Brahma Chellaney (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Absence of a reasoned and consensual decision among the editors Alpinespace (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse that's no reason to overturn a discussion regarding a speedy delete on copyvio grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and relist. I'm certainly willing to entertain that this could have been WP:G11, but looking at "Deleted revision of Brahma Chellaney (as of 22 December 2019, at 17:47)", I'm not seeing any copyvios. The reason given for the 28 December deletion was, Deleted as requested in User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8#Deleted article re-appears, but that's not a valid WP:CSD. Neither is asserting that it's a copyvio without saying what it's a copyvio of. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As it was deleted per AfD, and undeleted by User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Anthony Appleyard is entitled to re-delete it on his discretion, and given the mess of its deletion log, and the discussion at User_talk:Usernamekiran#Deleted_article_re-appears involving both involved admins, even without seeing the deleted content I feel confident in endorsing User:Anthony Appleyard action.

Recommend considering the deletion as WP:TNT. Encourage re-creation in draftspace given the lack of editing experience by the proponents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: the problem is, the AfD never really happened. It was closed down after six hours by Anthony Appleyard's speedy deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Requesting temp undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, as I look through the history more closely, I do see some assertions of specific copyvios, which appear to have been cleaned. So, I've re-deleted all the revisions prior to the last one; that should be good enough for this review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer See my comments immediately above. I messed up with my copyvio cleanup. I thought I was revdel-ing everything prior to the final revision, but apparently I only got one history page's worth of revisions. If this does end up being restored/kept, somebody will need to go through and do a better audit of which revisions are copyvio-tarnished and which are clean. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Not a valid G11. Not a G12. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The AfD alleged that this was copyvio content, but did not even suggest a source, and none of the deletion logs so much as mention any copyright issue. A quick google did not find a source -- earwig's tool will not run on a deleted article. I just reviewed (well, scanned, not a true review) the version just before deletion, and while it seems to contain some puffery, it didn't look to me anywhere close to G11 territory (nor TNT either, which is not policy after all, merely an essay). As RoySmith says just above, the Afd in effect never happened -- certainly not as a substantial discussion, so we are left with speedy deletion. G11, in my view does not apply, and G12 never applies without a named source. None of the reason in the user talk page discussion linked above and in one deletion log entry seem to me to justify deletion. Anyone who wants this deletes should either provide documentation of copyright issues, if there are any, or start a new AfD, and let it run full length. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add that the com metn in the linked talk-page discussion by The Gnome that after a decision to delete has been taken, we are in no position to ask whether or not an article "contain[s] any queryable matter". The text may have been improved but the process of posting up the text immediately after the AfD is against all due-process etiquette; such action effectively renders the AfD process null and void. is in my view seriously mistaken. A new version that deals with the issues for which the deletion was done is pretty much always acceptable, and unless the name was salted, going through draft is not required, although it is often advisable. That is doubly true when the original reasons for deletion are invalid, and there has been no general deletion discussion, as was the case here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DES, you appear to be suggesting that every article being deleted through an AfD process can re-appear immediately after its deletion with an ostensibly "changed" text and the editor who recreated it justifying their action by claiming that the text now "addresses all the issues for which it was deleted". (I'm not referring to this specific article or its AfD.) I sincerely hope I'm reading you wrongly since such a loop hole would seriously undermine the whole clean up process. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, The Gnome I am not only suggesting that I am saying exactly that. However, whether the changed article does in fact address the issues is not left solely to the judgement of the re-creating editor. If any other editor thinks the issues are not addressed it can be tagged for speed deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The reviewing admin must then evaluate whether the recreated version is "sufficiently similar" wording that is explicitly present in WP:CSD#G4. I do this every time I handle a G4 tag, and I hope and trust that other admins do so also. If an editor blatantly or repeatedly recreates deleted articles without making significant changes, when the editor should have known better, that might well be considered disruptive editing and be worthy of a block. If it happens multiple times on a single article, that title might be salted. But a single recreation that is a good faith effort to deal with the issues in the AfD, particularly added sourcing not considered by the AfD, is indeed permitted. We often advise going through a draft stage, but no policy requires this. See the current discussion on WT:DRV# Clarify purpose for more on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This history identifies [1], [2], and [3] as sources of material copied into the article. I didn't check the first two, but the last one was from the very first edit (and it looks like after a little back and forth, that content did remain in the article). WilyD 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow re-creation. It's copyright infringement from edit one. If someone wants to write a new version that's licence compliant, they're free to. But, "Hey, can we violate the licence?" is not a discussion we should have, and the overturn !votes arguing we should restore infringing content must be ignored. WilyD 09:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wily, the recreated article was posted by me on 21 December 2019. No one has pointed to any copyvio content in it. Alpinespace (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The second edit marked the first as a copy-vio, and after a bit of edit warring, the copy-vio content was retained. It's never a good idea to keep something built on copyvio, and at least the paragraphs starting "He was one of the authors..." and "Professor Chellaney has held appointments..." appear to derive from that first version. WilyD 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wily, I'm afraid no documentation of specific copyright issues has ever been provided. I've been through the history of the deleted article that had been on Wikipedia for almost 11 years and checked for any copyvio content in it, but I couldn't find any. I checked the three URLs you identified but didn't find any copyvio material from them. (The first URL is of a page that has a short conference description and pictures of conference participants, including a picture of the subject of the deleted article. The second URL is of a blog that reproduces that subject's Wall Street Journal article. And the third URL appears to be a dead link.) The more-recent recreation of the deleted article was a good-faith attempt to offer a much shorter version in which virtually every sentence was backed by sourcing. Alpinespace (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The third url is a dead link now, but it's where copyright violating content came from, back in 2006, that remains in the article to this day. There's no way to restore the existing content, it'd have to be G12'd immediately. The only way to write an article would be to start over from scratch, not re-using copyright infringing content. WilyD 06:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wily, it will be really helpful if you could specify what copyright-infringing material was taken from the third URL. It appears that the third URL was just a source (in other words, a citation/endnote) to support a biographical reference in the article. You have presumed that the deleted page contained copyright-infringing content but you have not offered any proof in support. The history of the article does not contain any allegation of copyright violation, unless we mistake the undeletion of the deleted article by Anthony Appleyard (who later again deleted the page) as amounting to copyvios of the first version. As RoySmith points out, he has not seen any copyvios. And as DES correctly states, none of the deletion logs mentions any copyvio issue. Alpinespace (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Look at the history - when the article was created, it was entirely a copyvio. Back in naive ol' 2006, people tried just blanking it out, but the copyright violator won the day, and the copyvio was restored and has been in the article (with bits of modification) ever since. There's no way the article can be restored. If there's to be an article, it needs to be started from scratch. It's no different than if you realise a used diaper was dropped in the meat grinder after everything is in casings. You don't try to pick out the problem bits, you throw them out and start over. WilyD 14:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn but send to WP:CP OK, the copyright violation we are talking about is that the first revision was copied from this (archived) source. And that this copyvio content partially remained within the article even as it was expanded. It it not grounds for speedy deletion though as some of the material now in the article isn't a copyright violation and thus the G12 criteria are not met, but certainly grounds to send the article to WP:CP in order to have the carried-over copyvio and the corresponding page revisions cleaned/hidden. Not all of the new content is spammy either so G11 does not apply either, although I am agnostic on whether the topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant copyright infringement is a grounds for speedy deletion - one of the two important ones (along with G10). Some of the copyright infringing material remains in the current version of the article, and purging it trying to work out how to do attribution for the rest will be a complete mess. And in general, making some alterations to copyright infringing material can be legally okay, but is a huge problem for the licence. I haven't completely checked, but probably every version in the history is copyright infringing. There's just nothing to do with cases where every version in the history is a copyright problem but to delete it and start over. WilyD 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blatant copyright infringement is not always grounds for speedy deletion; from the policy emphasis mine This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. and not all of the content of the revisions past or present is a copyright violation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSC Yugal (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The file 1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg was a photograph taken by my father George Posa on his camera in circa 1957. His copyright interest is remaining in the photo and he consents to use of it on this website. He is happy to send an email to Wiki if it is required. Please reverse Fastily's (20 July 2108 UTC) and innotata's (12 July 2018 UTC) deletion of this historical photograph. Thanks.

Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Most ediors preferred keeping the article rather the merge. I think the close should be reversed and the article kept in accordance with consensus. After the merge mass content was deleted. If it is too long for the main article then it can be split. QuackGuru (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Wouldn't mind a relist, but considering the whole AfD nomination failed WP:SKCRIT #1 because "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging"... Any merge discussion should go to Talk:Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak. Reading the AfD, there doesn't seem to be a consensus what do with an article, some advocating keep, some agreeing with a merge, re-purpose mentions, even a delete on top of it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold - AFD is not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, good close.

Speedy close; out of scope of DRV. No deletion. The right place to continue discussion, including challenges to reverse the merge, or to consider other SPINOUT options, is Talk:2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products#Undo merge proposal not here. And Not FORUMSHOPPING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was de-listed and I was told to come here if I want to challenge the close. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Beland (talk · contribs) in referring you here. WP:DRV is not for managing merges and contested merges. The advice of the closer, Callanecc (talk · contribs) should be sought before launching either an RfC or DRV. I note the problem on a lack of guidance on starting RfCs, and on contesting the unilateral close of a premature RfC, and that is an issue for WT:RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) appears to have been responsible for enacting the close. He should be invited to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whee! -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose number one of DRV is for discussions where the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Cases of blatant supervotes that ignore both policy and the discussion at XfD are exactly the purpose of DRV. WilyD 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The title phrase, "Media reports of ..." is a red flag for WP:NOR. Are there sources commenting on the "media reports of ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • nope - it was just a list of individual cases that happened to have been in a paper. At least none of them were the Sun or the Daily Mail any more by the time of the AFD - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AfD is not a vote, and the spinoff article was an unencyclopedic laundry list. (Also, Callanecc should have at least been spoken to prior to filing a DRV if the outcome was in dispute, if nothing else than to hear his reasoning.) I actually just put back the merge that was in dispute before the AfD took place; it was Beland who originally performed it and took it to AfD when it was disputed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's recommended that you try discussing it with the closing admin, but it's not required. In cases of such a blatant supervote, it's probably usually better to move to DRV than to have a discussion with the closer that's almost certainly going to be pointless, and will be liable to raise the overall tension level in the situation. A more public forum like this is then a better idea. A lot of deletions are speedies where the admin failed to notice something, or cases you want to re-do on new information. Those kinds of situations are usually resolvable with a short discussion with the deleting admin, which is why you're recommended to go that route. WilyD 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think it's generally a good step, if for no other reason than to be able to say "The admin explained their reasoning and stood by it, and I still disagree." I know in a couple of cases with me, someone's pointed out to me something I missed, and I smacked my head and said "You're absolutely right, and I should've seen that, I'll reverse it." None of us are immune to errors. In other cases, sure, I said "I know that, but I still stand by my decision, and here's why." But at the very least, at least one should attempt discussion first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, I think it's generally a good step, and in fact will usually resolve situations faster and more amicably. But that's not the same as universally, and in a case like this, I don't think it's wise or kind to force an editor to confront an admin where such a process is liable to be intimidating or otherwise needlessly stressful and unproductive. WilyD 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not mandatory because there are really good reasons why we don't want the discussion closer to become the gatekeeper for a deletion review. DRV should be easily accessible to anyone who disagrees with a close -- the bar is set deliberately low.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep - policy is a clear keep, headcount is a clear keep. There's absolutely no basis for such an obvious closer supervote to impose an outcome they could never achieve by discussion. Really, absolutely zero arguments are presented for deletion or merge, other than sometimes articles with similar titles have original research problems (but not that this article did, because it seems as though it did not - so such an argument is neither here nor there). It is true that the title is a bit wonky, but I would be reluctant to impose a move to the title suggested by Blue Raspberry given that no one else commented on it, but a move to Cases in the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak is probably in order WilyD 06:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria is hospitalized cases. I would rename it to "Hospitalized cases in the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak". QuackGuru (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See talk page. After the merge, editors are still aggressively trying to expunge the merged content. That is against the close of the merge. We don't merge and then do a backdoor deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a content-based objection, not what you're depicting it as. WP:MEDRS applies - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly, we shouldn't have an article with this title, so I'd endorse the close as merge (clearly preferable to the only viable alternative which was "keep"). An encyclopaedia is a summary of what the reliable sources say. This is not a summary, it's immensely comprehensive -- inappropriately so in my view, to the point of being unencyclopaedic. I suspect the purpose of this article is to make a point.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was its creation, presumably because this content was excessive for the main article - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's excessive for an encyclopaedia too, and should be pruned to an appropriate size.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep - Consensus is clearly keep, secondly, AFD is not the place to discuss a merge, the article page would be the correct page. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. There were significant policy issues raised on each side, and the numbers were with those in favor of a Keep result. The close did not properly reflect that. After overturn, the merge should not be considered enforced by the AfC discussion, and the fate of any merge should be decided by separate merge discussions. A rename was suggested by several participants in the AfD, and might well be in order.

As to the scope issue, the AfD was explicitly started to enforce a previously contested merge, which is what the close did. Review of that close here is an eminently proper use of DRV. The idea (expressed by SmokeyJoe above) that because there was no deletion DRV is out is scope is simply incorrect. I was one of those active in the proposals that created DRV out of the previous VfU (Votes for Undeletion), and a significant part of the change was that All XfD closes, and in particular all AfD closes, are subject to review here. That is why the practice is to write "Overturn" or "Endorse" not "Keep" or "Delete" here at DRV. If an Afd is used to enforce a merge (and tjhat is valid, if not IMO best practice) then it is subject to review here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but should be renamed to something like "Notable cases of vaping lung illness". We have List of Ebola patients. We just need to make sure enough sources are present to justify each case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "Hospitalized cases of vaping lung illness outbreak". QuackGuru (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep per Necromonger--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melila Purcell (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in the Arena Football League per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, allow re-creation. The AfD is valid; playing in an AFL game creates a presumption of notability, but the player still needs to satisfy the GNG. The original article had no sources whatsoever. If you can write an article based on multiple in-depth sources then go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFL is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football. Please avoid local abbreviations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The article still has to pass WP:GNG, and delete was the correct close for this review. No worries if the article can be recreated. We should also take a look to see if playing in the arena league guarantees a player coverage per WP:GNG to satisfy the presumption of notability, as the league has now folded and was pretty minor for its last few seasons. Also, WP:GNG has to be satisfied - this player only played in one game which qualifies for WP:GRIDIRON and it was a minor league. These sorts of non-GNG satisfying players are typically deleted over at WikiProject Football. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: If you want to propose at WT:NSPORT removing the Arena Football League from WP:NGRIDIRON (or at least certain years of its existence), I'd support that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, just for my future reference, I'm dumping some news articles about Purcell here: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newspaper articles that source their information from the subject or the subjects family are not independent of the subject, and so fail to satisfy the WP:GNG. All five sources dumped here are not independent of the subject. Find sources authored by someone independent, from a more distant perspective than a reporter at the field talking to the players family. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yikes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Eagles247, that review was quick, and quick usually means harsh. This athlete is definitely close, so I went through the five more carefully. My analysis, with respect to attesting notability via the WP:GNG:

1 By Jason Kaneshiro. Quoting the subject's dad, later the subject, the subject's cousin. It does contain two paragraphs not quoted from the subject/family:

An outside linebacker much of last season, Purcell has settled into his new position at left defensive end leading up to tomorrow's opener.
Purcell signed with Penn State coming out of Leone High School in American Samoa in 2003 and spent two seasons with the Nittany Lions. Upon transferring to UH to play with his older brother, he sat out the 2005 season and made his Warriors debut last year. A knee injury sidelined him for three games and he finished the year with 11 total tackles, including a sack.

The only qualitative contribution from the author is "has settled into", the rest is just facts. For the GNG, this is very weak, but not zero.

2 By Rebecca Breyer. Made with with subject's cooperation, and so not independent. It is local newspaper promotion of locals. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.

3 By Dave Reardon. Coach interview. Subject interview. Alo brother and cousins. Very very local coverage emphasizing local and family connections. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.

4 By Stephen Tsai. Backstory of the subject and University of Hawai'i fellow players friendship from 6 years prior, when they played basketball. Very weak but not zero use.

5 Interview information from the subject and coach. Not independent. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.

I think that these are not good enough, but 1 & 5 are not astraight "no". If you could find one article not from Hawaii, an article that does not centre on interviewing the subject, team coach or players, or family, that might be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has a lot of google news hits that are just directory style data pages, sometimes empty. After that, there are news stories of him, such as in New Caledonia in 2011, but they seem to only ever be interviews of him, local reporting, not independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing stopping you from writing another article about this person. The above argument wasn't raised in the AfD so a recreation which includes it shouldn't be deleted without another AfD (the deleted version doesn't mention Spokane at all). I'm sure we could restore the deleted version to draft space if you'd like to use it as a starting point. Hut 8.5 17:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, could not have been closed any other way. However, noting that sources continue to be thrown up, encourage undeleting to draftspace, require passage through WP:AfC for re-creation, and point prominently to the advice at WP:THREE (the number of sources is irrelevant, only the quality of the 2 or 3 best). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's new source link is worthless. Not an independent secondary source on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My worthless source link is from one of the top statistics websites of the Arena Football League used on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arena_Football_League/Reliable_Sources), and it is included in Template:Infobox NFL biography as a general reference for arena football players. I brought this article to deletion review because I believe this new information satisfies criteria 3 from WP:DRVPURPOSE. I am not arguing that the close was improper, I would have closed the AFD the same way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League/Reliable Sources is good, but don't confuse "reliable source" with sources that attest notability, aka GNG when push comes to shove.

