and community norms and not take an opinion on the sources or content myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not within the closer's discretion to give less weight to the comments made by Ravenswing, I am One of Many, RebeccaGreen, Schetm, and me because we all provided policy-based arguments for retention. We all concluded that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There are at least five good sources about the subject. As discussed in the AfD by RebeccaGreen, there is this article from the National Geographic and this article from the Detroit Free Press. The Detroit Free Press article discusses a Boston Globe article that provides significant coverage of the subject and this article from The Berkshire Eagle which also provides significant coverage of the subject.

  I am One of Many also wrote in the AfD: "She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [60]." – I cannot evaluate the ABC News and AARP Magazine sources as they are not linked. But this article (linked in the AfD) from Boxcar Media provides very substantial coverage of the subject and verifies the information about the ABC News appearance, the coverage in AARP Magazine, and the filming at the Center for Aging at the University of Chicago.

  Only 1 really good source says it all. ... To be clear, I have not evaluated the sources or read the articlee myself – it was not the consensus of the discussion that there was only one really good source. How do you conclude that there is only one good source without having evaluated the sources yourself?

  A merge is a valid editorial action to take if there is a consensus to do so. There was no consensus in the AfD to do a merge instead of to have a standalone article.

  Cunard (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Edited to add more information. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its longstanding consensus that in close calls the closer has some discretion. Its reasonable for me to close to a meta consensus. Your opinion my differ but that's where we are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if some voters found the subject notable - notable topics can be merged together per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Therefore a merge/redirect close is perfectly alined with "notable" votes. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." There was no "consensus on a wider scale" that articles like this one should be closed as "redirect" even when the community is split on notability and whether there should be a standalone article. Closing to a "meta consensus" requires that a wider consensus has been established through RfCs or in policies or guidelines. No such prior "community consensus on a wider scale" exists in this situation to make closing as redirect within discretion of the closer.

Cunard (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. There were reasonable arguments (and defective ones) on both sides in the AfD. The keep side argued that the subject met the GNG, and the position that, say, [61] and other sources are enough to pass the GNG isn't unreasonable. Questions such as whether we should cover the subject as part of another article are matters of editorial judgement to be decided by the AfD participants. The closer shouldn't try to substitute their judgement for that of the participants, even if the outcome is close. Hut 8.5 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to that reasoning, no AfD should ever be closed a "redirect" or "merge"... --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you are going for here. If everyone says "redirect", we'd "redirect". I don't see anything Hut said that contradicts that. Could you explain what you are trying to get at here? Hobit (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy with the closer deciding to redirect instead of delete, but that still implies that there was a consensus for the redirect/delete option in the first place. "Closer discretion" doesn't get you that. Hut 8.5 07:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, which defaults to keep. Even the closer doesn't argue that there was a consensus in the discussion to merge/redirect. The closure seems to be based on the closer's assertion that there is a meta-consensus to merge barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, but the closer has not identified any policy or guideline or RFC which supports that. The reality is that we have a pattern where in some cases there has been a consensus at AFD to merge/redirect that particular article, but in other cases not to do so. So there is no meta-consensus to enforce merge/redirectin the absence of a local consensus to do so.

So in effect, this closure was a supervote, imposing a personal view as if it was policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus – Admittedly I'm involved in this discussion, but my recommendation here goes against my own !vote, which was to redirect/merge. A straightforward reading of the full discussion shows:
  • Support for keep: Ravenswing, I am One of Many, RebeccaGreen, Cunard, Garlicolive (SPA), schetm
  • Support for delete: The Blade of the Northern Lights, Legacypac, Newshunter12, EEng
  • Support for redirect with mini-bio: The Blade of the Northern Lights, Legacypac, JFG, EEng, SportingFlyer

