Stewart Levenson (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the subject qualifies as notable. Deleting admin suggested I bring the matter here. Note that I am not asking for the article to be restored to the version in which it was deleted but rather to the earlier version mentioned in the deletion discussion. I feel the deletion discussion did not adequately consider that version, which I believe is appropriately neutral. Subject continues to be the topic of ongoing news coverage; see deleting admin's page for our discussion of the BLP1E issue. If necessary, I would be willing to recreate the article from scratch, but undeletion of the previous version seems more appropriate. KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the content that the nom wants restored was commented on as several editors as still not being within the inclusion guidelines. Additoinally, the article as a whole was deleted as paid spam, so notability doesn't come into the question: pages can be deleted for WP:NOT violations, and this certainly was one. Even if one thinks WP:N trumps WP:NOT (which the text of the guideline makes it clear it doesn't), DRV is not AfD 2.0, and while KDS4444 might believe that the subject who paid him for this article qualifies as notable, the consensus at this AfD was that the subject was not notable per BLP1E. All of these arguments were brought forth and rejected at AfD. Trying to relitigate it here is not the purpose of a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• That debate couldn't possibly have been closed in any other way, but on the basis of my review of the sources, I think this gentleman probably does merit his own article. It's true that a lot of the sources are about one event ---- but there are simple biographical sources as well. Dr Levenson is chief of medicine at a reputable medical institution --- which is not an insignificant accomplishment and in my opinion pushes him over the bar for WP:PROF. (DRV regulars will recall my antipathy to SNGs, but for me, WP:PROF is an exception. I think it's right that Wikipedia is generous to academics who do a lot more to earn their coverage than many others who get Wikipedia articles.)

The AfD was crystal clear that the article was way too promotional for Wikipedia, and there were no revisions in the history that were neutral enough to comply with policy.

The take-home message from that AfD is that any biographical article written by a paid editor should be strictly factual and easily checkable, by which I mean that every statement about the person should be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the statement being made.

One of DRV's functions is to review drafts of articles that have previously been deleted, and I recommend to the closer that DRV should reserve to itself the review for this particular draft. So I'll go with endorse deletion but allow creation of a userspace draft which should be presented to DRV for review.—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per TonyBallioni. There was absolutely zero chance of the AFD being closed any other way. If the subject is ultimately going to have an article (and I am absolutely unconvinced that they should), it should be written by an established editor (no more paid shills) and absolutely NOT touched by KDS4444, who's frankly made a complete pig's ear of the whole thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- the consensus was clear; there was no other way that the discussion could have been closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Well participated with clear agreement that the topic in not suitable. KDS4444 was arguing unpersuasively all through the discussion, and there is nothing left to say. Do not userfy or draftify. Do not allow re-creation from scratch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So salted, yes? Do not allow recreation by anyone on any terms without prior approval? That seems reasonable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-None of the editors at the AfD were convinced by either of the versions and/or the counter arguments. Not sure how KDS thought (or dreamt) of some different closure.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]