I recommend requesting draftification, now while this DRV is running. Add the new sources. Point out the three best. An improved draft version makes it much easier to talk about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, draft is at Draft:Melila Purcell. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per our longstanding consensus sports biographies must still pass WP:GNG, the arenafan site doesn't in and of itself grant automatic notability in spite of the fact a listing there would get a player past the WP:NGRIDIRON threshold. It's not "worthless," but especially given the fact he only played one game in the league, there needs to be a showing that he was actually covered by the media, as opposed to bringing up the source to show he (barely) passes a WP:SNG. I also concur with SmokeyJoe's analysis of the articles. Is there any coverage of him from his time with Spokane? SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without voicing an opinion on whether re-creation should be allowed, if the discussion concludes it should, do not allow the grossly inappropriate and bullying suggestion that the new article should have to go through AfC or otherwise follow higher standards than any other article. WilyD 09:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, allow re-creation. The AfD was closed correctly based on the information that was available at the time, however, new information has since come to light that would very likely result in a different outcome if the article were sent to AfD today. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close but permit recreation. Do not attempt to mandate an AfC review. AfC is designed to assist new or less experienced editors. It should never be required of any autoconfirmed editor. There is no policy basis for such a requirement. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be required for even old editors IF the deletion was recent (I think recent = 6 months). Otherwise, the deletion process is undermined. This deletion was years ago, so sure, bold recreation is OK. However, I do not see what has changed since 2015, so I expect that the current draft if mainspace could be promptly nominated and deleted at AfD. The discussion may go differently. I would advise the proponent to address the old AfD deletion reasons on the talk page (which too should be undeleted). -SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a major policy change and would require a site-wide RfC, and I for one would strongly oppose it. In any case, no policy currently allows such a restriction to be imposed on any editor, except perhaps as part of a community-imposed topic ban, and I have not seen that done. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is at least the second DRV in maybe a month or so where AfC has come up as a possible option and then been vehemently dismissed by its detractors. I think the article itself is a very interesting case: the new information presented at DRV shows the player technically passes a WP:SNG, but barely, and for a minor sports league, and there's no WP:GNG-qualifying coverage of him playing in the league for which he would pass the WP:SNG (the coverage I found was from a Hawaii fan blog and arenafan.com, which is reliable for demonstrating he played in the league and was released after playing one game, but not for conferring WP:GNG notability, as it's just a list of statistics. The article on the player arenafan.com reprinted was from a team press release and clearly primary.) I'm in favour of allowing re-creation if other sources are found, as I don't think any of the sources pass WP:GNG (they're all local/routine transactional/not independent), but we also need to ensure the article's in good enough shape to be recreated - the two best ways of doing this are to either immediately send the article to AfD once it's out of draft space unless substantial improvements are made, or allow it to be peer-reviewed at AfC. There's absolutely no reason experienced editors can't use AfC - we have mandated it for experienced editors whose creations frequently showed up at AfD, and some continue to use it even though the requirement was lifted. I'm somewhat in agreement that it shouldn't necessarily be mandated, I'm not certain it should apply to this specific article, but I see no issue with having it in our arsenal here at DRV, especially because it's not a restriction on the editor but rather on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Gariépy (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

RHaworth speedily deleted the article Jean-Francois Gariepy according to G5: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Gari%C3%A9py. Admin holds article was created by blocked user Jean-Francois Gariepy. This user, however, is neither blocked nor the creator of said page. As admin states on his talk page, the creator was the user Hijadealgo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_article_Jean-Francois_Gariepy. This user was blocked on 10 September 2019. User´s latest contribution was on 8 September 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hijadealgo. G5 does not hold as a reason for speedy deletion. Tacokanone (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G5 doesn't seem to apply here. The account mentioned in the deletion log was never even blocked [9]. Hijadealgo was a sock of Erdmännle (unrelated to Jean Francois apparently) [10], but that wasn't in a violation of block (since the sockmaster used the puppet without being blocked beforehand) and thus both accounts got blocked at the same time on Dec 10. The article was created through AfC before that in November per User talk:Hijadealgo. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kvng since he was the AfC reviewer who accepted the now deleted article in November. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - This appears to be a case of negligence by the deleting administrator, because the listed account isn't blocked, and was found by CheckUser not to be involved in the sockpuppetry. It appears that the deleting administrator simply wasn't checking the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note:. Although this doesn't change the analysis of the G5 deletion, I just blocked Tacokanone as  Likely to Tongtom (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The G5 was incorrect, and since the AfC draft was accepted by a neutral editor, it can be considered endorsed by somebody not connected to any sockfarm. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the page was created by Hijadealgo on 31 August. Hijadealgo was blocked as a sockpuppet as a result of a checkuser investigation into a potential sockpuppet of Jean-Francois Gariepy (see here), which is why the deletion log links to an SPI on that user. I don't think being accepted at AfC should necessarily disqualify something from G5, because AfC reviewers presumably don't accept drafts which they know are written by block-evading sockpuppets. Hijadealgo is a sockpuppet and is blocked, so much of what's said above isn't correct. However Hijadealgo wasn't evading a block when the page was created, so the page didn't qualify for G5. Hut 8.5 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I accepted the draft based on the merits of the material. It is not part of AfC workflow to check for blocked user issues. ~Kvng (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allow recreation, this article had survived the first AfD but then was renominated and lost in the 2nd AfD due to "failing WP:GNG, passing mentions only". I have found secondary reliable sources which gives the subject significant coverage and demonstrates that this article and subject passes our GNG and therefore should allow a recreation.

1. Alexander, Julia (2019-03-17). "YouTube creators are still trying to fight back against European copyright vote". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   "The reaction of YouTubers has been virtually unanimous against Article 13," Grandayy, a creator with more than 2 million subscribers who is best known for his memes, told The Verge. "The sad thing is that us YouTubers have no lobby groups or unions that can fight for us and speak to politicians directly for us. Most politicians have no idea about the troubles YouTubers face with copyright, or what type of content the typical YouTuber even produces."

   Part of the issue, according to Grandayy, is that “most politicians working on the directive didn’t even know what ‘memes’ were before all the criticism starts coming in.” Grandayy has met with two members of Parliament to address concerns within the community, and he is hopeful that lawmakers are starting to realize the implications of the new rules. It’s a similar stance to YouTube’s own executives who tweeted their hope of working with members of Parliament to address the company’s biggest concerns.

   It’s one of the few issues that YouTube’s creators and executives are fighting together on, and that cohesiveness isn’t lost on creators like Grandayy. He recognizes that YouTube’s response has been “pretty good so far,” adding that the company’s executives aren’t “being too negative, and are instead providing constructive criticism by suggesting improvements to the text rather than just saying it is bad and should be scrapped altogether.” Grandayy suggested that, if anything, people within the YouTube community feel like YouTube’s executive team hasn’t taken a hard enough stance, but that’s a good thing.

2. Vella, Matthew (2019-03-23). "Malta's biggest Youtuber's impassioned plea on why EU copyright law 'could kill Internet'". Malta Today. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   Malta’s biggest Youtuber Grandayy has released a music video taking to task the controversial Article 13 in the EU’s Copyright Directive, featuring YouTube’s most followed broadcaster, PewDiePie.

   “As important as it is, it’s sadly not getting too much attention in Malta, unlike what’s happening in other European countries,” Grandayy, a qualified doctor who now makes a living from producing memes on YouTube.

   But Grandayy warned that all this broadcasts risk getting censored because of these automated bots. Grandayy also warned that the Copyright Directive could disrupt the way people on the internet share content like jokes and memes among each other on social media.

3. Hernandez, Patricia (2019-08-01). "Minecraft is having a big comeback in 2019". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   For over a year, YouTube creator Grandayy — who is known for his Minecraft memes — kept suggesting the idea of a “Minecraft Monday” to Keemstar, a YouTube gossip reporter who has increasingly been holding more video game competitions over the last year. After begging for Keemstar to host it, the YouTube personality finally gave in. Like his Friday Fortnite tournament, Keemstar opted to bring in big names who could attract huge viewerships, such as Fortnite superstar Tyler “Ninja” Blevins. Blevins alone brought in nearly one million viewers on Twitch for that first week. Then, on week two, there was another megaton: Keemstar had convinced YouTube king Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg to participate in the event alongside beauty guru James Charles. Suddenly, nearly every big name on YouTube and Twitch was playing Mojang’s sandbox game. Minecraft became a spectacle once again. According to Keemstar, millions of people tune in to his show every week. Grandayy, who has made a name for himself making elaborate Minecraft jokes on social media, agrees with this assessment. He thinks people are pining for the game based on nostalgia factor, and then are surprised to find that the experience can still feel fresh in 2019.

4. Debono, Fiona (2018-08-30). "'My only interest is to make people laugh'". Times of Malta. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   The content on his Grandayy YouTube channel consists mainly of memes (an image, video, piece of text, etc, typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, according to the idiot’s guide to YouTube), enjoying nearly 300 million views.

   It may be difficult for anyone not into YouTube culture to comprehend this “massive achievement”, says the 24-year-old doctor, who goes by the name of Grandayy, preferring to keep his personal identity private.

   But to put things into some sort of perspective, the biggest YouTuber in the world, PewDiePie – also a fan of Grandayy – has 66 million subscribers. Locally, the second biggest Maltese YouTuber, Stella Cini, is currently at 220,000 subscribers, while singer Ira Losco is at 15,000.

   As things stand, Grandayy maintains he is currently “one of the most relevant and original meme creators worldwide”, especially on YouTube, along with another memer Dolan Dark, who has over 900,000 subscribers.

5. Demarco, Joanna (2018-02-14). "From graduating as a doctor, to working as a full-time Youtuber". The Independent. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   On its 13th anniversary, The Malta Independent spoke to Malta’s top Youtuber ‘Grandayy’, who has been collecting thousands of subscribers since 2011, and who today, at the age of 23, works as a full-time Youtuber, despite graduating as a doctor last year.

   Grandayy has two Youtube channels; Grandayy and Grande1899; the former being his main focus, on which he creates meme videos. (A meme is a video or an image which is humorous and is copied and shared by Internet users with mild variations to the post.) Grandayy made his first Youtube video in 2007, however he acknowledges a better start date would be four years later, in January 2011 using his Grande 1899 account.

   In November of 2015 he started making his first meme videos, but, since they were different from the material which his Grande1899 channel hosted, he created a second channel called 'Grandayy'. Grandayy sees his success and large following as a result of consistency and, he hopes, the quality of his videos.

6. Rosenblatt, Kalhan (2019-12-25). "How social media has changed in the past decade, according to its influencers". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

   The article notes:

   Two of the most prolific creators of memes over the last decade are Dr Grandayy and Dolan Dark, who both asked to be identified by their internet personas.

   Dolan Dark said he began creating memes on a Facebook page in 2011 before moving over to Twitter and YouTube, while Grandayy has been making memes on YouTube since approximately 2016. Grandayy added that they’ve also become more mainstream, giving each one a shorter and shorter lifespan.

Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted version has been moved to Draft:Grandayy and the title isn't protected. There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article at this title or improving the deleted one and moving it back to mainspace. If the issues in the AfD have been addressed then it won't be deleted again without another discussion. Hut 8.5 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley McLaughlin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At time of closing, the tally to Keep:Delete was formally 3:2—adding the closing editor's vote against (inferred, though not formally registered) makes it 3:3. This is not a compelling deletion vote, and certainly does not justify closing the discussion in less than a week, and in the week before a major US and European holiday (!). Finally, the reason given—that there was no response to the point-by-point critique of article sources appearing in a Comment—is fallacious, in that a response to that critique was provided, on 17 December (in paragraph rather than bullet form). If a point-by-point rebuttal was desired, it should have been requested, rather than proceeding with deletion at the 5-6 day mark, days before a major holiday. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I do not se that it was closed early: it wa listed at 05:49 Dec 13 and closed on 19:31 Dec . 21. I might think it better not to close a rationally disputed afd on 19:31 of Dec 24 , but this was Dec 21. The close was correct, but perhaps the solution here, as in may Del Revs, is Draftifying to cleanup the refs. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaning up the [bad] refs is scholarly dishonesty, if the material sourced from those refs is not cleaned up. It is probably too hard, too much to expect a normal editor to do. If the refs were bad, the content is bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"cleaning up the refs" idoes not mean fixing technical erors, but rather checking the references and the content and rewriting accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one knows that when a bad source is removed, the content has to be checked against any new source that is added. Indeed, at my ands, when bad sources were removed either the content was also removed, or the references were replaced and the content checked. (If information was otherwise kept, which were the minority of cases, it was because the information appeared in multiple sources, including IMDB and European or better database equivalents, and in such cases, rather than listing IMDB, etc., the information was marked with ^{[citation needed]}.) Bottom line, you did not see any "scholarly dishonest" editing from this former academic and WP editor, who regularly promotes Charles Lipson's Doing Honest Work in College to combat the fairly widespread issues of plagiarism here. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep’s !vote of 18:16, 16 December 2019 is pretty convincing that the references are broadly bad sources from the start, and the reply to that post is a clear statement that the message is not heard. The ongoing notions of adding IMDB references add to this. If you, DGG, were to do the cleanup, that would be fine, but based on statements at the AfD, I have zero confidence that the topic proponents would do anything better than gloss a few things and continue as before. No, that is not acceptable. The topic was deleted. At best, call it WP:TNT and insist on WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was presented as a Comment, and not a vote, and it is not for the one closing the AfD to decide what any party's vote might ultimately have been—is it? What policy allows tally of inferred votes, in AfDs? More critically, Joe, regarding your do[ing] anything better than gloss[ing] a few things and continu[ing] as before—this obfuscates, and is discussion that belongs in the AfD, and not here—it is discussion about the article closure. Moreover, it makes clear that you did not bother to look at the edit history of the article from the opening of the AfD, to its closure. All of the editing that you disdainfully dismiss was of the highest academic integrity, with IMDB and other poor sources being removed, and clearly independent, third-party sources being added. Your cursory conclusion and criticism are incorrect to the available evidence, and therefore deeply unjust. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave deleted, do not restore. The AfD shows that the article was WP:Reference bombed with weak and bad sources. Call it WP:TNT. Allow a fresh page to be created in draftspace, and urge interested editors to follow the advice at WP:THREE. This should be considered mandatory for an attempt to quickly re-create an article just properly deleted for notability and sourcing concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If have read the google cache for the article, and researched the actress. The article was very well written, but the notability is not established. The sourcing is not good enough. It amounts to promotion of a young actress in need of promotion. The quality of writing of the deleted article says this was not written by newcomers. I’m calling this WP:UPE product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am near beside myself with rage. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a former academic that edits for the service of the encyclopedia. How can you and others live with yourself, making unjust accusations supported only by presumption? How can you be so bloody irresponsible, not taking the time even to look at the edit history from this editor's regular IP address? There is no evidence whatsoever, of what you assert, and even the most limited look at my edits make clear, that unless I am in the pay of the most amazing array of persons, living and dead, and being paid to make their articles more unsightly for the critical editing—that your assertion is literally, nonsense. Bottom line, I do not edit in pay of anyone. You, sir, are guilty of ignoring evidence, not presuming good faith, and more broadly of bearing false witness. You should be ashamed. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rage? In contrast, I am quite calm. I think I see some hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. One of these is an obviously experienced Wikipedian not using their main account. I read what you are saying, and in the end: I do not believe you. The way forward for this topic is WP:THREE. If Hayley is Wikipedia-notable, then provide the best three sources that prove it. Don’t try to bamboozle others with a large number of weak sources. If she is not notable, I advise her and her agents to improve her IMDb entry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion discussions aren't votes, the closer is expected to take the arguments put forward in the discussion into account, giving greater weight to arguments which are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here that definitely favoured deletion, in that good analyses of the sources in the article weren't effectively rebutted. I'd suggest that anyone who wants us to have an article on this person concentrate on showing notability through a small number of good sources, rather than a larger number of weak or useless ones. It looks like the only source in the article which is much use is [11], which is a Scottish tabloid newspaper and therefore not a great source to base an article about a living person on. The rest are either unreliable, don't discuss the subject at all or don't discuss the subject in depth. She has only appeared in a single substantial role in a notable production so far, it may well be that she becomes more notable as her career progresses and we can have an article on her then. Hut 8.5 16:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, as asked elsewhere, support your assertion that an editor closing an AfD may ignore the prima facie tally of Keep:Delete, and infer from Comments what their ultimate vote will be. Please, quote specifically from the WP guidelines and policies where this is said. It is (shocking) news to me. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very few decisions on Wikipedia are taken through pure votes and policies and guidelines are littered with references to this, e.g. WP:DELAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy, WP:DGFA Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted, or WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. If you want some outcome to be enacted then you need to put forward a good argument, not just get people to show up and agree with you. And stop shouting. Hut 8.5 16:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion – delete was a reasonable close for this discussion, the sourcing for the article was thoroughly discredited, the keep votes don't really discuss policy, and it was not closed early - if anything it was closed a bit late. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Submitting to the ongoing rude injustice, but still hoping for good sense to prevail. Please explain—how does one justify circumventing the apparent tally of the formal votes in an AfD to render a conclusion opposite to the apparent one? And how does one justify closing a discussion when it is clear that not all editor's have had their say (with a major international holiday just days away)? Please, quote for me here the WP guidelines and policies that allow this. Otherwise, I made specific points of rebuttal above, and here repeat the main issues. Bottom line, the points above that discuss the merits of the article belong in an AfD, and not here. What matters here are whether the actual views of participating editors at the McLaughlin article were take into account, by allowing sufficient time (they were not, because of the impending holiday), and was the actual tally of votes at the AfD accurately reflected in the closure (it was not). To do beyond that, and to begin discussing again the merits of the article—absent the discussion and the evidence that was being presented and discussed in that AfD—is to misuse this venue. Otherwise, my points about the above are these:

First, I acknowledge, the process began on the 13th, and so when ending on the 21st, it has been going on for 8 days. This is still not inordinately long. Moreover, the process preceded into a holiday week, the week of Christmas as celebrated in the west. It is reasonable to assume therefore, unless one wanted a rushed decision, to allow the discussion to continue until all interested parties had had their say. (It is very reasonable to assume, looking at the fall-off in the discussion, and the lack of participation of other regular editors at the article, that the impending holiday had an impact on the discussion. I for one turned my attention from it as the holiday approached.)