Indeed this looks like a no consensus outcome. The redirect option gathered support from almost all editors who also supported delete, but from none of those who supported keep. In other words, the middle ground solution or merging to a list was accepted by one side and rejected by the other. Therefore it's a stretch to consider a redirect to be within admin discretion. With less participation, or with defective arguments on either side, the closer could have invoked WP:ATD, but here the outcome does look like a supervote. I also note that the article has been expanded, with improved sourcing, during the course of the discussion, and that is generally a good outcome of the scrutiny arising out of the AfD process. In conclusion, a net positive for the encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Smart Token (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I found out about this CSD G11 deletion per a Reddit thread. While I don't know how likely it is that this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think it's unambiguous advertising or promotion either. The scope of G11 is very narrow: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." This article might have put too much emphasis on one brand (Bancor), but not to the extent that is necessary for a G11 deletion. (note: I'm basing my comment on the article copy that the author posted on Reddit – I never saw the page before it was deleted.) –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming [62] is the draft at the time of deletion, I can't imagine how deletion was justified. Hobit (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that link is the content of the deleted page. Hut 8.5 11:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this was a G11 candidate, so the speedy deletion was a mistake. However it isn't remotely suitable for mainspace and certainly looks like it could be a WP:COATRACK to talk about the Bancor crytocurrency. Every reference is about the Bancor cryptocurrency, it's the only one mentioned, and all the sources are unreliable. Somebody at the linked Reddit thread suggested that the general sanctions for cryptocurrencies allow admins to summarily delete any pages about cryptocurrencies, which is not correct at all. Hut 8.5 11:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bancor cryptocurrency is not (in the vast majority of cases) a smart token, but is commonly "held" by other smart tokens which employ the Bancor Protocol. This article references the Bancor Token on one occasion which describes a security incident involving a Token Relay. This is a case of poor naming by the designers. A an article about Bluetooth is not really trying to promote the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. It just happens the common name for the technology is a brand. The important references to "Bancor" in this article are referring to the Bancor Protocol. I have considered stripping any references to "Bancor" or "Bancor Protocol" out of the text, but not the citations. I don't consider the sources, other than the Medium article "unreliable." Smart Tokens are essentially a form of free and open-source software. You'll find that a majority of software articles fail to meet Wikipedia's source standards, such as the article on par (command) or Krita which are largely or entirely self-referential.Maxlysle (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article had four citations, two to Medium, which are basically blog posts and aren't reliable sources. One is to a technical description of a cryptocurrency protocol, which is also a self-published source by the look of it. The Business Insider source may be OK but it doesn't mention smart tokens at all. Sure, Wikipedia has plenty of badly referenced articles, but that doesn't mean your article shouldn't have good references. It may be that the other articles you link to need to be deleted. If the subjects haven't been covered outside of official documentation then they should be. Hut 8.5 19:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The business insider source, alongside other mainstream sources covering the incident erroneously refer to bancor as an exchange instead of introducing new terminology like "smart token" or "token relay." The same story covered by cointelegraph correctly explains bancor and uses the term smart token^[1]. The coin-telegraph article can be used alongside the business insider source. This is why I believe primary sources should be reliable and accepted. Using strictly Wikipedia-approved reliable sources makes Wikipedia a worse place. A "reliable" Wikipedia is an oudated Wikipedia with superficial or erroneous information. WP:IAR. Maxlysle (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We shouldn't be writing articles based on primary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, they summarise what secondary sources say. The use of primary sources is only permitted in very limited situations (WP:PRIMARY), and I doubt anyone will let you ignore that. Hut 8.5 07:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G11. I've tempundeleted this for review. My initial impression is that the first half of this article, which talks about smart tokens, is clearly not G11 material, but the second half, which talks about Bancor, possibly is. I'm not an expert in cryptocurrency, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how tightly those two concepts are bound to each other. Maxlysle's comments above say they're not tightly bound at all, in which case simply deleting the bancor-specific half might be enough to resolve any G11-ness. I have no idea if this passes WP:N or even WP:V, but I think it's clear that it passes WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much either, but things don't look promotional wrt Bancor in my opinion. And for goodness sake, it's in draft space where things are supposed to have a chance to evolve. This seems like the start of a reasonable article. So basically agree with Roy, but with a bit more vehemence. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum to my comment above. This was suggested for WP:G11 by User:Bkissin, who said, More cryptospam in violation of general sanctions, referring to WP:GS/Crypto. GS/Crypto only talks about policing editor behavior, specifically revert wars. It doesn't say anything about deleting articles. I detest wikispam as much as anybody, but we can't be using GS/Crypto as a WP:CSD just because it's convenient. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as i know, Smart Token is a latest or upgraded version of ERC-20. Therefore, the article in question may need improvement suggestions rather than deleting. While understanding the WP:MTAU, the page creator should learn the facts mentioned on WP:BFAQ. Thanks Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not exactly true anymore. Smart Tokens exist on both Ethereum and EOS, but ERC-20 is a purely Ethereum standard. As for WP:MTAU, I've tried to make the article as clear as possible. I want to expand some sections and provide graphs to help the reader along. As for WP:BFAQ, I want to make it clear that I am not an employee of Bancor and do not hold any Bancor related Tokens. I have no conflict of interest other than I am a fan of the project who knows how it works. Maxlysle (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - It is not "exclusively promotional" and therefore does not meet G11. It is also in the draftspace, which is meant for pages that need improved. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brandonhoilett/Jeremy Jahns (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

has since gained notability and has been credited in multiple news outlets. Brandonhoilett (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. It took me a while to sort out the history. This has been deleted from mainspace twice (AfD-1, AfD-2), with opinion being 8-0 across the two discussions. That was 4 years ago. Consensus can certainly change, but the current draft contains no useful sources. Most of the references are to YouTube video; YouTube is not a WP:RS. One is to a list of reviews the subject wrote, and the last is to some kind of statistics/trivia page. Please see WP:BIO for what we need in the way of sources for a biographical article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted- I agree with Roy that the sourcing is not suitable. Reyk _YO! 15:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep deleted - the refs seem to either not mention, just mention, or cover in the form of interview/otherwise non-neutral Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and keep in draft space I can see that he could easily meet WP:N in the future, but the sources in the article don't get us there at the moment. Reasonable use of draft space however. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Iadarola (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was already directed to use DRV by closing admin. Same closing Admin has salted his decision by preventing editing by non-admin. I have added even more sources, we will be at 30 once I am allowed to edit. I managed to squash first NOM with a strong Keep vote. How they managed to get the second NOM through without my notice, especially with my history on this article, leaves me questioning how it happened. At this point I will refrain from ad hominem about the nominator. When I first came to this article I thought this guy was enough of a public figure to deserve an article, as I said originally, to explain who this guy who talks so much, is. Considering he is one of the top 3 hosts on the largest online network, while many lesser figures on his network have their own articles, it also makes me wonder why his needs to be hidden--hidden through redirect and salted. Trackinfo (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD decision is a year old, seems like the proper result (a couple poor keep arguments, a keep argument which suggested redirection, a couple delete arguments which suggested redirection.) The reason it was salted is because you and others kept undoing the redirect in an attempt to bypass the AfD process, including a reversion of the closer at AfD two days after the redirect was restored from another disruptive editor here who hasn't edited much at all - GreyOverlook (would get a checkuser on that account). SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and keep protected per previous edit warring to sneak around the AfD result. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I closed the AfD, so I'll remain neutral here, other than to say that my only reason for protecting the page was to stop the edit-war. Having a discussion (such as this one) is the better way to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If you have new, better, sources, please link to them. For now I endorse and provide a bit of a WP:TROUT for editing the closed AfD a year later. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not noticed the post-close editing. I endorse the trouting (and have reverted the edit). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD close was straightforward and the nominator hasn't given us any reason to reconsider the result. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was at least the 26th AfD of one of these US TV schedule lists over the past 13 years (full list below)