Second, in that regard, the comment made by the editor closing the AfD was not "The vote is X to Y in favour of deletion", but rather, it stated that no one had replied to the multiple-bullet analysis of the sources of the article. Three important points about this. (a) In not stating the tally, it made inferences, and therefore decided the closure without a tally, see below. (b) The claim that the multiple-bullet had not seen a reply was falacious (as I had replied in paragraph form on 17 December). If the closing editor wanted a more detailed response, all he need done was ask. (c) The tally, as it appears at the article was 3 votes to Keep, and 2 votes to delete. The rest of the participants offered Comments, and did not state their votes. Even if the editor who closed the discusssion has their vote inferred, the vote tally at time of closing was formally, at best, tied at 3 votes to keep, and 3 votes to delete. It is simply outside of WP guidelines and policy to close a tied vote, or to infer what those commenting might ultimately think when time came for them to express a formal vote. This alone is reason in my view to reopen the discussion, and why I will persist with this matter.

Third, I argue that it is fundamentally improper here to mix apples and oranges. The views of editors regarding whether the article should be kept or not (whether stated or unstated) should not be brought to bear here, and should be carefully excluded—they can come into play when the discussion is reopened. All that matters is whether the discussion had ground to a halt—it had not, it was foreshortened by the holiday and rapid closure—and whether the closure reflected the formal wishes of the voting majority—which it did not, based on the actual Keeps/Delete votes appearing.

And, Fourth and finally, I would note for those participating in this Review that the AfD discussion was marked by accusations of POV participation and violations of AGF and bias against non-logging editors—which to my utter astonishment are repeated, just as superficially and baselessly, above. That is, the AfD discussion, and now this discussion, are deeply flawed—the AfD, apart from its shortening, for the reason of bias as well, and for that reason also, should be reopened.

For the record, regarding those accusations: Even minimal due diligence on the part of accusing editors would make clear that I edit broadly and diversely, and not in any support of entertainment personalities (a laughable supposition), given that the living and the dead in all subject areas get my attention. My editing is aimed at one, and only one thing—the quality of the ultimate WP article (with most time being spent on improving citations, and making text align with cited material). Indeed, the primary reason I became involved in the AfD for this article is that I perceived the thrust of the proposed deletion to be academically and judicially unjust, in that the original objections to the articles (all IMBD sourcing, and no available independent, third-party sources) proved in the latter case to be untrue. (There were easily located third-party, non-IMDB sources available.) It was only after I removed the IMDB sources, and found more than a half dozen independent published sources on the work of the actor, that the focus of the discussion moved to questioning my motives.

Besides being off-base, and easily determined as such, the bait-and-switch/move-the-target approaches of claiming the actor is unsupportable except with IMDB sources, then arguing, well, there is third party support, but it still does not make them notable enough—esp. when it was acknowledged many lessor examples exist within WP, and that the actor's last (Netflix ) and next () roles are major and newsworthy, the former with the actor receiving international media attention. All of this smacked of stubborn, personal interest actions of the initiating editor, rather than a real devotion to the quality of the encyclopedia, or this article. (Anyone could have found the many third-party, non-IMDB citations; only I took the time and did so.) All in all, this discussion and premature closing smack of WP operating at its worst. The discussion should be reopened, and allowed to wind down after all concerned editors have had their say, and when the tally is clearly in favour of one outcome or the other, not tied or near-tied. And the editor quick to accuse of POV editing, and those that display bias against non-logging editors—these whould should be encouraged to return to AGF practices, and if unable, should recuse themselves. Because this editor is not POV-involved, has edited at this article to improve it, found citations that other editors did not take the time to find, and otherwise is not going away (or logging) anytime soon. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want anyone to actually read this and respond to it then I suggest you condense it into a paragraph or two and stop sticking entire paragraphs into bold italics. Hut 8.5 16:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to encourage the behaviour but I'll still have a go at a response. 1. AfDs are open for at least a week, and this was not open during any holiday period. 2. WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers close discussions based on policy. 3. The close was reasonable, the article did not need to be relisted. 4. I have no idea where there's reversible error in that difficult-to-read paragraph, but please quit WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the main claim of defect is that the votes were not counted correctly. But as AFD is not ba vote, the close was reasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BadNac, Controversial closes are best left to administrators. The closer is not. Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, (Edit conflict) Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, further, this MFD received a lot of discussion and was for both reasons a controversial close, for that reason alone an admin should have closed it.

Additionally, I believe the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC and WP:TOS as valid reasons to delete this page and essentially, disregarded both reasons, both of which are valid. I request this close be overturned. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This version of the nomination responded to. Procedural close. Filer requests both an overturning per WP:BADNAC (as a "controversial close") and a simultaneous supervote ("to delete per TOS & Polemic"). ——SN54129 14:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial_Number_54129 This was my first DRV ever, sorry, I assumed it was pretty much like an MFD, I removed the "supervote" I'd placed in as I did check and found it was incorrect. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why should you remind me? ——SN54129 14:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support a deletion review of this controversial close and was thinking about submitting one myself. As I said during the deletion discussion: if this does not count as polemic then WP:POLEMIC should be deleted as nothing will count as polemic. At best a compromise close should have recommended deleting “pkk” and “freedom fighters the world over” from the userbox and left the other less controversial wording and groups. The pkk are widely regarded as a terrorist organisation, in part because they have on many occasions targeted civilians and used suicide bombings as a tactic. The keep arguments were very weak and many of the keep arguments mentioned deleting certain parts of the userbox, so a consensus did exist but was bizarrely closed with ‘no consensus’.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close, reluctantly. I struck my above vote and comment. WilyD has convinced me that the delete or even amend argument is not sufficient under current policy to override the keep arguments. The close of no consensus was thus good and it was also good where the close gave the suggestion of an RfC. BTW I voted ‘delete’ or as a compromise ‘amend’ wording.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – I !voted delete, but I don't think the closer was incorrect in closing this as a "no consensus". The delete argument boils down to (1) "Pkk is a terrorist organization" and (2) "therefore the userbox is [POLEMIC/TOS violation/etc], but neither #1 nor #2 had consensus in the discussion. The keep !voters noted that some nations/groups made the terrorist designation but others (most) didn't; that the designation is often made for political purposes; that the designation has been applied to people/organizations in the past that have won the Nobel Peace Prize (like Mandela's ANC and Arafat's PLO); and that even assuming arguendo that it's a "terrorist organization", that is not necessarily a TOS violation or polemic to have a userbox with a message of support. W/r/t the badnac argument, sure, an admin can re-close (or countersign) this as "no consensus"; I don't really see the point in taking that bureaucratic step. I think in this discussion, closing as either keep or delete would be a supervote; there were good arguments on both sides. – Levivich 15:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You might be correct that there was not a consensus for the userbox to be completely deleted but I thought there was a healthy numerical and general consensus to remove ‘PKK’ and ‘freedom fighters the world over’ but leave the other Kurdish paramilitary groups which are not regarded as terrorists. This is because a fair number of keep votes mentioned keeping but deleting certain parts of the wording, especially PKK.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich Let's see, you're saying that since 1 has no consensus and 2 has no consensus that it should be ok to keep the user box? Hmmmm...... well, argument number one has three reliable sources behind it. Therefore, it's not a matter of consensus , but of reliable sources. Reliable sources do say that these groups are terrorist groups, consensus isn't necessary, just reliable sources.

So that leaves us with argument #2 , that the userbox is not polemic. YOu say there's no consensus, again, there doesn't need to be, we have a definition that was set up BY consensus of what constitutes polemic, this user box meets the definition, therefore it IS polemic. Just like we have a definition of what's vandalism, if something meets that definition, we can call it vandalism.

In short, this is a false argument. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necromonger: The close is a no-consensus close. It explicitly left the door open for another MFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also left the door open for an RfC which I feel would be the next step if anyone wants to take this further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I guess - so, it's extremely clear this doesn't violate the terms of service, and invoking it is probably counter-productive because it makes it seem as though one is just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what'll stick, rather than trying to make a point in good faith. WP:POLEMIC is much closer, but it really refers to an attack on something, so there's a bit of wiggle room there. (And indeed, Wikipedia:User pages says ""Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.") - which seems to target this exactly scenario, and has been on the page since at least May. No, I don't see that delete really has a policy leg to stand on. I do have userboxen, except perhaps as a warning that editors will have trouble being unbiased, but there's a roughly even headcount, and really no policy/guideline basis for delete to stand on. WilyD 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point there Wily re. WP:UPNOT and acts of violence and groups that support such acts. That does, I concede, weaken the polemic argument to delete that I in large part relied upon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Endorse I don't doubt Britishfinance's good faith in implementing what I consider to be a reasonable close; that said, discussions such as this one really should be closed by an admin. Contentious non-admin closures are highly likely to end up at deletion review and should therefore be avoided. That said, I do think the closing rationale is technically correct and I don't see much use in reopening the discussion just so that an admin can rubber stamp what has already been said. I don't think anyone is going to find a consensus in that MfD. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse. Great NAC. MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content here. If this was an AFD, I wouldn't endorse because the stakes are higher. Regardless, there was no way that conversation was going to lead to anything but a no-consensus close. Britishfinance explained their reasoning rather well, and it was the best close we were ever going to get as a reflection of the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, as someone who initially !voted to remove PKK from the userbox, I'll say that MFD is not usually set up for cleanup or to make content decisions like that. Unless the consensus is clear and obvious, a MFD closes won't bother even addressing those questions.
  Btw, I !voted delete. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly disagree with User:MJL that "MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content" is not the wording I would use. MfD does not have a particularly strong culture of NACs, if you don't count procedural closes. MfD does see a fair bit of good NAC work, but mostly, appropriately, it is procedural. Also, the statement implies the MFD is not so important. This is absolutely not true, MfD is a potentially corrosive forum where busybodies can harass and persecute other Wikipedians in a community-destroying way. Seeking deletion of someones self-expression userbox is quite a SLAP, a public community declaration that what they were saying was not appropriate to be said. Deletions of others' userspace material is a public rejection of what the user was doing, and is quite a step in ostracizing the individual. MFD appropriately has a higher preponderance of Wikipedia Bureaucrats and ArbCom members closing that it does have NACs using it for practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @SmokeyJoe: I mostly agree with your disagreement. I think the NACs I have done on MFD have been meaningful and more than simple practice. IDK.
    I didn't mean to imply that MFD's subject matter wasn't important, but I do think the consequences are less immediate outside Wikipedia's editing community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think my response was overly confrontational. Edited in an attempt to be more conversational. MfD blunders don't do any immediate damage damage that readers see, but MfD blunders could really hurt editors. I wouldn't want to encourage adventurous NAC activity, but I agree that this NAC was a great close, on the mark, well explained, and a close was overdue and needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reviewing, controversial closes are best left to administrators. Admins should count and weight arguments not count cliches*. Like for example when the keep vote is followed by a reason like, the U.S. France did also target civilians and committed what would be described as terrorist attack or that freedom fighter-terrorist proverb. These types of so-called "arguments"/cliches would apply if we were discussing a userbox that supports ISIS. We need an admin to close this and review the actual arguments. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: If you just renominated this in a week with pre-emptive arguments against WP:NOTCENSORED, no regular of MFD would bat an eye. Likewise, if there wasn't an ongoing deletion review, you could just edit the userbox to acceptable standards while citing the previously closed MFD as showing there are clear problems that need to be addressed. The close left a lot of things on the table. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would revert any such changes to the user box promptly on principle. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What you think SharabSalam of starting an RfC first, like what was suggested in the MfD close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: although the userbox is clearly distasteful, offensive even, editor DESiegel made a good point during the deletion discussion when he suggested POV userboxes could be used to identify POV pushers editing our articles. When looking at it from that angle, perhaps the close is not such a bad thing after all. Maybe we should accept the close and move on.... That is where my thinking is travelling.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Literaturegeek anyone is free to start an RfC in an attempt to clarify or change our policy on user boxes. It will not be easy to get consensus for a change, the current policy is the result of several well-participated discussions, but it could happen, depending on what is proposed and what argument is made. But this is not the place for such an argument. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - there is no way to read that discussion other than "no consensus". The closer appropriately weighted the arguments presented and noted in detail that, while POLEMIC and TOS were offered as issues supporting deletion, the arguments were not accepted by consensus of the discussion participants. The closer not being an administrator is irrelevant; this was an excellent close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - right result, but nac-controversial - I feel that the the closer did a good job reading it (and explaining it, for that matter) and it's the same close I would have given it if I hadn't participated. However, I would agree that it's controversial enough it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin. I'd be happy with asking for an admin review, but I don't believe it needs reopening etc, and given the quality of the close, I don't really mind if we skip the review. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Proper "no consensus" close per policy. Thank you closer. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse.Uninvolved

The DRV nomination? It fails to make a substantive case that something was wrong with the close. The closer summarized the discussion, and the closer and discussion made ample consideration of POLEMIC. And see WT:DEL for a clear precedent that ToS violation is not a deletion reason. Advice to the nominator: Read WP:RENOM.

BADNAC? No, I read a non-controversial "no consensus". Admittedly, this is not usual. "tailed off two weeks ago", with the last !vote being a respected admin's "Keep" argument, and four of the last five being "Keep" !votes, "Delete" was not a possible close, and I do not think any admin could have reasonably closed the discussion as "Keep" vs "no consensus".

NAC? Any admin may revert or countersign the close. However, the closing statement is very good. I suspect the closer will soon be ready for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Britishfinance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse BF running for RfA to avoid further nac complications. :-) – Levivich 06:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: - I've heard worse ideas! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per policy; also request User:Wekeepwhatwekill to explain—at the second time of asking—what they meant by However, I should remind you that DRV should not be used to 8.to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). ——SN54129 08:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (as the NAC closer). I read the entire MfD and felt at the end that there was no other close but no consensus, and hence I felt that it was not such a controversial NAC. The quality of the debate was high, and the issues were accurately identified. I felt any close other than no consensus would be akin to a SUPERVOTE, and ultimately, at the core of this MfD is a serious issue about the identification of problematic organizations, which I think should be really decided at an RfC and not MfD (either for the specific organizations listed in the userboxes, and/or for the method by which problematic organizations are labeled). I kind of indirectly suggested in the summary that a potential solution could be somebody boldly amending the boxes post-MfD (e.g. possibly deleting the PKK), which I often find at AfD is an underutilized way of solving issues (a superb example being Jim and Mary McCartney by Ritchie333, a very experienced AfD participant). I meant no discourtesy to the participants in this MfD, and as a regular AfD/MfD participant myself, I am conscious that there are closes that should be done by an admin (and sometimes even for non-controversial ones). I saw this one was still hanging in the "Old Business" queue of MfD, and wanted to see if I could help move things along. Thanks for the comments above. Britishfinance (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Personally, I would have closed as Keep, but then I was involved in the discussion. The close was reasonable, and I don't see that it needs to be overturned just because an experienced non-admin closed it. The nomination here is mistaken in that the closer did not ignore the policy arguments made for deletion, but rather found them balanced by the arguments for retention, which is not a supervote position. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the appellant is correct that this was a controversial MFD and should have been left to an administrator. A trout to the closer for taking it on themselves to do a non-administrative close. On the other hand, this appeal has no substantive merit except that the closer should have allowed an administrator to make the close. The appellant appears to be saying that an administrator should have supervoted, and should have ignored the Keep arguments and the policy-based reasons for the Keep arguments. This appeal is basically another appeal that a closer should have ignored the community; the community was divided and had no consensus. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robert_McClenon not quite what I said. What I said is that the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC which is a policy set up by consensus with a definition and a set of things to do if something is Polemic, also set up by consensus. The closer ignored the fact that this userbox is polemic which demands removal of any and all polemic material. I'm not suggesting a supervote, I'm suggesting only that the existing consensus be observed. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "polemic" is defined as contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. WP:POLEMIC also forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities and other forms of negative information. At least arguably, positive statements about unpopular or even evil groups, if not made with "aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position" does not come under WP:POLEMIC, and there was not a consensus that WP:POLEMIC applied in this case. Thus that is not a basis to discount the keep arguments. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wekeepwhatwekill - Yes. You are saying that the closer should have supervoted by recognizing the policy-based argument that the user page is a polemic and discounting the policy-based arguments that the user page satisfied user page guidelines including that normally one is allowed to have userboxes. Yes. You are saying that the closer should have recognized the policy-based arguments with which you agree and should have ignored the policy-based arguments with which you disagree, which would be a form of supervote. Yes. Some of us think that the community at MFD decides how to apply the policy consensus. You are saying that the closer should have set themselves up to decide what was the right interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again , you're putting words in my mouth Robert_McClenon. Let me make this simpler.
 ::::::::The userbox is polemic.