• 16 keeps, 6 deletes, 3 no consensus
• The last AfD (2018) was closed as delete after one !vote with no relisting (same closing admin)
• The one before that was a 2015 keep

This AfD was open for 3 weeks

• About 20 Saturday morning articles were nominated
• First round: 3 editors commented in favor of keep, 3 editors commented in favor of delete (3-3)
• Second round: an editor commented in favor of keep (4-3)
• Third round: relisted by the closing admin on Nov. 24.
• On Nov. 29 an editor commented in favor of keep (5-3)
• On 2 December 2018 10:09 an editor commented in favor of delete (5-4)
• On 2 December 2018 11:01 an editor commented in favor of delete (5-5)
• On 2 December 2018 11:29 the RfD was closed as a "delete

Closing reason: The result was delete. Given that there is a directly on-issue policy based on broad community consensus, in this case WP:NOTTVGUIDE, telling us that our articles are not "electronic program guides", the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. That is not the case. Only Levivich (somewhat joined by Postdlf) makes a valid argument by attempting to persuade us that these are "historically significant program lists and schedules", but I don't see their argument that a random range of some 20 years is "historically significant" convincing many people here. The other "keep" opinions simply refer to past discussions instead of making arguments of their own; they thereby fail to address the WP:NOTTVGUIDE issue that is the elephant in the room here. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which is misapplied in the discussion), "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which means that merely referring to past AfDs is not a strong argument to make in the face of clear policy compliance issues. The "keep" opinions here must therefore be given significantly less weight for mostly not making any policy-based arguments.

I asked the admin to relist; response: Sorry, no. The discussion ran for three weeks; this was ample time for introducing evidence about the significance (if there is any) of these TV programming schedules. In addition, I find it difficult to imagine that there are sources that establish all of three decades' worth of TV programming as particularly historically significant. This is clearly not what WP:NOTTVGUIDE refers to.

I posted a list of sources on admin's talk page (list below); response (diff): Levivich, this is an impressive amount of sources. But I remain unconvinced that it would have materially impacted the AfD. Based on the titles, these sources establish that the topic of (US) TV programming is well covered by reliable sources. These sources would be a good basis for a prose article about US TV programming, which might include some exemplary schedules, but they do not establish that we need to include all of the uncommented and uncontextualized primary data itself, in apparent violation of WP:NOT. I therefore decline to relist or undo my AfD closure.

I am requesting the deletion be reversed because:

1. I think the closing admin misread the consensus, and it was "no consensus," not "delete consensus"
2. I don't think a heightened standard should have been applied in order for the article to be kept
3. "Significant new information" (the sources below) should be presented in light of I find it difficult to imagine that there are sources that establish all of three decades' worth of TV programming as particularly historically significant.
   • Many sources were posted in prior AfD discussions, but in this discussion, editors referred to those prior discussions/sources without re-listing them. Since this was the reason given by the closing admin, and others may feel the same way, I think sharing these sources/quotes might impact the outcome of an AfD
4. I don't think sources should be judged based on their titles, so I am including pull-quotes below, as well as the links. Sorry for the length; I only paste all these quotes because the closing admin said my last list with only titles didn't cut it.

Scholarship re: TV schedules generally
An Introduction to Television Studies on why TV schedules are important:

• p. 19: "Studying programmes closely as single texts also has the disadvantage of separating a programme from its place in the schedule of the day in which it was broadcast. There are some television programmes which viewers might select and view with special attention (‘must see’ programmes)...At present, television is most often watched as a sequence of programmes, ads, trailers, etc., and of course viewers also switch channels, sometimes part-way through a programme, and their level of attention may vary considerably from moment to moment and programme to programme. Indeed, within programmes, high-points or turning-points are included by programme-makers where breaks for advertisements are to be included. This is done to encourage viewers to stay on the same channel to find out what the consequences or developments will be once the programme returns after the break. The two consequences of studying programmes as individual units relate to the important Television Studies concept of ‘flow’ (Williams 1974). Selecting individual programmes for study means extracting them from the flow of material of which they are a part, and which might have important effects on their meaning. For example, a news programme including items about rising petrol prices might be followed by a commercial break including ads for new cars, and then the programme Fifth Gear, where new cars are reviewed and motoring issues are discussed. While each programme or ad might be interesting to analyse in itself, more meanings relating to speed, pollution, road safety or masculine bravado might arise because of the connections between the programmes and ads in this television flow."

• pp.3-4: "Television Studies has tried to address this situation by looking not only at individual programmes but also at the ways they link together. These links might be in terms of the similarities of one programme with another ... The links might also be in the planning and organisation of a period of viewing, for example an evening’s television schedule on a certain channel. Planning a schedule to include variety, yet also a continuity of interest that can keep a viewer tuned to a single channel, can tell us a lot about how an idea of the viewing audience and its interests drives the organisation of television and assumptions about how television is used and enjoyed. The links between programmes in a schedule are the responsibility of the institutions that broadcast them, and looking at how television institutions work has been important to Television Studies’ understanding of the medium’s role as an industrial product, made and organised in different ways in different parts of the world."

• p. 9: "The discussion of understandings of audience is placed in the context of how broadcasters try to attract and hold audiences, especially through the ways they schedule programmes. The chapter concludes with a case study on television scheduling which develops these issues in more specific detail."

• p. 16: "Like music hall variety performances, talent shows are either really or apparently live, take place in an auditorium setting and are made up of a mix of types of content. But at the same time, on television their domesticity is signified by the placement of the programme within the routines of a schedule designed to match the rhythms of domestic life (mealtimes, work versus leisure time, etc.), modes of address that assume a home audience, and the use of multi-camera shooting techniques to edit the material into an event for television rather than a relayed performance. Television’s hybridity is evident in how some genres of programme borrow and adapt cultural forms."

This book (p.323) explains how TV schedules are analyzed: "Strategies for distributing content in a media world with low barriers to entry are vastly different today because the old strategies are less effective. Still, it is necessary to understand the old strategies, most of which gained popularity in the heyday of broadcast television when scheduling was king. Adams and Eastman (2013) list 14 "classic" scheduling strategies from television's era of limited choices: anchoring, lead-in, hammock, blocking, doubling, linchpin (also known as tentpoling), bridging, countering, blunting, stunting, supersizing, seamless (transition between programs), rotating, and strip sampling (not the same as stripping a syndicated game show or off-network rerun). Each strategy was born in a three- or four-way race for viewer attention in prime time (e.g., 8–11 p.m. Eastern)."

From the Media, Culture & Society journal: "Scheduling is television's key management tool, defining the nature of broadcast output. Yet it has scarcely been studied. Using examples from British television, this article argues that scheduling is the key mechanism by which the structures of television reproduce themselves afresh, day after day. It is the point where the perceived habits and preferences of past viewing audiences govern the arrangement of future television, providing the basic pattern of broadcasting, interpreting and shaping the habits and actions of its viewers and non-viewers. It specifies what programmes are to be made and defines the character or `brand' of each channel and thus the character of each national television universe. As such, it has provided a powerful bulwark against globalization."

The Columbia History of American Television pp. 326–327, Columbia Press: "...Turner's talent was not so much in programming as in counterprogramming. For example, at almost the same moment that CBS was purging its schedule of 'hayseed comedies,' Turner was acquiring such rural favorites as Petticoat Junction, The Andy Griffith Show, and Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. In addition, Channel 17 also scheduled, in daily back-to-back 'strip form,' other classic off-network series like The Lucy Show, Gilligan's Island, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. ... Turner also filled out his schedule with cartoons, country music blocks, and such timeless Saturday morning kiddie fare as The Three Stooges, The Little Rascals, and Abbott & Costello. ... Turner even performed as the host of Academy Award Theater, a movie showcase scheduled on Sunday morning to counter the traditional religious fare appearing on competing stations. Clearly, Turner's 'good old days' counterprogramming was meant to appeal to the Southern audience that was then being systematically abandoned by the networks."

This journal on counterprogramming: "This study analyzed the mean shares of network primetime series aired from 1963 to 1985. It was found that the network that counterprograms the situation in which competing networks are blunting each other with programs of the same type has done well, although counterprogramming with movies may have some limitations. The network that blunts another network's program by offering a program of a similar type, though, has tended to do poorly whenever the third network countered with a program of a different type. The data suggest that programmers would be wise to counterprogram situations in which the competing networks are blunting each other and avoid placing themselves in blunting situations."

Encyclopedia Britannica discussing the cultural significance of The Mary Tyler Moore Show airing at the same time as That Girl: "Although news coverage brought increasingly disturbing reports as the decade progressed, prime-time programming presented an entirely different picture. The escapist fictional fare of prime time made little reference to what was being reported on the news. That began to change in the late 1960s and early ’70s, but the transition was an awkward one; some shows began to reflect the new cultural landscape, but most continued to ignore it. That Girl (ABC, 1966–71), an old-fashioned show about a single woman living and working in the big city—with the help of her boyfriend and her “daddy”—aired on the same schedule as The Mary Tyler Moore Show (CBS, 1970–77), a new-fashioned comedy about a single woman making it on her own. In the same week, one could watch The Lawrence Welk Show (ABC, 1955–71), a 15-year-old musical variety program that featured a legendary polka band, and Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In (NBC, 1968–73), an irreverent new comedy-variety show plugged into the 1960s counterculture."

"This paper introduces SPOT (Scheduling Programs Optimally for Television), an analytical model for optimal prime-time TV program scheduling." - Management Science
Scholarship re: Saturday morning TV schedules This book at mit.edu has a chapter "From Saturday Morning to Around the Clock"

• p. 61: "Yet this early period was the formative era for television cartoons, establishing most of the assumptions that the genre would adhere to until the 1990s–especially for industrial practices, as television networks linked the genre explicitly with a scheduling timeslot that would come to define the cultural category with a three--word phrase: Saturday morning cartoons."

• p. 62: "Cartoons had virtually disappeared from other parts of the network time schedule, with the era of primetime cartoon experimentation ending by the mid-1960s. Syndicated cartoons still persisted across the schedule, but ratings were far weaker, especially among adults. Most importantly, cartoons were now culturally defined as a genre whose primary audience was children, and not legitimate entertainment for adults as part of a mass audience."

This journal article explores those TV scheduling strategies for Saturday morning cartoons: "This study investigated the effects of various programming strategies, commonly employed by the networks, on program popularity for children. Viewing data for prime time and Saturday morning program were collected in the fall, winter, and spring of the ‘75-'76 season. Simple correlations supported the relationship between program popularity and the following programming strategies: counterprogramming by type, block programming by type, inheritance effects, starting time, program familiarity, and character familiarity. Regression analysis, which controlled for relationships among programming strategies, confirmed the effects of program familiarity and starting time only. The results, suggest that children are not highly adventurous viewers. On the contrary, it appears that past experience with a program coupled with availability of the child audience are overriding determinants of program popularity."