The definition of polemic "forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons or other entities..."

Our own page on the PKK states Since 1984 the PKK has been involved in an armed conflict with the Turkish state (with cease-fires in 1999–2004 and 2013–2015), with the initial aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state - therefore vilifying the Turkish state.

for the record, I'm not Turkish at all and have no opinion on the Turkish state at all

Therefore it meets a consensus agreed upon definition of Polemic

Therefore WP:Polemic shouldn't have been ignored, it's already consensus.

That's not a supervote. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLEMIC forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. There are no such statements in the user box. Policy does not forbid statements in support of a group that has made polemical statements off-wiki. Thus your reasoning above is flawed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree with User:Nosebagbear. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as to Overturn Close to permit administrative close as No Consensus. The appellant has made their case that this was a controversial close, by creating the controversy, that should have been left to an administrator to find No Consensus', and to caution the appellant for being tendentious in the appeal. No. I am not putting words in the pen of the appellant; I am only restating what the appellant has written, which makes sense if either the appellant is re-litigating, or if the appellant thinks that the job of the closer is to act as a a judge. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closer should have made an interpretation of consensus-based policy, rather than allowing the community to form a consensus on policy (and if the interpretation of policy is done by the community, the community can fail to reach a consensus on how to apply policy). The appellant clearly either is re-litigating, or is saying that the closer should have ignored policy-based arguments to Keep, or is saying that the closer should have made a ruling, e.g., a supervote. Yes, it is true that polemic is part of the policy; so is Userbox. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLEMIC is extremely explicit that it doesn't apply here. I have userboxen as much as the next guy, but if POLEMIC was overlooked here, it resulted in this being closed as no consensus instead of keep, not instead of delete. WilyD 07:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No one asked the appellant what their nationality is. I assume that everyone is from an Anglophone country unless they state otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod de Rosario (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rosario is a self-published practically unknown author, outside of some fringe far-right neo-Nazi circles. His works have a few dozens followers worldwide but aside from an intersting case on Nazi esotericism authors and anti-Semitic/white supremacists/conspiracy theory writers, he's practically unknown and has little to non influence both in literature and in esotericism in Latin America or elsewhere. And even as a subject study for the former is normally ignored and overlooked. Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominate- it was a poorly attended AfD with one keep and one delete !vote. A no consensus close was reasonable. But it's been two years since the AfD, so you can just go ahead and send it to a second AfD. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin's comment: I explicitly closed it with WP:NPASR, so Reyk is correct, just renominate it. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, what I don't know is what title should I use as to it not to be redirected to the older one (I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's instructions for renominating here. Basically, just use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} instead of the usual template and follow the rest of the steps as normal. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, but it appears that the appellant actually wants permission to renominate, and there is agreement that renomination is okay, so go ahead and renominate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate per above - this should probably be closed, there's nothing really to review. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am involved with the mushing community heavily. My partner has been breeding and racing Eurohounds for almost 25 years. They are a specific cross-breed produced for a very niche reason, Sprint Sled Dog Racing. They were initially cross-bred in Scandanavia in the 80's specifically for this purpose. I know they exist because they continue to dominate the Sprint Sled Dog World to this day. No, they are not an AKC breed because they are not American. They are bred around the world and created initially in Scandinavia. I looked at the discussion page, and not a single person involved in that discussion appears to have any contact with the mushing community. If you had asked the community, you would have quickly learned that they are a prevalent breed in the sport.

As a member of the Eurohound community, I would like the page returned to its former status. It is visited often by members of the community, and was noticed the day it was deleted by just that community.

I, fortunately, understand enough about Wikipedia to know how to contact you about this issue and what to do to get the page restored.

Please contact me directly, and I will be happy to provide any information that you require.

If you don't have actual evidence that the breed does not exist, then I would appreciate it if you would restore the page on that fact alone.

Here is a paper that formally mentions the introduction into the racing community. (See table 5)

* https://www.facebook.com/groups/230165397107610/
* https://nationalpurebreddogday.com/iditarod-marathoner-of-dogs/
* https://snowcountrykennel.weebly.com/training-racing--more.html
* https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78yygy/chasing-down-the-worlds-greatest-dogsledder
* https://www.minnesotamonthly.com/featured/learn-skijoring/
* https://the-journal.com/articles/122757
* https://www.sooeveningnews.com/news/20190125/sled-dog-racing-returns-to-kinross
* http://www.iesda.org/homepage_files/AboutUs.htm
* https://www.northernwolf.co.uk/breeds/other-sled-dogs/
* https://www.endurancekennels.com/about-eurohound-sprint-racing-sled-dogs

And I can go on and on and on with the mentions of Eurohounds by Eurohound breeders and mushers.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Chaim Krause Tinjaw (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review is for addressing errors in applying deletion procedure, such as erroneously finding that there is a consensus to delete. It is not for re-arguing a deletion discussion on the merits, which is all this review request attempts to do. Sandstein 09:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - I didn't take part in the AFD and haven't seen the deleted article. Based on what has been said, I think that the wrong decision has been made by the community, and that the article should have been kept, but I don't see an error by the closer. I also see that the appellant is engaging in a very annoying behavior by authors of drafts, and that is providing a dump of URLs, which essentially says: "I don't have time to work these references into an article, but you, the Wikipedia community, need to do my dirty work for me." However, the issue isn't whether this draft or another draft should be kept. It is whether the closer made an error, and the answer is no. I think that the community made an error, but that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There's no other possible way this AfD could have been closed. If somebody believes they have located better sourcing, they are always free to write a new article on the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Agree with the above - the discussion here can't be read as anything other than delete - but there's a weirdness around dog breeds at AfD and I would encourage a new article to be written on the subject with sources that clearly pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. That said, I do share the disappointment that many dog breeds have been deleted due to a lack of independent sources. I'm sure there must exist books that cover these dogs, surely. I think they are difficult to access, being non-academic and rarely indexed. Is there an encyclopedia on dogs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• update: I posted here on the advice of ^[1] In which the editor states. "The article was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurohound, which was closed after being open for two weeks with a clear policy-based consensus to delete the page. If you'd like to contest the close, you can do so at Deletion review. However, convincing me of the validity of the article is pointless - I did not unilaterally decide to delete it, I simply pressed the button after assessing the community's view, as expressed through the deletion discussion. It is the community whom you have to convince. Yunshui 雲水 08:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)" And that is the only reason I followed this path. If you all are saying that I should just make a new page. Then that is what I will do. I just wanted to follow the proper procedure. Which, I thought, was to ask for the deletion to be reversed. I just need to know the proper procedure and that is what I will do. Thank you for your time. Tinjaw (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Institute (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was deleted A7 after another admin objected and had been here since 2006. While I'm not sure if it's truly notable and was actually researching it myself for an AFD, I do think that it rises well above the low, low bar of A7. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have undeleted so others may consider its history and the applicability of A7. As best as I can tell outside of one version deleted by Bradv there was no COPYVIO in what I restored despite the presence of an RD1 tag at the time of its speedy deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth restored the content of the article. I have asked them on their talk page whether or not they are reversing their speedy deletion (in which case I would suggest that this DRV be speedily closed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the A7 and allow an AFD. Having seen the deleted article, there is a credible claim of significance that deserves to be discussed rather than speedily deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused. The A7 tag removed at 10:21 by Anarchyte, but deleted at 10:25 by RHaworth, four minutes after the tag was removed. WP:CSD says, If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. RHaworth, could you give some insight into why this was deleted after the tag was removed? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page has now been restored, so there's nothing left to do here. I suggest this be speedy closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this discussion and start one at AfD. It was an edit conflict. I had the version of 2019-12-19 15:06:37 open in my browser but got distracted by something. I did the deletion at 15:25:46 on the basis of that version and thus never realised that at 15:21:55‎ the speedy tag had been removed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um RHaworth regardless of what version you had open, it doesn't address that it is clearly not an A7 regardless of whether it was contested by an admin or an IP. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think total absence of references is pretty good grounds for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Weather (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not gonna lie, I'm pretty miffed about this.

I am the primary (only) maintainer of this portal. I have put a lot of effort over the years into making this a low-maintenance, sustainable portal that can be incrementally updated. This is precisely *why* there are so many subpages, since I've put a lot of care into ensuring that there will always be relevant and randomized, fresh content based on the current date, and there will never be broken links. I've made hundreds of edits this year alone, not just in the "on this day" section but also in the "did you know" section and adding a new featured picture. This is all the result of hundreds or maybe even thousands of hours of effort over more than a decade, searching for relevant weather events from a given date, and adding them to the "on this day" section so that they appear around the appropriate anniversary.

Many of the "delete" comments seem to have lazily just looked at the history of the main portal page, seen very few edits, and thrown up their hands and said "Well, no one's working on it, get rid of it!". If they had actually done some digging and seen the history of transcluded pages, they would have seen that yes, this portal has been heavily maintained over the years. Why is this even a proper rationale for deletion anyway?? Even if it were true, no one is even addressing the merits of the content as it exists (or rather, existed I guess).

If the Portal really needed to go so badly, why did no one think to remove it from the literal thousands of pages that still link to it?

Most annoying of all, I was not notified about this deletion discussion. When I went in to make some updates today (as I often do), I saw that the entirety of my work had been deleted, without even being able to offer a defense.

The closing admin's reasoning is completely incorrect: "There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers." Well, let me give this argument then: I have made hundreds of edits to this portal's subpages in this year alone. If anything, I've updated this Portal more in the past year than in any year since it was first overhauled over a decade ago. The nominator pointed to a single example of inaccurate information that would have been easily corrected, and used that as representative of the entire breadth of pages under the Portal. Why were the first comments pointing to WP:FIXIT ignored??

Do people want more selected articles? I can do that! Do people want a place to report inaccurate information? I can do that! Do people want instructions on how to add their own weather event to the list of 1000+ "On this day" links? I can do that! No one ever asked, so I never thought these were priorities that could lead to the entire portal being deleted out from under me.

Please restore all 2100+ pages that I have worked hard on for more than a decade, and maybe next time use a little more discretion and transparency when deleting a huge body of work like this. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those without admin privileges, this tool shows the number of pages created (not number of edits, which is higher) by me in the Portal:Weather space. You can see I created more than 200 now-deleted pages in the space in the past year alone.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn there were two major arguments for deletion in that discussion: that the portal wasn't maintained and that it contained errors. The first argument is clearly not true, the OP was making an average of more than one edit a day to the portal and has done so for a long time. Admittedly nobody pointed this out but that just suggests the discussion was defective. The fact the OP as the portal's main maintainer wasn't aware of the discussion also weakens it. The argument that the portal contains errors contradicts WP:SOFIXIT and WP:ATD, as was pointed out in the discussion. Those are respectively a guideline and a policy and people citing them shouldn't be downweighted on strength of argument, as the closer seems to have done. Hut 8.5 22:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How would the nominator have known whom to contact? Or which of the thousands of subpages were edited recently? Was an MfD tag put on the portal page, and if so, why wasn't that sufficient to notify the maintainer? – Levivich 22:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Levivich having had a chance to cool my head, I can understand the lack of notification. The opener of discussion did notify the creator of the portal, and the appropriate Wikiproject. My arguments against the conclusions reached still stand, however.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An MFD was placed on Portal:Weather on November 17, 2019, at 20:28 by Mark Schierbecker. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at Special:RelatedChanges would have easily shown that Runningonbrains was maintaining the portal. The argument for deletion here was that the portal wasn't being maintained, it's hardly unreasonable to expect the nominator to check whether anyone is maintaining it. Hut 8.5 23:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to think past the letter of the law. When nominating a single article for deletion, standard-level effort at notification is appropriate. When dealing with a collection of 2000 pages, you really need to put in extra effort to make sure everybody who is interested knows about it. In this case, the portal maintainer was off-wiki from 17 November to 18 December; the entire MFD took place during a period when they were not around. What was so important about deleting these 2000 pages that it couldn't wait for them to return? Or, maybe try a little harder to notify them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're presupposing that anybody in that MfD was even aware that there was an editor who was updating some (like 10%? less?) of the 2100 subpages. It's a highly-unlikely circumstance that you have a maintainer who is regularly maintaining the portal, but only a certain part of it and not the main part, and on top of that, the editor is a regular contributor but doesn't log in for the almost-two-weeks that the portal is tagged for MfD. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not logging in for two weeks, nor with maintaining some but not all of a portal. In the past year that I've been rather active in portal deletions, I've never seen this very unique confluence of circumstances: 2100 pages, some being maintained, maintainer not logging in for MfD duration. I bet nobody can name another example like this. That's a one-in-a-million coincidence. Have we ever seen before a portal with that many subpages? I don't think anybody–not the nominator, not !voters, not the closer, and not the maintainer–did anything wrong here. It's just a "perfect storm" of circumstances. – Levivich 16:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith not that it matters but as a point of order, I wasn't fully off-wiki during the time of the discussion, I was definitely browsing during this time, so if I received a message I would have seen it.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 01:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Insufficient notification. While portals are now recognized as a dubious concept, that is not justification for the deletion of such a large number of old portal pages so hastily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The closer starts by saying that There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers yet neither of those assertions is correct. The portal is maintained, as mentioned in the nom above, and a simple investigation would have revealed the status. And nobody in the discussion mentioned inaccuracy at all. I fully sympathise with the OP's annoyance at this hasty and ill-thought-through deletion, given that the community explicitly decided not to deprecate maintained portals, and this is one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. Insufficient notification, and false claims from people who clearly don't have a clue how old-style multisubpage portals work. Two errors (one relatively minor) in 2100 pages is a low error rate, though I'd suggest the maintainer either checks included bios of living people for their death on a regular timetable or sticks to bios of the deceased. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I'm not sure I can blame the closer, given the arguments. Numerically, it's about a wash, but the keep arguments are mostly rather vague. I can't really blame the closer for down-weighting many of them. But, taking a step back, it's clear we ended up in the wrong place. Perhaps no rules were broken by not notifying the portal maintainer, but the lack of such notification clearly led to a sub-standard discussion. The closing statement says, There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers, and the deletion was based largely on that. But, the person best equipped to counter that argument didn't even know the discussion was going on. A defective notification and a close-call decision that depends on discounting some arguments don't seem like the process we want to use to delete over 2000 pages. If after another week of discussion, it still ends up as delete, that's fine, but at least Runningonbrains should have a chance to argue their case. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but relist based on new evidence – Notification to creator, WikiProject, and MfD tag on the portal page, was sufficient notification. The close was correct: literally zero editors argued that the portal was maintained or that it served accurate information; the !keeps were "sofixit" or otherwise stated the portal needed work. I strongly disagree with comments above that the deletion was hasty (12 days isn't hasty) or ill-thought out, or that delete !voters based their !votes on the portal history (those are experienced editors who know to look at subpages). There weren't two arguments for deletion, there were three. The third was that the portal had 2100 subpages, which is unmaintainable–more pages than we have the editors to maintain. This argument was discussed explicitly in the MfD. It seems to me that the nom and other voters were focused on Selected Articles and Selected Bios (that's the nom's examples of "never-updated" and "errors"), whereas the DRV filer is saying they maintained the DYK, OTD, and FP sections–not SA or SB. I can understand how !voters looking at SA and SB may not notice, among 2100 pages, that other pages (DYK, OTD) had recently been edited. I can also understand how a maintainer can miss an MfD tag on the portal for 12 days if they happened to not log in during those 12 days–and the contribs show that Runningonbrains didn't make any edits between Nov 18 and Nov 30. So I don't think there was anything wrong with how this MfD went down at all. Nevertheless, since there is an editor who has been building and maintaining this portal for a long time, and didn't get a chance to participate in the MfD, I can't see any reason not to relist it. I believe there's precedent for portals being kept when there's evidence of maintenance, and nobody brought forward evidence of maintenance in the MfD. Rather than seeing this as a "defective close", I see this as a "relist to consider new evidence" situation. – Levivich 04:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - I see some nonsense arguments to religitate the deletion discussion. I also see that the maintainer was not notified of the nomination for deletion. I don't see any plausible substantive arguments on appeal. I do see a valid procedural reason for this appeal, and that is the lack of notice. I don't think that I am required to declare that I !voted to Delete; I will make that declaration. I am arguing differently than I did at AFD because the issues to be decided and burden of proof are different. I still think that the portal should be deleted; but the portal maintainer should be given a chance to make the case for the portal. Relist it for another seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the main objection ("unmaintained") was only partially true. The maintainer's deleted edits show hundreds of edits to portal subpages in the last two years. I can understand why the nominator did not find out who was the maintainer from just looking at the main page history. Anyway, this is probably a good warning against having only one person checking a portal -- if they go away for longer than a week, they may miss an MFD completely. —Kusma (t·c) 18:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Even for the sake of argument you discount everything the maintainer wrote above, I don't even think the close was correct given the discussion, probably a no consensus at best, but I would overturn to a keep based on the flawed deletion rationale. Portal MfDs are especially terrible since there's not a lot of rules in place, so they tend to be "won" by whichever group of users shows up in force. SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the anti-portal campaign needs to be brought under control and a good start would be to an overturn here. There was no consensus for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There are three components to this deletion review nomination:
  1. "I wasn't notified" -- Nowhere do the rules say it was necessary for you to be notified, given that the portal was tagged for twelve days
  2. "The deleters were mistaken; the portal was in fact maintained" -- Mark Schierbecker presented evidence that it was unmaintained, that (assuming I read him or her correctly) it described someone who died five years ago as still living. Several users also !voted delete on the basis of the difficult-to-maintain structure, rather than any apparent lack of maintenance. Furthermore, this entire line of argument is claiming the !voters erred, rather than the closer, which is simply not within the scope of deletion review.
  3. "Please don't destroy my hard work" -- This is simply not a valid argument.
  * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Pppery I disagree with your characterization of my argument. I am saying that the !voters said things that were completely false, and the closer took these incorrect things at faith, which 'is' completely within the scope of deletion review. A single error that went overlooked does not point to something being unmaintained. If that's the case I guess we should delete half of Wikipedia. Furthermore, even if this portal were truly "difficult to maintain", that is not a valid criterion for deletion that I am aware of. If standards have changed, and "hub pages" (as the nominator refers to them) are required, that is something that could easily be created. As for not wanting someone to "destroy my hard work" (your quotes, not mine), my argument is that drastic actions (the deletion of a large body of ongoing work) should be held to a higher standard for complete deletion. Maybe that's still not a valid argument, but the point here isn't my feelings, it's the process.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Runningonbrains, Can you clarify what was said in the MFD that you think is "completely false"? (Note: "maintenance" means checking and if necessary fixing existing content, not just adding content). Re the "single error": the filer of the MFD did enough to demonstrate that the portal was not being kept up to date. DexDor ^(talk) 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The discussion showed no consensus (not even a rough one) so should have been closed as "no consensus". I don't especially see the MfD's keep arguments as being "vague" (as suggested above) and in good measure the delete arguments were not based on fact. So, by counting or weighting I do not see any consensus. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: I think you were referring to me regarding the vague keep comments. More specifically, arguments which consist entirely of, Keep WP:SOFIXIT (x2) or Keep per WP:ATD don't give any specific reason why this portal is worth keeping. That's what I was referring to as vague. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took these remarks to be in response to the three claims in the MFD nomination that the portal was not being updated. The responses therefore are saying update the portal. This would be regarded as an entirely satisfactory response to an AFD asking for deletion because the article was not being updated, wouldn't it? (And, by the way, it seems the claims were, at least partially, wrong). Thincat (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As this seems to have been a spectacular blunder and competence is required, we should reflect on the process. WP:DGFA explains how closes should be made:

1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below).
2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
4. When in doubt, don't delete.