Encyclopedia Britannica on why Saturday is an important day for television: "To encourage sales, daytime sports broadcasts were scheduled on weekends in an effort to lure heads of households to purchase sets they saw demonstrated in local appliance stores and taverns—the venues where most TV viewing in America took place before 1948."

This book p. 180: "The kind of programming one sees on Saturday morning is decidedly different from what airs on most stations on Thursday evening or Sunday afternoon. The differences occur because, even though one individual may watch television at all of those times, the core mass of viewers for each of those time periods is seen as demographically distinct. At the same time, a variety of interest are balanced in the production and programming of any single show. ... Moreover, the production of multiple ideological positions can be viewed as an effect of programming practices, as individual episodes and programs are situated within the larger system of program flow."

This book p. 194 discusses TV cartoons changing from superheroes -> Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids -> Saturday morning -> Schoolhouse Rocks
TV schedules analyzed (not just reported) by the media

TVGuide 2013 "Inside the Scheduling Wars: Why TV Lineups Still Matter"

"Why is TV scheduling important" from some company that sells some kind of services having to do with TV scheduling.

Business Insider: "'The fourth network'—the name that became synonymous with FOX—flipped the television model on its head, aggressively challenging how the other three networks ran their line-ups, adding unheard of weekend prime-time line-ups and stealing the NFL games from CBS... Many of FOX's counterprogramming techniques not only led to the network's ultimate success, but also helped shape television today. ... One other insight was that the big networks were required by the government to dedicate 7-8 p.m.Sunday nights to news or family programming. Since FOX wasn't officially a network, it didn't have to play by these rules. It could air whatever it wanted during that time, providing a much-needed leg up on the competition. When the network premiered, Fox decided to air two shows back to back and repeated their airings twice consecutively. Sunday: "Married ... with Children" 7 p.m., 8 p.m., 9 p.m. "The Tracey Ulman Show" 7:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., 9:30 p.m. ... However, it wasn't all pretty for Fox's favorite cartoon family. The show stirred the pot often. A few countries have banned the show from their lineups, and in 1990, an ABC executive said "The Simpsons" "lowered the civility level of young boys all over America."

Business Insider (same article as above): "The network saw a chance to make Saturday mornings a home for kids, as much as ABC made TGIF a staple. During the 1991-1992 season, the kids' block made huge headway with shows including, "Beetlejuice," "Batman the Animated Series" and "Tiny Toon Adventures." The Fox Saturday morning directly competed with NBC and by December of 1991, the big three channel waved the white flag, pulled their cartoon block on the weekend and reverted to airing Saturday TODAY, a weekend component to its weekday version. FOX took the opportunity to expand its Saturday morning lineup. In the years to follow, weekday afternoon scheduling followed along with other big hits including "Power Rangers," which almost never came to air."

WaPo "Saturday morning cartoons are no more": "In 1992, NBC was the first broadcast network to swap Saturday morning cartoons for teen comedies such as “Saved by the Bell” and a weekend edition of the “Today” show. Soon, CBS and ABC followed suit. In 2008, Fox finally replaced Saturday morning cartoons with infomercials."

LATimes 1992: "NBC said Friday that it will officially bid goodby to young children on Saturday mornings Sept. 12, when the network drops the last of its cartoons to pick up three new live-action series targeted at teen-agers--"Name Your Adventure," "California Dreams" and "Double Date." By also adding a second half-hour installment of "Saved By the Bell," currently the top-rated Saturday-morning program among teens, NBC will create a 2 1/2-hour block of programming for older kids starting at 10 a.m."

WaPo 1996: "CBS, which has long had trouble in the weekend kiddie competition, announced yesterday that next fall it will devote three hours on Saturday mornings to children's educational/informational programming and another two hours to a network news broadcast for grown-ups... Details of the fall CBS schedule, including the children's lineup, will be announced in February, but a network source yesterday suggested a "distinct possibility" that the news broadcast, to be called "CBS News Saturday Morning," could directly compete with the weekend edition of NBC's "Today," which is seen here on WRC for two hours starting at 7, and the weekend edition of ABC's "Good Morning America," which starts its two hours on WJLA at 8 ... CBS's 17-years-young "Sunday Morning" already provides classy counterprogramming to the Sunday editions of the NBC and ABC magazines ..."

Variety 1998: "CBS dropped out of the Saturday-morning cartoon race last year in a bid to counterprogram the long-dominant Fox Kids Network and help the Eye web stand out amid increased competition from netlets UPN and the WB and cablers like Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network."

The Norman Rockwell Museum website has an article: "Hanna-Barbera: The Architects of Saturday Morning"

Grunge: "The real reason why Saturday morning cartoons disappeared, discussing the impact of the 1990 Children's Television Act and 1996 enforcement actions upon the "death" of Saturday morning cartoons

Another article about Saturday Morning cartoons:

• "When NBC and CBS began reducing their childrens programming on Saturdays in 1988-1990, FOX jumped aboard the bandwagon and laid the cornerstone for its FOX Kids Network. NBC chose to delve into live-action teen entertainment, hallmarked by Saved by the Bell. Presently, NBC is in partnership with Discovery Kids; a Saturday edition of Today either precedes or follows Discovery Kids. CBS initially chose to replace its cartoons with news from local affiliates and now airs a national morning show, which is either preceded or followed by childrens content from Nick Jr."
• "Most FOX affiliates did not have local news, so FOX Kids was able to go to a six-day-a-week schedule. For the first time, you had a set of kids who had Saturday morning fare six days a week. FOX started to feed an appetite but it was only two hours a day. Before the FOX Kids weekday lineup in 1991, weekday cartoons existed in the realm of syndication. The difficulty with syndicating any show is that local affiliates determine a shows timeslot. There is no continuity across the country and no way to promote the proceeding show. FOX Kids weekday lineup created a single promotional machine, adds Gaither. FOX Kids came on at the same time across the country and promoted to the next day [and Saturday]. FOX Kids created a need in kids for more programming aimed directly at them. Problems for cartoons on broadcast networks stemmed from what began as "promoting to the next show" on FOX. Promoting to the next show transformed into a churning desire in children to see more programming."

LATimes: "The programming schedule remains an important part of TV...You can see what happens when a hit like 'The Big Bang Theory' is a lead-in as opposed to a normal show being a lead-in. Having a big lead-in affects the performance of the shows behind it. Scheduled shows that are big tent poles drive viewers to other shows..."

Chicago Tribune: "Yogi Bear eventually gave way to Scooby-Doo. "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids" gave way to "Slimer! And the Real Ghostbusters." And then "Pokemon" gave way to "Yu-Gi-Oh!" Saturday morning cartoons' time has given way to something else too. It's just another one of those things you don't miss until it's gone (like the iPod Classic)."

1991 Baltimore Sun article discussing cartoons aimed at young kids sponsored by toy companies vs. shows aimed at teenagers sponsored by clothing companies, and comparing the Saturday morning and weekday afternoon (after-school) timeslots. "It was about a decade ago that those little blue creatures kept NBC from getting out of the Saturday morning children's cartoon business. 'The Smurfs' became a huge hit and plans to put on a Saturday version of 'Today' went back on the shelf. Now, the network executives have dusted those plans off and are presenting them to a meeting of some of its affiliate stations this week in Palm Springs, Calif. It's expected that in the next year or so, NBC will launch a two-hour "Today" that will run 8 to 10 a.m. on Saturdays, followed by two hours of programming aimed at a teen-age audience or a slightly younger group that NBC likes to call 'tweens.'"

In 2016: "Preteen Saturday Morning Kids Shows Abandoned By Broadcast Networks" (about the Children's Television Act) "Litton’s Game Changers, which airs Saturday mornings on CBS stations as part of the CBS Dream Team block, highlights inspirational stories about athletes who give back to their communities. ... Each episode of the half-hour show, which includes 7.5 minutes of advertising, is “Presented by” and “Sponsored by” EA Sports, whose logo can be seen on-screen more than 30 different times on each show. Host Kevin Frazier even introduces the show as “AE Sports’ Game Changers,” though CBS doesn’t call it that on its website and CBS stations don’t refer to it as such in the quarterly reports they file with the FCC. Each Game Changers also ends with a three-minute behind-the scenes-look ... Unlike actual infomercials, which pay the stations to air their paid programming, Litton’s shows receive no license fees from the stations. “This is not paid programming,” Meg LaVigne, president of television at Litton, said, “but high-quality, award-winning content that relies, in part, on partnerships to deliver compelling stories to audiences across the country.” The FCC’s ban on “host-selling” prohibits the use of “program talent or other identifiable program characteristics to deliver commercials during or adjacent to children’s programming featuring that character.” But ABC’s Jack Hanna’s Wildlife Countdown, another Litton show, gets around this rule because it says its target audience is kids aged 13-16, which qualifies it as a “core program” but exempts it from the “host-selling” rule." (Wikipedia article on Litton's_Weekend_Adventure.)

NYTimes: "The audience losses appeared to be a result of the continued dominance of top-rated Nickelodeon, improved ratings at Cartoon Network and new efforts this season by CBS and PBS to tailor their programming to ages 2 to 5, an audience that had fewer options on Saturday mornings. CBS's Saturday morning lineup was programmed for toddlers by Nickelodeon this television season. (Both outlets are owned by Viacom). Shows like Flying Rhino Junior High and Blaster's Universe were replaced by Nickelodeon shows like Blue's Clues and Dora the Explorer and presented together under a Nick Jr. on CBS title. Thanks to the new lineup, CBS's young audience more than doubled. PBS meanwhile introduced a block of weekend morning children's cartoons. Called Bookworm Bunch, the block includes shows like Corduroy, Elliot Moose and Timothy Goes to School. With it, the PBS stations showed a combined increase of roughly 50 percent in their children's audience on Saturday mornings this season. But very young children were not the whole story in children's television. Fox and WB were clearly hurt by an erosion of the audience for their big Saturday morning hits imported from Japan, Digimon for Fox and Pokémon for WB, though Pokémon remains the top-rated Saturday morning cartoon in broadcast television."

How Stuff Works: An article about the job of programming director that mentions the significance of The Simpsons moving in 1990 from Sunday night to Thursday night opposite The Cosby Show.

Vox: An article about the significance of fall TV lineups to advertisers and the concept of "upfronts" (prepaid ad buys)

Even more links...