In this case, there was no consensus, common sense was not used, the feelings of the Wikipedians were not respected and benefit of the doubt was not given. I'm going to ensure this is logged as evidence in the Portal case. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the editor who notified the WikiProject. Editors trying to delete a portal rarely alert anyone other than the creator of its main page (often inactive for years), so I check daily for new MfDs and notify any appropriate active projects. I also make a quick check for a maintainer, but unfortunately on this occasion I overlooked Runningonbrains. Certes (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The portal attackers should cool it. This was a maintained portal. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist. I have every confidence that the closer used a reasonable competence to verify claims made on both sides. However, given the somewhat decentralized structure of some sorts of portal construction, it clearly required more effort than was performed. Virtually every delete !vote made an "unmaintained" assertion; even the closing statement asserted lack of maintenance as a reason for deleting. OP's nomination here blows all that up. This case demonstrates that a guideline on portal construction is necessary; further, it demonstrates that such a guideline requires input from parties who believe in and maintain portals themselves. BusterD (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - 'spectacular blunder', not IMO by the closer, but in the premise (that the portal was not maintained). This casts doubt on other deletions of portals. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Levivich, Pppery, and others. Solid rationales provided by the above. I agree with all of it. It was a solid close. Consensus can change and there's nothing stopping nom from restoring the portal, but I see no need to restore the subpage. Just begin anew. Portals can be easily re-created. Doug Mehus T·C 01:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: Do you really think that 2100 subpages of selected article excerpts, images, "on this day", etc. could be "easily re-created"? If so, how would that be better than restoring the deleted versions with attribution history? Certes (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Certes: I don't it's necessary to re-create those subpages. They're just automatically generated lists of pages we featured, essentially, for this portal. Also, I don't see why WP:ATT makes sense in the case of portals. Little original editing actually takes place in the portal namespace. Some willing editors could easily just re-create Portal:Weather relatively quickly and feature new articles going forward. No need to say what articles a previous iteration were featured. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why wouldn't it be preferable to simply reinstate the deleted portal, which (contrary to claims made at the MfD) was being maintained? What on earth would be the benefit to completely starting over? Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:G4? My endorse was unequivocal, not "endorse but relist" or "endorse but allow recreation". There is no indication that consensus has changed here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no indication that there was ever a consensus in favor of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In the (unlikely but possible) hypothetical scenario in which this discussion was closed as endorse, then this discussion will be that indication. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The closer saw no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers. We now have new evidence of hundreds of edits this year and that this is a low-maintenance, sustainable portal which does not require daily tinkering to justify its survival. The inaccurate information consists of one easily fixed omission of a meteorologist's death. I suggest transcluding excerpts to prevent such errors in future, but it's not a valid excuse for deletion. Certes (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close which didn't say there shouldn't be a weather portal, but said it could be "recreated in a more maintainable form at such time that there are editors who are committed to maintaining it regularly.", but restore the portal's main page to userspace to help the OP start creating a transclusion-based portal (should they choose to do so).

There are several irrelevant and misleading statements in the comments above - for example, "why did no one think to remove it from ..." as (1) there's no need to remove portal links (in most/all cases links to non-existant portals are not shown) and (2) doing so would (presumably) mean re-adding the links if the portal was re-created (as allowed by the close).

The XFD included statements such as that the 41 selected articles/biographies were created in 2008-2010 and never updated since (even where the subject of a biography had died).  Assuming that statement is correct it indicates a lack of maintenance. The OP may have been adding more pages to the portal, but that's expansion not maintenance. A fundamental problem with portals appears to be that editors like to create/expand them, but (unlike with articles) editors don't like to maintain them (especially maintaining parts of a portal created by another editor).

That an editor put hundreds of hours into a page(s) (that few if any readers ever looked at) isn't itself a reason to keep. In fact, it's a reason for encouraging editors to do something more useful instead.

A portal consisting of thousands of copied subpages that probably had just one person (the page's creator) watchlisting each one and doesn't have strong support from other editors interested in the topic (e.g. who would copy across changes from the articles) was not maintainable in the long term. DexDor ^(talk) 14:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiff's_Treats (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The decision to delete this page is the result of an extremely narrow interpretation of WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. As editors, our mandate is not to re-interpret editorial decisions made by legitimate media outlets. Doing so puts the entire premise of WP as an encyclopedia at stake. The analysis presented by HighKing essentially challenges the editorial decisions of an independent newsroom to publish a story about this subject. HighKing is basing their analysis on the fact that the stories about this subject contain minimal sources outside of the subject. While it might be reasonable to challenge the newsroom on their reporting, it is not our role. It is not unusual to read articles with limited sources. The subject of this page has been profiled in a number of different, legitimate, independent, media outlets. We cannot take the rigid stance that if a piece of news is not reported to a degree that we would prefer, that it is therefore illegitimate for inclusion as a proper citation. Web pages, press releases, and other obvious self-promotional channels are clearly not legitimate sources for citations. However, it is not our role to be challenging the editorial decisions of major, independent media outlets in this way. While one could understand the need for additional citations for this subject, I firmly disagree with the decision to delete based on the analysis of one individual and urge further review of how WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND policies are being interpreted in this instance. In the meantime, the decision to delete should be reversed. Coffee312 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment I feel like this is an issue that Hijiri88 pointed out at another current DRV. In weighing the outcome of that AfD I see a consensus of editors who agree with HighKing's analysis and as such there is a consensus to delete, as I noted in my closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC) FWIW Coffee made no attempt to contact me prior to launching this DRV, but did notify me of the DRV, which I appreciate.[reply]
• Endorse.

An editorial decision by an independent newsroom to publish a story does not make the non-independent story independent.

User:HighKing's analysis was correct.

User:Cunard has a habit of reference bombing discussions with a large number of weak sources, weak in terms of demonstrating notability.

WP:Reference bombing has become a pretty standard technique for bamboozling reviewers. The answer is WP:THREE. If the best three are not good enough, no number of additional weaker sources will help. Name the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per SmokeyJoe above. The three best references supplied (whichever they are) don't add up to a demonstration of notability, and that was successfully argued in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- the deletion discussion contained a bombardment of marginal or useless sources, a detailed rebuttal of them, and after two relists the consensus was clearly to delete. The WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND might have been interpreted more strictly than some would like, but that was by the discussion participants. Not by the closing administrator, who only judged consensus. This was clearly a correct close. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I feel guilty being pinged and then failing to show up, but I didn't feel I had anything to add to this review, since it is obviously going to end in an endorse result. Perhaps we should review the deletion review process, whereby any frivolous deletion reviews that are clearly not worth the community's time are speedy-closed after one day, with the filer being warned for the first two breaches and then issued with escalating blocks for the third and later? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also the same warnings and escalating blocks for editors who repeatedly source-bomb AFDs with a bunch of news articles, books and journal articles they themselves clearly haven't read. I have seen more than my fair share of AFDs end in "keep" or "no consensus -- default to keep" results because of this kind of disruptive behaviour. (Perhaps the most disruptive example in my experience was here, although in that case there was no "bombing", since only two or three sources the keep !voters hadn't read were actually presented. This is another example, since while the problem was more !vote-stacking than people posting links to sources they hadn't read/understood, the latter still definitely occurred -- from a syspop, who even defended an IP sock of a site-banned user and never retracted said defense!) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delete was a possible close to this discussion and the close and delete !votes are grounded in policy, I don't see any reversible error here. The mere existence of sources does not imply notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Cunard has a bad habit of ref-bombing AfDs and 90% of the references he posts are crap. Coffee312's belief that NCORP was/is being extremely narrowly interpreted is entirely incorrect. Reading the above, it appears that Coffee312 is suggesting that if a major, independent media outlet publishes any kind of article mentioning an organization, then we are bound to accept the article as a sign that the company meets the requirements for notability. This is wrong. It is so wrong that the NCORP guidelines were significantly tightened up about a year ago in order to remove precisely the types of references that are a mix of churnalism and interviews masquerading as independent content which are prevalent in Cunard's list of references. In order to meet the criteria for notability, Independent Content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is not a "narrow interpretation" and its aim is to exclude all obvious promotional content generated by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but with slight reservations. This does look a bit like a supervote, but when you dig into it you find a valid reading based on misunderstanding by some editors of the impact of churnalism on "referenciness". Guy (help!) 00:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closer properly weighted the various positions advocated by editors and determined there was a consensus for redirect. The character having a widely known quote is not enough, in my reading, to convey notability and I see no real examples of sourcing or other reasoning put forward to support the idea of this as a stand-alone article rather than a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer did an admirable job of balancing the weight of various comments instead of simply counting !votes. Most of the "Keep" comments make vague references to unnamed sources found in WP:BEFORE searches; the few named sources were shown to be unreliable. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This isn't quite as clear as the other similar article at DRV, but redirect was an acceptable close here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - absolutely reasonable close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unlike in Hodor where at least some better sources were presented, this one had nothing outside fan-based plot speculations and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The closer got this one right; it's no use insisting "Oh, I'm sure there must be sources out there somewhere" without producing them. This is why the consensus, weighing strength of argument, was to redirect. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The question is between a separate article and a redirect, and the redirect permits the inclusion of a reasonable amount of material in the list article. This means that information is not really lost by the redirection. This in turn provides a reason why the closer can and should use judgment, and the closer used judgment. I do not have an opinion on whether I would have !voted to Keep or to Redirect, but the closer used proper judgment and there is no reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A straight WP:NOTPLOT#1 decision. A patently inappropriate character spinout. It comes nowhere near meeting WP:SPINOUT. Any future challenge to reverse the redirect decision should be made by consensus at the target talk page, Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As a point of interest, this discussion was mentioned[12] on noticeboard for the Article Rescue Squadron, who have this article on their "Rescue List". ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is this important? It was also posted on list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I get it, you thought that was canvassing. Well if it was, it didn't work. All the delete !voters from the AfD are here. It is our practice at ARS to follow an AfD all the way. You can look back in the archives to confirm. The article was improved by ARS members. Lightburst (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is not the same as "no consensus". If it was, half the encyclopedia would be paralyzed. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Consensus is an actual policy. If this was closed as no-consensus it would be within policy and a correct close. There was clearly no consensus to delete and no consensus to keep, and no consensus to redirect. Policy says we keep it. The article can be nominated at AfD 100 times, but recreation is notoriously more difficult, and that is why we have this policy. Not meaning to lecture anyone I was just hoping that we could have a policy based close and not a Supervote close. There is literally no reason for editors to debate at AfD if consensus does not matter. Another editor might have a different close based on their own preferences. Another reason why we need to follow the consensus policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way was the WP:CONSENSUS policy not followed? Or, alternatively, why was it "clearly" no consensus to redirect? And if your answer is based on the numbers, what about WP:NOTAVOTE? – Levivich 16:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors volunteered their time to participate in the AfD and improve the article. Some improved the article and others provided guideline based reasons to keep the article. It is a common refrain for editors to claim WP:NOTAVOTE but all regular AfD participants know that an AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Andrew Davidson brought many relevant sources to AfD. I added sources to the article. Hunter Kahn discovered sources. The article was improved at AfD and the !vote and opinions were evenly divided. This is a classic no-consensus. We have another actual policy which applies, not a guideline. WP:PRESERVE. I think this is why the rules are set up to say consensus is needed to take action. Otherwise. WP:NORUSH (IK...only an essay) applies. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, You are correct that "Consensus" is policy. I don't understand how that's an answer to what I said.

You had originally seemed to claim that "controversial" implies "no consensus" which is absolutely not true. You can link to WP:CONSENSUS as many times as you want, but it still won't say that. ApLundell (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think redirect/merge was a valid close here given the state of the article and the general rule minor characters which consist of only WP:PLOT are better suited to lists. I think no consensus also would have been a valid close, but I have no problem with the close or the rationale, and it was probably the correct result. There's also nothing prohibiting the article from being recreated, and though this is not a popular opinion, I'd prefer to see it go through AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am troubled by what seems to be the implicit statement made here, and indeed at least one other AfD I've recently seen and closed by a different sysop, that if the sourcing presented at AfD is not incorporated into the article it doesn't count for notability. I have always felt given WP:NPOSSIBLE ("Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article", emphasis in the original) that sources shown at AfD are sufficient, if of enough quality, to demonstrate notability whether or not someone has done the work of incorporating into an article. That said I want to give a deeper thought, and explore the advanced sources a bit more, before saying whether the closer weighed participation correctly in establishing what consensus there was or wasn't before a close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and careful consideration. I do agree with the WP:NEXIST guidance. However I also participated in the improvement of this article and my concern is that the closer did not follow the consensus policy. We should close based on consensus, and an article may be relisted and may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your statement that I wonder about, it was the closer's. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Sorry to butt in, but I believe Tone may have been thinking that since the sources presented at AFD were challenged as not actually demonstrating notability, the onus then shifted back to the ones claiming it did to show that it did by doing what I and others said couldn't be done, which was using those sources to build an article that isn't ALLPLOT.

A more troubling trend, in my view, than admins following this line of reasoning is the tendency for editors to copy-paste a bunch of links they Googled up, apparently without even reading them, and claiming they demonstrate notability, and this being enough to create doubt and shift the AFD to "no consensus" -- this is definitely what was en route to happening at the Hodor AFD, as I read all the sources presented on the 9th and 11th, and only didn't go through the ones presented on the 16th because I had just wasted half an hour going through similar sources presented two minutes earlier here by the same editor, who all but admitted to not having read them himself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a perfectly reasonable close given the state of the article and the strength of some of the arguments put forward. Redirection is a pretty soft-touch way to deal with a questionable article and, therefore, applying it in preference to No Consensus ought not to be especially controversial. Hug^syrup 22:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - absolutely reasonable close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sourcing presented at the AFD was clearly inadequate, and those presenting them either (a) admitted not to having read them or (b) carefully refused to reply when asked as much. Once all the "Notable -- I Googled up a bunch of links I haven't actually read" and "Notable -- someone else Googled up a bunch of links I also haven't read" !votes are discounted, there was a very clear majority in favour of redirecting, and Tone assessed the consensus correctly. If only more admins were willing to do so.