• Sources listed at previous AfDs
  1. Graves, Earl G. (1986). Black Enterprise. Earl G. Graves, Ltd. (discussing a TV executive's Saturday morning scheduling)
  2. Shapiro, Mitchell (1992-09-01). Television Network Weekend Programming, 1959-1990 (1st ed.). Jefferson, N.C: McFarland. ISBN 9780899506821.
  3. Salmans, Sandra. "WHY SATURDAY MORNING IS ONE BIG 'CARTOON GHETTO'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  4. HAITHMAN, DIANE (1987-09-03). "HOW IMAGE MAKERS SHAPE KIDS' TV : Q5 Firm Advises ABC on the Look and Style of Cartoon Shows; Some Writers Call It Intrusion". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  5. Heldenfels, Richard D. (1994). Television's Greatest Year: 1954. Continuum International Publishing Group, Limited. ISBN 9780826406750.
  6. Hyatt, Wesley (1997-10-01). The Encyclopedia of Daytime Television: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Daytime TV but Didn't Know Where to Look! from American Bandstand, As the World Turns, and Bugs Bunny, to. New York: Watson-Guptill Pubns. ISBN 9780823083152.
  7. Headen, Robert S.; Klompmaker, Jay E.; Rust, Roland T. (1979). "The Duplication of Viewing Law and Television Media Schedule Evaluation". Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (3): 333–340. doi:10.2307/3150707.
  8. Castleman, Harry (1984). The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 9780070102774.Haralovich, Mary Beth; Rabinovitz, Lauren (1999). Television, History, and American Culture: Feminist Critical Essays. Duke University Press. ISBN 082232394X.
  9. Wheatley, Helen (2007-12-15). Re-viewing Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781845111885.
  10. Dominick, Joseph R.; Pearce, Millard C. (1976-03-01). "Trends in Network Prime-Time Programming, 1953–74". Journal of Communication. 26 (1): 70–80. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01360.x. ISSN 0021-9916.
  11. Shapiro, Mitchell E. (1989). Television Network Prime-Time Programming, 1948-1988. McFarland. ISBN 9780899504124.
  12. Shapiro, Mitchell E. (2009). Television Network Prime Time Programming, 1985-2007. McFarland & Company. ISBN 9780786438129.
  13. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (2007-10-16). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present (9th ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 9780345497734.
  14. HAITHMAN, DIANE (1988-02-20). "Playing for Ratings : Networks Program, Then Counterprogram". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  15. Adalian, Josef. "Why 1994-95 Was One of Network TV's Last Truly Great Seasons". Vulture. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  16. Littleton, Cynthia (2015-01-29). "NBC's 'Blacklist' Move Creates Drama Over Thursday Lineup". Variety. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  17. Kissell, Rick (2014-07-28). "CBS Moves 'Extant' to 10 p.m., Away From Summer's Top Show". Variety. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  18. O'Neal, Sean. "NBC's Thursday night comedies receive cold, mocking laughter from the ratings". News. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  19. LOWRY, BRIAN (2000-04-14). "'TGIF'? Well, ABC's Not So Sure Anymore". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  20. Steinberg, Brian (2014-05-14). "CBS To Launch 'NCIS,' 'CSI' Spinoffs, Start 'Big Bang' On Monday". Variety. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  21. "Saturday night is dead, yes, but Friday, too?". SFGate. 2007-10-09. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  22. "'Grimm' and other shows that have escaped the Friday Night Death Slot". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
  23. Welch, Michelle. "ABC cancels Ugly Betty; killed by Friday night death slot". AV Club. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

• Wikipedia articles about TV schedule slots
  • Saturday-morning cartoon
  • Friday night death slot
  • Animation Domination
  • TGIF (ABC)
  • The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present
• Prior AfDs
  1. (2005 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1959-60 American network television schedule
  2. (2006 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule
  3. (2006 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  4. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  5. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule (old)
  6. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule
  7. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule
  8. (2007 no consensus, default keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles
  9. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday)
  10. (2007 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)
  11. (2008 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008-09 United States network television schedule
  12. (2008 no consensus, default keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)
  13. (2008 keep ) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982–1983 United States network television schedule (late night)
  14. (2009 no consensus, default keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules
  15. (2011 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  16. (2011 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–2013 United States network television schedule (weekday)
  17. (2011 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule
  18. (2011 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (2nd nomination)
  19. (2012 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)
  20. (2012 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination)
  21. (2013 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule
  22. (2014 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule (late night)
  23. (2015 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  24. (2015 keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  25. (2018 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
  26. (this AfD, 2018 delete) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
• Prior RfCs
  • 2008 - discussion on #NOTDIR Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23#NOTDIR and TV schedules
  • 2009 - Very thorough discussion of the topic Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules

Levivich (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) DRV Commentary[reply]

• Endorse Per the following, responding to the nominator's points one by one:

1. Closing admin misread consensus: I think the delete consensus was valid, and the closer properly identified the policy difference between keeps and deletes
2. Heightened standard: I'm not sure which heightened standard is being referred to
3. Significant new information: There have been a lot of discussions about this topic, and the sources above aren't "new" - there's not significant new information, especially since as far as I can tell, none of these would properly source the articles being commented on, at least as far as I can tell
4. Sources were listed in other AfDs: sources aside, the AfD listed doesn't really discuss the WP:NOTVGUIDE argument which many voters used in the current AfD. SportingFlyer talk 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ...the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. (Why was this AfD treated differently from any other AfD, after 25 previous ones mostly resulted in keep consensus?) Levivich (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Why do none of these properly source the articles? Shapiro 1992 and Castleman 1984? Levivich (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You inserted a comment within my comment, so I've moved it out immediately following. Furthermore, many of the other AfDs, from what I've seen, and I haven't seen all of them, failed to discus WP:NOTTVGUIDE in detail. SportingFlyer talk 19:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about putting my comment in the wrong place and thank you for moving it. If you haven't seen all the previous AfDs, please see these, each of which involves detailed discussions of NOTTVGUIDE:

2018 (subject of this delrev)