As an aside, the page history hasn't been deleted, nor have any of the sources presented in the AFD, so there's nothing stopping anyone who believes it can be done from writing up a new article within the list that isn't ALLPLOT, perhaps incorporating some of the ALLPLOT content from the previous article, and undoing the redirect once the content gets to long not to get its own article. Yes, doing this without consensus would potentially result in another Talk:List of longest marriages mess, and there's nothing to say that all real-world, non-plot content is encyclopedic and worth including, but if anyone actually believes, in good faith, that the sources linked by Andrew and Hunter, and any other sources that are out there, actually would be enough to build a standalone article, then everything is still there for them to expand the list entry in an article-length piece of encyclopedic prose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - okay, I'll admit I'm surprised the only Games of Thrones character I've heard of got redirected (unless - is the blonde lady with the braids named `Mother of Dragons'?), but the vast majority of the arguments for redirection ignore all the sources presented, and discuss only what's in the article - and the close reasoning is explicitly based on that. Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus, and the sources presented are sufficient to be plausible for WP:N (though perhaps not a slam dunk), so neither those who thought they met WP:N, nor those who didn't, can really be ignored. Such a defective closing rationale would be extremely problematic going forward, because it would be extremely ambiguous as to whether an expanded article would fall under G4, given it was based on votes that ignored the discussion and facts. WilyD 09:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus That's because everyone who said "keep" was basing their argument on a quick Googling of "sources" that either mention the subject in passing or consist exclusively plot summary, while the majority of the redirects either didn't feel the need to respond to such inane !votes or felt it was sufficient to say "per Hijiri"; selectively counting the "keep -- notable" !votes that ignored the actually issue at hand, while ignoring the !votes that were based on the issue at hand specifically for that reason, as you are implying you would have done, would have been a much more defective closing rationale, which makes me question your competence as an admin with the authority to make such decisions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- consensus at the AfD was that articles consisting entirely of plot summary are not good, and that the content would be better dealt with in an encyclopedic manner in some other- comprehensive- article. The close reflected that. There's no issue here. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The question is between a separate article and a redirect, and the redirect permits the inclusion of a reasonable amount of material in the list article. This means that information is not really lost by the redirection. This in turn provides a reason why the closer can and should use judgment, and the closer used judgment. I do not have an opinion on whether I would have !voted to Keep or to Redirect, but the closer used proper judgment and there is no reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A straight WP:NOTPLOT#1 decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sound close, and nothing of value is lost because the redirect is, if anything, more informative, because it includes more context. Guy (help!) 00:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist , on the basis that a wider discussion would help. But even if we keep it as is, I assume that additional published material on the series will give sufficient additional sourcing, includingfrom academic sources, to justify an article. I'd guess probably in early 2021, based on the time it takes for publication. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Spilo (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted as an attack page. While I cannot prove it without restoring the article, the page was neutral, did not make any unsourced allegations, and had several (I think seven?) sources from reputable, reliable sources (including Parade, Fox News, etc.). There were also claims made (according to the notices I got on my talk page) against the notability of the topic of the article, and there might be a debate on that, but I believe I gave enough to establish notability. Regardless, that would be a debate, not a speedy criteria. Again, for this to have speedily deleted seems absurd to me. Red Slash 01:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was deleted on WP:A7, WP:A10, and WP:G10 grounds. I would ask for a temporary undeletion, but if the G10 is correct this is better left to the admins. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say below, I don't think this is a defensible G10, but I'm going to hold off a temp restore out of an abundance of caution until at least one other admin looks at it and agrees. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This wasn't appreciably different from Survivor: Island of the Idols#Controversy in claims, tone, or sourcing, though the text is quite different. None of the three criteria it was deleted for seem defensible - it's not a G10 because it's not libel or legal threats, there's no reason to think it was intended to harass or intimidate, and - while entirely negative in tone - was not unsourced. It's not an A10, if for no other reason than that it's a valid redirect (as evidenced by the deleting admin immediately recreating it as one). And, while I dearly wish we lived in a world where appearing on Survivor was not a claim of significance and did not generate coverage in reliable sources, we don't, so it's not an A7. Overturn. Editorially, I think redirecting was the right call, but speedy deleting it first isn't defensible. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's obviously not an A7, and it's not realistically an A10 (redirectable, but there's also a little more background on the guy, and (weirdly?) more details on why he got booted from the show. I don't see libel or legal threats, I don't think it's intended to harass or intimidate, and it's reasonably well sourced. So at least by the text, I don't think G10 applies. I think the article is likely to be redirected as is, since it's almost entirely about the show, but of course others sources may exist to justify a stand-alone article. WilyD 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. We're an encyclopedia, not a supermarket gossip sheet. This whole thing could be adequately covered in a couple of sentences in the main article. But yeah, none of the cited CSD fit, so restore the history under the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Hut 8.5's comment below, I agree, WP:BLP1E applies, and we shouldn't even restore the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least with the listed sources, BLP1E probably does apply here. However, I'm extremely skeptical that it's a problem the material is in the history, when the page is a redirect that sends you to the same material. WilyD 08:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. The amount of space devoted to Spilo in the main article isn't justified either, per WP:UNDUE. Most of that should be revdel'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, did you even glance at the page before linking it? It's wholly inapplicable. As far as UNDUE, it's possible that you're right, but I'd also not be surprised if you're wrong, and the scandalous bits are the only bit of Survivor: The 544th iteration that attracts any attention in sources. WilyD 09:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @WilyD:, @RoySmith:, @Cryptic:, thanks. Is it possible for one of you to please undelete the page so that I and any other editors get a crack at getting the page ready to stand an actual AfD discussion, please? Thank you so much. Red Slash 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With G10 being invoked (and, while seemingly wrong, not an obvious misclick or something), I suspect we're all very reluctant to undelete without an absolutely clear consensus. If you're worried about an immediately AfD if deleted, the best practice is probably to leave it as a redirect until you have a draft ready to go then go for it. WilyD 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A version of the article pre-deletion is on the Wayback Machine, just for the record. There are a bunch of claims that needed to be speedily removed - or speedily referenced - for violating BLP, but the article could have been stubified and I would not consider a Survivor contestant as eligible for A7 deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the US, there's been 38 seasons, roughly 20 contestants per season, so 750-ish. Times a bunch of franchises in other countries. So, figure thousands of contestants total. I disagree that being a member of that group of thousands of contestants is a legitimate claim of importance or significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not in and of itself sufficient for notability. I sincerely believe that the vast amounts of independent (non-industry) media coverage of Spilo and his actions have made him notable. I've been an editor for well over a decade at this point; I know the notability policies. Red Slash 18:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but A7 is about significance, not notability. Being a contestant in a very well known work is not enough to make someone notable by default, but it does create enough "importance or significance" that I wouldn't consider it A7-able. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was narrowly in response the idea that being a Survivor contestant, per-se, disqualifies A7. I agree that A7 doesn't apply to this particular article about this particular contestant. But, if I wrote an article about Sonja Christopher which said nothing beyond she was a contestant on Survivor, that would surely be A7 territory. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a regular role in a top television show is a CCSI; I don't see why it should be any different for a reality TV show than for a fictional one (since reality TV is fictional anyway). I think CCSI and N should be judged for a Survivor contestant the same as for any actor. – Levivich 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely not an A7 and we can argue about G10, but having this article strikes me as a really bad idea. This guy is and is likely to remain a low profile individual and his sole claim to fame is a bunch of incidents of sexual assault, so that's all we can write about in the article. The incident is covered in more than enough depth at Survivor:_Island_of_the_Idols#Controversy and a standalone article on this person is pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BLP1E. I don't think we should restore it. Hut 8.5 19:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would overturn on the basis that the article does not meet the above mentioned speedy deletion criteria. Being a Survivor contestant itself is not notable, however, being a significant contestant (like for instance winners, or highly regarded contestants like Ozzy Lusth, Coach (Survivor contestant), Russell Hantz, Jeff Varner, Rudy Bosch, Cirie Fields, etc, or someone notable for their actions on a show (like Dan) is notable. That's my opinion regarding Dan. However, I would not oppose to some work being done to the article and then seeing if it can withstand an AFD. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. Not a G10. Definitely not an A7 or A10. At AfD, I would !vote "delete", it is a fan article, no encyclopedic content, BLP1E, the appropriate place to host this content is https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Dan_Spilo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article and its sources are terrible. Guy (help!) 00:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well gee, thanks for that. I'm not sure being "terrible" in JzG's opinion is a speedy deletion criterion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse in that the right result is to redirect it to the Survivor page (note: I have been involved in writing that section on that page). There is nothing prior to this season to make Spilo notable, and thus this is clearly a BLP1E situation. A likely search term , so redirect is right. --Masem (t) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's plausible that this is a BLP1E situation. But that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I don't see how the speedy as an attack page is valid. The tone in the article, seems similar to detailed international mainstream media reporting that's come out since the DRV started, such as Global Canada CTV Canada (which is not the network that airs it), The Sun, UK, NBC USA (which is NOT the network it airs on) [13] (Fox USA - again not the network it airs on). Could be improved, but speedy not valid. Whether it should be an article, or just a redirect, is something that should be determined elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – This is a G10 in my opinion. Almost the entire article disparages the subject, taking what sources report as allegations and stating them as facts in wikivoice, and employing hyperbole to accentuate the negative (for example, does any RS state that he was "forcibly removed" as opposed to "asked to leave"?). Copyedit the article and insert the requisite "allegedly", and you still end up with a BLP1E. Redirect is the right outcome. – Levivich 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the section in the season article is much more nuanced than the separate article, and gives full context. It's appropriate for WP to have the information, but it's not appropriate to highlight it by having a separate article out of context. I consider it a reasonable A10 because of that highlighting. A10 can apply not just because of the content, but because of the way it is presented. (I'm making essentially the same arguement as Levivich, but I read all the material before looking at he comments here) This is an illustration of my general view that A10 (& BLP in general) requires interpretation, not blind adherence to its wording. More than the other speedy categories, it's a matter of intent) DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Football International (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To summarise:

• Keep !voters were unable to provide policy-based rationales or post sources proving the article met WP:GNG, which Britishfinance's close failed to take into account. (DRVPURPOSE 1)
  • Melcous !voted "weak keep" as a GNG pass in the first AfD (closed as NC) and added quite a few sources. I removed a couple of unreliable ones and gave a detailed rationale in the second nomination statement explaining why the remaining sources don't result in a GNG pass. She reposted her previous reasoning with little consideration of the nomination statement, and pointed out the existence of articles on Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup as another reason to keep (true, but not relevant to notability as organisations do not inherit notability from events/products they are associated with).
  • Bookscale !voted "weak keep" said there was "enough to just meet GNG" but did not identify any sources to support this.
  • 4meter4 added no reasoning to previous participants' contributions.
  • J947 relisted the discussion twice, recognising no keep !voters had provided any substantial sources.
• The close was a WP:BADNAC (2), considering the lack of substantial keep !votes and Barkeep49's delete !vote that edit-conflicted with the close.
  • If the !vote had come just one minute earlier, the tally would have been only 3–2 in favour of keep, with two of the keep !votes having no substantive reasoning of their own. (Not to say AfDs are decided by tallies, merely that this is a closer call than the close supposes and should be closed by an admin).
  • Britishfinance admitted they would have found no consensus if Barkeep's !vote stood, and has also acknowledged the discussion was a "borderline case".

This close should either be overturned to no consensus, reclosed by an admin, or reopened to allow Barkeep's !vote to be posted and further discussion to take place (or some combination of the three). – Teratix ₵ 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Australian Football International (2nd nomination), where the following was noted regarding my close:

• This article has spent 6 continual weeks at AfD without a single Delete !vote (nominated twice in short succession, and then relisted twice each time by the nom).
• All !votes were Keep or Weak Keep, and they explicitly acknowledged that their !vote took in the borderline nature of the AfD (Per the talk page discussion above, WP:BASIC does allow them to consider non-trivial mentions is related RS as contributing to GNG).
• Per the AfD talk page discussion, I mused on an NC close, but felt it would be too much of a WP:SUPERVOTE given there was no single Delete in the 6 weeks (combined) at AfD, and explicit consideration by the Keeps on the nature of their !vote.
• Barkeep49 did not !vote in any of the AfDs, and to re-open for them to add a Delete !vote post-closing, I think we would at least need the agreement of the other participants: 4meter4, Bookscale, and Melcous as a courtesy; however, I was waiting for them to reply on the Talk page.
• I am not sure what the benefit of trying to re-open this AfD is given there is no consensus to Delete it, and it has been re-nominated twice in succession? I suggested to the nom that they should have opted for a merge post the 1st re-list, but their response on the talk page indicated that they are not being objective with regard to this topic/AfD.

Hope that helps explain, thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note WP:BASIC applies to people, not organisations; organisations are covered by WP:NCORP, which is stricter and I believe does not allow the "combine coverage from multiple independent sources" defence
• To not allow Barkeep to add a !vote you admitted would change the outcome of the discussion and would have been posted mere seconds or minutes after your close seems extremely unfair (and speaks volumes as to the fragility of the supposed keep consensus if one !vote was sufficient to sway the decision). – Teratix ₵ 14:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "not allow Barkeep49 add a !vote" - per the talk page, I made it clear to Barkeep49 that I had misread them as implying they were going to "close" the AfD as a Delete (which I would not have really agreed with on the basis of a SUPERVOTE). Nobody is trying to be "unfair" with you here; you have engaged the community at AfD for 6 weeks with no support to Delete(not one !vote), and !votes from at least one experienced AfD participant, who are fully aware of the borderline nature of the case. Britishfinance (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse Even if the delete !vote had been allowed, it would have been closed as no consensus. This is a complete waste of time. We have already wasted six weeks on this. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, DRVs aren't closed early unless nominations are clearly in bad faith, the nominator withdraws the nomination, or the closer decides they completely blew it. WilyD 16:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - sure, a weak keep might've been appropriate, but it's been at AfD for six weeks; an immediate renomination is would be getting tendentious, so - fine. Sources are ... weak, but not so weak that a closer can substitute their own judgement; if most people are happy enough with them, then they're adequate. I'm not super-sympathetic that after six weeks across two AfDs, someone decided to chuck in a comment but found it was already closed (and really, I see no evidence their !vote would've meaningfully changed the outcome. Barkeep doesn't appear to have prepared some in depth analysis that would've tilted far away from a headcount on an article with plausible but not slam dunk sources.) WilyD 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure as Keep. This is a clear case of bludgeoning the deletion process by the nominator/appellant. After one AFD didn't succeed, another was submitted, and that one also didn't succeed. The apparent purpose of this appeal is to change the result to No Consensus to permit a third AFD earlier. There isn't an error by the closer that warrants continuing to try to get the article deleted. Just leave it alone. This isn't WP:AN, but a topic-ban on the nominator from deletion discussions of this article (just this article) may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not a single user has !voted delete over six weeks and two AfDs, and Barkeep49's vote doesn't change the outcome. This DRV smacks of trying to get the article deleted on a technicality as opposed to any sort of error by the closer, a non-admin who made a very easy close. I'm in the "enough is enough" crowd. SportingFlyer T·C 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As I was pinged, either have it overturned to no consensus or kept as is. Either way it doesn't really matter. I relisted it in hope that the 'keep' !voters would expand upon their vote and react to Teratix's concerns, as that is good practice. J947 ^(c), at 22:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics dimensions (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

@Dream Focus: stated that the article, whose AFD was closed without comment, met WP:LISTPURP because enough articles on individual Marvel dimensions exist to provide navigational value for the list, which should have rendered moot any delete argument based on dearth of sources that talk about the concept as a group. The other five delete arguments are either based on essays (which can't be used to delete articles) or fail WP:ATA (WP:IDL and WP:PERX). The aforementioned fact that the AFD was closed without comment prevented this issue from being directly addressed. ミラP 01:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While an extremely poor article, Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places covers the topic already, so the list is particularly redundant even disregarding its other issues. TTN (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't going to take a position on this drv, but that statement's... just... boggling. The deleted list covered these dimensions (or universes, or whatever) primarily in terms of this universe - the fictional places' series, issue, date, and authorship of first publication, with a brief in-universe description on about half the entries. The list you're describing as superior has almost exclusively the latter. —Cryptic 02:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those details particularly matter if we're arguing the list is unneeded in the first place. Prettying up an unnecessary list doesn't give it purpose. If the justification of this DRV is that blue links = list, then that list already covers the topic adequately. TTN (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there were arguments on both sides regarding whether the list was valid for navigation, and a consensus to delete, so selecting this particular position would have been a supervote. Correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 06:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 3 out of 4 keep/merge votes were WP:JUSTAVOTE (which is to be discounted as an argument not to use in AfDs) without even explaining why at all. Properly judged and closed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: WP:JUSTAVOTE is listed at WP:ATA alongside WP:PERX and WP:IDL, so the delete votes I mentioned should have also been discounted for failing WP:ATA if it was applied to any of the keep votes. ミラP 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. The fact that an argument is listed at ATA doesn't mean that argument should be disregarded by the closer. But the mere votes without reasoning or analysis carry no weight. I'm concerned by what Cryptic says above, that this deleted content is superior to our current coverage of the same topic in another article. We might benefit from restoring this list to draft to enable some merging.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Cryptic is arguing in the opposite direction. Thincat (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It hasn't been nominated for deletion for over a decade, so you could give it a go. ;) WilyD 05:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV's purpose, in this article's case, is to contest the closing of a deletion discussion, not to muse if the content should be kept in one way or the other elsewhere. There is no other way this particular discussion could have been closed, given the provided rationales. I note that Miraclepine is happy to discount all the delete !votes as being inadequate, but fails to mention that 3/4 of the keep !votes offer exactly zero to the discussion and were likely disregarded as mere votes. Correct interpretation of consensus. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: I am contest[ing] the closing of a deletion discussion, because the closer left no extra comment and failed to address the navigation argument. I did not mention the keep votes because I figured that the closer would disregard them regardless of comment. ミラP 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse three of the four Keep !votes have no rationale at all and it's reasonable to downweight those. The argument that the list has navigational value didn't go down well in the discussion and I'm not that surprised, few of the entries in the list had any sort of link and even fewer linked to standalone articles (many links just went to Features of the Marvel Universe). The deleted page is a 15 KB table listing these "dimensions" without going into detail about them, I think any merge would have to be very selective. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it to draft space if someone has a serious proposal for one though. Hut 8.5 16:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, delete !voters don't necessarily need to address arguments put forward by keep !voters to achieve consensus. Delete !voters provided policy/guideline based rationales for deletion, including after arguments were made to be kept. The consensus here seems clear to me and was properly interpreted by the closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I do not see reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- It seems Miraclepine wants to chuck out all the delete votes for citing essays they agree with, while treating the unsubstantiated "keepormerge" votes that get copy-pasted onto every AfD with extreme reverence. Consensus was very clear here and the closing administrator got it right. Reyk _YO! 12:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, Jovanmilic97, RetiredDuke, Hut 8.5, Barkeep49, Robert McClenon, and Reyk: I'm not suggesting that it should have been kept. I'm suggesting that so many votes on both sides used an amount of essays (which, as this AFD shows, can't be used to decide whether or not to keep/delete an article) to the point that it should have caused the AFD to be either closed as no consensus or relisted. ミラP 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're suggesting, and I disagree. I don't think any of us are arguing the article should have been kept - we're reviewing whether delete was a proper close given the circumstances. From what I can tell, you're asking us to discount all of the !votes bar one because they cite essays, but I disagree. Only one delete !vote directly cites an essay, and while you're correct they're not policy, essays are often cited at AfDs and taken into consideration with the close. This is a par-for-the-course AfD, and the delete close was a proper reading of the consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer and Barkeep49: (edit conflict) Let's dissect the six delete votes.

2 is based on WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay, period.

3 is WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.

4, 5, and 6, aren't directly based on policy, guideline, or even essay.

There was only one valid vote based on a guideline (WP:LISTN), but even that one was addressed by an equally valid keep vote which brought up another avenue to that guideline: blue-links.

The AFD therefore should've been a deadlock at best. ミラP 03:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see the delete !voters advancing a policy based reason for why it's not notable. The inclusion by one of an essay merely offers a shortcut to their POV of how policy applies in this circumstance. As such I do see both policy based discussion and enough participants that neither criteria for a relist is met. I've addressed above why I think the delete consensus, rather than no consensus, was the correct close of this AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Waugh (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer wrote that the Keep comments "only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight." That is simply untrue: I gave three sources, with links to them, and the proposed deletion was even delisted to generate further discussion of my sources. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the closer didn't read the debate. He certainly hadn't addressed the sources or given due weight to them, and so the proper procedure has not been followed. Richard75 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, the three sources I listed were [14], [15] and [16]. Richard75 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A huge problem with two of the sources (London and the book) are that one is a blog, and second is a Pedia book from Wikipedia users apparently, making both unreliable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment. I'd certainly have been willing to discuss a relisting with Richard75 to allow the AfD to discuss these sources in more detail – if they had contacted me prior to making this review request, as per the instructions. But they did not. So I have to endorse my own closure based on the AfD as it stood at the time of closing. I was in fact imprecise when I wrote that "the" keep opinions did not identify sources: those other than Richard75 did not. This does not change that there was consensus for deletion based on the number and quality of the arguments made: only Richard75 made a policy-based, substantiated case for keeping the article. Sandstein 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A tough one. I think only Richard from the Keep side gave some an actual argument (and did offer sources). Being a "subject of several graphic novels" does not matter per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources and the 1st gay character in British comic books angle didn't seem to convince a lot of editors that participated. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The sources presented during the AfD seem to have received little (or almost completely no) attention so I guess they were ignored rather than found not convincing. I think they could well have been found sufficient. It is a real pity Richard did not seek to discuss this with Sandstein who should have been given a chance to review their close and in this case might have done so. An alternative is to write a completely new article because I suspect (without seeing it) the deleted one may be not at all useful as a starting point. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No-blame relist. If we can spend a little energy to find some sourcing and keep the article I think that would be ideal. I felt the discussion showed that the character had some claim to notability and that sourcing was available. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist the closing statement definitely isn't fair to Richard75, who did present concrete examples of sources. Two of these clearly aren't suitable but the other one may be. If you want an article to be deleted on notability grounds and someone comes up with sources then you need to address those sources instead of ignoring them or baldly asserting there aren't any. Hut 8.5 12:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The Artful reveiw listed by Richard75 is an excellant source, and no one favoring delete engaged with it. The London Particualr would be excellant, if only it had ben reliably published, but as it stands it is unusable. But with these out there, it seems likely that others will exist, and WP:V quite specifically allows "Sources probably exist" so that argumetn should not have ben discounted. Alternativly, allow draftification if Richard75 or another editor intends to devote significant effort to this. That would allow plenty of time for research into sources, possibly off-line. Another 1 or two sources comperable to the Artful piece would be sufficient, I would think, to establish notability and insert the analysis that editors in the AfD complained was lacking. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't think that I agree with the closer, but I don't see a reversible error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Only one source that was even arguably GNG-satisfying was presented, and it was the Artful essay. The other two sources were a blog and a Wikipedia book. Aside from that one Artful essay, all keep !votes were properly discounted by the closer. "Sources must exist" is a !vote that is properly discounted, as are "!keep, [claim of importance]", such as "first X...". I don't view the Artful essay as requiring a second relist. First, it's a trade publication, weak for establishing notability because of the narrow audience. Second, it's just one source, and as a delete !voter said, Only a single source seems to be of any importance, but that's not enough for an article. Even if the AfD were relisted a second time, and all the delete !voters agreed that the Artful essay satisfied GNG, the result would still be delete, because we'd need at least two sources to satisfy GNG. The final reason why delete was right here is that if a second GNG source is found, the article can just be recreated, and it won't be a G4 due to the new sources. So no harm in leaving it deleted (no harm if it were REFUNDed to draft or userspace either), whereas a second relisting would have been a waste of time. Therefore, I endorse the closer's discounting of votes and read of consensus. The consensus was: there aren't two GNG sources out there. – Levivich 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sandstein may have been slightly mistaken in closing the AfD with that verbiage, but there's no actual error in the close. Of the sources found by Richard75, one appears to be a blog and the other says "Editor: By Wikipedians" on its front page, and a consensus to delete existed, so I can't vote for on overturn in any circumstance. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Not a Supervote. This is one that Sandstein got right Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Our of three sources presented in the end by the keep side, the book is good but offers only 2-3 sentences; a paragraph if you really want to be charitable. Then there is a 'digital newsletter' ([17], borderline RS) and a blog, the latter not acceptable. That's not sufficient, through if one-two more good sources like the first two were found, I might be convinved to withdraw my nom. I'd be ok with this becoming a soft delete and redirect, though. (ping User:Sandstein for a consideration of this outcome). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: the article at www.theartful.co.uk isn't a digital newsletter. The website does publish a digital newsletter (here it is), but the article I linked to isn't part of that, it's part of the website itself (list of articles here). Richard75 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The book is not good; it's a Wikipedia book, by Wikipedia Editors (see the first page of the book), published by PediaPress. Those are Wikipedia articles in the book; they are not a reliable source and cannot establish notability. – Levivich 06:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • An easy mistake that’s already been pointed out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've temp undeleted to fascilitate this discussion. WilyD 10:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - yeah, so here's where I'm at: the only worthwhile source mentioned wasn't mentioned until the very last comment, and it's of plausible but not completely obvious quality (but, quite in depth). I wouldn't be opposed to a re-open on that grounds. But I'm skeptical it's likely to be enough, alone. It'd be far better if someone took ownership of finding at least one or two more worthwhile sources, and it were userified to enable that (but that, of course, can't be forced). WilyD 12:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. DRV is to review the close - not to make further examinations. Not only wasn't the book source not challenged during the AFD, even a delete comment, acknowledged it was a good source. The final source wasn't even challenged by anyone. The closing statement that "do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources" is clearly false, given all the identification and discussion of sources that went on. This suggests the the person who closed it, didn't actually read the discussion, which raises a lot of questions. Further discussion after closure does indicate an issue with the first source, but that's irrelevant for the sake of a review - as would be finding more sources. Perhaps this editor needs to stop closing AFDs - I can understand missing one response with a source, but there were three different responses over the course of the discussion providing sources - there's no excusing missing three comments! Nfitz (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bass Drops Music Visualizer (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The draft page was rejected for being contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and speedily deleted for G3 for vandalism. 36.81.233.137 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it was. I suppose speedying it for being patent nonsense and copyright infringement might've been clearer, but "vandalism"'s defensible. —Cryptic 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If not WP:G3, or WP:G1, then WP:G2 (test pages) or maybe WP:G11. The point is, this has zero chance of going anywhere without a complete rewrite from scratch. I've tempundeleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the criteria, G1 explicitly says it doesn't apply to to this, G3 is pretty clear, and although G2 requires you know the motive, it's too much text to plausibly be a test. But, I think, since it explicitly compares two products at the start then proceeds to trash one, and there's zero worthwhile content, G11 probably can be applied. WilyD 06:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:IAR - Deletion review is the most process-wonky, by the book place around here - but je m'en calisse, there's no way I can support undeleting that, even if it's a stretch to make it fit any speedy deletion criterion. WilyD 06:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse honestly my first thought was that this was automated word salad turned out by a spambot in order to embed links in it, except there aren't any. It's not a clean fit for any speedy deletion criterion but it should be clearly be deleted and I don't think G1 is much of a stretch. Hut 8.5 12:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse G3. I'm not going to debate the finer points of whether having section titles that are sentences takes this out of G1 territory or not, but this checks the "vandalism - yes" box, or rather scribbles all over it. The edit summary adds a little doodle of a cherry on top. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctantly endorse G3 I don't like "streching" any CSD, and there isn't or should be any such thing as IAR speedy deletion. But "vandalism" is content posted with intent to harm the projedct, qand it is hard to argue mthat this can possibly be intended to help. It really should havbe been brought to MfD, where I would certianly have suported deletion. If this actually is a copyright issue as Cryptic hints above, the source should be stated and that would then be clearcut, as speedy deletions should be. WilyD's argument for G11 has some weight also. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the first "ref". —Cryptic 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice the copyright claim when I tempundeleted this. Now that it's been clarified, I looked into that. A reasonable argument could be made that this is WP:FAIRUSE as a parody. That's not to say we should do anything other than endorse the deletion with bells on, but it is a justification for letting the tempundeletion stay. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on overturning the speedy deletion. Rejection was warranted. I am not sure what this page is, but it is not a draft, and it is stupid, and it should be deleted at MFD if it goes to MFD. This is not MFD, and I am not sure that any speedy criterion applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Man, I've been fearless and tried to read this multiple times. It's not G3, it's G10. Or, maybe it's G11. I'm pretty sure it's attacking the subject of the article and not promoting it, but then I remember the days when "bad" meant "good" so I may be misreading the slang. It's one or the other though, and while we could update the deletion rationale in the log as "G10 or G11, depending on whether, e.g., 'spit it' is a positive or negative expression", but with this article, what's the point? – Levivich 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:G3 certainly qualifies as a reason for deletion here and even arguendo it doesn't, there are other speedies that could apply (G10 in particular.) Not suitable for even draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G3 This is nonsensical garbage that belongs on 4chan or Reddit, not in an encyclopedia. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Clark (artist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedy deleted A7 some time ago. The deleting admin User:Just Chilling has not edited since July so I have not tried to resolve with them. I recently noticed that this artist has an entry (albeit short) in Mitchell, The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists. That would have been enough to overcome an A7 if it had been known at the time. I don't intend to do much with this page (other than add the source) but an alternative to a standalone article would be to repurpose as a page on the Clark family of artists, of which there were a large number all doing animal portraits. Many of them have entries in the source I cited above. SpinningSpark 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wigwagcreative: (original page creator) SpinningSpark 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore I don't think the deleted version is a great A7, to be honest. While the prose doesn't contain anything which particularly indicates he was successful or anything like that it did link to a few sources including [18] which suggests he is a significant artist. Even apart from that I don't see a problem with restoring it if someone wants to improve it. Hut 8.5 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wigwagcreative never did anything besides creating this and William Albert Clark (AfD discussion) in September 2015, so I don't know what you expect pinging them to accomplish. The only person involved with this page who's still active is User:DGG.
  If you don't expect to do anything besides add a source, I've got to endorse. This hagiography didn't make even a smirking nod toward NPOV; while there's sentences that could survive unchanged in a minimally-acceptably-neutral article, no whole paragraphs would. It might or might not have gotten deleted if tagged G11 depending who was watching CAT:CSD that day, but there's no way it wouldn't have been speedy draftified, and I'm actually kind of dumbfounded you would want to restore it in that state. —Cryptic 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few stray adjectives, but this isn't written in a promotional style. It's just a bullet-point biography. That DGG didn't tag it as G11 is probably the strongest proof possible that the tag would be wholly inapplicable. WilyD 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The statement in the deleted version that Albert regularly painted portraits of the show’s prize winning animals is a weak claim of significance, but together with the entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists I think it is enough. I will commit to removing promotional language if this is restored. A separate page on the family might be a good idea, but that is not for this forum. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There truly is nothing in the article that indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant. I probably would have brought this to AfD instead of using A7, but I can't really fault the A7 call. If somebody wants to write a new article about the subject, I'm fine with that. If they want the current text userfied, I'm OK with that too, but honestly, I think WP:TNT would be better. Not to mention that it was created by a literal WP:SPA, who, based on the username, is probably a PR agency, possibly https://www.wigwag.co.uk/creative. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really shouldn't mater who created the article initially, but I can't see why anyone would pay a PR agerncy to create somethign like this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it really shouldn't matter. But, I find it helps me figure out where I want to set the WP:AGF knob on my spam-o-meter. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've temp-undeleted for discussion. WilyD 06:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the A7. There is a credible claim of significance, and that is sufficient to overturn the speedy deletion. History is a noise filter. If there is existing documentation of someone who lived more than a century ago, that is a credible claim of significance. Not expressing an opinion at this time as to biographical notability, which will be the issue at AFD, but we aren't at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:A7 clearly does not apply once you get past the lede. I'm not sure it survives an AfD, though, and would recommend restoring and then taking to AfD to discuss its overall notability and the COI discussed by RoySmith. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:A7 was not the proper course. And if the Spinning Spark is a very competent editor and AfD participant. If they think there is a problem, so do I. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow recreation - the A7 deletion was perfectly in order, the only sources were galleries selling his paintings, which does nothing for significance. Painting prize winning animals is not an assertion of significance - like, any number of people could be doing that. But an entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists is enough to overcome A7. Probably not enough for AfD on it's own, but a strong indication there're enough additional sources for anyone who feels the need to improve the article. WilyD 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – A 19th-century artist who is in a gallery, whose work has sold at auction, and/or who is in a reputable dictionary of artists, gets over the A7 line. No comment on whether they are actually notable or not. I don't see the article as being so promotional as to qualify for G11 either. – Levivich 14:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InfoCepts (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The criteria for deletion was blatant advertising. We have taken appropriate measures to ensure All advertising aspects have been removed. The page is purely for information purposes. AshVaidya (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question- could an admin give me some idea of how the deleted version differs from this newly-created article? Thanks! Reyk _YO! 09:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temporarily undeleted the original article. WilyD 13:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would advise the nominator to take note of the message at User talk:AshVaidya#Managing a conflict of interest. Such a conflict is confirmed by the use of the word "we". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The nominator has created a new version at InfoCepts LLC. It is not as blatant spam as the previous version, but in my opinion fails to establish notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The original article at InfoCepts is clearly promotional enough to be a WP:G11 and should not be restored. The new article at InfoCepts LLC is not so blatantly promotional so should, in line with our guidance for editors with a conflict of interest, be moved to draft space (probably as Draft:InfoCepts) and go through the WP:AFC process, where it will probably not be accepted unless more coverage in independent reliable sources is cited before it is submitted. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Who is "we"? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is it permitted to SALT in this forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is already SALTed due to "repeated recreation", though I'm not sure it's wholly necessary for a page created less often than once a decade. WilyD 08:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- What Phil Bridger said. If this comes back at all, and it probably shouldn't, it ought to be via a draft and AFC. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid promo deletion ("it achieved record growth", "Although the company received sporadic mentions", "While this may always remain a core focus area for the enterprise, it has also begun to expand its portfolio of services in other domains", "In 2018, InfoCepts was identified as a market leader" and more) and block the nominator as it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Like Robert McClenon has said, "we"? Seriously? Wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of your company. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems the nom created another article about this company at InfoCepts LLC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course. That's what we've been talking about above. Please try to understand the previous discussion before commenting, so you can add to it rather than simply repeating previous statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've tagged the new article for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoCepts LLC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Subject has not since become notable as per WP:NCORP. Not to mention that this is a WP:COI mess. Jmertel23 (talk)