2015

2012

2011

But I agree not all the previous AfDs discussed NOTTVGUIDE, like this one-!vote delete, and this three-!vote delete. Levivich (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold deletion. This is the umpteenth time these articles have been nominated for deletion in the last decade and throughout all the reasons under the sun various contributors have come up with to keep these articles, in my view policy trumps all. We have very clear policies on notability, verifibility and what Wikipedia is not and the nominator has made a very thorough case for undeletion but in all had three weeks to demonstrate this directly in the articles. All those sources do not clearly verify or provide notability for the many years of TV programming that are precised to the 1/2 hour time slot they were broadcast in. In particularly two policies become a recurring theme: WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR, however this is also a simple case of WP:NOTIINFO as well. In my view they simply do not belong in the encyclopedia and are better suited to another medium, such as Wikisource. Lastly the remaining articles are currently up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)) so no decision should be made until that AfD has closed. Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Argument phrased as a question: How can it be that:

• An article about Saturday morning cartoons is OK
• An article about CBS and Hanna-Barbera is OK
• A List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, showing the year each show was released is OK
• An article about The Tom and Jerry Comedy Show, showing what channel it was on and when it was released is OK
• A list of Tom & Jerry episodes in that article, showing what date each episode aired, is OK
• But a table showing what show aired on what channel at what time is "not notable" or "indiscriminate information"? How can information that is notable elsewhere become unimportant when re-arranged into a comparative presentation, especially when the comparative presentation (TV scheduling) is the subject of scholarly study? Why are episode lists encyclopedic but TV schedules not encyclopedic? I'm honestly trying but I just cannot see the distinction. Levivich (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that your argument has a piece of incorrect information which makes your conclusion based on false facts. In none of those articles do the TV programs have an "Aired at 7pm eastern time", which is why the WP:NOTTVGUIDE specifically mentions electronic program guides, which is what those articles where. Additionally, all of the articles you've listed have a notable context, while the "xxxx United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)" has no context at all. --Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for narrowing this down for me to the issue of what time the program aired. I think this is an important aspect of a television program, and that's backed up by RS's. I would use examples from 1960s Saturday morning cartoons, but those articles are now deleted, so I can't access the schedules. So I'm going with the 1980s ones from our conversation at that AfD:

The academics who study Saturday morning cartoons focus on what time they're on. For example: Studying programmes closely as single texts also has the disadvantage of separating a programme from its place in the schedule of the day in which it was broadcast...Selecting individual programmes for study means extracting them from the flow of material of which they are a part, and which might have important effects on their meaning... While each programme or ad might be interesting to analyse in itself, more meanings relating to speed, pollution, road safety or masculine bravado might arise because of the connections between the programmes and ads in this television flow. - An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. The author is saying you cannot understand a television show without understanding its broadcasting context–the "flow"–what comes before, what comes after, and what is on at the same time. It's important that Tom & Jerry precedes Bugs Bunny. It's an example of pairing and lead-in.

For example: This study investigated the effects of various programming strategies, commonly employed by the networks, on program popularity for children...Simple correlations supported the relationship between program popularity and the following programming strategies: counterprogramming by type, block programming by type, inheritance effects, starting time, program familiarity, and character familiarity. - "Programming Strategies and the Popularity of Television Programs for Children", Human Communication Research journal. The study factored in start time, counterprogramming (what else is on at the same time), and blocking (like, Might Mouse + Tom & Jerry + Bugs Bunny + Popeye).

My point being, an article about Tom & Jerry would and should include its airing time, what came before and after it, and what was on at the same time. That's just as important as who produced a TV show or who starred in it. If you made a list of Saturday morning TV shows, you'd want to include network and airtime on that list. If you rearrange that into a TV schedule, that's an improvement of the list, and a legitimate resource for academic researchers, or at least it seems that way to me. Just as much a valuable part of an encyclopedia of human knowledge as a list of all the species of moths, or a list of all the episodes of Game of Thrones. Levivich (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "policy trumps all. " is a statement that, ironically, is a total misstatement of WP policy. We do have something that trumps all policies except legal considerations, WP:IAR. It's one of the WP:FIVE fundamental principles on which WP is based. We can and do include any article that has consensus to be included. AfD and DR are where we determine it. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot: the AfD for the remaining pages will decide this. The nominator there didn't even bother writing out a rationale, because it is exactly the same. Modernponderer (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There was an AfD for one group of these lists, which only one editor (me) thought should not have been closed as a delete. Then, a second AfD for the remaining lists, referring entirely to the first AfD, was closed with consensus to delete (again, only one editor, me, !voting keep). That doesn't make the closure of the first AfD "moot," that makes the closure of the first AfD endorsed. I think the closing admin deserves to have it on the "permanent record" that this delrev was endorsed, and not closed due to any other reason (like mootness or withdrawal). Given that I've questioned the admin's decision to close, perhaps the admin deserves official affirmation/support/vindication rather than leaving it as any sort of ambiguity. Also, in case this should ever come up again in the future (there are still 100+ of these articles left to be AfD'd...), better to clarify that the Saturday morning schedules were deleted after AfD and the subsequent delrev was endorsed, rather then mooted or withdrawn. Just my two cents (we must be up to several thousand dollars' worth by now). I'm not sure what's best at this point so I leave it up to the community/closing admin (pinging @Sandstein:), if the preferred/easier thing is for me to withdraw this delrev, I'll withdraw it, but I think it's an endorse. This horse is thoroughly dead. Levivich (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter to me, but thanks for the ping. Sandstein 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Levivich, to be clear, you were not the only editor who disagreed with the previous close. As I made clear at the new AfD, I did too. But consensus has clearly changed. Modernponderer (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Rationale given does not merit overturning AFD. The argument that this could, maybe, be of interest to pop culture studies someday doesn't trump common sense that this isn't what a general-interest encyclopedia is for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]