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only reasons given for deletion were along the lines of there being "nothing worthwhile", which is not a Wikipedia policy or a reason for deletion - it seems like they are just alternatives to saying "I don't like it" or something along those lines. The article was sourced and showed there was widespread media coverage of the event. It met GNG. Even if there was some kind of consensus to incorporate the article into the main Sydney New Years' Eve page, deletion was not the answer - the sourced content should be merged into the main article at the relevant point. Bookscale (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)I am withdrawing this as I will put the sources into the main NYE article. Bookscale (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – closer properly read consensus that the subject did not meet NEVENT, as explained on the closer's talk page. Appears to be a WP:1AM situation. – Levivich 06:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse could not have been closed in any other way than delete, and the policy for deletion is sound. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As I told the nominator despite their insistence, I did not vote! on WP:IDLI concerns, only that there's few sources to individual years of this event where the same things happen every year outside of host and theme changes, and it was all succinctly summarized already in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09 as WP:ROUTINE. Nate • (chatter) 08:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, although the discussion seems lacking in consideration of redirection (WP:ATD). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose read like a promotional blurb for the event. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have a tempundelete? In that discussion it was said that there are sources for this particular instance of the celebration and I'm unable to give that appropriate weight without seeing them.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers. Endorse, appropriate close.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was barely any different, besides playlists, than Sydney New Year's Eve 2011–12 (another article of the same vein that I have included in a mass nomination). The "this particular instance" test was meant to establish the individual edition of this event as not being notable enough for its own article, notwithstanding the parent event itself being notable, as most of the sources used were only just routine coverage of the preparation and aftermath (which is not a sufficient basis of a claim of notability). I don't see the ball drop have an article every edition because it's even more routine and barely changes year-to-year. The information used to make a separate article is mainly uncited trivia and fancruft. I, as such, say endorse deletion. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You shouldn't be comparing the 2011-12 page as a reason to delete this one. And just citing "trivia" and "fancruft" is not a reason for deletion - you need to explain how it violates Wikipedia policies. Just saying it is something doesn't make it violate the policy. Bookscale (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I can't see any other possible close for the AfD given the arguments that existed. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Clearly the correct close given the arguments presented at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what arguments? No one cared to explain how they violate Wikipedia policies. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - all the sources are local publication, within a day or two of the event. Given the headcount, and the reasonable policy basis that it's routine coverage of local events, it's the only real close possible. WilyD 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Honestly this probably would have been deleted at any point. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the appellant isn't arguing an error by the closer. This appeal looks like a re-litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not, see below. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm saying the closer didn't take into account the fact that no policy was violated. And why can't the article be retained to allow the sources to be transferred to the main page? That suggestion was made and the closer just ignored it. Bookscale (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can someone answer my question about the sources? Bookscale (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bookscale: The article has been temporarily undeleted during this review, you're welcome to look at the article history and scrape the sources for use elsewhere if you'd like. If that's not what you're looking for, I don't understand your question. SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. In view of being able to do that, I have withdrawn the request for a review. Bookscale (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer does not appear to have made any errors in interpreting the consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close looks fine. Only keep said "because no real argument of any merit has been put forward to justify deletion" which was clearly false as the nomination questioned WP:N - and nothing was provided to show notability. There's a hail Mary claim about GNG, but no GNG sources are provided, and there's nothing in the article, except the day of (though someone in the AFD or closing statement should have noted that WP:NTEMP). Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Allen Matkins (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

I have rewritten the draft. At the AfD, I presented some offline sources that I noted I did not have access to. I requested the sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and have used them in the draft rewrite.

Allen Matkins represented Blackstone Real Estate in Blackstone's $43 billion purchase of Equity Office Properties Trust (now called EQ Office). It has the largest group of real estate attorneys in California, which aside from the federal government of the United States was then the biggest owner of office area.

The closing admin wrote that approval from WP:AFC "is a condition of my draftifying the page". I am not listing the article at AfC since it is generally used by new editors and editors with a conflict of interest. I am instead listing at DRV to ask the community for permission to restore the article.

Cunard (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration sources in the article show it meets NCORP, which isn't surprising as it's a major US commercial real estate law firm. – Levivich 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You should have listed the article at AfC. I have no idea why you have such a dim view of it. The article still feels heavily promotional to me, and I can't access the sources to confirm WP:NCORP is met, so I'm not sure I would have accepted it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation in mainspace. I have no opinion about the outcome of the AfD or the article itself. I'm commenting here narrowly on the requirement to get an AfC review. Effectively, Ad Orientem has salted the title. Looking at WP:SALT, I don't see that this meets the criteria for salting, which is, for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. If the participants in the AfD felt the need for salting, they would have said so, and then the close could have reasonably included that. That's not the case here. Sometimes I'll salt a title as part of a close even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, if it's clear that the salting criteria apply. That's not the case either. Also, looking at WP:DRAFTS, it says, If you are logged in, creating a Draft version first is optional. So, this idea of requiring an AfC review before an established editor can re-create a non-salted title has no justification that I can see. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I really do not see any problem with requiring an article to pass AfC before it gets recreated in mainspace. This article was deleted on WP:NCORP concerns, and looking at the sources, I'm not sure which WP:THREE would allow it to survive another AfD. The title is not salted and there is nothing preventing the user from creating the article straight into mainspace, and it would likely survive a WP:G4, but it would also likely be taken straight back to AfD on WP:NCORP grounds, which is a waste of everyone's time. AfC can take awhile true, but I've pretty much always provided a review on request if pinged on my talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: that's as clear an example of sysop overreach as I have ever seen. We'll be needing the trout for this one. —S Marshall T/C 17:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a new rationale for salting (undocumented but all the more powerful for that). If an article has never been deleted but an awful lot of deletion attempts have failed, then it can be deleted and salted so that people don't have to keep trying AfD any more. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. However even that rationale does not apply here. Thincat (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see why that's undocumented. It's an extreme outlier and hard cases make bad law. I wouldn't want that particular discussion to be a precedent for other decisions.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not restore still fails WP:NCORP. I cannot access the vast majority of the articles, but many of the types of sources used in the article tend to be written off company press releases, are closely related to the company, or are not significant coverage of the company (ie so and so gets hired.) Happy to review WP:THREE, though. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and forbid re-creation in mainspace without meeting WP:THREE. I read a promotional company summary that is WP:Reference bombed. It was properly deleted at AfD, to reverse that, a proponent should be required to show three (not more than three) notability-attesting, WP:CORP-meeting, sources. When that is done, put it through AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are 10 pending DRVs right now, and 3,475 pending AfCs, why in the world would we ever send anyone to go stand in the queue with 3,475 articles to seek recreation, rather than having that done at DRV, where the queue is 10? Why would we add to AfC's workload like that, when we are perfectly capable of handling it here? – Levivich 02:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because this DRV fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. At best it falls under #3, but this isn't "significant new information," it's just an article that was deleted, draftifyed, and then improved. The options were either take it to AfC to ensure it gets peer reviewed and will pass another deletion discussion, or be bold and create the article knowing there will likely be another deletion discussion. DRV is for reviewing errors in the deletion process, and but this DRV is essentially AfD part two. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is absolutely normal for an editor to come to DRV for permission to recreate a draft said to be improved, to avoid possible G4 deletions. I have participated in quite a few such discussions. If WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't explictly specify that as a valid reason for a nom, it should, becauae that has been teh standing practice for years. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• allow recreation in mainspace and trout admin AfC isn't a required process nor should it be. There was no basis for WP:SALT, so yeah, this is just an out-of-policy decision. Nothing prevents another AfD (or speedy if someone feels it qualifies as a recreation). I'll admit I'm not thrilled with the sources in the article, but that's AfD's job, not AfC. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not being thrilled with the sources in the article is also AfC's purpose, it's just that deletion isn't required there. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are three sources about Allen Matkins:
1. Pritchard, John, ed. (2007). The Legal 500 United States: The World's Largest Legal Referral Guide. London: The Legal 500. pp. 688, 692, 697–698. ISBN 978-1-906854-06-5. Retrieved 2019-12-09.

   Click on each page numbers' link to see the text.

   This is a new source that was not presented at the AfD.

2. Armstrong, Jason W. (2011-02-23). "Riding the real estate roller coaster: an inside look at how Allen Matkins rode the industry's highs and lows and retained its leadership position". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 124 (36). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
3. Randazzo, Sara (2010-11-23). "In cross-complaint, equity fund disparages Allen Matkins' work". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 123 (227). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.

Sources with quotes

Pritchard, John, ed. (2007). The Legal 500 United States: The World's Largest Legal Referral Guide. London: The Legal 500. pp. 688, 692, 697–698. ISBN 978-1-906854-06-5. Retrieved 2019-12-09. The book notes in the editor's note: "The Legal 500 United States is a guide to 'the best of the best' - the pre-eminent firms in the world's strongest and most competitive markets." The book notes in the introduction: The Legal 500 United States is a guide to commercial law firms in the US. Each chapter falls into two distinct parts: the editorial section and the directory section. The editorial section is a mixture of factual information and commentary. ... All editorial comments and listings are completely independent and no firm has been able to secure its inclusion within the editorial sections through payment. The directory section is made up of professional cards based on information supplied by the firms and approved by them prior to publication. Allen Matkins appears in the editorial section and not in the directory section. The book notes on page 688: Allen Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory LLP is described as "one of the best" for land use matters. The firm acted as lead land use lawyers for Google in respect of the negotiation of a 40-year lease over 40 acres of unimproved land from NASA, and the entitlement of up to 1.2m sq ft of offices and research and development facilities. The practice provided strategic advice regarding NEPA and CEQA compliance and assisted in-house counsel in managing the legal team and liasing with the business team. [three more paragraphs] The book provides two paragraphs about Allen Matkins' "representation of builders and homeowners" on page 692. The book notes on pages 697–698: "The best real estate law firm, pound-for-pound in the business", Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP's 91-attorney Southern California real estate practice has a superlative reputation in the region. Strong on both the transactional and financial sides, the group is recognized in particular for its expertise in the representation of developers. For example, the firm represented Lincoln Property and ASB Capital Management in connection with the acquisition, financing, development and leasing of the Campus at Playa Vista. Work included advising on the acquisition of approximately 15 acres of developable land and nearly 1m square feet of FAR, an acquisition loan, a construction loan and a 600,000 sq ft lease to Fox Media Interactive. This has been one of the highest-profile developments in Southern California over the past 25 years. Armstrong, Jason W. (2011-02-23). "Riding the real estate roller coaster: an inside look at how Allen Matkins rode the industry's highs and lows and retained its leadership position". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 124 (36). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575. The article is 43 paragraphs long (with 12 of those paragraphs about other law firms with real estate practices). The article notes: With the state's largest dedicated group of real estate attorneys, Allen Matkins long has been considered a leading force in California's commercial real estate industry. The Daily Journal sat down with the firm's leadership to assess how it has navigated the wild swings in the market over the past few years, to serve as a barometer of sorts for the state's legal real estate industry. ... The firm also has seen huge transactions fall apart. In October, Natsis, partner Michael McFadden and associate Crystal Lofing represented an investor consortium known as California First in its purchase of 11 state office properties for $2.3 billion, which would have been the top deal in the U.S. last year had it closed as scheduled. ... At the height of the boom, Allen Matkins was at the heart of a rash of giant portfolio acquisition deals. Those included one that grabbed headlines across the nation: Natsis' representation of Blackstone Real Estate in the mammoth private equity firm's $43 billion acquisition of Equity Office Properties Trust, which at the time was the largest owner of office space in the U.S. other than the federal governnment. Randazzo, Sara (2010-11-23). "In cross-complaint, equity fund disparages Allen Matkins' work". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 123 (227). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575. The article is 14 paragraphs long. The article notes: Problems with Allen Matkins first arose when Burlingame Capital counter-sued Qmect in a state court action Qmect filed against the investment firm. Burlingame Capital accused Allen Matkins attorneys of failing to serve a crucial defendant with a copy of the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the defendant from the case. Burlingame Capital asserts it never authorized Allen Matkins to drop the defendant, Basem Zakariya, and that the omission meant the Judsons could not collect on a $4.8 million judgment awarded by the court. The next alleged error came during the bankruptcy of Kids Connection, when Allenn Matkins failed to obtain the appointment of a court-appointed trustee on behalf of Burlingame Capital, which was a creditor in the bankruptcy. That led to the continued failure of Burlingame Capital to collect on the $4.8 million judgment in the earlier case, even as the company spent another $1.5 million on legal fees. ... Throughout Allen Matkins' representation of Burlingame Capital, which ended in July 2009, the Judsons claim the firm regularly used deceptive billing practices to inflate and pad their bills. The cross-complaint details what Burlingame Capital views as five methods Allen Matkins attorneys used to charge unconsionable fees for their work, including overstaffing their matters, charging "impossible and improbable amounts of time" for tasks completed, charging to correct their own mistakes, and sending duplicative bills for the same task.

Regarding The Los Angeles Daily Journal, this 1985 article in the Los Angeles Times notes (bolding added for emphasis):

The Los Angeles Daily Journal, along with the legal community it covers, has grown up.

Three years shy of its centennial anniversary, the Daily Journal, with a statewide circulation of 21,000, is the largest newspaper in the nation serving the legal community. Most observers also consider it the best.

The five-day-a-week newspaper, which sells for 25 cents, has become required reading not only for lawyers and judges but also for public officials, journalists and others who need to know about changes in law and local government.

According to this 1997 article in The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Daily Journal is "a century-old staple for lawyers and judges", and Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway acquired The Los Angeles Daily Journal in 1977 in an investment fund he controlled with Rick J.P. Guerin. Munger is the chairman of The Los Angeles Daily Journal's parent company Daily Journal Corporation.

Cunard (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would have preferred to recreate the article directly instead of list the draft at WP:DRV or WP:AFC. But I decided to respect the closing admin's instruction that I not recreate the article myself. WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles." I am not a new editor so I do not think AfC is the right process for this article to go through.

  I do not consider the article to be promotional. But I welcome comments about which parts of the article are promotional.

  Cunard (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • “WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles."
    That, is a lie.
    AfC is for waylaying inept spammers of promotion and junk. However, AfC is, I think, a good option for a quick re-creation of an AfD-deleted topic with a promotional concern. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - G4 clearly doesn't apply to the new draft, so there's no cause to prevent someone from creating a new article. If someone genuinely believes the new draft fails WP:N, they're free to avail themselves of Af. Attempts to forbid main-space recreation unless it meets some editors personal standards are incredibly inappropriate. WilyD 13:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have read the above discussion and after looking at the page, I am satisfied that it is sufficiently different from the deleted version that recreation should not be precluded. Some concerns have been expressed and editors are free to send the new page to AfD. Further, some have suggested that I was attempting to de-facto SALT the article. I respectfully disagree. Cunard requested that I userfy the page, which is not required but is often done on a courtesy basis, and is almost always regarded as within the discretion of the deleting admin. I chose to do so requiring only that the page be reviewed at AfC before being moved back into the mainspace. My reason for this is that Cunard was the only editor favoring keeping the original article at the AfD discussion and I wanted a second set of eyes on any revised page before it was sent back into the mainspace. That is hardly salting and I do not believe it an especially onerous requirement. It is also one that I have imposed on other similar occasions w/o controversy. If there is a consensus here that I have exceeded the bounds of administrator discretion by making userfication of deleted articles conditional on this or some similar requirement, then I apologize. In the future I will avoid such controversy by declining all requests for userfication except in those cases where there is a clear consensus for that outcome in the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but this feels more than a bit like "I'll take my ball home if you won't let me do what I want". You have discretion on userfication. And you can take that ball home if you feel it's appropriate. But yes, requiring AfC before you do so does exceed your authority. "However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC." is just a bit too much of an imperial decree. I don't think that's within an admin's remit. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been a huge fan of userfication except when the AfD calls for it, which is one of the reasons I typically make it conditional. So yeah; I am taking my ball home. There is no shortage of other admins who are fine with userfying deleted articles. But I am no longer one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough though sorry to hear it. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. So we'll be needing yet another rule, then, about when it's appropriate to be obstructive about userspace copies of deleted material to good faith accounts in good standing. Off the top of my head, I think copyvios and BLP issues no, everything else yes. Sysops are elected to help appropriate content get written.—S Marshall T/C 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any ideas where it should go? Maybe someplace in section 5 of WP:DELETION? Hobit (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably an RfC. I think a rule is probably necessary but I disagree with what's proposed and it needs to be brought to the attention of the community. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration. AfC ois not, and never should be, mandatory. Any autoconfirmed user can create a title in mainspace, or move a title to mainspace from userspace or draft space, unless the title has been salted, or is sufficiently similar to a previously deleted article that G4 applies. This has not been salted, and IMO is not sufficiently similar for G4 to apply. It is not, and should not be, within the authority of an AfD closer to require additional conditions for a new version, or a return from draft. Of course, being moved to mainspace it is available for a new AfD if anyone chooses to nominate it, which going thoguh AfC might make less likley (or doing more work while out of mainspace). I express no view on how this would fair at a hypothetical future AfD, but if an editor chooses to run that risk. s/he is free to. Trout closer for trying to impose a rule without any consensus for such a policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration -- there's no reason to use AfC. I've rejected/deleted many law firm articles at AfC or NPP on the grounds of clear and obvious promotionalism--they typically resemble an advertisement listing cases where they managed to get their clients large amounts of money.. The current article in draft is not in that class. It's a straightforward descriptive article, without puffery. just as would be expected from anything Cunard writes. (I don't think the original version was promotional either: it was not CORPSPAM, there was no reference bombing, but there was perhaps a failure to clearly meet WP:NCORP. I would probably have voted to draftify, not delete. )

But Cunard can shortcut this. All they need do is submit it. Submitted drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, and at AFC several reviewers (including myself) are making a consistent effort to identify and approve the clearly good ones as soon as possible after submission--I try to spot a few every day. Someone is very likely to quickly approve this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As this discussion has not been closed and consensus looks fairly clear to me, I have boldly moved the draft into the article mainspace. Yes, I'm involved. Sue me. This has dragged on long enough. If anybody still has issues with the page, WP:AfD <<< is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Cunard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitto Password Manager (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)